What's new
ChristianForums.net

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

Proof of Trinity

Randy

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Messages
2,012
Christian
Yes
Jesus is YHWH.

He is the Lord God who became flesh and dwelt among us.

In that He had flesh and was legally a human, in that capacity He could be tempted to sin, as Adam was sinless and was tempted and did in fact sin.

For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Hebrews 4:15

The Angels who were disobedient is the days of Noah, were sinless until they weren't.


JLB

Yes, I do agree as the Son Jesus was tempted and chose the right and rejected the wrong. (without sin)
Jesus is not nor has ever been an angel. He is the Firstborn of all creation and in the Firstborn the fullness was pleased to dwell. The angels do not have the fullness of God. Nor did God choose to create through the angels only the Son. The Father is not His own God. The Father is Jesus's God.
 

Jesse Stone

Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2014
Messages
122
Christian
No
Asyncritus #683
Jesse Stone said:
Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. (Acts 8:29 ) etc.
Asyncritus said:
Isn't it clear that this is the power of God being spoken of here? Why do we need a third person? Or eight as you aptly point out below?

If it looks like a skunk, smells like a skunk, it's probably a skunk.

We don't need a third person, or eight for that matter. Obviously God does, and they have something to do with us, or he wouldn't have mentioned them.
 

Jesse Stone

Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2014
Messages
122
Christian
No
Free #687
Jesse Stone said:
Jesus himself didn't tell anyone to worship him. On the contrary, he said to worship the father. So it would be to anyone's best interests to heed the one who knows what he's talking about.
Free said:
And so what do we see in the NT? We see Jesus being worshiped and accepting that worship several times, from his birth to his ascension. Then in Hebrews we see the Father saying "Let all God's angels worship him." Jesus rightly says to worship the Father but if he were not also God, it would be very wrong for him to be worshiped and accept it, saying nothing.

1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets,
2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.
5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”?
6 And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.”
7 Of the angels he says, “He makes his angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire.”
8 But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. (Hebrews 1:1-8)

The first thing you should consider is that verse 6 is one of those pesky Bible discrepancies that Christians like to interpret out of their sight. It's regarded as a quote. But there's nothing in the Old Testament that corresponds to it. Some (John Calvin for one) says it relates to this verse:

All worshipers of images are put to shame, who make their boast in worthless idols; worship him, all you gods! (Psalms 97:7)

That the gods in this verse refers to higher powers like angels. Even for an interpretation, that's quite a stretch. Since in the same verse is a reference to the context, idols. And some think that the writer quoted the Septuagint where this is found at the end of Deuteronomy 32:43, though not in the Hebrew in that place. I only have Brenton's English translation of the Septuagint. Nothing like that there.

That notwithstanding, the context should make clear what is being talked about. The context clearly refers to government, not essence. It's the same mistaken notion that Trinitarians have about Isaiah 9:6. The context clearly refers to government, not essence. And even if the latter did refer to essence, it would be a proof text for Modalism, not the standard Trinitarian view.

Free #697 said:
Your parallel to Egypt is irrelevant and your use of Phil 2 ignores the obvious: that it is speaking of Christ after his death and resurrection being the basis for every knee bowing to him. But he was very clearly worshiped, as I stated, from his birth to his ascension. There are several instances in there prior to his death and resurrection.

Yes, there's that too. Consider Hebrews 1:1-8 in that light.

And consider that Jesus couldn't have "upholds the universe by the word of his power" while on earth or it would be a contradiction to Phil 2, not to mention not making much sense.

These are minor inconveniences to me regarding the Trinity. I've already stated my primary concern with Trinitarianism. I'm about to ask the question over on Matt Slick's forum (Carm something or other), actually run by some woman with the moniker of DianeS. But having read what's being said there, I don't hold out much hope for an answer. At least they let me on their forum. Haven't found another Protestant forum as yet that will. My internet journey may be coming to an end. And if so, maybe I'll stay here and bug the heck out of you guys. Not that I haven't fallen way behind writing parking tickets since I've been here.

As I understand it, an argument from silence isn't an argument. I don't know which verses you are referring to that appears to a Trinitarian that Jesus was worshiped while on the earth. Or how many could just be a reference to a common practice at the time, respect for one regarded as a superior. At least some people saw Jesus as a teacher and a miracle worker. Both very prestigious in Israel in those days.

But there is one verse that comes to mind:

26 Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.”
27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.”
28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”
29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20:26-29)

I can see where v. 28 might be construed as Thomas saying that Jesus is both his lord and his God at first glance under the right bias. What Jesus said would be strange if that's what Thomas was saying. Remember this is all in response to Thomas' skepticism:

24 Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came.
25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.”

This has nothing to do with Jesus being God. Thomas was skeptical about Jesus' resurrection.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead (1Peter 1:3)

God, the father, resurrected Jesus. So there's nothing to say that Thomas' reference is not to both the father and the son. His skepticism about both being ended at that point.

I have to say that I identify with Thomas. Thanks to Christianity, I'm as skeptical as he is. Christianity is all that can be seen today of Jesus of Nazareth on the earth. You, of course, believe that just believing the Bible as the end of it all isn't possible since the only way to understand it is by interpretation. And that surely is how Christianity understands the Bible. That's an indisputable fact. It's what prevents me from being a Christian. Because my "interpretation" isn't the same as theirs. It also makes what the Catholics say about the necessity for an authoritative interpreter seem like common sense. And since Christians also say the Bible is something different from the usual writings of man, being the written word of God, the inconsistency between that and Bible interpretation just makes me skeptical about the Bible.

No matter what Christians think of Christian interpretation and denominationalism, I hope it disgusts God more than does me. It disgusts me, but I'm not near enough like God for it to disgust me perfectly. It just makes me skeptical.
 
Last edited:

Jesse Stone

Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2014
Messages
122
Christian
No
JLB #694
As God He could not sin. As a man He could be tempted.

So are you saying he could be tempted, but couldn't sin? Not what the Bible says:

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. (Hebrews 4:15)

It doesn't say there he couldn't sin. Just that he didn't sin. At least that's what "without sin" or literally "apart from sin" means to me. I have two translations that actually say, "he did not sin" (New Century Version, New Living Translation). Neither well liked by some Christians.

There is no way Jesus could sympathize with our weaknesses without the possibility of sinning. Nor could it be said that he was tempted like we are if there was no possibility of him sinning. Why? Because that's not the situation we're in. We can be tempted AND we can sin. If that's impossible with Jesus, then he certainly can't be sympathetic to our situation. Without a doubt not to my situation. Because I not only can sin, I do sin. Every day. And I know of no one any more perfect than I am. Maybe you are. But I don't think so. In fact if you thought so it would be proof you are not. It isn't even true of angels. As Satan and the angels who followed him proved beyond a doubt.

And then there's this:

Jas 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. (James 1:13)

If Jesus is God, he couldn't even be tempted by evil, let alone sin because of such a temptation. And what Hebrews says would be a nonsensical farce.
 

Sinthesis

Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
5,188
Christian
Yes
If you would care to look at a YLT, then some supposed contradictions just go away.:study

Psa 2:7
I declare concerning a statute: Jehovah said unto me, 'My Son Thou art, I to-day have brought thee forth.

2Sa 7:14
I am to him for a father, and he is to Me for a son; whom in his dealings perversely I have even reproved with a rod of men, and with strokes of the sons of Adam,
 

Free

Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2003
Messages
13,677
Gender
Male
JLB #694


So are you saying he could be tempted, but couldn't sin? Not what the Bible says:



It doesn't say there he couldn't sin. Just that he didn't sin. At least that's what "without sin" or literally "apart from sin" means to me. I have two translations that actually say, "he did not sin" (New Century Version, New Living Translation). Neither well liked by some Christians.

There is no way Jesus could sympathize with our weaknesses without the possibility of sinning. Nor could it be said that he was tempted like we are if there was no possibility of him sinning. Why? Because that's not the situation we're in. We can be tempted AND we can sin. If that's impossible with Jesus, then he certainly can't be sympathetic to our situation. Without a doubt not to my situation. Because I not only can sin, I do sin. Every day. And I know of no one any more perfect than I am. Maybe you are. But I don't think so. In fact if you thought so it would be proof you are not. It isn't even true of angels. As Satan and the angels who followed him proved beyond a doubt.

And then there's this:

Jas 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. (James 1:13)

If Jesus is God, he couldn't even be tempted by evil, let alone sin because of such a temptation. And what Hebrews says would be a nonsensical farce.
A couple things. Firstly, on what grounds can you argue that "there is no way Jesus could sympathize with our weaknesses without the possibility of sinning"? What basis is there for believing you? Secondly, let's make sure we understand that by God not being able to be tempted by evil, it means he can't be swayed to do something evil, and doesn't mean that some don't try. Thirdly, Jesus was also man.

The argument that God cannot be tempted by evil, so therefore Jesus couldn't have been God, is very weak.
 

Randy

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Messages
2,012
Christian
Yes
Asyncritus #683


If it looks like a skunk, smells like a skunk, it's probably a skunk.

We don't need a third person, or eight for that matter. Obviously God does, and they have something to do with us, or he wouldn't have mentioned them.

The Spirit speaks what He hears. Its not a matter of need its a matter of truth. God is Spirit. Gods own Spirit has no limits. We might perceive the Holy Spirit as separate from the Father as the Father has the ability to send His Spirit into the world but can Gods own Spirit really be a separate distinct being or person from the Father. I say no. Jesus used the term "the Spirit of your Father" once. And taught those that listen to the Father and learn from Him Go to the Son. How does one hear the Father when God is in heaven? The Spirit speaks what he hears. (bears witness) Jesus has all authority in heaven and earth and the fullness of God dwells in Him. So the HS knowing the mind of the Spirit who gave Him that authority will also speak what He hears or act on Jesus's will as well. The Holy Spirit was sent in Jesus's name. The Fathers promise. So the Holy Spirit acts as a bridge between the will and mind of Jesus in us. (Christ in Us). But there is only One Spirit so its the Father and Son making their home with a believer. One God in all.

It was man who wrote the trinity. If I were at that gathering obviously I (and I doubt I would be alone in those days) would not have completely agreed with the final version. I would never have driven them away though. Love one another was the Lords command.

As I stated Paul's version is better then any creed. Interestingly no mention of the HS in His statement nor was glory given in Rev to the HS only the Father and Son. So if the HS is some distinct separate person from the Father I don't know who He is. As I see the HS as the Fathers Spirit carrying out the will of God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord. God is not over His own Spirit. Its Him. (His Spirit) I would think my spirit carries out my will. (knows my mind and thoughts)

"yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist."


Randy
 

Randy

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Messages
2,012
Christian
Yes
Our Father who is in heaven hollowed be your name...

The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place.

In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways,2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

Is Jesus God?
He never dies
Yes, He is all that the Father is (see above)
No, He has always been the Son.

Randy
 

JLB

Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
26,660
Gender
Male
Jesse Stone said -

So are you saying he could be tempted, but couldn't sin? Not what the Bible says:

Ok, fair enough. Please quote the scripture you are referring to.


Jesse Stone said -

There is no way Jesus could sympathize with our weaknesses without the possibility of sinning. Nor could it be said that he was tempted like we are if there was no possibility of him sinning. Why? Because that's not the situation we're in. We can be tempted AND we can sin. If that's impossible with Jesus, then he certainly can't be sympathetic to our situation. Without a doubt not to my situation. Because I not only can sin, I do sin. Every day. And I know of no one any more perfect than I am. Maybe you are. But I don't think so. In fact if you thought so it would be proof you are not. It isn't even true of angels. As Satan and the angels who followed him proved beyond a doubt.

And then there's this:

If Jesus is God, he couldn't even be tempted by evil, let alone sin because of such a temptation. And what Hebrews says would be a nonsensical farce.


Jesus is both God and Man. God became a Man. God became flesh.

As man He could be tempted to sin, as the scripture says; for the ruler of this world is coming, and he has nothing in Me.

As God, He had a divine nature that could not be coerced or forced or swayed or manipulated to do evil, or sin.

However as a flesh and blood Man, His flesh was tempted and reacted to the strain of the temptation to transgress His father's will, as seen in the garden.

And being in agony, He prayed more earnestly. Then His sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground. Luke 22:44

Yet without sin...


JLB
 
A

Asyncritus

Guest
I did not ignore it but very clearly answered it; you just didn't like the answer. Your argument is a perfect example of proof texting and divorcing parts of Scripture from the rest.

Sticks and stones may break my bones - but the truth will never hurt me.

Sure it does. What else could it mean? You want us all to believe that "Son of Man" means he was human in nature but that "Son of God" does not mean that he was God in nature. You are inconsistent in your reasoning.

Free, 'Son of God' means 'Son of God'. It does not mean 'God'! I am the son of Richard. Does that mean I am Richard? What utter nonsense!

As I have asked time and time again, and have yet to have anyone do it, look up every instance of the use of Son of God when it refers to Jesus, and take note of the circumstances and context. But even then, your argument is made null by John 1:14 and John 3:16, to give only two. Jesus is the unique, the one and only, Son of God. This is made abundantly clear in Scripture.

Absolutely right, for once. But the Richard argument still holds. He is the Son of God, not God.

That does nothing to show that anything I've said is incorrect and I'm not sure why you think it does. The most we can say about that is that he existed prior to his incarnation.

As fine an example of question begging and refusal to face the truth as I've heard recently.

But you, on the other hand, continue to ignore Heb 1:2, "but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world." According to your theology, that is a false statement, just like John 1:1-3, 1 Cor 8:6, and Col 1:16-17. If Jesus was created, then all those passages are false. That is an argument I have made more times in this thread than I can count, yet you have not addressed it.

You really should be more careful, and pay some attention to what the text actually says. You think 'worlds' = the planets etc.

Unfortunately, not.

'Worlds' = aiom = ages. Sorry.

But it doesn't stop there in Heb 1. We have verse 8, where the Father says of the Son:

'But of the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.' (ESV)

Quite right. It doesn't stop there. Haven't you noticed that is says ever so clearly. 'As He hath BY INHERITANCE obtained a more excellent name than they'? By INHERITANCE - from His Father, who is 'greater than I'. Remember that?

The title 'God' is a TITLE, Free, not a name. Don't you know that yet?

A title can be applied to anybody: Jesus said 'Have I not said Ye are gods'? Remember?

The title is being applied to Him, by INHERITANCE.

This supports what was said in verse 2. Also supporting verses 2 and 8 are verses 10-13:

Heb 1:10 And, "You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;

This is possibly the strongest support for your POV.

But it only stands if you totally ignore (as you often do) that most vital piece of information on the planet for the understanding of scripture: the context.

This will take a bit of time, so let me put it in a few shorter posts.
 
A

Asyncritus

Guest
Hebrews 1:
10And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
11They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
12And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.


Of whom is this speaking? Is it speaking of Christ or God? The trinitarian says it speaks of Christ as God - ignoring completely the context of the Psalm from which it was quoted.

Firstly, we have a major contradiction in the trinitarian theology. How can a God have a God? God is by definition the Almighty Being whom you worship.

Trinitarians would have us believe that Christ is the God of the Father - a complete absurdity!

Fortunately, with a wave of his Magic Theological Wand, the trinitarian can dismiss this absurdity, and say that we just have to believe it anyway, because God can do anything - even be subordinate to His son, and refer to Christ as His God. :nono

Secondly, the appeal to the quote from Psalm 102 is blatantly out of context. Let's put it in context, shall we?
 
A

Asyncritus

Guest
Remember, the trinitarian is claiming that this psalm is narrated by God the Father to God the son:

Psalm 102:
1 Hear my prayer, O LORD, and let my cry come unto Thee.

2Hide not Thy face from me in the day when I am in trouble; incline Thine ear unto me: in the day when I call answer me speedily.

3For my days are consumed like smoke, and my bones are burned as an hearth.

4My heart is smitten, and withered like grass; so that I forget to eat my bread.

5By reason of the voice of my groaning my bones cleave to my skin.

6I am like a pelican of the wilderness: I am like an owl of the desert.

7I watch, and am as a sparrow alone upon the house top.

8Mine enemies reproach me all the day; and they that are mad against me are sworn against me.

9For I have eaten ashes like bread, and mingled my drink with weeping,

10Because of Thine indignation and Thy wrath: for Thou hast lifted me up, and cast me down.

11My days are like a shadow that declineth; and I am withered like grass.


That's God speaking to Christ, is it? Hmmm.

Read it through to the end - you will find that it is David speaking directly to God.

There is no possible way it could be referring to the Father speaking to the son.
 
A

Asyncritus

Guest
So having described the son as greater than the angels, on the authority of God Himself, Paul then quotes a psalm which speaks clearly of the authority
of God over all, including the son. The natural progression in Hebrews is utterly unmistakable:

- The son is greater than the fathers and the prophets - because he has been exalted above them

- The son is greater than the angels - because he has obtained a better name and authority than they, and he is the sonof God

- The son is worthy of worship even by the angels, who are powerful as it is - because he has been annointed above all, and given a Kingdom

- God is above all] - because He laid the foundations of the heaven and the earth, and all power is His

- God is above all - because He alone has the authority to place Christ above the angels

- Christ is above the angels - because he has been given authority over them

- Therefore we ought to give heed to the words of Christ, since we are lower than even the angels, who are lower than Christ (who is lower than God)
 
A

Asyncritus

Guest
The progression simply, in ascending and descending order:

__The fathers and prophets

____The angels

______Christ

_________God

______Christ

____The angels

___The descendants of the fathers and prophets)

The structure here is unmistakably a classic ring composition common to both Hebrew and Greek literature.
It ascends in natural order from man to God, and it descends in natural order from God to man again.
In addition, it is perfectly in accordance with the Divine hierarchy elsewhere recorded - God, Christ, angels, man.
 
A

Asyncritus

Guest
- Christ was made higher than the angels - he was not higher previously, and he was made higher by God, who is higher than he
(It is made manifest again that Christ was lower than the angels, when Paul tells us in chapter 2 that Christ was 'lower than the angels'.)

- Christ obtained by inheritance a better name than the angels - he did not have it previously, and he inherited it from God, who gave it to him since he (God) was/ is greater than he

- Christ was begotten - God was never begotten

- Christ was annointed by God - the one who annoints has the higher authority than the one annointed

- Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father until the Father subdues his enemies - it is the Father who delivers the Kingdom to the son, being greater than he

The context, always the context, Free.
 

turnorburn

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2007
Messages
8,714
i believe this is what your looking for Asyncritus see verse 14

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

tob
 

Free

Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2003
Messages
13,677
Gender
Male
Free #687

1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets,
2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.
5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”?
6 And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.”
7 Of the angels he says, “He makes his angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire.”
8 But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. (Hebrews 1:1-8)

The first thing you should consider is that verse 6 is one of those pesky Bible discrepancies that Christians like to interpret out of their sight. It's regarded as a quote. But there's nothing in the Old Testament that corresponds to it. Some (John Calvin for one) says it relates to this verse:

All worshipers of images are put to shame, who make their boast in worthless idols; worship him, all you gods! (Psalms 97:7)

That the gods in this verse refers to higher powers like angels. Even for an interpretation, that's quite a stretch. Since in the same verse is a reference to the context, idols. And some think that the writer quoted the Septuagint where this is found at the end of Deuteronomy 32:43, though not in the Hebrew in that place. I only have Brenton's English translation of the Septuagint. Nothing like that there.
What matters is that the writer of Hebrews, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote verse 6. There is no basis for dismissing what is said simply because it isn't found word for word in the OT.

]That notwithstanding, the context should make clear what is being talked about. The context clearly refers to government, not essence.
What do you mean by government? The context is clearly talking about the Son being superior to the angels, within which, as I pointed out, we once again have a statement where the Son is said to have been in existence prior to the creation of the world.

And supporting that we have verses 10-13, which are verses speaking of YHWH, yet we have the Father applying them to the Son. The meaning of that cannot be more clear.

]It's the same mistaken notion that Trinitarians have about Isaiah 9:6. The context clearly refers to government, not essence. And even if the latter did refer to essence, it would be a proof text for Modalism, not the standard Trinitarian view.
What does your notion of government have to do with anything? What you are missing with Isa. 9:6 is that the child is born, but the son is given. And it is this child, this son, who will be known as "Mighty God." Although Jesus isn't the Father, he does say that he is in the Father and the Father is in him; that anyone who has seen him has seen the Father. There are other senses in which he could be seen as a father but it matters not at this point, since what matters is that this verse says he is God. That cannot be ignored.

]As I understand it, an argument from silence isn't an argument. I don't know which verses you are referring to that appears to a Trinitarian that Jesus was worshiped while on the earth. Or how many could just be a reference to a common practice at the time, respect for one regarded as a superior. At least some people saw Jesus as a teacher and a miracle worker. Both very prestigious in Israel in those days.
All from the ESV:

Mat 2:10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy.
Mat 2:11 And going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.

Mat 14:32 And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased.
Mat 14:33 And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."

This is one of those uses of "Son of God" that I keep looking for when I ask anti-trinitarians to look up the term. Of importance is the context: Jesus gets into the boat after walking on the water, and the wind ceased. Now note the response of those in the boat. This shows that the term, or phrase, "Son of God" is of much greater significance when applied to Jesus than when applied to men. To sum, Jesus is seen to have command over even the elements (not the only time we see this), to which the disciples rightly respond with worship.

Mat 28:8 So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples.
Mat 28:9 And behold, Jesus met them and said, "Greetings!" And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him.

Luk 24:51 While he blessed them, he parted from them and was carried up into heaven.
Luk 24:52 And they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy,

Joh 9:38 He said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshiped him.

Joh 20:28 Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!"

There are other verses where worship could be implied but even here we do not see one instance of rebuke from Jesus.

]But there is one verse that comes to mind:

26 Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.”
27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.”
28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”
29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20:26-29)

I can see where v. 28 might be construed as Thomas saying that Jesus is both his lord and his God at first glance under the right bias. What Jesus said would be strange if that's what Thomas was saying. Remember this is all in response to Thomas' skepticism:

24 Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came.
25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.”

This has nothing to do with Jesus being God. Thomas was skeptical about Jesus' resurrection.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead (1Peter 1:3)

God, the father, resurrected Jesus. So there's nothing to say that Thomas' reference is not to both the father and the son. His skepticism about both being ended at that point.
That could be, yet from the context we have no reason to believe that he was talking to the Father as well. See you're interpreting again.

]I have to say that I identify with Thomas. Thanks to Christianity, I'm as skeptical as he is. Christianity is all that can be seen today of Jesus of Nazareth on the earth. You, of course, believe that just believing the Bible as the end of it all isn't possible since the only way to understand it is by interpretation.
And yet you have just given your interpretation of the Bible. You are doing the very thing you say we shouldn't do. Why? Because it is absolutely unavoidable. I'll even show you in the other thread that you have done so again while at the same time denouncing interpretation. Your position on the matter is entirely inconsistent.

And that surely is how Christianity understands the Bible. That's an indisputable fact. It's what prevents me from being a Christian. Because my "interpretation" isn't the same as theirs. It also makes what the Catholics say about the necessity for an authoritative interpreter seem like common sense. And since Christians also say the Bible is something different from the usual writings of man, being the written word of God, the inconsistency between that and Bible interpretation just makes me skeptical about the Bible.

No matter what Christians think of Christian interpretation and denominationalism, I hope it disgusts God more than does me. It disgusts me, but I'm not near enough like God for it to disgust me perfectly. It just makes me skeptical.[/quote]
And yet you continue to interpret. :) But you cannot help it, no one can. Denominationalism isn't necessarily bad in and of itself, although it is very problematic to the extent it goes and for some of the absolutely silly reasons. The main problem is that there is almost a complete lack of unity and love between denominations. Of course, we should be able to get along within the same denomination with some differing beliefs, not that beliefs are the only reasons for denominationalism.
 
A

Asyncritus

Guest
I did not ignore it but very clearly answered it; you just didn't like the answer. Your argument is a perfect example of proof texting and divorcing parts of Scripture from the rest.

Careful now. The moderators will have you.

However, as I said, you have no answer to give, save the one that says 'I gave the answer already'! Hmmm.

Sure it does. What else could it mean? You want us all to believe that "Son of Man" means he was human in nature but that "Son of God" does not mean that he was God in nature. You are inconsistent in your reasoning.

Paul says, and I quoted the passage, the Jesus is now 'MAN'. Of course, you can ignore it, or wave it away - but one thing is sure, you can't explain it!

Jesus is the unique, the one and only, Son of God. This is made abundantly clear in Scripture.

Quite so. But you agree that He is THE SON, don't you? Therefore He isn't the Father - neither can He be equal to His Father.

That does nothing to show that anything I've said is incorrect and I'm not sure why you think it does. The most we can say about that is that he existed prior to his incarnation.
But you, on the other hand, continue to ignore Heb 1:2, "but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world." According to your theology, that is a false statement, just like John 1:1-3, 1 Cor 8:6, and Col 1:16-17. If Jesus was created, then all those passages are false. That is an argument I have made more times in this thread than I can count, yet you have not addressed it.

Refuted above.
We see that the Father is referring to Jesus as YHWH and as having "laid the foundation of the earth," where "the heavens are the work of [his] hands." This alone completely and utterly does your position in. We have an OT passage which is very clearly speaking of YHWH, being applied to the Son by the Father.

Well, herein is something miraculous. The FATHER referring to Jesus as God and as YHWH! And you can see nothing self-contradictory in that position!

But see above where this point is dealt with extensively and comprehensively.
The "bunch of trinitarians" agree with you precisely because there is absolutely nothing there to show the Trinity false. I still maintain that you do not even know what a basic doctrine of the Trinity teaches

I'm pretty sure that you don't. Have you ever read, and do you agree with the athanasian?

Oh no? You still believe that God can be tempted with evil? And that He can sin? That's pretty dire, Free.
.
Jesus is both God and man.

So He COULD sin, and He COULDN'T. Have I got that right?
If we are to say that Jesus could have sinned, it does not follow that the Father could therefore sin.

You mean, you don't AGREE that the Father could sin! Well, good for you. At least you got THAT right.

But the logic is faultless and irrefutable.

Jesus was God. The Father was God.

Jesus could sin. Therefore the Father could sin.

Not too difficult to follow, is it?

That is an error in reasoning on your part. What we could say is that with his human nature, Jesus could have sinned, but his divine nature is precisely what kept him from sinning.

And that makes nonsense of the fact that 'he was in all points LIKE AS WE ARE.

We haven't a divine nature. So how is Jesus an example for us?

But I prefer to say that the question is unanswerable since it attempts to split the mystery of the incarnation. The only thing that is important is that he was tempted and yet did not sin.

Ah, the great 'mystery'! The incomprehensible! The unscriptural!

That's the only fall-back position you have, in the final analysis.

Not good enough, Free.

But you're right - it cannot be made sense of. It's hopeless logically and scripturally. So are you going to stand by it, despite the fact that it makes nonsense of your logical faculties, and of the nature of Christ's sacrifice?
There is nothing there to suggest that he isn't God now. Simply referring to Jesus as "the man," which he is, does not mean that he is not also God.

And again you're stuck on the point of a dilemma. God is not man, and neither can man be God. The two things are totally irreconcilable. Scripture recognises this, and says clearly that Jesus is the MAN Christ Jesus, not the GOD Christ Jesus.

If it was otherwise, it would have said so very clearly, because it doesn't mince its words. But it doesn't say so, and that is VERY bad news for your case.

Indeed, God always has been and always will be God, by definition. Just as a creature cannot become God, he cannot cease to be God.

Precisely the point I just made. Glad you agree.

He has always been the Son and has always existed.

That is nonsense, as I have shown you with the questions to which you have no answer.

I WILL BE (not I AM) His Father.
THIS DAY (not yesterday, or from eternity) have I begotten thee. Which day?
I WILL MAKE (not, I HAVE ALREADY MADE) Him my firstborn.
Thou SHALT CONCEIVE and bear a Son...
A virgin SHALL CONCEIVE....

When are you going to face the force of these questions?

I have shown this time and time again, yet you willfully ignore all the strongest arguments against your position. Your "three fatal questions" are based on divorcing these biblical passages from the context of the entirety of Scripture. You must cease pitting Scripture against Scripture and instead try to reconcile it all as you should be doing, as the doctrine of the Trinity alone does.

The doctrine of the trinity runs aground on all of these major points I have raised.

The only way of avoiding the fact is to a. bury your head in the sand as JLB is busy doing and b. invoking 'the great mystery'. Neither of which is satisfactory, as I'm sure you recognise.

I have given plenty of verses which show that the Son has, at a minimum, existed since prior to Abraham, although such passages leave no room for any conclusion other than he has always existed.

I don't know what you're talking about - but you have 5 questions (above) to answer, which show categorically that your statement is totally incorrect.
 
A

Asyncritus

Guest
i believe this is what your looking for Asyncritus see verse 14

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

tob
 
Top