Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Christian Beliefs

Donations

Total amount
$1,592.00
Goal
$5,080.00
seekandlisten said:
mdo757 said:
Has anyone studied about Gnostic Christians and what they believe?

What kind of christian you are is not relevant to why one must believe in the trinity to be saved. I don't believe Jesus was God here on earth, why must I believe that Jesus was God to be saved? the trinity is not in the bible.
Yahshua is Yahwah's salvation. The oldest documents of Matthew do not have the trinity formula. Also, the other proofs in the old testament are not correct translations.
 
shad said:
seekandlisten said:
I agree with you for the most part here but don't I have to believe that Jesus is God in order to believe in the trinity??


I believe Jesus is the Son of God and Savior of the world, but I don't believe that the Bible teaches He is as equal as the Father.

.

Hi Shad. The scripture that you have to remember in reference to Jesus being God is John chapter one.. Jesus is in fact God.. He is not just the Son but He is God.. Just as the H.S. is God and the Father is God. If Jesus was not God then we would still be in our sins and would have not chance of Salvation. The spotlless, sinless, perfect Lamb was the only way that we can get in.. Jesus is in fact God in the flesh.. The God-man... 100 percent man and 100 percent God...
 
ManofGod said:
shad said:
seekandlisten said:
I agree with you for the most part here but don't I have to believe that Jesus is God in order to believe in the trinity??


I believe Jesus is the Son of God and Savior of the world, but I don't believe that the Bible teaches He is as equal as the Father.

.

Hi Shad. The scripture that you have to remember in reference to Jesus being God is John chapter one.. Jesus is in fact God.. He is not just the Son but He is God.. Just as the H.S. is God and the Father is God. If Jesus was not God then we would still be in our sins and would have not chance of Salvation. The spotlless, sinless, perfect Lamb was the only way that we can get in.. Jesus is in fact God in the flesh.. The God-man... 100 percent man and 100 percent God...

:amen
 
mdo757 said:
Yahshua is Yahwah's salvation. The oldest documents of Matthew do not have the trinity formula. Also, the other proofs in the old testament are not correct translations.


You are mistaken regarding Matthew...

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Matt 28:19

People are baptized in God's NAME, which is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

As to the OT, merely asserting "the translations are not correct" is not good enough.
 
ManofGod said:
Hi Shad. The scripture that you have to remember in reference to Jesus being God is John chapter one.. Jesus is in fact God.. He is not just the Son but He is God.. Just as the H.S. is God and the Father is God. If Jesus was not God then we would still be in our sins and would have not chance of Salvation. The spotlless, sinless, perfect Lamb was the only way that we can get in.. Jesus is in fact God in the flesh.. The God-man... 100 percent man and 100 percent God...


John 1 speaks of how the Word became flesh. It does not say Jesus is equal to God the Father or that he is in fact the Word. What does the Word mean here? It speaks of Jesus being beside the Father in the NIV in the same passage. Depending on one's view of the bible as well as what version is accepted comes in to play here as I noticed through some versions of John 1 the promotion of the trinity is more prominent. I have to ask you, do you believe those who believe in Jesus as the dying for their sins stand before God for judgement?? Is it not the least of these, the servants of all, that will inherit God's Kindom? Does God not judge us on our inward thoughts and on what's in our heart?
 
seekandlisten said:
ManofGod said:
Hi Shad. The scripture that you have to remember in reference to Jesus being God is John chapter one.. Jesus is in fact God.. He is not just the Son but He is God.. Just as the H.S. is God and the Father is God. If Jesus was not God then we would still be in our sins and would have not chance of Salvation. The spotlless, sinless, perfect Lamb was the only way that we can get in.. Jesus is in fact God in the flesh.. The God-man... 100 percent man and 100 percent God...


John 1 speaks of how the Word became flesh. It does not say Jesus is equal to God the Father or that he is in fact the Word. What does the Word mean here? It speaks of Jesus being beside the Father in the NIV in the same passage. Depending on one's view of the bible as well as what version is accepted comes in to play here as I noticed through some versions of John 1 the promotion of the trinity is more prominent. I have to ask you, do you believe those who believe in Jesus as the dying for their sins stand before God for judgement?? Is it not the least of these, the servants of all, that will inherit God's Kindom? Does God not judge us on our inward thoughts and on what's in our heart?

The NIV is dangerous - http://www.jesus-is-lord.com
KJV - rules...If it wasn't for Tyndale we would be screwed. All versions since the KJV have just diluted,polluted and perverted scripture..


Of course Jesus is equal to God, He was God as one of us, giving us a chance and making us realise the truth. ;)
Godhead rules!
 
Steve76 said:
The NIV is dangerous - http://www.jesus-is-lord.com
KJV - rules...If it wasn't for Tyndale we would be screwed. All versions since the KJV have just diluted,polluted and perverted scripture..


Of course Jesus is equal to God, He was God as one of us, giving us a chance and making us realise the truth. ;)
Godhead rules!

I'm sure if you read back through this thread you can see that I do not hold Jesus equal with God. I also don't believe scripture to be infallible so it doesn't really matter to me which version one uses. Seeing as the KJV wasn't assembled until 1611 and the trinity was put in place in 325 A.D., it's not surprising that this doctrine would show up in different versions of the bible. King James 1 endorsed the KJV due to supposed problems with the original translation into Enlish.(i think 2 translations in English were before the KJV)
 
francisdesales said:
mdo757 said:
Yahshua is Yahwah's salvation. The oldest documents of Matthew do not have the trinity formula. Also, the other proofs in the old testament are not correct translations.


You are mistaken regarding Matthew...

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Matt 28:19

People are baptized in God's NAME, which is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

As to the OT, merely asserting "the translations are not correct" is not good enough.
Do the forum rules allow me to post historical proof about Matthew 28?
 
mdo757 said:
Do the forum rules allow me to post historical proof about Matthew 28?

If this is just going to take this topic down the road of errancies and the infallibility of the bible then I would suggest maybe starting a new thread as that is a debate that is never solved. If it specifically has to do with why Jesus is not God or Jesus is God then might be of value to someone in this thread.
 
seekandlisten said:
Steve76 said:
The NIV is dangerous - http://www.jesus-is-lord.com
KJV - rules...If it wasn't for Tyndale we would be screwed. All versions since the KJV have just diluted,polluted and perverted scripture..


Of course Jesus is equal to God, He was God as one of us, giving us a chance and making us realise the truth. ;)
Godhead rules!

I'm sure if you read back through this thread you can see that I do not hold Jesus equal with God. I also don't believe scripture to be infallible so it doesn't really matter to me which version one uses. Seeing as the KJV wasn't assembled until 1611 and the trinity was put in place in 325 A.D., it's not surprising that this doctrine would show up in different versions of the bible. King James 1 endorsed the KJV due to supposed problems with the original translation into Enlish.(i think 2 translations in English were before the KJV)

Don't you understand the sacrifices that were made to get this amazing document passed?

Also, what are you reading? you say you don't agree but you must be reading from some kind of scripture..
the trinity is only incorrect when the godhead was hijacked..
 
Steve76 said:
seekandlisten said:
Steve76 said:
The NIV is dangerous - http://www.jesus-is-lord.com
KJV - rules...If it wasn't for Tyndale we would be screwed. All versions since the KJV have just diluted,polluted and perverted scripture..


Of course Jesus is equal to God, He was God as one of us, giving us a chance and making us realise the truth. ;)
Godhead rules!

I'm sure if you read back through this thread you can see that I do not hold Jesus equal with God. I also don't believe scripture to be infallible so it doesn't really matter to me which version one uses. Seeing as the KJV wasn't assembled until 1611 and the trinity was put in place in 325 A.D., it's not surprising that this doctrine would show up in different versions of the bible. King James 1 endorsed the KJV due to supposed problems with the original translation into Enlish.(i think 2 translations in English were before the KJV)

Don't you understand the sacrifices that were made to get this amazing document passed? Are you talking about the trinity or the KJV??

Also, what are you reading? you say you don't agree but you must be reading from some kind of scripture..
the trinity is only incorrect when the godhead was hijacked..

I read the NIV and KJV bibles. As for your last statement, I would almost say the Godhead was hijacked by the interpretation of it by man, the trinity.
 
Let's not turn this into debate about Bible translations. There are already too many topics being discussed in this thread. If anyone wants to discuss Bible versions there are several old threads on the subject.
 
Free said:
Let's not turn this into debate about Bible translations. There are already too many topics being discussed in this thread. If anyone wants to discuss Bible versions there are several old threads on the subject.

I understand what you are saying but the point of this thread is leading to scripture, and scripture has changed since the KJV. The Godhead is removed + 32 other important scriptures. Christian beliefs should come from correct doctrines not perverted ones. I don't want to change the subject here but given that the NIV is used in a lot of Churches...I'm concerned!
 
Steve76 said:
Free said:
Let's not turn this into debate about Bible translations. There are already too many topics being discussed in this thread. If anyone wants to discuss Bible versions there are several old threads on the subject.
I understand what you are saying but the point of this thread is leading to scripture, and scripture has changed since the KJV. The Godhead is removed + 32 other important scriptures. Christian beliefs should come from correct doctrines not perverted ones. I don't want to change the subject here but given that the NIV is used in a lot of Churches...I'm concerned!
Well, it is a different topic that requires its own thread. If you want to dredge up an old thread to talk about different versions, then go ahead. Your fallacious position on the matter really has no relevance in this thread anyway. This topic is more or less about the Trinity and most modern versions do support it.
 
steve,
I'd be happy to give you my thoughts in regards to scripture and different translations/versions as well as hear what you have to present but I have to agree with free and say another thread would be more appropriate as not to add more confusion to this one.
 
Free said:
Steve76 said:
Free said:
Let's not turn this into debate about Bible translations. There are already too many topics being discussed in this thread. If anyone wants to discuss Bible versions there are several old threads on the subject.
I understand what you are saying but the point of this thread is leading to scripture, and scripture has changed since the KJV. The Godhead is removed + 32 other important scriptures. Christian beliefs should come from correct doctrines not perverted ones. I don't want to change the subject here but given that the NIV is used in a lot of Churches...I'm concerned!
Well, it is a different topic that requires its own thread. If you want to dredge up an old thread to talk about different versions, then go ahead. Your fallacious position on the matter really has no relevance in this thread anyway. This topic is more or less about the Trinity and most modern versions do support it.
Fair enough...and I'm sorry if I caused any negativity regarding your NIV. I also think my apparent fallacious position still counts as viable, you should not judge me.

If you use the NIV, upto you... ;) We should get back on topic tho.. :yes
 
mutzrein said:
seekandlisten said:
I'll try and explain my reasoning and let me know what you think. When you believe God's Word to be the bible rather than be in the bible so to speak you are faced with the dilemma of why in some parts of the bible Jesus is referred to as God and other parts he's referred to God's Son. You also have to consider when Jesus was referred to as the Firstborn of the Sons of God. Now put the trinity doctrine in the way and you come away with simply Jesus is God. Even to go as far as say Jesus created the world. Did you not just make the God of the old testament a man and this man, Jesus, God of the old testament??

How does that change one's view of who God is and what he is about. Does anyone hold the fear that God can literally speak you out of existence??

Well I do believe Jesus to be a lot of things and God gave him power to do a lot of things he was still a man like you and me. How much more suffering did Jesus have to go through when you see him as man rather than God? I will not deny to what divinity Jesus is, I just do not agree with making him God. I believe that doctrine blinds christians to the true meaning of free will and God's Plan as laid out in the bible.

Thanks for your response seekandlisten. Actually I agree with some of your reasoning. For a number of years I held to the belief that Jesus was God and at one point was condemning of those who disagreed. Now I have to say that the Lord dealt with me over a period and during this time He developed in me something which began as a seed shortly after coming to know him - a passion for truth.

I'm interested in what you say about parts of the bible referring to Jesus as the son of God and others referring to him AS God. Should we discard the parts of the bible that we cannot reconcile with other parts that we agree with - or could it be that the interpretation is wrong? The part where it speaks about Jesus being the firstborn could be a case in point. Do you have a particular understanding of what that is supposed to mean?

I've also got a different (to most) perspective on the meaning of free will if you would like to discuss that at some time.

Blessings

I would like to get this thread back to a point that works more to understanding and learning then discord. I would like to address this poist mutzrein but I am far to tired right now so I will get to it as soon as I can. I look forward to discussing this more.
 
Free said:
mutzrein said:
I believe what scripture says as has already been quoted, " . . . for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live."
Well, using that logic--if you want to use that verse to show that Jesus cannot be God--it follows that God, the Father, is not Lord. But clearly that is not the case.
mutzrein said:
And there is no limit to the title of 'Lord'. God is the Lord, God and Jesus is the Lord, Jesus Christ.
My point is that if you are using the above passage to show that the Father alone is God, it logically follows, using the same passage, that Jesus alone is Lord and the Father is not.
 
Free said:
My point is that if you are using the above passage to show that the Father alone is God, it logically follows, using the same passage, that Jesus alone is Lord and the Father is not.

I don't Free. This is but one scripture that differentiates between Jesus and God.
 
I think one’s interpretation and understanding of the bible comes in to play a big part in this discussion of whether or not Jesus was actually indeed equal to God. My first instinct is based on logic alone that goes with believing Jesus can’t actually be God. One cannot create Himself?? Also the logic if one thing is created it must have a creator. If you are going to base the belief off of plainly the bible says so well that is not how I understand it. If you believe the bible to be the literal spoken Word of God, why would He confuse us with the different references? God’s Word is perfect.

Now, in regards to the term itself, firstborn of the sons of God to me means one must be born rather than created. It also goes along with what ‘firstborn’ itself actually means. We see in the bible that firstborn is one’s birthright, I’m not going to get into a big definition here. I also think one could say that ‘firstborn’ would be more along the lines of the position of pre-eminence rather than time of birth. We see in the bible the rights and privileges, blessing, not always going to the one who was born first. Manassah was the first one born, but Jacob’s (Israel’s) blessing went to Ephraim instead giving him the position of firstborn. (Gen. 48:13-22) God even references Ephraim as the first-born in Jeremiah 31:9. You see the actual first one born being passed over with Jacob and Esau as well. The nation of Israel was named after Jacob. In Exodus 4:22 God calls Israel His first-born.

Now logically speaking, I understand firstborn to be more along the lines of rank, privilege, and importance. We can clearly see that the nation of Israel was not the first-born of a woman and is not the first nation to exist. However, God refers to Israel as the first-born among all nations. Logically this would make Jesus first-born of all creation.

For further reference, Isaiah 14:30, “first-born of the poor†means “the poorest of the poor.†Job 18:13, “first-born of death†means Job’s disease was the worst of all diseases. Psalms 89:27, David was the last one born in his family, but was called the firstborn, the highest of the kings. The “first-born of the dead†in Col. 1:18, Rev. 1:5 to me means Jesus is basically pre-eminent over death, the first-born of creation, us.

"John 1:3 All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made
that hath been made. {1:10} He was in the world, and the world was made
through him, and the world knew him not." ASV

Origen even says, “And the apostle Paul says in his epistle to the Hebrews: ‘At the end of the days He spoke to us in his Son, whom He made heir of all things, ‘through whom’ also He made the ages.â€

So if all things were made through the Logos, doesn’t that mean that they were not made by the Logos but by someone stronger and greater than he, being the Father?


"For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, [himself] man, Christ Jesus." 1 Tim. 2:5 ASV
Can one be the mediator between themselvef and someone else? Galatians 3:19-20, I think this might also make reference to Moses and we know that Jesus was superior to Moses. John 3:14-15, Hebrews 3:1-2, Hebrews 3:3

Comments?
 

Donations

Total amount
$1,592.00
Goal
$5,080.00
Back
Top