Who is Jesus

[MarkT]

Who is Jesus? I would imagine every church would have mentioned this last Sunday this passage of Scripture:

Isaiah 9:6
New King James Version (NKJV)
6 For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

- Davies

Recall the child was called Emmanuel and named Jesus. If Jesus was his name, then rightly we can call his name Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. I guess it's a bit difficult to see since the Son was given the Father's name.

This is not as simple as people think.

 

[MarkT]

You can look at it another way. The LORD was the light's name. The light became a man. The man was given the Father's name: Jesus.

Jesus said, 'our Father who is in heaven'. How could Jesus be fully God if our Father is in heaven and Jesus was on earth? What does fully God mean? Are you fully Davies? O.K. But is 'Davies' fully you? No. Davies is your name. You can't say 'Davies' is fully you.

In that sense, the LORD wasn't fully God. He acted in God's name, but he wasn't independent of God. He proceeded from God. He was the Word. The Word was God in that he proceeded from God. However God made him his heir, that is, God gave him his attributes and his authority.

 

[Davies]

You can look at it another way.

MartT,

I'm not a word scholar, but when interpreting the Scripture, I think a plain rendering of the passage, its context, genre of speech should be taken into consideration. Isaiah 9:6 is one of the most clear passages you will read regarding the nature of the Messiah. I don't think God would tolerate another being given the title God especially in His own Book of revelation.

Another example of the top of my head is when Thomas saw Jesus after the resurrection. When Thomas saw Jesus alive, he said to Jesus, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus didn't correct him. Perhaps the difficulty is found in the nature of God as a Trinity?

- Davies

 

[Jethro Bodine]

When Thomas saw Jesus alive, he said to Jesus, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus didn't correct him.

I know a man who converted from being a Jehovah's Witness because of this verse.

 

[Asyncritus]

I'm not a word scholar, but when interpreting the Scripture, I think a plain rendering of the passage, its context, genre of speech should be taken into consideration. Isaiah 9:6 is one of the most clear passages you will read regarding the nature of the Messiah. I don't think God would tolerate another being given the title God especially in His own Book of revelation.

It's always best to look these things up, Davies. You inspired me to have a look for myself, and here are the findings:

0410 = god, gods, mighty one(s) and so forth.

Ex 15:11 Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods <0410>? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?

Ex 34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god <0410>: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God <0410>:

De 32:12 So the LORD alone did lead him, and there was no strange god <0410> with him.

Jos 22:22 The LORD God <0410> of gods, the LORD God <0410> of gods, he knoweth, and Israel he shall know; if it be in rebellion, or if in transgression against the LORD, (save us not this day,)

Ps 81:9 There shall no strange god <0410> be in thee; neither shalt thou worship any strange god <0410>.

Ps 82:1 «A Psalm of Asaph.» God standeth in the congregation of the mighty <0410>; he judgeth among the gods.

Ps 89:6 For who in the heaven can be compared unto the LORD? who among the sons of the mighty <0410> can be likened unto the LORD?

Isa 44:10 Who hath formed a god <0410>, or molten a graven image that is profitable for nothing?

Isa 44:10 Who hath formed a god <0410>, or molten a graven image that is profitable for nothing?

Isa 44:15 Then shall it be for a man to burn: for he will take thereof, and warm himself; yea, he kindleth it, and baketh bread; yea, he maketh a god <0410>, and worshippeth it; he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto.

Isa 44:17 And the residue thereof he maketh a god <0410>, even his graven image: he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou art my god <0410>.

Isa 57:5 Enflaming yourselves with idols <0410> under every green tree, slaying the children in the valleys under the clifts of the rocks?

Eze 28:2 Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God <0410>, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God <0410>, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God:

Mal 2:11 Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god <0410>.

 

[Davies]

Asyncritus,

You're not saying the terms god and God are the same? I do recognize these words mean different things. Forgive me if this wasn't what you were saying, but you didn't spell it out for me. I can be slow sometimes.

- Davies

 

[Asyncritus]

Asyncritus,

You're not saying the terms god and God are the same? I do recognize these words mean different things. Forgive me if this wasn't what you were saying, but you didn't spell it out for me. I can be slow sometimes.

- Davies

Sorry to be somewhat unclear here, D.

9.6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

My Strongs concordance tells me that the Hebrew word for God is <0410>
which is the word el, the singular form of elohim

El is the singular form of the word God, when -im is added e.g. Elohim, it is made plural.

http://www.whoisjesus.com/elohim.html

So a quick search in the concordance for <0410> shows that list I produced above.

There's quite a variety of 'el's' in the OT as you've seen, and it is not restricted to God alone.

 

[MarkT]

MartT,

I'm not a word scholar, but when interpreting the Scripture, I think a plain rendering of the passage, its context, genre of speech should be taken into consideration. Isaiah 9:6 is one of the most clear passages you will read regarding the nature of the Messiah. I don't think God would tolerate another being given the title God especially in His own Book of revelation.

Another example of the top of my head is when Thomas saw Jesus after the resurrection. When Thomas saw Jesus alive, he said to Jesus, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus didn't correct him. Perhaps the difficulty is found in the nature of God as a Trinity?

- Davies

It's not clear if you can't see. That's the mystery. I said the LORD was the God of Israel, and I already stated that Jesus was the LORD, so it would be quite right for Thomas to call him God.

But according to Jesus/the LORD, the Father is the true God, and he is greater than Jesus/the LORD. Can you accept that? I know Trinitarians can not. No, they prefer their own light and their own traditions and it looks like they have fallen back to the ways of the Pharisees.

Consider what Jesus said and let his word be your light. I can not stress that more. Never think the OT Scriptures are simple. They are not. Jesus Christ is our shepherd. He is our light. Don't let anyone tell you the Trinity is the light.

Trinitarians ignore the words of our Lord and they interpret Jesus according to the light they have chosen, which is the light of the Trinity. However the sheep won't follow anyone but Jesus. We don't follow the men with the pointy hats. They are not our light.

 

[Free]

It's not clear if you can't see. That's the mystery. I said the LORD was the God of Israel, and I already stated that Jesus was the LORD, so it would be quite right for Thomas to call him God.

LORD is how most English translations translate YHWH, the one and only God. So, yes, the Son is the LORD just as the Father is the LORD. One cannot logically say that Jesus was the LORD and yet not the true God.

But according to Jesus/the LORD, the Father is the true God, and he is greater than Jesus/the LORD. Can you accept that? I know Trinitarians can not. No, they prefer their own light and their own traditions and it looks like they have fallen back to the ways of the Pharisees.

This is a misrepresentation of trinitarian beliefs. Whether purposeful or not, I do not know.

Trinitarians ignore the words of our Lord and they interpret Jesus according to the light they have chosen, which is the light of the Trinity. However the sheep won't follow anyone but Jesus. We don't follow the men with the pointy hats. They are not our light.

Trinitarians, in general, do not ignore any words of Scripture but, in fact, take into account most completely what Scripture reveals about God than any other position.

 

[jasoncran]

ok, how does one say that when the tanach support the trinity.

jesus claimed a name and position that the father did.

the YHWH is the father but that doesnt negate the jesus is god son.

god set up the jews and used them to make a point of stating his nature so that we could understand him but it doesnt really satisify what he is actually. words cant contain what the lord is

paul spoke of the unspeakable gift.

 

[MarkT]

LORD is how most English translations translate YHWH, the one and only God. So, yes, the Son is the LORD just as the Father is the LORD. One cannot logically say that Jesus was the LORD and yet not the true God.

Either he came from the Father and he was sent by the Father or he was the Father. You can not have it both ways. The Father is the true God according to the Son who was sent by the Father and who was given what to say by the Father.

This is a misrepresentation of trinitarian beliefs. Whether purposeful or not, I do not know.

I'm saying Trinitarians can not accept Jesus. If Jesus or an apostle says something, then you make it fit your belief. There is a problem, Free. A big problem.

One thing. Everyone seems to think the writings of the Apostles are scripture. They are not. The scriptures and the gospels and the letters of the apostles are different things. You can not use anything the apostles wrote to confuse, alter, change, or refute anything Jesus said.

Paul, for example, always agrees with Jesus. There is never anything in Paul that does not agree with Jesus. So if you see something in Paul or Peter or John etc. that supports another view, then the problem is you can not see. If you are compelled by your Creeds to see something else, then Houston you have a problem.

For example, 'The Word was God' - here Paul is saying the Son proceeded from the Father as the Word. The implication here is that the Son himself was the light, the message, the Word coming from the Father. Paul always agrees with Jesus. Jesus said he was the light. End of controversy!

Also the Scriptures, the ancient writings of the prophets, never refute Jesus, ever. You can only see the Scriptures in the light of Jesus Christ. So if Jesus was the light, then he was the first act of God. Anything else the Spirit reveals can only be seen in the light of Christ.

Trinitarians, in general, do not ignore any words of Scripture but, in fact, take into account most completely what Scripture reveals about God than any other position.

So you are led to believe. Sorry. Frankly if this wasn't so serious I would call it a joke.

 

[Free]

Either he came from the Father and he was sent by the Father or he was the Father. You can not have it both ways. The Father is the true God according to the Son who was sent by the Father and who was given what to say by the Father.

I don't want it both ways as that is not trinitarianism. No trinitarian believes that Jesus is the Father and I am certainly not saying that--that's the belief of modalism and Oneness theology.

But according to Jesus/the LORD, the Father is the true God, and he is greater than Jesus/the LORD. Can you accept that? I know Trinitarians can not. No, they prefer their own light and their own traditions and it looks like they have fallen back to the ways of the Pharisees.

This is a misrepresentation of trinitarian beliefs. Whether purposeful or not, I do not know.

I'm saying Trinitarians can not accept Jesus. If Jesus or an apostle says something, then you make it fit your belief. There is a problem, Free. A big problem.

Trinitarians most certainly do accept Jesus. It is important to note that Jesus' referring to the Father as "the only true God" does not exclude Jesus from also being God. You have previously stated that Jesus is the LORD in the OT. However, I have stated that 'LORD' is used as the English translation of YHWH, the only true God. Yet you now are saying that Jesus is not the true God. If Jesus was the true God, then he is always the true God. That can never change. This is a significant contradiction in your position which you must clear up.

I will continue to say, that trinitarianism best takes into account all that Scripture reveals about God. There is no "making something fit our beliefs," but rather trying to make sense of all that is said about God, instead of ignoring context and ignoring passages altogether. And then all the parts must be consistent with the whole, that is, the larger, overarching narrative of Scripture. This is an insurmountable problem for non-trinitarian positions.

The above contradiction you have is not at all a contradiction for the trinitarian. The Son, like the Father, is the one true God in the OT and continues to be the true God in the NT, but he is never the Father.

One thing. Everyone seems to think the writings of the Apostles are scripture. They are not. The scriptures and the gospels and the letters of the apostles are different things. You can not use anything the apostles wrote to confuse, alter, change, or refute anything Jesus said.

First, the writings of the Apostles are most definitely Scripture, along with the OT and the gospels. Second, no one is using anything the apostles wrote to "confuse, alter, change, or refute anything Jesus said." Indeed, one couldn't if they tried since they are in full agreement.

Paul, for example, always agrees with Jesus. There is never anything in Paul that does not agree with Jesus. So if you see something in Paul or Peter or John etc. that supports another view, then the problem is you can not see. If you are compelled by your Creeds to see something else, then Houston you have a problem.

Agreed. And I am never compelled by any Creed although the Creeds are in full agreement with Scripture.

For example, 'The Word was God' - here Paul is saying the Son proceeded from the Father as the Word. The implication here is that the Son himself was the light, the message, the Word coming from the Father. Paul always agrees with Jesus. Jesus said he was the light. End of controversy!

The only thing I disagree with is that John said "the Word was God." I'm not sure how you think this is in disagreement with the trinitarian view of Jesus.

Also the Scriptures, the ancient writings of the prophets, never refute Jesus, ever. You can only see the Scriptures in the light of Jesus Christ. So if Jesus was the light, then he was the first act of God. Anything else the Spirit reveals can only be seen in the light of Christ.

If you are alluding to the initial creation of light mentioned in Gen 1:3, then it would be error on your part to equate that with Jesus being the light of the world. Indeed, when all that Scripture reveals about Jesus is taken together, there is no other conclusion than Jesus was not created. One needs rather to understand what was meant by referring to Jesus as the light of the world.

Trinitarians, in general, do not ignore any words of Scripture but, in fact, take into account most completely what Scripture reveals about God than any other position.

So you are led to believe. Sorry. Frankly if this wasn't so serious I would call it a joke.

So I have thoroughly studied and found to be true. It has also been shown to be true through the many discussions of the nature of Jesus on these forums.

 

[jasoncran]

Either he came from the Father and he was sent by the Father or he was the Father. You can not have it both ways. The Father is the true God according to the Son who was sent by the Father and who was given what to say by the Father.



I'm saying Trinitarians can not accept Jesus. If Jesus or an apostle says something, then you make it fit your belief. There is a problem, Free. A big problem.

One thing. Everyone seems to think the writings of the Apostles are scripture. They are not. The scriptures and the gospels and the letters of the apostles are different things. You can not use anything the apostles wrote to confuse, alter, change, or refute anything Jesus said.

Paul, for example, always agrees with Jesus. There is never anything in Paul that does not agree with Jesus. So if you see something in Paul or Peter or John etc. that supports another view, then the problem is you can not see. If you are compelled by your Creeds to see something else, then Houston you have a problem.

For example, 'The Word was God' - here Paul is saying the Son proceeded from the Father as the Word. The implication here is that the Son himself was the light, the message, the Word coming from the Father. Paul always agrees with Jesus. Jesus said he was the light. End of controversy!

Also the Scriptures, the ancient writings of the prophets, never refute Jesus, ever. You can only see the Scriptures in the light of Jesus Christ. So if Jesus was the light, then he was the first act of God. Anything else the Spirit reveals can only be seen in the light of Christ.



So you are led to believe. Sorry. Frankly if this wasn't so serious I would call it a joke.

jesus said we are obey the jews that sight in the seat of moses. paul and them said the gentiles didnt have too and also the law was fulfilled in christ and we are no longer under the law.

this site holds to the pauline statements as scripture as that is what god wanted. the tanach is holy but only part of the testament.

i dont like the way the rcc puts the trinity together but it does have a hiearchy to it.

 

[MarkT]

Either he came from the Father and he was sent by the Father or he was the Father. You can not have it both ways. The Father is the true God according to the Son who was sent by the Father and who was given what to say by the Father.

I don't want it both ways as that is not trinitarianism. No trinitarian believes that Jesus is the Father and I am certainly not saying that--that's the belief of modalism and Oneness theology.

You say Jesus was not the Father. But then you say he was the true God.

Trinitarians most certainly do accept Jesus. It is important to note that Jesus' referring to the Father as "the only true God" does not exclude Jesus from also being God. You have previously stated that Jesus is the LORD in the OT. However, I have stated that 'LORD' is used as the English translation of YHWH, the only true God. Yet you now are saying that Jesus is not the true God. If Jesus was the true God, then he is always the true God. That can never change. This is a significant contradiction in your position which you must clear up.

You are not free to make things up. What Jesus didn’t say, you just imagine.

YHWH or the LORD was the name given to the God of Israel. However, it would be incorrect to say the Son alone was the LORD. As Jesus said, the Father is the true God. So the Son is with the Father, the Father giving the Son what to say and directing him what to do.

So Abraham saw his Day. The Israelites were led out of Egypt. Everything was created by him. But the Father is the Creator. The Son did the creating. The true God is and always will be invisible to man. He is the power and the authority behind the Word. He’s the one who made Jesus his heir. He’s the one who gave Jesus his power and authority.

I will continue to say, that trinitarianism best takes into account all that Scripture reveals about God. There is no "making something fit our beliefs," but rather trying to make sense of all that is said about God, instead of ignoring context and ignoring passages altogether. And then all the parts must be consistent with the whole, that is, the larger, overarching narrative of Scripture. This is an insurmountable problem for non-trinitarian positions.

No it doesn’t. It’s all wrong. There’s nothing in it. Even a small wind will knock it down.

The above contradiction you have is not at all a contradiction for the trinitarian. The Son, like the Father, is the one true God in the OT and continues to be the true God in the NT, but he is never the Father.

So then if he is never the Father, then he is never the true God.

First, the writings of the Apostles are most definitely Scripture, along with the OT and the gospels. Second, no one is using anything the apostles wrote to "confuse, alter, change, or refute anything Jesus said." Indeed, one couldn't if they tried since they are in full agreement.

The Scriptures are the writings of the prophets. Jesus quoted the Scriptures. The apostles often quoted the Scriptures. The apostles often interpreted scripture and used scripture to prove Jesus was the Christ. But they never called their own writings scripture. If you think they did, it is because you do not see.

The only thing I disagree with is that John said "the Word was God." I'm not sure how you think this is in disagreement with the trinitarian view of Jesus.

Right! My mistake.

If you are alluding to the initial creation of light mentioned in Gen 1:3, then it would be error on your part to equate that with Jesus being the light of the world. Indeed, when all that Scripture reveals about Jesus is taken together, there is no other conclusion than Jesus was not created. One needs rather to understand what was meant by referring to Jesus as the light of the world.

Then why does John say 'in the beginning' when he begins his testimony? Go back to the beginning. First there was the Spirit of God. Then there was the Word. The Spirit moved over the waters before the Word. The Spirit preceded the Word. Then the Word. The Word was the light. John said the Word was with God. He was in the beginning with God. Why does John mention the beginning if it has no bearing on his testimony? The sense of John is that the Word came from God. It was God speaking. Therefore the Word was God.

Trinitarians, in general, do not ignore any words of Scripture but, in fact, take into account most completely what Scripture reveals about God than any other position.

Not true. The Creeds were set down before you. But I have found nothing of Jesus in the Creeds. No parables, no teachings, no sayings, no light. And ever since then a lot of blood has been spilled by Christians on account of them.

Why even have a Creed? All you are doing is stunting the growth in the knowledge of God.

 

[Free]

You say Jesus was not the Father. But then you say he was the true God.

That is what Scripture reveals. I have been clear that Jesus is the true God and the Father is the true God, but the Son is not the Father. That is what Scripture shows.

You are not free to make things up. What Jesus didn’t say, you just imagine.

Just a reminder that it is a violation of the TOS (2.5) to misrepresent anyone's position. What have I 'imagined' Jesus saying?

YHWH or the LORD was the name given to the God of Israel. However, it would be incorrect to say the Son alone was the LORD. As Jesus said, the Father is the true God. So the Son is with the Father, the Father giving the Son what to say and directing him what to do.

The God of Israel is the one and only God, so of course it is incorrect to say the Son alone is the LORD. The Father is the LORD and the Son is the LORD. Since YHWH is the name of the one true God, and you agree that this speaks of the Son and the Father, then where is the issue?

Again, this leads to a significant problem in your position, and it seems to be polytheism, which is strictly verboten by Scripture. There is no true God and the God of Israel. They are one and the same--the one true God is the God of Israel. Monotheism is absolutely central to Judaism and Christianity. This is why the doctrine of the Trinity is the better understanding of the nature of God.

Everything was created by him. But the Father is the Creator. The Son did the creating. The true God is and always will be invisible to man. He is the power and the authority behind the Word. He’s the one who made Jesus his heir. He’s the one who gave Jesus his power and authority.

As God in human flesh, yes, this is true of the Son.

So then if he is never the Father, then he is never the true God.

So you are a polytheist. This is a significant contradiction with Scripture.

The Scriptures are the writings of the prophets. Jesus quoted the Scriptures. The apostles often quoted the Scriptures. The apostles often interpreted scripture and used scripture to prove Jesus was the Christ. But they never called their own writings scripture. If you think they did, it is because you do not see.

Paul quotes Luke in 1 Tim. 5:18, "For the Scripture says, 'You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,' and, 'The laborer deserves his wages.'" (ESV)

"You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain" is found in Deut. 25:4, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain."

"The laborer deserves his wages." is found in Luke 10:7 (cf. Matt. 10:10), "And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages. Do not go from house to house."

This is a direct quote of Luke by Paul who refers to it as "Scripture."

Take also 2 Pet. 3:15-16, "15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures." (ESV)

Peter directly implies that he considers Paul's writings on the same level of authority as the OT.

So, if the gospels are considered Scripture and Paul's letters are considered Scripture, then there is no reason whatsoever to not believe all the NT writings to be Scripture inspired by God, on the same level as the OT writings. You have no case here. But why do you want it to be otherwise? Do they say too much which disagrees with your theology?

Then why does John say 'in the beginning' when he begins his testimony? Go back to the beginning. First there was the Spirit of God. Then there was the Word. The Spirit moved over the waters before the Word. The Spirit preceded the Word. Then the Word.

Show me where the Bible states this. Where does it clearly say that the Spirit preceded the Word?

The Word was the light.

Again, presumption on your part that the light in Gen 1:3 is referring to the Word. There is no such connection nor reason to try and make such a connection. The light in Gen 1:3 would seem to be actual light, hence God separating "the light from the darkness" and calling "the light Day, and the darkness...Night." This is further supported by the statement which directly follows, "And there was evening and there was morning, the first day."

Clearly speaking of actual light, not the Word.

John said the Word was with God. He was in the beginning with God. Why does John mention the beginning if it has no bearing on his testimony? The sense of John is that the Word came from God. It was God speaking. Therefore the Word was God.

We are in agreement here, except that your position leaves you as a polytheist. John's whole purpose in the prologue is to claim that the Word is God, and backs that up by claiming the Word is eternal. Indeed, the Word cannot be God if he is not eternal, as that is a necessary attribute of God.

Not true. The Creeds were set down before you. But I have found nothing of Jesus in the Creeds. No parables, no teachings, no sayings, no light. And ever since then a lot of blood has been spilled by Christians on account of them.

Why even have a Creed? All you are doing is stunting the growth in the knowledge of God.

Not at all. It could only be seen as lacking light and stunting such knowledge if one doesn't believe their statements or that the Scriptures they summarize are not Scriptures. This is off-topic but Creeds are summations of doctrine found in Scripture, made for easy memorization. What I have found of Christology and the Trinity I have found through significant study.

 

[jasoncran]

genesis one and god said. that is the ruach of god also known as the ruach kodesh.

by oral traditions that lends it self to be the hs. it confirms the hs as a person.

jeff told me that.

 

[for_his_glory]

JCisTheLivingWord and patience7 have given the best examples who Jesus was and still is as he is very much alive in those who believe through faith that he is who he claims to be.

Mark Fulton, if you truly want to know who Jesus is I would suggest going somewhere where you have no distractions and just ask him and he will reveal himself to you if you ask with a sincere heart of truly wanting him to be in your life as He does know the intents of our hearts. Also be still long enough for him to speak to your heart. Yes, we use scripture to back ourselves up with because we know the Bible is the word of God and maybe all of us do not agree on the same things at times, but that is why we discuss so we can take those scriptures and read them for ourselves and allow Gods Spirit to show us all truths. When you apply Gods word to your life like we have than you will know that Jesus is very much alive.


Psa 34:8 O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.
Psa 34:9 O fear the LORD, ye his saints: for there is no want to them that fear him.

 

[Davies]

Trinitarians ignore the words of our Lord and they interpret Jesus according to the light they have chosen, which is the light of the Trinity. However the sheep won't follow anyone but Jesus. We don't follow the men with the pointy hats. They are not our light.

MarkT,

It would appear you don't believe in the Trinity? Someone might not know that God is a Trinity when they are first converted, but there are several verses in the Bible that refer to God in three persons. If a person fails to accept what the Bible has said referring to the nature of God, I would be inclined to think that person a false convert, or a true believer in ignorance.

The statement of faith on this website states:

ChristianForums.net desires to serve non-Christians, seeking answers to questions about Christianity, by sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ so they too may acquire the hope, joy, and peace that come from fellowship with the saving grace of our Lord, Jesus Christ.


"This is the Statement of Faith of our forums, and of our leadership.

There is one true God, eternally existing in three persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

I think if you had anything to say, it would be an inquiry of why we believe in the Trinity, and not a debate saying we are wrong. The Trinity, in my opinion, is a non-negotiable doctrine, and, if disbelieved, would constitute heresy. I appreciate you being up front with what you believe though.

- Davies

 

[MarkT]

You say Jesus was not the Father. But then you say he was the true God.

That is what Scripture reveals. I have been clear that Jesus is the true God and the Father is the true God, but the Son is not the Father. That is what Scripture shows.

Jesus said the Father was the true God. It follows that Jesus was not the true God. That’s what Jesus revealed. Jesus said the Son could do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. He said I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. He said I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. He said, I am not alone for the Father is with me.

You are not free to make things up. What Jesus didn’t say, you just imagine.

Just a reminder that it is a violation of the TOS (2.5) to misrepresent anyone's position. What have I 'imagined' Jesus saying?

What’s this?

It is important to note that Jesus' referring to the Father as "the only true God" does not exclude Jesus from also being God.

It doesn’t exclude Jesus from being a duck either. What kind of logic are you using. Listen to what Jesus said.

YHWH or the LORD was the name given to the God of Israel. However, it would be incorrect to say the Son alone was the LORD. As Jesus said, the Father is the true God. So the Son is with the Father, the Father giving the Son what to say and directing him what to do.

The God of Israel is the one and only God, so of course it is incorrect to say the Son alone is the LORD. The Father is the LORD and the Son is the LORD. Since YHWH is the name of the one true God, and you agree that this speaks of the Son and the Father, then where is the issue?

If YHWH is the name of the one true God, whereas you admit both the Father and the Son bore the name, now you are stuck, because the one true God is the Father. That is according to his Son. Do you bear the name of Christ? Does that make you Christ? Same thing.

Again, this leads to a significant problem in your position, and it seems to be polytheism, which is strictly verboten by Scripture. There is no true God and the God of Israel. They are one and the same--the one true God is the God of Israel. Monotheism is absolutely central to Judaism and Christianity. This is why the doctrine of the Trinity is the better understanding of the nature of God.

So according to their traditions and your traditions, your doctrine works. That is just great. How is it that Trinitarians can not see that the Jews accused Jesus falsely when they said he was making himself the true God? Instead Trinitarians seem to be in agreement with the ones who crucified our Master.

Nevertheless the Father was the LORD, the true God of Israel. The Son was the LORD, the light who led Israel out of Egypt. He was also the light who appeared to Abraham.

Have you read the Scriptures? 'And the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and his anointed.' 'The decree of the LORD: He said to me, ‘You are my son, today I have begotten you.’ Ps. 2:2-7

Who said, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.’?

Everything was created by him. But the Father is the Creator. The Son did the creating. The true God is and always will be invisible to man. He is the power and the authority behind the Word. He’s the one who made Jesus his heir. He’s the one who gave Jesus his power and authority.

As God in human flesh, yes, this is true of the Son.

So then if he is never the Father, then he is never the true God.

So you are a polytheist. This is a significant contradiction with Scripture.

A false charge. I believe in the Father, the one true God, and Jesus Christ his Son, who he appointed the heir of all things.

Paul quotes Luke in 1 Tim. 5:18, "For the Scripture says, 'You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,' and, 'The laborer deserves his wages.'" (ESV)

"You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain" is found in Deut. 25:4, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain."

Right. The Scripture says that. The Scriptures are the word of God that came to the prophets.

"The laborer deserves his wages." is found in Luke 10:7 (cf. Matt. 10:10), "And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages. Do not go from house to house."

This is a direct quote of Luke by Paul who refers to it as "Scripture."

It’s a direct quote of Jesus.

Take also 2 Pet. 3:15-16, "15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures." (ESV)

Peter directly implies that he considers Paul's writings on the same level of authority as the OT.

No. Peter was speaking of the predictions made by the prophets. The reference is to the scriptures, the words that came to the prophets in the OT. 2 Peter 3:2, 'that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets.' And Paul wrote about those matters in his letters. Then Peter says, 'There are some things in them hard to understand.' Again he is referring to the Scriptures, the predictions of the prophets, because he says the unstable twist the words to their own destruction just as they do the other scriptures.

So, if the gospels are considered Scripture and Paul's letters are considered Scripture, then there is no reason whatsoever to not believe all the NT writings to be Scripture inspired by God, on the same level as the OT writings. You have no case here. But why do you want it to be otherwise? Do they say too much which disagrees with your theology?

I don’t have any problem understanding the apostles writings.

Then why does John say 'in the beginning' when he begins his testimony? Go back to the beginning. First there was the Spirit of God. Then there was the Word. The Spirit moved over the waters before the Word. The Spirit preceded the Word. Then the Word.

Show me where the Bible states this. Where does it clearly say that the Spirit preceded the Word?

Do I have to quote Genesis 1 and 2?

The Word was the light. Again, presumption on your part that the light in Gen 1:3 is referring to the Word. There is no such connection nor reason to try and make such a connection. The light in Gen 1:3 would seem to be actual light, hence God separating "the light from the darkness" and calling "the light Day, and the darkness...Night." This is further supported by the statement which directly follows, "And there was evening and there was morning, the first day."

Clearly speaking of actual light, not the Word.

This was before he made the Sun and the stars. Still John directs us to the beginning for some reason you don’t want to see.

John said the Word was with God. He was in the beginning with God. Why does John mention the beginning if it has no bearing on his testimony? The sense of John is that the Word came from God. It was God speaking. Therefore the Word was God.

We are in agreement here, except that your position leaves you as a polytheist. John's whole purpose in the prologue is to claim that the Word is God, and backs that up by claiming the Word is eternal. Indeed, the Word cannot be God if he is not eternal, as that is a necessary attribute of God.

You’re not even reading it. John said the Word was with God. ‘He was in the beginning with God.’ Nothing about eternal. Nothing about backing anything up. Nothing about attributes.

Not true. The Creeds were set down before you. But I have found nothing of Jesus in the Creeds. No parables, no teachings, no sayings, no light. And ever since then a lot of blood has been spilled by Christians on account of them.

Why even have a Creed? All you are doing is stunting the growth in the knowledge of God.

Not at all. It could only be seen as lacking light and stunting such knowledge if one doesn't believe their statements or that the Scriptures they summarize are not Scriptures. This is off-topic but Creeds are summations of doctrine found in Scripture, made for easy memorization. What I have found of Christology and the Trinity I have found through significant study.

LOL So not believing the Trinity doctrine is lacking light. So you admit your doctrine is your light. That’s great.

Well my light is the light of God - Jesus Christ.

 

[MarkT]

MarkT,

It would appear you don't believe in the Trinity? Someone might not know that God is a Trinity when they are first converted, but there are several verses in the Bible that refer to God in three persons. If a person fails to accept what the Bible has said referring to the nature of God, I would be inclined to think that person a false convert, or a true believer in ignorance.

The statement of faith on this website states:

ChristianForums.net desires to serve non-Christians, seeking answers to questions about Christianity, by sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ so they too may acquire the hope, joy, and peace that come from fellowship with the saving grace of our Lord, Jesus Christ.


"This is the Statement of Faith of our forums, and of our leadership.

There is one true God, eternally existing in three persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

I think if you had anything to say, it would be an inquiry of why we believe in the Trinity, and not a debate saying we are wrong. The Trinity, in my opinion, is a non-negotiable doctrine, and, if disbelieved, would constitute heresy. I appreciate you being up front with what you believe though.

- Davies

My faith is in Christ. Always will be. That#s why I bear his name. If your faith is in your teachings, then good luck.