Trinity, divinity of Jesus

October 23, 2005

Wow! You expect me to keep up with all that! There are definately some pent-up opinions in here! I just deleted a very long rambling post, I hate that. I'll come back later.

October 23, 2005

Yes, should keep up with All That. Someone spent the time to address some issues, if you read the bible like you read the post, well.. that speaks for itself, doesn't it.

October 23, 2005

Yes, should keep up with All That. Someone spent the time to address some issues, if you read the bible like you read the post, well.. that speaks for itself, doesn't it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi,

No he is actually right in his reaction.

I realise now that I went way off topic. We were discussing the trinity not the authencity of the bible.

So iprayican if you want you may only responds to those parts of the comments which are relavent to the topic.

I am probably gonna start another debate on some of the points that I raised here.

Sorry iprayican. I am so used to the Lion Den kind of way. I was doing bad debating.

Pritish

October 24, 2005

Yes, bad, bad Pritishd.

Keep the topics on track. It's the Colosseum after all.

October 24, 2005

Hi,

No he is actually right in his reaction.

I realise now that I went way off topic. We were discussing the trinity not the authencity of the bible.

So iprayican if you want you may only responds to those parts of the comments which are relavent to the topic.

I am probably gonna start another debate on some of the points that I raised here.

Sorry iprayican. I am so used to the Lion Den kind of way. I was doing bad debating.

Pritish

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Was still posted and worthy of being read

October 25, 2005

There are over 300 messianic prophecies relating to Christ within the Old Testament from Genesis through Malachi. You can try and discount each and every one of them, say that someone else fulfilled them, say that Christ only appeared to have fulfilled them, but you cannot dismiss the fact that the people of God were looking for the Messiah, they did not believe the prophesies had already been fulfilled, and when Christ had lived, died and was resurrected, the proof of his life, his actions and his teachings were sufficient to make many believers then and millions upon millions throughout the centuries believe they had been fulfilled in Christ. Yes, there are still prophesies to be fulfilled, this age has not ended and there will always be skeptics and non-believers and the outright rejection of Him; as there have been since the beginning.

There is little I can do to change your mind as you do not believe in God, so how could you believe the books claiming to be the Word of God are inerrant or inspired? Is it that the biggest road block I see to most of you obtaining faith is that you feel the Bible is not inerrant, and so that causes you to not believe there is a God? So I will present a challenge to you. I am going to start a new thread called the inerrancy challenge, if I can figure out how to do that. I have only one request, please allow me to answer one supposed descrepancy at a time. When I have finished with it, the next person can take their best shot. I don't know how many alleged decrepancies are out there, but I have confidence that I will be able to find an answer that explains why it is not. I am aware there are a few copy and translation errors that have been identified, if you throw them at me, I'll tell you. If the Bible is your roadblock to developing faith, you can pull out what keeps you from being able to believe the books we call the Bible are indeed the inerrant Word of God.

In answer to the question of this thread. Everything I read in my Bible from the fall of man was in preparation for the coming of the Son and the fulfillment of the plan of salvation by His life, death and resurrection. The Bible is made up of many books and each builds upon our understanding. It is my understanding from a study of those books that there is a Godhead, a Father, a Son, and the Holy Spirit. I could not follow a man that proclaimed He was with the Father before the world began if he wasn't, what would be the point, it would be a lie to follow a liar.

The Trinity is just a title given by men, a word that attempts to decribe what we know of God. I know that I am a tri-being, part body, part soul, part spirit living in a tri-universe of space, time and matter. It is not beyond my belief that my God is also a tri-God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Do I understand exactly how this can be, no, but I can accept that it is? For me not to believe there is a Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, I would have to be a non-believer that didn't believe the Bible was the Word of God, because that is what it tells me God is. So, yes, the "trinity" as such is a critical element of my doctrine of belief, it has nothing to do with the defense of the traditions of the church and everything to do with the defense of the Bible, Genesis through Revelation.

John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

Col. 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created things in heaven and on the earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or pwoers or rulesr or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Heb. 1:1 In the past God spoke to our forefather through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.

Jn 8:56 Your Father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he say it and was glad. You are not yet fifty years old, the Jews said to him and you have seen Abraham! I tell you the truth, Jesus answered, before Abraham was born, I am!

2 Tim 1:9 Who has saved us and called us to a holy life, not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. The grace that was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.

1 John 1:3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ.

Jn 16:7 But I tell yout eh truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the counselor will nt come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me: in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer, and in regard to judgement, because the prince of this world no stands condemned. I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear, But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you.

Ro 8:26 In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we outght to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express.

Ro 15:16 to be a misister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

Jn 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever- the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.

Jn 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

1 Pe 1:2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifiying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinking by his blood:

Isa 32:15 till the Spirit is poured upon us from on high and the desert becomes a fertile field, and the fertile fiels seems like a forest.

Eze 39:29 I will no longer hide my face from the, for I will pour out my Spirit on the house of Israel, declared the Sovereign Lord.

Ne 9:20 You gave your good Spirit to instruct them.

Ps 51:11 Do not cast me from your presence or take you Holy Spirit from me.

2 Pe 1:22 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

1 Jn 5:6 This is the one who came by water and blood Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood: and the three are in agreement.

There are many, many more scriptures that speak of these things, and I'm sure as I listed just these few, you will set about tearing them apart in disbelief. Anyone can tear something apart and believe what they want, even a poor lawyer can attempt to discount the truth so that justice is not served. You may not want to see the truth, that is your choice.

There are three points to the triangle, A God the Father in Heaven, Jesus the Son of God, who sits at the right hand of God, and the Spirit who interceeds on our behalf. They are one and yet apart. You can call it the trinity if you want, I just call it my God.

October 25, 2005

It's very simple: If the NT writes there's a prophesy in the OT, then it's no prophesy at all. They USED the Greek translation of the Hebrew OT to CREATE the NT stories.

If Jesus lived and was the messiah, he must have done This_____ and they combed the OT for passages to use. They Created the Jesus they wanted. Jesus didn't do these things and they wrote about it, they had no clue what he did, so they created from OT passages.

The anon author of Mark wrote the Gospel, the anon author of Matthew tried to fix up all of what he thought were Mark's errors. Glaring evidence nowadays.

The 4 Gospels were never meant to be bound together, they were for different audiences.

October 27, 2005

If I want to read divinity of Jesus in the Gospels, there are indicative arguments, but not vindicative e.g. Thomas the doubter, “My Lord and My God!”, "The Father and I are one" (if you intepret this in Judaism terms, it was legitimate for a Jew to share his feelings of close relationship with God, the Gentile church that became the mainstream read it with non-Judaism eyes); there are also counter arguments: concerning the Last Days that Jesus would return, only the Father knows, not even the Son knows. If Jesus is God, how could he not know?

In believing someone as God, it is not buying a truck from the car dealership. Originally you have wanted to look for a red truck with air-con. It happens that there is a red truck w/o air-con but really good price and you drive it away. Believing someone as God, cannot be compromised, settled, or weighted by how many are pros, how many are cons, if pros are more than cons, I take it Jesus as God, no, not this. I must say it has to be 100% vindicative pros, not indicative pros, and absolutely no cons, no counterpoints, no rooms for compromise.

If I read the Gospel as a 3rd party, divinity of Jesus is inconclusive. Like I said, even just one point of doubt that commands a weight, regardless of its heavy weight, light weight, should not lead one to conclude that Jesus is God…..is it fair enough?

That said, coming to my question for you.

Christians, I sincerely ask for your honest thoughts and feelings on this subject: on the theological defense of Trinity, is it more for defense of historical tradition and integrity because it has been passed down for 1700 years since Trinity was declared in Nicene Council 325CE?

If Jesus is not God, does it really discount the Christian God’s grace to humanity salvation, in the Christian theological structure of salvation? You, as a Christian, accept Jesus as the Savior, your sins are forgiven by Jesus’ sacrifice, you attain eternal life. Does it discount God’s grace and promise a bit if Jesus is not God? Do you feel cheaper in status, do you think it is a ‘cheaper’ sacrifice less worthy, if Jesus is not God? No, I presumably answer for you, I don’t think so.

-----

Thinking points:

1. When Peter and the disciples believed Jesus was the Messiah, the Christ (Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20), and they followed him till his death, did they believe Trinity?

No.

2. As mentioned, Trinity was declared in the Nicene Council, so God wasn’t Trinity yet before 325 CE. Did man make God in his image?

Yes. Perhaps you've already read Rubenstein's, "When Jesus became God."

3. Billy Graham converted millions in his emotional missionary gatherings. But dare I say, is there even one convert among the millions, the moment he raised his hands in responding to Billy’s call, with the Holy Spirit descending into his Heart, in accepting Jesus as the Savior, has already sorted out Trinity? [for that moment, believing Trinity is not a pre-condition to accept Jesus as the Messiah]

After his conversion experience, his new Christian brothers sisters would gradually educate him the basics, Heaven, Sin, Salvation, Trinity…..it was just natural.

4. Play time machine, rewind the tape and surmise: If Trinity had had NEVER rooted in the Church in the beginning, e.g. God the Father the sole God, Jesus a higher created being (put it that way for the sake of argument, I am not an Arian) called Lord Jesus Christ the Messiah, Shekinah - God’s divine presence called the Holy Spirit. (Read again Paul how he opened and began his letters) And it had been that way for 1500 years, and sometime in 1500s somewhere in the Medieval Europe a monk 'Scotterus' had an ‘inspiration’: “I propose that God is Trinity. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, 3 persons, equal in divinity to each other, as one God, under One Godhead.” Would Scotterus have been declared heresy?

I invite you to ponder on it.

I reiterate this is NOT a theological debate on Trinity itself, but sort of ask you what you honestly feel about the Trinity defense is more a defense for the Church doctrinic tradition or actually a defense for God’s grace of salvation. If you have a third e.g. it is a defense for personal conviction, feel free.

Thank you in advance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with how you are thinking. You are exposing the trinity as a subsequent construct, not the root concept of the church.

Augustine and Anselm took their concept of the process of salvation from their trinitarian concept. They thought the savior had to be god so that an infinite amount of sin could be put on one person's shoulders. Of course, this concept of salvation shoots itself in the foot, because this so-called glorious free grace doesn't hit very many people because folks are predisposed not to believe it. So Jesus in this view, as it actually works out, ends up being a big stone hanging around the neck of Joe Sixpack. A sword of Damocles, threatening everyone with the danger of "turn or burn".

I think the Biblical teaching is much simpler, more reasonable, and more successful, too.

Romans 5 states that one act of disobedience caused the entire race to be placed under a hereditary curse. (It doesn't use the term heredity but it talks about how it came upon all who descended from Adam). It then says that a single righteous act by a man, Jesus, IN THE SAME WAY (that is, by the process of hereditary descent) brings a free gift to all people.

That free gift is not eternal life -- it is called "justification to life". I think the idea is, an opportunity for life without the hereditary faults being factored in. Freedom from one's limitations.

This exchange, called "a ransom" and such, is why I do not believe the Trinity. Jesus was a man, and 1 John says that it is essential to believe he came "in the flesh". I know, trinitarians say "fully God and fully man" but I don't see that formula in the Bible anywhere. 1 Cor 8:6 is simple and straightforward.

October 27, 2005

This exchange, called "a ransom" and such, is why I do not believe the Trinity. Jesus was a man, and 1 John says that it is essential to believe he came "in the flesh". I know, trinitarians say "fully God and fully man" but I don't see that formula in the Bible anywhere. 1 Cor 8:6 is simple and straightforward.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i think you will like this site

Bible Truth

This guy is a non trintarian

October 27, 2005

Religions that have not incorporated some part of the Torah or NT or other books into their teachings begin with the space/time/matter universe already existing in a primeval state of chaos, then attempt to speculate how it might have evolved into its present form. Pagan pantheism also begins with elementary matter in various forms evolving into complex systems by the forces of nature personifed as different gods and goddesses.

Follow me if you will on this, if the God of my religion exists then He would have the first author of all religions. The first of mankind would have at least heard part of the story and any religion that spun off of the original truths God shared with man could contain some of the same elements, concepts, themes and even truths. Job is dated to have been written prior to Jacob's fullness. It is considered one of the oldest books outside of Genesis. Job lived in the land of the East, Uz, which is thought to be built by Shem's grandson, Uz. There is great wisdom in this book, so that it is evident the truths of God were present going forward from Adam, through Noah, and on to Job in some form, and the book of Job itself refers to books.

There are other creation myths that also have nothing except a creator (and wherever that creator is before it all gets created...this unknown in the bible but is, to my knowledge, assumed to be a void).

Laguna Creation
Ts'its'tsi'nako, Thought-Woman, is sitting in her room and whatever she thinks about appears. She thought of her sisters, Nau'ts'ity'i and I'tcts'ity'i, and together they created the Universe this world and the four worlds below. Thought-Woman, the spider, named things and as she named them they appeared.

Zuni Creation
Awonawilona is the creator of all that is. He existed before anything else in the great dark emptiness of the beginnings. He conceived himself by thought; as the container of all things, he created himself as himself and as the sun that brought people light, warmth, and water.

Both are Native American myths from Encyclopedia of creation myths / Leemin.

mwc

EDIT: Ooops. Forgot where I was. I'm off topic but unless there's an objection I'll leave it since I'm replying to something that was already introduced to the debate.

October 27, 2005

There are over 300 messianic prophecies relating to Christ within the Old Testament from Genesis through Malachi. You can try and discount each and every one of them, say that someone else fulfilled them, say that Christ only appeared to have fulfilled them, but you cannot dismiss the fact that the people of God were looking for the Messiah, they did not believe the prophesies had already been fulfilled, and when Christ had lived, died and was resurrected, the proof of his life, his actions and his teachings were sufficient to make many believers then and millions upon millions throughout the centuries believe they had been fulfilled in Christ. Yes, there are still prophesies to be fulfilled, this age has not ended and there will always be skeptics and non-believers and the outright rejection of Him; as there have been since the beginning.

So you're saying that jesus fulfilled 300 prophecies but only people that believe that he fulfilled them will understand that he fulfilled them? How am I to believe unless I first understand what it is I am believing? (This is mostly rhetorical as I did believe I quite clearly understand your point of view. I have just discovered it be false.) Also, since there have been a lot of people that believe this make it so? Many people believed the world was flat. Many people believed that bathing too often was unhealthy. The world is most definately not flat and there are quite a few epidemics throughout history (such as the plague) that could have been eliminated or reduced by doing contrary to what "most people" thought.

There is little I can do to change your mind as you do not believe in God, so how could you believe the books claiming to be the Word of God are inerrant or inspired? Is it that the biggest road block I see to most of you obtaining faith is that you feel the Bible is not inerrant, and so that causes you to not believe there is a God? So I will present a challenge to you. I am going to start a new thread called the inerrancy challenge, if I can figure out how to do that. I have only one request, please allow me to answer one supposed descrepancy at a time. When I have finished with it, the next person can take their best shot. I don't know how many alleged decrepancies are out there, but I have confidence that I will be able to find an answer that explains why it is not. I am aware there are a few copy and translation errors that have been identified, if you throw them at me, I'll tell you. If the Bible is your roadblock to developing faith, you can pull out what keeps you from being able to believe the books we call the Bible are indeed the inerrant Word of God.

I look forward to reading your new thread. If you live up to your word you'll likely be answering questions for a long, long time. One thing to keep in mind is that most people here had faith in your god at one time or another so please quit being so condescending. You requested a polite exchange in your opener so please respond in kind.

In answer to the question of this thread. Everything I read in my Bible from the fall of man was in preparation for the coming of the Son and the fulfillment of the plan of salvation by His life, death and resurrection. The Bible is made up of many books and each builds upon our understanding. It is my understanding from a study of those books that there is a Godhead, a Father, a Son, and the Holy Spirit. I could not follow a man that proclaimed He was with the Father before the world began if he wasn't, what would be the point, it would be a lie to follow a liar.

Is it also your position then, that if the second coming does not occur (let's say anytime soon) that the bible should have modifications made to it in order to build our understanding even more? Books were obviously written maybe for around 1000 years or so (oral tradition maybe a little longer but let's say it all started around 1000 BC) but (pretty much) stopped once the Nicene Council set cannon. If this decision were via another council would you accept their changes?

It would not be a lie to follow a liar. People are deceived everyday. It's unfortunate. I will say that what if jesus was no one at all? Let's say, for an absurd example, that I personally told you that I could guarantee everything, and maybe more, that the bible had to offer? You'd think I was crazy but for this example let's assume I'm not. Now you follow me and I deliver as promised. Did it matter that I wasn't god? Even if jesus wasn't/isn't god and you get all that's promised then it doesn't matter. So it really depends on whether or not you think jesus can deliver the goods and not so much on who/what he is or claims to be. Likewise what if jesus doesn't deliver as promised even though he is totally god? You can't appeal to anyone even though it was all a lie. You believe jesus is telling the truth because you want to believe jesus is telling the truth. God or not as long as he delivers. The divine aspect is just to bolster your confidence in what you're buying.

The Trinity is just a title given by men, a word that attempts to decribe what we know of God. I know that I am a tri-being, part body, part soul, part spirit living in a tri-universe of space, time and matter. It is not beyond my belief that my God is also a tri-God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Do I understand exactly how this can be, no, but I can accept that it is? For me not to believe there is a Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, I would have to be a non-believer that didn't believe the Bible was the Word of God, because that is what it tells me God is. So, yes, the "trinity" as such is a critical element of my doctrine of belief, it has nothing to do with the defense of the traditions of the church and everything to do with the defense of the Bible, Genesis through Revelation.

Unfortunately it's defense of what you were taught. Others have presented evidence that the early church did not unaminously accept the trinity for the simple fact that they (ie. the Aryans) did not even accept the divinity of jesus. As jesus himself admitted he did not know the time of his own return. As god knows everything jesus and the holy spirit, by definition, cannot be god and therefore there is no trinity. To say that jesus wilfully did not know the information fails because that would mean that something would have had to retain it. If this entity is god then jesus and god now become two separate individuals and are not trinity. Jesus, during this period, would also fail the standard of god I just mentioned.

[mostly NT verses and misinterpreted OT verses snipped]

There are many, many more scriptures that speak of these things, and I'm sure as I listed just these few, you will set about tearing them apart in disbelief. Anyone can tear something apart and believe what they want, even a poor lawyer can attempt to discount the truth so that justice is not served. You may not want to see the truth, that is your choice.

So essentially I am blinded by my own ignorance? Your ad hominem attack is ironic.

There are three points to the triangle, A God the Father in Heaven, Jesus the Son of God, who sits at the right hand of God, and the Spirit who interceeds on our behalf. They are one and yet apart. You can call it the trinity if you want, I just call it my God.

Why are re-asserting your premise if you're leaving the debate or is this just a bookend so it looks like you've made your point?

mwc

October 28, 2005

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There are over 300 messianic prophecies relating to Christ within the Old Testament from Genesis through Malachi. You can try and discount each and every one of them, say that someone else fulfilled them, say that Christ only appeared to have fulfilled them,

More than 95% percent of prophecies are hardly any prophecies. Christ failed to fulfil the major prophecies which was required of the Messiah.

Many of the prophecies that christians(including the NT writers) quote are taken out of context. They only want to take certain parts of the verses as prophecies but choose to ignore the other verses.

As you may be well aware, CONTEXT IS ALL IMPORTANT in understanding a statement. Lifting a statement from its CONTEXT, allows it to be misinterpreted. In fact a common complaint of many Christian Apologists against Jewish Scholars and Skeptics is that these Skeptics are taking certain statements out their CONTEXTS and misunderstanding them, however the NT writers do exactly that to the Old Testament ! What is sauce for the Goose is sauce for the Gander, if Christianity is allowed to take statements out of their historical contexts and claim they "foreshadow" Christ's mission and birth, then why can't Skeptics of Christianty apply the same "dubious methodology" as well ?

Off course christians in general do not play fair. When Jewish scholars and Skeptics attempt to point out to Christian Apologists that they are employing a "dubious methodology," where they are taking a statement out of its historical context and then claiming it "foreshadowed" Christ's mission and death, they are simply dismissed as "God-blinded" reprobates, so that the people might be saved in the great Cosmic Scheme of God. Are we seeing a bit of double standard in here?

Secondly as I have asked in another thread show me examples of Dual fulfillment of prophecies from the OT.

but you cannot dismiss the fact that the people of God were looking for the Messiah,

That's true, but there is nothing to indicate in the OT that Messiah was supposed to be worshipped. The people of God(the jews) are still looking for the messiah

they did not believe the prophesies had already been fulfilled, and when Christ had lived, died and was resurrected, the proof of his life, his actions and his teachings were sufficient to make many believers then and millions upon millions throughout the centuries believe they had been fulfilled in Christ.

Millions of people follow Islam and Mormonism too, does that make it a valid religion? 100 years ago millions of people believed the world was flat. Did that make them right?

Secondly the believers of christ cannot agree amognst themselves which doctrines(which help them define god) are valid and which are not. This is very contrary to the promise of Jesus where he said that he will send the Holy spirit to guide his followers to the aboslute truth. Jesus prayed that his followers would be united.But that is hardly the case. Christians are a living proofs that the promise and prayer of Jesus is a failure.

Yes, there are still prophesies to be fulfilled, this age has not ended and there will always be skeptics and non-believers and the outright rejection of Him; as there have been since the beginning.

There isn't anything in the OT which that a king Messiah would need two/three tries, separated by thousands of years, to accomplish what he was supposed to do the first time on earth.

There is little I can do to change your mind as you do not believe in God,so how could you believe the books claiming to be the Word of God are inerrant or inspired? Is it that the biggest road block I see to most of you obtaining faith is that you feel the Bible is not inerrant, and so that causes you to not believe there is a God?

That is not true. I do believe in a divine being to whom I pray. I am just agnostic about his nature, nor do I intend to prove it to others about what I believe in. What I don't believe is Jesus is that God.

So I will present a challenge to you. I am going to start a new thread called the inerrancy challenge, if I can figure out how to do that. I have only one request, please allow me to answer one supposed descrepancy at a time. When I have finished with it, the next person can take their best shot. I don't know how many alleged decrepancies are out there, but I have confidence that I will be able to find an answer that explains why it is not.

Should be most interesting to see. I did not know that this challenge was for me specifically

I am aware there are a few copy and translation errors that have been identified, if you throw them at me, I'll tell you. If the Bible is your roadblock to developing faith, you can pull out what keeps you from being able to believe the books we call the Bible are indeed the inerrant Word of God.

The list of books, which you call the "Inrrent word of god",was first determined by men by a vote of council, not God. Jesus never gave a list of books. Not only that some men(like the anti semantic Martin Luther) after 1500 years down the lane had the opinion that some of the original declared "inspired" books do not belong there. You are only defending the opinion of fallible men.

Mormons Catholic, Syrian Orthodox, Russion Orthodox, Greek Orthodox bibles all differ from your list. Why should I choose your list of books over their's? Each one of you say "we follow Christ and wish to serve god". but only one of you can be right when it comes to absolutes.

In answer to the question of this thread. Everything I read in my Bible from the fall of man was in preparation for the coming of the Son and the fulfillment of the plan of salvation by His life, death and resurrection. The Bible is made up of many books and each builds upon our understanding. It is my understanding from a study of those books that there is a Godhead, a Father, a Son, and the Holy Spirit.

As I asked you before please illustrate to me from the OT that God described in the there is Triune in nature. I have shown you evidence from the OT that God described in the OT is singular in nature

I could not follow a man that proclaimed He was with the Father before the world began if he wasn't, what would be the point, it would be a lie to follow a liar.

Whether you are following a lie or a truth that is for you to decide? The so called Father in the OT never mentions about another divine being next to him who is helping him out. That is assertion made by the NT, but not supported by the OT

So, yes, the "trinity" as such is a critical element of my doctrine of belief, it has nothing to do with the defense of the traditions of the church and everything to do with the defense of the Bible, Genesis through Revelation.

The doctrine of trinity wasn't officially proclaimed till the 3rd centuary. That's about 300 years after the death of christ. The doctrine of trinity is a church tradition

The canon that you have in your hand is church traditions. So you see you are defending church traditions.

There are many, many more scriptures that speak of these things, and I'm sure as I listed just these few, you will set about tearing them apart in disbelief. Anyone can tear something apart and believe what they want, even a poor lawyer can attempt to discount the truth so that justice is not served. You may not want to see the truth, that is your choice.

I only choose not to believe in your version of the truth which is based on double standards.

You will do the exact thing when you are skeptical about other religion? Perhaps you are doing the same thing when you examine Catholism, Islam and Mormonism. Yet all of them assert that they have the truth and probably say the same thing to you and me "You may not want to see the truth". How is your accusation any different from the others?

For the christians the bible becomes whatever he wants it become. This they do by ignoring verses or by simply rewriting the bible and then go on and say "God agrees with me". Why do you expect me to be impressed by such people?

There are three points to the triangle, A God the Father in Heaven, Jesus the Son of God, who sits at the right hand of God, and the Spirit who interceeds on our behalf. They are one and yet apart. You can call it the trinity if you want, I just call it my God.

That is just a assertion made without any evidence. The Catholics, Mormons and JW do not believe in your version of God nor they accept you list of books, yet they too proclaim to follow christ. What you have do is that prove your theological belief and list of books is the correct one?

I would really request you to read the links regarding the Canon. Those websites pretty much explains the reasons for my skeptism and hopefully would help you address my hesitation

October 28, 2005

concept of prophecy is that of actually Seeing the future. By seeing, I mean actually seeing some event before it happens, not by calculation, but by some super process, introducing the vision or the seeing. Now if man does have free will, no one, not even a super being, or God, can See the future. He can calculate the future, and most likely be right, but he cannot see the future.

If any super being, or God, could see the future, then man does Not have free will. Seeing the future means that, the future is already determined. It cannot be changed. Suppose you were a seer one thousand years ago and your super intelligent hobby was just to sit and actually watch the future. Could you applaud the good characters and boo the bad characters like Hitler? No indeed. It would be like watching a stage play. You would applaud the villain as loudly as the hero, especially if he played his part in superb fashion. The players on the stage of earth would simply be actors following the script written for them. That is what it means to see the future. Neither Whitehead, nor I, agrees with that.

As habit driven as man is, he still does not always follow his own set patterns of activity and response. Sometimes there are wet spots in men's lives. Sometimes, there are wet spots in the responses of society to difficulties, to trouble and even to their religious beliefs. This book may be your wet spot.

So, either man has free will and no one can See the future, or someone can see the future, and therefore, man does not have free will. Is the future determined by what should happen (what is calculated)? Or, is the future determined in advance and man is just an actor on the stage of earth? Maybe the future is merely determined by events, if and only when those events do happen.

http://www.jovialatheist.com/hmp34.html

November 15, 2005

<snip>

This exchange, called "a ransom" and such, is why I do not believe the Trinity. Jesus was a man, and 1 John says that it is essential to believe he came "in the flesh". I know, trinitarians say "fully God and fully man" but I don't see that formula in the Bible anywhere. 1 Cor 8:6 is simple and straightforward.

98332[/snapback]

What if Jesus was just a man that saw god (the father) in himself? Maybe we are all a part of this Being and in order to find the peace that we desire we have to look inside ourselves. This would make sense when it's said that the father and son are one (this, of course, is taking the masculine sense). I would perfer to say that the All and all there is are one. God (how I hate to use that word!) may not work through us, but maybe we are able to find peace and love that is inside us in order to reflect our true nature (which may be the ALL).

February 8, 2006

This is rebuttal to post made by Sub_Zero over here

1.) God isn't the Trinity to begin with. God is part of the Trinity. It is like this. Godhead = God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit.

So you finally figured out what Trinity is like. Wow, you should the publishers of the know that Hastings Dictionary of the Bible by Schribners, cause they seem to publish the following statement on page 1015

"THE TRINITY--The Christian doctrine of God (q.v.) as existing in three Persons and one Substance is NOT DEMONSTRABLE BY LOGIC OR BY SCRIPTURAL PROOFS..."

It is funny, that for 2000 years christians still haven't made up their mind as to what is the characteristics of their god. And yet they arrogantly claim that their god is a personal one.

Since you have pointed out passages in the OT about the Spirit of God (Holy Spirit) in Ezekiel and so forth, I will show you where it speaks of God and His Son or the "Son of Man" in the same passage, proving that there is a concept of God and Son and Holy Spirit!

I already know that the Hebrew bible mentions the above words, but I bet you can't show me passages which explicitly mention all three together.

Rather as we shall see later on, you have closed your eyes to passages which outrightly rejects the Trinity.

But first let me address your so called "proof" verses of the Trinity from the OT

Isaiah 9 NASB: 6"For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;

And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,

Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. "

**A child will be born and will be called "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty

God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace"**

In other words you are rewriting the above verse to say

"He will be Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

So just because someone has divine name doesn't make him God. In the Old testament divine names was meant to glorify god.

A good example will be

1 Kings 16:1

Then the word of the LORD came to Jehu son of Hanani against Baasha:

Jehu means "YAHWEH is he" (http://www.behindthename.com/php/view.php?name=jehu)

By that reasoning that would make Jehu a God also.!!!!!!!!!!!

If the above verses applies to Jesus, when was he ever called by those names in his lifetime?

Is Jesus the Everlasting father or the Everlasting son?

If this prophecy is indeed fulfilled by Jesus, why did he fail to fulfill to the following

Isaiah 9:7

Of the increase of his government and peace

there will be no end.

He will reign on David's throne

and over his kingdom,

establishing and upholding it

with justice and righteousness

from that time on and forever.

The zeal of the LORD Almighty

will accomplish this.

Jesus never sat on the throne of David nor did he ever occupy a political position. He was not even qualified to sit on it.(In case you want to debate genealogy please go here).

Proverbs 30:4 NASB: "Who has ascended into heaven and descended?
Who has gathered the wind in His fists?

Who has wrapped the waters in His garment?

Who has established all the ends of the earth?

What is His name or His son's name?

Surely you know!"

**Obviously speaking of God and "His son" **

So once again you have seized on the word "son," saying that since the fourth verse describes things only God can do, this 'son' must be Jesus.

The full context is different. The writer, modestly proclaiming his own ignorance, asks who can do all of these wonderful things. In effect, he says, "I am ignorant and do not know what man can do this.Can you identify him for me? Can you identify his family?" Of course, no one can do these things except for God. Asking for the name of a family member is somewhat comparable to the modern phrase "You and what army?" to indicate something which someone cannot do. The writer is emphasizing that humans can not match the abilities of the divine. It is a rhetorical question, sarcastic in nature, and has no answer. That is the point.

Daniel 7 NASB:13"I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, with the clouds of heaven

One like a Son of Man was coming,

And He came up to the Ancient of Days

And was presented before Him.

14"And to Him was given dominion,

Glory and a kingdom,

That all the peoples, nations and men of every language

Might serve Him

His dominion is an everlasting dominion

Which will not pass away;

And His kingdom is one

Which will not be destroyed."

**The "Ancient of Days" is God and the "Son of Man" is Jesus coming to

God to receive ownership, dominion of "all the peoples"**

Is Jesus "one like a Son of Man" or is he "The Son of Man"? Make up your mind.

Once again you forget to see the context of that verse. Right before this verse it talks about four different "beast" (which are clearly metaphorical)

And immediately afterward(Dan 7:17-18) there is a summary of the meaning of the vision,

These great beasts, which are four in number, are four kings who will arise from the earth.

'But the saints of the Highest One will receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, for all ages to come.'

So there you go, it is not that the "Son of Man" that is going to inherit the Kingdom, but the Holy Saints who is represented by the symbolism of "like a son of man".

It is interesting to note that even Daniel could not explain what he saw in his dreams, but somehow you expect me to believe that after like 2800 years, you have finally figured out what he seeing.

The prophecies of Daniel were end time propehecy (Dan 12:9) . Obviously the end times did not come during the life and death of JC.

There you have it, in those verses it clearly speaks of God and the Son, coupled with your quotes about the Spirit of God, you have the Trinity in the OT.

You have done no such thing. The only thing you did was pull OT verses out of their context, and twisted them to suit your theological agenda(Just like Paul and other NT writers)

You haven't shown me a single verses which says that the " Godhead = God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy". The Holy spirit is never refered to as a person in the OT.

However what I was looking for is verses he describes his himself explicitly, like in the following verses

Deuteronomy 32:39

See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me

Isa 43:10-11

Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

Note that God tells the Israelites that they are his witnesses and his chosen servant.

They will serve as beacons to the world in their understanding of what God is.

God says nothing about being "three eternally distinct persons" in one unity.

God says nothing about Jesus existing or being a replacement savior for the Israelites.

There is nothing of that sort to be found in these clearly definitive verses about the nature of God.

Moses claimed to have seen God face-to-face. How come he never mentioned about God being a Triune God? Was god decieving Moses and his chosen people in believing that he was singular entity?

Here's another example of God defining himself to his people:

Isa 45:5-6

I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.

Isa 45:21-22

…and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.

Isa 46:9

Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,

Isa 45:18,20-21

For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.

According to God, there is none else but him(singular).

Where is the three person plurality found in these scriptures?

These verses say absolutely nothing about God having "plurality" in his essence or in his makeup.

Where do these verses say that God is "three eternally distinct persons" in one essence?

Where does the Old Testament state the "vital" information that God is really a plurality of three persons in one nature?

If this information is so vital, it should be clearly spelled out in the Old Testament so that there can no doubts about it.

Where does it say these three persons relate to each other in certain ways?

Where does it even hint there are three persons?

Where is Jesus, one of the three divine person portions of God identified?

The Old Testament God also instructed his people not to be enticed by concepts of God that their fathers had not known.

Those who attempted to entice others away from God were to be killed.

Deut 13:6,9-10

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

In Greek mythology some of the Greek gods would assume human form if it suited their purpose.

The Jews certainly wouldn't accept a Greek god after God told them what he was and then warned them not to accept any other versions of God.

The Jews aren't enticed by the Christian triune version of God any more than they would be enticed by a Greek god, because their God clearly told them he was a singular being that did not change his composition.

God also declared in Mal 3:6 that he does not change.

The Old Testament God doesn't go by the name "Jesus" and will not give his glory to others.

Isa 42:8

I am Jehovah, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

In Paul's doctrinal surprise, Jesus becomes an "image" of God.

1 Cor 1:15-19

(Jesus), who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

If Deut 13:6 is to be taken seriously, then this "image" of God is not to be worshipped.

The Jews didn't buy any of this doctrinal hocus pocus from Paul, but Paul did find converts among the Greeks.

The Greeks were used to having Gods who became men when it suited them to do so.

The man/god Jesus was something they were already used to.

Even your NT doesn't explicitly declares anywhere about God being a triune nature. Please read the following article, if you want to see the "truth"

Is God a Closed TRINITY or an Open FAMILY?:[A Scriptural Refutation of the Trinity Theory]

Christianity adopted the doctrine of trinity under Constantine, who was used to pagan customs and Gods.This happened like 400 years after the death of JC. Whatever happened to those all those Non Trinity based groups down the centuaries?Are they right now in Hell, because they refuse to believe the words of fallible men?

So once as I said before, you choose to follow fallible men, NOT God, to tell you what God is made up.

February 9, 2006

So just because someone has divine name doesn't make him God. In the Old testament divine names was meant to glorify god.

A good example will be

1 Kings 16:1

Then the word of the LORD came to Jehu son of Hanani against Baasha:

Jehu means "YAHWEH is he" (http://www.behindthename.com/php/view.php?name=jehu)

By that reasoning that would make Jehu a God also.!!!!!!!!!!!

If the above verses applies to Jesus, when was he ever called by those names in his lifetime?

Is Jesus the Everlasting father or the Everlasting son?

If this prophecy is indeed fulfilled by Jesus, why did he fail to fulfill to the following

Isaiah 9:7

Of the increase of his government and peace

there will be no end.

He will reign on David's throne

and over his kingdom,

establishing and upholding it

with justice and righteousness

from that time on and forever.

The zeal of the LORD Almighty

will accomplish this.

Jesus never sat on the throne of David nor did he ever occupy a political position. He was not even qualified to sit on it.

OK, good you are starting to assume that it is talking about Christ. Now lets go a stretch further.

Jesus has a second coming as well! And that particular prophecy will be esablished through that.

So once again you have seized on the word "son," saying that since the fourth verse describes things only God can do, this 'son' must be Jesus.

The full context is different. The writer, modestly proclaiming his own ignorance, asks who can do all of these wonderful things. In effect, he says, "I am ignorant and do not know what man can do this.Can you identify him for me? Can you identify his family?" Of course, no one can do these things except for God. Asking for the name of a family member is somewhat comparable to the modern phrase "You and what army?" to indicate something which someone cannot do. The writer is emphasizing that humans can not match the abilities of the divine. It is a rhetorical question, sarcastic in nature, and has no answer. That is the point.

No it is very clear. It says, What is His name or His son's name? Obviously the writer is asking who can do all these things, but He is asking you the reader. As it states, "surely you know" we should know as well as the writer does that Jesus is His son's name.

Is Jesus "one like a Son of Man" or is he "The Son of Man"? Make up your mind.

Jesus referred to Himself in the same manner, Matthew 8:20; 9:6; 10:23. He can be both you know.

Once again you forget to see the context of that verse. Right before this verse it talks about four different "beast" (which are clearly metaphorical)

And immediately afterward(Dan 7:17-18) there is a summary of the meaning of the vision,

These great beasts, which are four in number, are four kings who will arise from the earth.

'But the saints of the Highest One will receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, for all ages to come.'

So there you go, it is not that the "Son of Man" that is going to inherit the Kingdom, but the Holy Saints who is represented by the symbolism of "like a son of man".

Verse 14 clearly states, after the Son of Man has approached the Ancient of Days, Jesus approaching God, that "dominion, glory and a kingdom" was given to Him. With the dominion being handed over to Jesus, "all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him." Not the saints but serve Him, Jesus.

Indeed, through the dominion of Christ over the millenial kingdom, our, saints, inheritence--tthe kingdom of God-- will be aquired.

It is interesting to note that even Daniel could not explain what he saw in his dreams, but somehow you expect me to believe that after like 2800 years, you have finally figured out what he seeing.

The prophecies of Daniel were end time propehecy (Dan 12:9) . Obviously the end times did not come during the life and death of JC.

Of course Daniel couldn't fully grasp what he saw, but we can now, thanks to fulfillment of these prophecies.

The first kingdom represented Babylon. The second beast or kingdom is the Medo-Persian empire which conquered Babylon. The third kingdom represents Grerece. The fourth kingdomm or beast that Daniel saw is the Roman empire. The ten horns represented a future revived roman empire during the time of the end which the antichrist will rule. Ultimately God/Jesus will destroy that and the saints will have their inheritence.

You have done no such thing. The only thing you did was pull OT verses out of their context, and twisted them to suit your theological agenda(Just like Paul and other NT writers)

You haven't shown me a single verses which says that the " Godhead = God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy". The Holy spirit is never refered to as a person in the OT.

However what I was looking for is verses he describes his himself explicitly, like in the following verses

Deuteronomy 32:39

See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me

Isa 43:10-11

Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

Note that God tells the Israelites that they are his witnesses and his chosen servant.

They will serve as beacons to the world in their understanding of what God is.

God says nothing about being "three eternally distinct persons" in one unity.

God says nothing about Jesus existing or being a replacement savior for the Israelites.

There is nothing of that sort to be found in these clearly definitive verses about the nature of God.

Expand your horizons. Quit confining yourself to those two passages. Jesus is revealed through prophecy, the trinity is revealed through Jesus God and the Holy Spirit all heavily mentioned in the Bible. Again, what is implicitly mentioned in the Old is explicitly in the New.

Moses claimed to have seen God face-to-face. How come he never mentioned about God being a Triune God? Was god decieving Moses and his chosen people in believing that he was singular entity?

No, God blessed Moses with the ultimate. Being face-to-face with God the Father.

February 10, 2006

OK, good you are starting to assume that it is talking about Christ. Now lets go a stretch further.

No i do not think this is talking about christ, rather I am saying this does not apply to christ because of the reason given in the post. Please read carefully.

Jesus has a second coming as well! And that particular prophecy will be esablished through that.

The second coming is wonderful christian rational to explain why jesus did not fulfill the prophecy.

However there is nothing in the Old Testament which states an expected king Messiah(Christ) would need two attempts, separated by thousands of years, to get the job done right.

The Jews knew how to recognize a valid king Messiah because he would sit on David's throne, would free Israel and Judah during his lifetime and set up his kingdom during his lifetime.

Jer 23:5-6

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.

In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

During his days, Jesus didn't do a single one of these things which God promised his people the Messiah would do.

No it is very clear. It says, What is His name or His son's name?

I don't think this is anyways proving that god is trinity. All of the OT characters(including Satan) were God's son.

If it was specific son he was talking about, you would have bet the answer would have been there. The OT doesn't keep secretss.

Obviously the writer is asking who can do all these things, but He is asking you the reader. As it states, "surely you know" we should know as well as the writer does that Jesus is His son's name.

The writer of this verse knew that God was a singular being. You are once again talking the verse out of it's context.

Is Jesus "one like a Son of Man" or is he "The Son of Man"? Make up your mind.

Jesus referred to Himself in the same manner, Matthew 8:20; 9:6; 10:23. He can be both you know

You mean to say Jesus is "the son of man" and also "like the son of man", at the same time. I am sorry that cannot be possible. They are not the same thing

Verse 14 clearly states, after the Son of Man has approached the Ancient of Days

Verse 14 is still talking about the vision. All the four beast are metaphorical, so why should we take this "like a son of man" as literal

, Jesus approaching God, that "dominion, glory and a kingdom" was given to Him..

That doesn't even make sense. Why would God need to approach himself and take something from himself?Are you saying that God the father is more powerful than god the son?

With the dominion being handed over to Jesus, "all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him." Not the saints but serve Him, Jesus

You are once again contradicting your bible. It says right below that it is the Saints who is gonna rule the kingdom. "The son of man' represent the saints of Isreal, just as the four beast represent the four kingdom

Of course Daniel couldn't fully grasp what he saw,

Don't you see that is suprising? Why would Daniel be in awe, if it is God himself who guiding him

The first kingdom represented Babylon. The second beast or kingdom is the Medo-Persian empire which conquered Babylon. The third kingdom represents Grerece. The fourth kingdomm or beast that Daniel saw is the Roman empire. The ten horns represented a future revived roman empire during the time of the end which the antichrist will rule. Ultimately God/Jesus will destroy that and the saints will have their inheritence.

There isn't anything in that verse which talks about the anti christ.

Btw is the number of the antichrist 666 or 616.

Expand your horizons. Quit confining yourself to those two passages.,

Really, when the verses I presented to you clearly contradicts the trinity doctrine, you resort to rhetorics.

You have confined yourself to man-made doctrines, and you don't want to even consider the possiblity that christianity is nothing more than a cult of Judaism.

Have you ever expanded your horizon by going to a counter missionary site?

Jesus is revealed through prophecy,

What prophecy are you talking about. Jesus failed to fulfill the major messianic prophecies.

the trinity is revealed through Jesus God and the Holy Spirit all heavily mentioned in the Bible

I am sorry the Trinity is not mentioned in the bible, and the OT makes it quite clear that God is a singular being. You have provided not even single verse where God defines himself as a trinity

Again, what is implicitly mentioned in the Old is explicitly in the New.

So you are saying that God is keeping secrets from his people and that the New Testament discloses previously withheld information about God

Well I am sorry once again the hebrew bible contradicts you

Amos 3:7

Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

You would bet if something that is as essential as the nature of god would not be hidden from his prophets. Obviously the bible god makes it clear about his nature, as given in those verse. The nation of Isreal was witness to OT God's singular nature.

The Old Testament is trustworthy and doesn't become outdated, nor is it something to be altered.

Adding stipulations and qualifiers in an attempt to justify doctrinal changes is not valid.

Prov 30:5-6

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

No, God blessed Moses with the ultimate. Being face-to-face with God the Father.

The verse doesn't say "God the father' it just says "god". Stop rewriting the verse.

And this contradicts Jesus, cause he said "no man had seen god". Obviously Moses had.

February 10, 2006

Sub,

I have a very simply short question: Why if God is 3 equal persons, in the OT that only Diety #1 is talked about over and over and over and over and over and over, yet "Son" and "Holy Spirit" only get a couple of minor little, and not really all so clear verses?

Does that sound co-equal to you?

February 10, 2006

Sub,

I have a very simply short question: Why if God is 3 equal persons, in the OT that only Diety #1 is talked about over and over and over and over and over and over, yet "Son" and "Holy Spirit" only get a couple of minor little, and not really all so clear verses?

Does that sound co-equal to you?

Anterlman, how dare you try to interpret the obvious! You are not filled with the holy spirit.

Well, I actually was nice not asking the next obvious question: Since the GodPerson #1 is talking all the time, over and over, etc ad nauseum, in the OT, and GodPersons #'s 2 & 3 get such less billing, is this indicative of an internal political struggle within the Godhead? Sounds almost Olympian in a way.

But I guess it won't make much sense without having GodPerson #3 explaining it to us reprobates. "Study to show thyself approved", is meaningless without GodPerson #3 helping us explain away all logical contradictions. Maybe GodPerson #2 is sending Sub as the voice of GodPerson #3 to explain GodPerson #1 always getting the entire attention a thousand fold to one over the other GodPersons. I know if I just don't try to think- period, it will come to me. Now, where did I lay that hit of acid?

Next question, did GodPersons 1, 2, and 3 help the Nicean council figure all this out???

February 10, 2006

You have done no such thing. The only thing you did was pull OT verses out of their context, and twisted them to suit your theological agenda(Just like Paul and other NT writers)

You haven't shown me a single verses which says that the " Godhead = God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy". The Holy spirit is never refered to as a person in the OT.

However what I was looking for is verses he describes his himself explicitly, like in the following verses

Deuteronomy 32:39

See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me

Isa 43:10-11

Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

Note that God tells the Israelites that they are his witnesses and his chosen servant.

They will serve as beacons to the world in their understanding of what God is.

God says nothing about being "three eternally distinct persons" in one unity.

God says nothing about Jesus existing or being a replacement savior for the Israelites.

There is nothing of that sort to be found in these clearly definitive verses about the nature of God.

Expand your horizons. Quit confining yourself to those two passages. Jesus is revealed through prophecy, the trinity is revealed through Jesus God and the Holy Spirit all heavily mentioned in the Bible. Again, what is implicitly mentioned in the Old is explicitly in the New.

Moses claimed to have seen God face-to-face. How come he never mentioned about God being a Triune God? Was god decieving Moses and his chosen people in believing that he was singular entity?

No, God blessed Moses with the ultimate. Being face-to-face with God the Father.

SubZ asked Skeptic not to confine himself to the monistic verses, yet he decides that God in Mount Sinai speaking to Moses was God the Father only. That is selective faith and selective apologetics.

This is not a rhetorical question to SubZ, but is that just you, your denomination, or are you saying it is Christian belief in general? My point is if you believe God is Trinity and always Trinity, where is your theological base that God in Mount Sinai is God the Father only? In addition, you mentioned Triune God in the OT is implicitly stated.

February 10, 2006

However there is nothing in the Old Testament which states an expected king Messiah(Christ) would need two attempts, separated by thousands of years, to get the job done right.

It doesn't explicitly say it, but it impliticly does. The OT is littered with statements such as, "in that day", "the day of the Lord", etc, etc.

The Jews knew how to recognize a valid king Messiah because he would sit on David's throne, would free Israel and Judah during his lifetime and set up his kingdom during his lifetime.

Jer 23:5-6

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.

In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

During his days, Jesus didn't do a single one of these things which God promised his people the Messiah would do.

Doesn't mean that He won't. It is called the mellenial kingdom.

I don't think this is anyways proving that god is trinity. All of the OT characters(including Satan) were God's son.

If it was specific son he was talking about, you would have bet the answer would have been there. The OT doesn't keep secretss.

The answer is there. And who is considered God's son?

The writer of this verse knew that God was a singular being. You are once again talking the verse out of it's context.

God is a singular being, I am not denying that.

You mean to say Jesus is "the son of man" and also "like the son of man", at the same time. I am sorry that cannot be possible. They are not the same thing

Yes they are.

Verse 14 is still talking about the vision. All the four beast are metaphorical, so why should we take this "like a son of man" as literal

The beasts represent very real things and are explained later in the vision. They are kingdoms.

That doesn't even make sense. Why would God need to approach himself and take something from himself?Are you saying that God the father is more powerful than god the son?

The Son of God is approaching His Father God. It is a display of them working together if anything else. All parts of the Godhead are unique but ALL rely on eachother.

You are once again contradicting your bible. It says right below that it is the Saints who is gonna rule the kingdom. "The son of man' represent the saints of Isreal, just as the four beast represent the four kingdom

The "Son of Man" is Jesus and the Saints will inherit the kingdom from Him, but dominion over it is His forever.

Don't you see that is suprising? Why would Daniel be in awe, if it is God himself who guiding him

God wasn't guiding Him, God was showing Daniel something to write down for us. It was to be sealed up until the "time of the end", it is for us to realize and learn from.

There isn't anything in that verse which talks about the anti christ.

Btw is the number of the antichrist 666 or 616.

The "little horn" is the antichrist. And the antichrist doesn't have a number, 666 is the number of man.

Really, when the verses I presented to you clearly contradicts the trinity doctrine, you resort to rhetorics.

It doesn't contradict anything, it merely reiterates the fact of one God, which is in direct compliance with the trinity as that is one God = 3 distince persons or peronalities, the Son the Father and the Holy Spirit.

You have confined yourself to man-made doctrines, and you don't want to even consider the possiblity that christianity is nothing more than a cult of Judaism.

Have you ever expanded your horizon by going to a counter missionary site?

I am on, ex-christian.net, I believe that is counter to my beliefs.

What prophecy are you talking about. Jesus failed to fulfill the major messianic prophecies.

The only prophecies Jesus failed to do were the ones He was going to do during His second coming. His first coming, many, many prophecies were fulfilled.

I am sorry the Trinity is not mentioned in the bible, and the OT makes it quite clear that God is a singular being. You have provided not even single verse where God defines himself as a trinity

I just showed you how the Bible teaches the trinity, there is ALWAYS one God. But revealed three different ways.

Well I am sorry once again the hebrew bible contradicts you

Amos 3:7

Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

You would bet if something that is as essential as the nature of god would not be hidden from his prophets. Obviously the bible god makes it clear about his nature, as given in those verse. The nation of Isreal was witness to OT God's singular nature.

I believe I gave you all OT passages that refer to the Son of God, God and the Holy Spirit, the trinity is prevelant in the OT.

The Old Testament is trustworthy and doesn't become outdated, nor is it something to be altered.

Adding stipulations and qualifiers in an attempt to justify doctrinal changes is not valid.

Prov 30:5-6

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

I am not changing any type of doctrine.

The verse doesn't say "God the father' it just says "god". Stop rewriting the verse.

And this contradicts Jesus, cause he said "no man had seen god". Obviously Moses had.

The trinity = God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit.

February 10, 2006

However there is nothing in the Old Testament which states an expected king Messiah(Christ) would need two attempts, separated by thousands of years, to get the job done right.

It doesn't explicitly say it, but it impliticly does. The OT is littered with statements such as, "in that day", "the day of the Lord", etc, etc.

So what, no way does it explicitly or implicity defines that the messiah would take 2/3 turns to complete his job. According to Amos 3:7, there is nothing hidden/implied in the OT. The OT God doesn't keep secrets.

Doesn't mean that He won't. It is called the mellenial kingdom.

The messiah was supposed to sit on the throne during hi searthly lifetime

The answer is there. And who is considered God's son?

Point me to the verse in that proverb, which gives the answer.

All of the OT were considered god's son. The Doctrine of Trinity wasn't even invented when this verse was written

God is a singular being, I am not denying that.

No, you are saying God= father, Son, and the holy Ghost. There is nothing to indicate in the OT which supports the triune version of god.

You mean to say Jesus is "the son of man" and also "like the son of man", at the same time. I am sorry that cannot be possible. They are not the same thing

Yes they are.

So you mean to say you are "a human" and "like a human" at the same time?

The beasts represent very real things and are explained later in the vision. They are kingdoms.

And the "son of man" is represents the saints

The Son of God is approaching His Father God. It is a display of them working together if anything else. All parts of the Godhead are unique but ALL rely on eachother.

There you go, if they are unique then that means that they are 3 seperate entities. The verse doesn't say that they are working together. It is saying that the son will recieve something that he doesn't have. Therefore the father is more powerful than the son.

The "Son of Man" is Jesus and the Saints will inherit the kingdom from Him, but dominion over it is His forever.

Jesus is not even mentioned in the verse, and the verse says "like a son of man" not "son of man".

God wasn't guiding Him, God was showing Daniel something to write down for us. It was to be sealed up until the "time of the end", it is for us to realize and learn from.

So the end times are here????

The "little horn" is the antichrist. And the antichrist doesn't have a number, 666 is the number of man.

Well the earlier manuscripts say that the "number of the man" is 616. So once again you chruch clerics altering the bible

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=6127

It doesn't contradict anything, it merely reiterates the fact of one God, which is in direct compliance with the trinity as that is one God = 3 distince persons or peronalities, the Son the Father and the Holy Spirit.

You haven't provided me any verse which says one god = 3 distinct persons.

On the other hand I have provided you with verses which says directly "there in none, but me".

The OT God doesn't have any other 2 personality with him

You have confined yourself to man-made doctrines, and you don't want to even consider the possiblity that christianity is nothing more than a cult of Judaism.

Have you ever expanded your horizon by going to a counter missionary site?

I am on, ex-christian.net, I believe that is counter to my beliefs.

You are here to validate your beliefs. Does not beliefs says not to mingle with heathens?

What prophecy are you talking about. Jesus failed to fulfill the major messianic prophecies.

The only prophecies Jesus failed to do were the ones He was going to do during His second coming. His first coming, many, many prophecies were fulfilled.

Messiah was supposed to come once, not twice. There is no OT scriputal support for assertion.

And as far prophecies goes. Please check out this thread

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=4151

I just showed you how the Bible teaches the trinity, there is ALWAYS one God. But revealed three different ways.

It is certainly not revealed in the OT, and in the NT is quite ambigous.

I believe I gave you all OT passages that refer to the Son of God, God and the Holy Spirit, the trinity is prevelant in the OT.

No you haven't. The title of "son of God" isn't something reserved exclusively for Jesus.

Adam was a son of God(Luke 3:38), the angels are sons of God(Job 1:6), Israel is a son of God(Exo 4:22), Satan is a son of God(Job 1:6), as are the kings that sat on the throne such as David and Solomon.

I am not changing any type of doctrine.

The doctrine of trinity and NT are modification of the OT doctrines.

The trinity = God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Verse from OT which directly says such a thing

February 12, 2006

So what, no way does it explicitly or implicity defines that the messiah would take 2/3 turns to complete his job. According to Amos 3:7, there is nothing hidden/implied in the OT. The OT God doesn't keep secrets.

The OT defines two different times in which the Messiah will come to earth, it defines them as seperate times as well.

Point me to the verse in that proverb, which gives the answer.

Why does it have to be defined in the OT? It is the Bible OT/NT, they work together and if you say only use one book it will NEVER make sense!

No, you are saying God= father, Son, and the holy Ghost. There is nothing to indicate in the OT which supports the triune version of god.

It is more Godhead = God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

I have already shown where it speaks about God's Son, where it speaks about God and where it speaks about Gods spirit. I'm done.

So you mean to say you are "a human" and "like a human" at the same time?

Try to follow here. Jesus is directly related to God the Father, but is also a human. You see why the prophet speaks of it like that? If Jesus is the Son of Man and the Son of God, one would certainly refer to Him as "one like a Son of Man" as He is like that as well as God.

And the "son of man" is represents the saints

You are quite misguided in your interpretation of the Scripture. The saints inherit the Kingdom of God while Jesus Christ or the "Son of Man" has complete control and dominion over the entire world, that is a direct reference to the Millenial Kingdom of Christ, His second coming!

There you go, if they are unique then that means that they are 3 seperate entities. The verse doesn't say that they are working together. It is saying that the son will recieve something that he doesn't have. Therefore the father is more powerful than the son.

Of course the Father has different tasks and essential duties (for lack of a better word), just as the Son of God the Father.

BTW, you are just proving they are unique. They are clearly working together as the Son of Man approaches the Ancient of Days to aquire dominion over the last kingdom that will reign on earth before this second coming.

You haven't provided me any verse which says one god = 3 distinct persons.

On the other hand I have provided you with verses which says directly "there in none, but me".

The OT God doesn't have any other 2 personality with him

Of course not, the NT does. That is the point. Although the trinity as existed forever and God the Father in the OT is merely a part of it used during that time to accomplish a grander purpose, hence Christ.

You are here to validate your beliefs. Does not beliefs says not to mingle with heathens?

I am not here to validate anything, I am here to share the word of God.

Messiah was supposed to come once, not twice. There is no OT scriputal support for assertion.

The parts of the Son of Man and the Ancient of Days specifiaclly mentions kingdoms that were in existence AFTER the OT and AFTER the Roman Empire (Jesus' first coming). Then after Jesus' first advent (Roman Empire days), it is declared after the Roman Empire another kingdom will arise, diverse from the rest. That one will be crushed by the second coming, by the Son of Man approaching the Ancient of Days to aquire dominion over ALL kingdoms.

See the second coming? If Christ lived and died during the Roman Empire days and the OT mentions kingdoms after the Roman Empire with the Son of Man conquering that last kingdom, how does it not speak of two comings?

No you haven't. The title of "son of God" isn't something reserved exclusively for Jesus.

When it speaks of God having a Son, that "Son of God" is Jesus.

Adam was a son of God(Luke 3:38), the angels are sons of God(Job 1:6), Israel is a son of God(Exo 4:22), Satan is a son of God(Job 1:6), as are the kings that sat on the throne such as David and Solomon.

OK, so why couldn't Jesus be the Son of God?

February 12, 2006

Why does it have to be defined in the OT? It is the Bible OT/NT, they work together and if you say only use one book it will NEVER make sense!

Sorry, but you are wrong. If you want to make that Christian argument, then you have to realize that Jesus said he is physically a manifestation of the Law, Prophets and Psalms. I.E. – the Old Testament. He made that claims, so if only one verse in the OT invalidates him, then he is not a manifestation of the OT – therefore false.

I am not here to validate anything, I am here to share the word of God.

Well, then you are in the wrong place. The webmaster did not create this board for you to “share the word of god” – we are pretty much sick of the word of God, and the Colosseum is strictly for serious debates – not ANY proselytizing.

February 12, 2006

I am not here to validate anything, I am here to share the word of God.

You want us to care and listen to what you have to say regarding your Word of God? Then validate it.

Trinity, divinity of Jesus

Recommended Posts

iprayican

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

MQTA

Link to comment

Share on other sites

SkepticOfBible

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Ouroboros

Link to comment

Share on other sites

MQTA

Link to comment

Share on other sites

iprayican

Link to comment

Share on other sites

MQTA

Link to comment

Share on other sites

diggin

Link to comment

Share on other sites

SkepticOfBible

Link to comment

Share on other sites

mwc

Link to comment

Share on other sites

mwc

Link to comment

Share on other sites

SkepticOfBible

Link to comment

Share on other sites

MQTA

Link to comment

Share on other sites

NotBlinded

Link to comment

Share on other sites

SkepticOfBible

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest sub_zer0

Link to comment

Share on other sites

SkepticOfBible

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Antlerman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Antlerman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

scotter

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest sub_zer0

Link to comment

Share on other sites

SkepticOfBible

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest sub_zer0

Link to comment

Share on other sites

thunderbolt

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Asimov

Link to comment