Doctrine of the Trinity

[reba]

Jocor, I am very interested in hearing your views and reasons for them. Please share them here...

jorcor is abiding by the TOS .. please take the discusson to PM or to a one on one discussion... as per the TOS .. that could be a good discussion...

2.2: No active promotion of other Faiths is allowed:

You will not post any messages; links, images or photos that promote a religion or belief other than Biblical and historical Christianity (atheism is considered a "belief" for the purposes of this rule). Discussion of these doctrines are is fine, as long as the beliefs foreign to Christianity (as defined above) are not actively promoted or held in balance with orthodox Christianity. This includes Full Preterism, Universal Reconciliation, Universal Salvation, Serpent seed, Dual Seed or Two-Seedline doctrine where discussion is limited to and only allowed in the 1 on 1 Debate Forum. This is a Christian Forum as the name suggests.

Thanks...

 

[eddif]

I really do see the trinity in creation.
Romans 1:19-20
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

The nearest, most powerful thing in our existence (the sun) does all the major energy release.

The reflector of this energy is the moon.

The energy itself is best defined by light.

These three are a trinity. Our warmth, food (photosynthesis), awareness (sight) are all made possible by them. Jesus did nothing (except what the father did).
John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

If we see light come from the moon we have to realize the source.

eddif

 

[jocor]

Jocor, I am very interested in hearing your views and reasons for them. Please share them here...

[Use TWTS to express opinion about moderator action, WIP] Would you like to discuss it privately? If so, just send me a private message (PM) and we will decide on the means of communication.

 

[jocor]

Jocor,

Only God can reveal this truth to you provided you have not hardened your heart to the point that you will refuse to listen to His voice. It was God who revealed this truth to the apostle Peter, who was a strict monotheist (Matthew chapter 16):

13When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

To call Jesus "the Son of the living God" was to call Him God. That is why the apostle Thomas, seeing His wounded hands and feet and side declared: "My Lord AND MY GOD" (John 20:29).

Unless Jesus of Nazereth is our Lord and our God, we cannot receive the gift of eternal life, since to believe on the Son is to believe in His deity (1 John 5:20).

God has revealed the same truth to me as He revealed to Peter. I fully believe Messiah Yeshua is the Son of the living God. As I understand it, verse 16 is not saying Messiah IS the living God, but is His Son. Yeshua's Father would then be the "living God".

I also believe as Thomas did that Yeshua is my Lord and my elohai. As I see it, Thomas didn't speak English. Therefore, he didn't say "GOD". I believe he said "elohai" or some other construct of "Elohim". "Elohim" was used of men and angels as well as for the one true Elohim, Yahweh. Therefore, it is perfectly acceptable to call Yeshua "elohai" or, in English, "my mighty one" or "my strength".

Here is 1 John 5:20 that you referenced:

And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. (KJV)​

In my opinion, this verse is not teaching Yeshua's deity, but his Father's deity. When it says, "even in His Son" it is referring back to "know him that is true" and "in him that is true". Both statements refer to Yeshua's Father. Therefore, "This is the true God" would refer to the same one who was previously proclaimed to be "true" in that verse; Yeshua's Father. I believe that last phrase is exactly what Yeshua proclaimed in John 17:5;

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee (Yeshua's Father) the only true God, and Yeshua Messiah, whom thou hast sent.​

 

[Malachi]

In my opinion, this verse is not teaching Yeshua's deity, but his Father's deity.

As a matter of fact this verse is teaching Yeshua's deity. But let's leave that aside for a moment. Are you sincerely and genuinely prepared to accept what God has to say about His Son and simply believe it, because it is in both the Old and the New Testaments? If so, then meditate on the following verses and thank God for His revelation concerning His Son.

Hebrews 1: 8,9 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Psalm 45:6,7 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Here God the Father is directly addressing God the Son, and there can be no ambiguity, or waffling about the fact that this is found in both Testaments. Now believe it!

 

[Malachi]

Hello to all.
I am speaking from the Islamic perspective. I hope we can engage in discussions, as we all seek God.

Muslim75,

I don't believe you should be posting in this thread, or other threads which are strictly for Christians. The truth of the matter is that from its very inception Islam was designed to be hostile to Christianity and Judaism, and the Koran is very clear in this regard. So there is really nothing to discuss, unless you are seeking the truth outside of the Islamic perspective. The Lord Jesus Christ said plainly that He alone is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. You can either accept Him as God, or you can reject Him and face the consequences.

 

[jocor]

As a matter of fact this verse is teaching Yeshua's deity. But let's leave that aside for a moment. Are you sincerely and genuinely prepared to accept what God has to say about His Son and simply believe it, because it is in both the Old and the New Testaments? If so, then meditate on the following verses and thank God for His revelation concerning His Son.

Hebrews 1: 8,9 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Psalm 45:6,7 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Here God the Father is directly addressing God the Son, and there can be no ambiguity, or waffling about the fact that this is found in both Testaments. Now believe it!

Yes, I am always open to truth if it is based on proper Bible exegesis. In my opinion, you have not rightly understood those verses. I believe them wholeheartedly as they appear in Hebrew, but not in English.

Psa 45:6 כסאךH3678 Thy throne, אלהיםH430 O God, עולםH5769 forever ועדH5703 and ever: שׁבטH7626 the scepter מישׁרH4334 a right שׁבטH7626 scepter. מלכותך׃H4438 of thy kingdom
Psa 45:7 אהבתH157 Thou lovest צדקH6664 righteousness, ותשׂנאH8130 and hatest רשׁעH7562 wickedness: עלH5921 therefore כןH3651 therefore משׁחךH4886 hath anointed אלהיםH430 God, אלהיךH430 thy God, שׁמןH8081 thee with the oil שׂשׂוןH8342 of gladness מחבריך׃H2270 above thy fellows.​

The bold words are "elohim". This word is used of the mighty men among the children of Israel in the following verse:

Psa 82:6 אניH589 I אמרתיH559 have said, אלהיםH430 Ye gods; אתםH859 of you ובניH1121 children עליוןH5945 of the most High. כלכם׃H3605 and all
​

If Yahweh called those men "elohim" and the English translates it as "gods", in my opinion, Psalm 45:6-7 should be translated similarly. Yeshua is the greatest son of all of Israel's children. He rightly deserves the title of "elohim", but, in my view, only Yahweh deserves the title "Elohim" with a capital "E". As I see it, if you capitalize the subject of Psalm 45:6 to read either "Elohim" or "God", then you have two Gods, a concept that I think you would reject. Either that, or the mighty men of Israel in Psalm 82:6 are also part of the "Godhead".

 

[eddif]

I think there are few that think like this:
The sun - source of all energy
The moon - the reflector of energy
The light - the energy in spirit form

Post 22 is a little more.
The creator set up creation. He has revealed himself in his creation. Any artisan leaves part of himself in his work. Every time I see nature; I see Gods handiwork. Sun, moon and light cry something greater than gas, rock and light. Something spiritual arises beyond the natural creation.

eddif

 

[Free]

Yes, I am always open to truth if it is based on proper Bible exegesis.

So why do you then insert your own words into the biblical text?

'I also believe as Thomas did that Yeshua is my Lord and my elohai. As I see it, Thomas didn't speak English. Therefore, he didn't say "GOD". I believe he said "elohai" or some other construct of "Elohim".'

Your two statements are contradictory and you have no basis for your interpretation of what Thomas says.

Yes, I am always open to truth if it is based on proper Bible exegesis. In my opinion, you have not rightly understood those verses. I believe them wholeheartedly as they appear in Hebrew, but not in English.

Psa 45:6 כסאךH3678 Thy throne, אלהיםH430 O God, עולםH5769 forever ועדH5703 and ever: שׁבטH7626 the scepter מישׁרH4334 a right שׁבטH7626 scepter. מלכותך׃H4438 of thy kingdom
Psa 45:7 אהבתH157 Thou lovest צדקH6664 righteousness, ותשׂנאH8130 and hatest רשׁעH7562 wickedness: עלH5921 therefore כןH3651 therefore משׁחךH4886 hath anointed אלהיםH430 God, אלהיךH430 thy God, שׁמןH8081 thee with the oil שׂשׂוןH8342 of gladness מחבריך׃H2270 above thy fellows.​

The bold words are "elohim". This word is used of the mighty men among the children of Israel in the following verse:

Psa 82:6 אניH589 I אמרתיH559 have said, אלהיםH430 Ye gods; אתםH859 of you ובניH1121 children עליוןH5945 of the most High. כלכם׃H3605 and all
​

If Yahweh called those men "elohim" and the English translates it as "gods", in my opinion, Psalm 45:6-7 should be translated similarly. Yeshua is the greatest son of all of Israel's children. He rightly deserves the title of "elohim", but, in my view, only Yahweh deserves the title "Elohim" with a capital "E". As I see it, if you capitalize the subject of Psalm 45:6 to read either "Elohim" or "God", then you have two Gods, a concept that I think you would reject. Either that, or the mighty men of Israel in Psalm 82:6 are also part of the "Godhead".

But this does not address the passage in Hebrews. We can clearly see that God, the Father, calls the Son God. But more than that, we must also consider the verses that follow, verses 10-12:

Heb 1:8 But of the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
Heb 1:9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions."
Heb 1:10 And, "You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;
Heb 1:11 they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment,
Heb 1:12 like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end." (ESV)

This is a quote from Psalms 102:25-27:

Psa 102:24 "O my God," I say, "take me not away in the midst of my days-- you whose years endure throughout all generations!"
Psa 102:25 Of old you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.
Psa 102:26 They will perish, but you will remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away,
Psa 102:27 but you are the same, and your years have no end. (ESV)

Clearly, we have a passage which is speaking of God being applied to the Son, by the Father no less. Note that verse 25 speaks of the Son being the Creator, which is supported by verse 2, not to mention John 1:3, 1 Cor 8:6 and Col 1:16-17. Verses 26 and 27 speak of the Son's eternality.

The only logical conclusion of these passages is that the Son is true deity; he is God in the same way as the Father is God, of the same substance and nature. And yet the Bible is clear that there is only one God, hence why the doctrine of the Trinity best takes into account all that the Scripture reveals about the nature of God.

 

[Malachi]

The only logical conclusion of these passages is that the Son is true deity; he is God in the same way as the Father is God, of the same substance and nature. And yet the Bible is clear that there is only one God, hence why the doctrine of the Trinity best takes into account all that the Scripture reveals about the nature of God.

Amen.

There are many, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Muslims, the Orthodox Jews, the Christadelphians, The Unitarians, etc. who choose to be wilfully blind -- just like the Pharisees and Sadducees of Jesus day -- regardless of how much clear Bible truth is presented. A very sad way to face the truth.

They all need to know that unless they acknowledge and honor the Son equally with the Father and the Holy Spirit, they cannot be saved and will face condemnation (John 5:19-27): "He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father which hath sent Him". Which means that all their claims about honoring one God will be worthless on Judgment Day.

 

[jocor]

So why do you then insert your own words into the biblical text?

'I also believe as Thomas did that Yeshua is my Lord and my elohai. As I see it, Thomas didn't speak English. Therefore, he didn't say "GOD". I believe he said "elohai" or some other construct of "Elohim".'

Your two statements are contradictory and you have no basis for your interpretation of what Thomas says.

What words came out of Thomas' mouth? Neither of us knows for a fact what word he said that we translate as "God". It is merely my opinion of what he said. "God" is also an opinion, but obviously wrong since he didn't speak English. I am not the one trying to build a doctrine on an English word. I am just trying to show that there are other possible interpretations.

But this does not address the passage in Hebrews. We can clearly see that God, the Father, calls the Son God.

The Father didn't speak English either. He gave us those words in Hebrew and the Hebrew says He said, "elohim", not "God".

But more than that, we must also consider the verses that follow, verses 10-12:

Heb 1:8 But of the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
Heb 1:9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions."
Heb 1:10 And, "You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;
Heb 1:11 they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment,
Heb 1:12 like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end." (ESV)

This is a quote from Psalms 102:25-27:

Psa 102:24 "O my God," I say, "take me not away in the midst of my days-- you whose years endure throughout all generations!"
Psa 102:25 Of old you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.
Psa 102:26 They will perish, but you will remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away,
Psa 102:27 but you are the same, and your years have no end. (ESV)

Clearly, we have a passage which is speaking of God being applied to the Son, by the Father no less.

In my opinion, the passage is not being applied to the Son. They are the words of an afflicted man as he cries out to Yahweh. They are not the words of Yahweh as He speaks to or about His Son.

Notice each of the other Old Testament quotes in Hebrew 1;

Ps.2:7 - "...Thou art my Son; this day I (Yahweh) have begotten thee."

2 Sam.7:14 - "I (Yahweh) will be to him a Father..."

Deut.32:43 (LXX) - "And let all the angels of God (Yahweh) worship him."

Ps.45:6,7 - "Thy throne O elohim...therefore elohim, thy Elohim (Yahweh) hath anointed thee."

Ps.110:1 - "Sit on my right hand, until I (Yahweh) make thine enemies thy footstool."

In each of these quotes it can be seen that either Yahweh is talking to His Son or about His Son. Yet, in Ps.102:25-27 it is the Psalmist talking to Yahweh. Therefore, to include Heb.1:10-12 among those things that Yahweh said to or about His Son is incorrect IMHO.

The writer of Hebrews had written verses 1-9 to show how Yahweh exalted His Son, even above the angels. It appears to me as though the writer was then moved to exalt Yahweh as well by including verses 10-12 as a parenthesis. He then resumes by showing Yeshua's exaltation in verse 13 which is a continuation of verse 9.

Note that verse 25 speaks of the Son being the Creator, which is supported by verse 2, not to mention John 1:3, 1 Cor 8:6 and Col 1:16-17. Verses 26 and 27 speak of the Son's eternality.

Sorry, but from my perspective verses 25-27 are the words of an afflicted man as he cries out to Yahweh (the Father). As for the other references you gave to prove the Son is the Creator, in my opinion not one of them prove that. To me they prove just the opposite, that Yeshua's Father is the Creator and He created everything "through" His Son.

The only logical conclusion of these passages is that the Son is true deity; he is God in the same way as the Father is God, of the same substance and nature. And yet the Bible is clear that there is only one God, hence why the doctrine of the Trinity best takes into account all that the Scripture reveals about the nature of God.

The view I am presenting makes far more sense.

 

[jocor]

Amen.

There are many , the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Muslims, the Orthodox Jews, the Christadelphians, The Unitarians, etc. who choose to be wilfully blind -- just like the Pharisees and Sadducees of Jesus day -- regardless of how much clear Bible truth is presented. A very sad way to face the truth.

They all need to know that unless they acknowledge and honor the Son equally with the Father and the Holy Spirit, they cannot be saved and will face condemnation (John 5:19-27): "He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father which hath sent Him". Which means that all their claims about honoring one God will be worthless on Judgment Day.

As I understand it, John 5:23 does not say we must honor the Son as the one true God or as part of a trinity or equally with the Father. It simply says to honor him. I honor him by exalting him as Yahweh's promised Messiah and Savior of the world. I honor him by obeying him, albeit imperfectly. I honor him by serving him. Yet, in your mind I will be lost. How sad.

 

[Malachi]

It is so easy to speak evil of non-trinitarians Malachi

jocor,

This is not a matter for debate. The manner in which you twisted every Scripture speaks for itself. This is also true for the Jehovah's Witnesses and others who are like-minded. All are wilfully blind.

It is also just like the Pharisees and Sadducees who witnessed all of the Almighty power of Yeshua in His miracles, as well as His power to forgive sins (which is God's alone), as well as all the fulfilled prophecies regarding the one who is called "The Mighty God" and "The Everlasting Father" by Isaiah, and called Him "mad" and "demon possessed". Even His enemies knew that "the Son of God" meant that He was EQUAL with God but they refused to believe it (John 5:18) and plotted to kill Him.

You claim you honor Christ, but by rejecting His deity you dishonor Him (and continue to twist the Scriptures). You would probably argue with Isaiah that he was mistaken in how he described Yeshua, so it is not surprising that you think this is a matter for debate. It is not.

You either believe it or you disbelieve it. You either believe on "The LORD [Yahweh] from Heaven" (1 Cor 15: 47) or you twist the Scriptures to make Him less than God. Since there can only be one true, living and eternal God who is called "Elohim", then the doctrine of the Trinity is the only way to understand the plurality within the Godhead. To continue insisiting that Elohim applies to mighty men, and judges, and angels, and therefore Christ cannot be God is wilful blindness, and you have condemned yourself. I have not spoken "evil" but pointed out the truth which corresponds to John 3:19,20.

 

[Free]

So why do you then insert your own words into the biblical text?

'I also believe as Thomas did that Yeshua is my Lord and my elohai. As I see it, Thomas didn't speak English. Therefore, he didn't say "GOD". I believe he said "elohai" or some other construct of "Elohim".'

Your two statements are contradictory and you have no basis for your interpretation of what Thomas says.

What words came out of Thomas' mouth? Neither of us knows for a fact what word he said that we translate as "God". It is merely my opinion of what he said. "God" is also an opinion, but obviously wrong since he didn't speak English. I am not the one trying to build a doctrine on an English word. I am just trying to show that there are other possible interpretations.

This argument makes no sense. No one is building a doctrine on an English word, not that it matters. We have Greek manuscripts which use theos, which is translated as "God" many, many times in the NT. You won't argue that theos shouldn't be translated as "God" in John 20:17, so why would you argue against the use of "God" in verse 28? It seems quite evident that you are not at all exegeting the text, as you claim to be. Proper exegesis does not included unwarranted opinion.

There simply is no reason whatsoever to change what Thomas says in the majority of translations.

You really need to look at this link: http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articles/Jesus_Hebrew/Greek_NT/greek_nt.html

But this does not address the passage in Hebrews. We can clearly see that God, the Father, calls the Son God.

The Father didn't speak English either. He gave us those words in Hebrew and the Hebrew says He said, "elohim", not "God".

Greek, those words in the book of Hebrews were written in Greek. Again, you are basing this all on unsubstantiated opinion, not proper exegesis.

But more than that, we must also consider the verses that follow, verses 10-12:

Heb 1:8 But of the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
Heb 1:9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions."
Heb 1:10 And, "You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;
Heb 1:11 they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment,
Heb 1:12 like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end." (ESV)

This is a quote from Psalms 102:25-27:

Psa 102:24 "O my God," I say, "take me not away in the midst of my days-- you whose years endure throughout all generations!"
Psa 102:25 Of old you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.
Psa 102:26 They will perish, but you will remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away,
Psa 102:27 but you are the same, and your years have no end. (ESV)

Clearly, we have a passage which is speaking of God being applied to the Son, by the Father no less.

In my opinion, the passage is not being applied to the Son. They are the words of an afflicted man as he cries out to Yahweh. They are not the words of Yahweh as He speaks to or about His Son.

Notice each of the other Old Testament quotes in Hebrew 1;

Ps.2:7 - "...Thou art my Son; this day I (Yahweh) have begotten thee."

2 Sam.7:14 - "I (Yahweh) will be to him a Father..."

Deut.32:43 (LXX) - "And let all the angels of God (Yahweh) worship him."

Ps.45:6,7 - "Thy throne O elohim...therefore elohim, thy Elohim (Yahweh) hath anointed thee."

Ps.110:1 - "Sit on my right hand, until I (Yahweh) make thine enemies thy footstool."

In each of these quotes it can be seen that either Yahweh is talking to His Son or about His Son. Yet, in Ps.102:25-27 it is the Psalmist talking to Yahweh. Therefore, to include Heb.1:10-12 among those things that Yahweh said to or about His Son is incorrect IMHO.

The writer of Hebrews had written verses 1-9 to show how Yahweh exalted His Son, even above the angels. It appears to me as though the writer was then moved to exalt Yahweh as well by including verses 10-12 as a parenthesis. He then resumes by showing Yeshua's exaltation in verse 13 which is a continuation of verse 9.

Look again at Hebrews 1:8-12. Verse 8 begins, "But of the Son [God] says," and verse 10 begins with "And," which is followed by the quote from Psalms 102. The "and" at the beginning of verse 10 links it back to the initial statement in verse 8. That is the natural and plain reading of the text.

The entire context of chapter 1 is referring to the Son and verse 10 uses the "and" to link back to verse 8. There is absolutely no reason to think that the writer of Hebrews took a pause in verses 10-12 to talk about the Father. It's all about who Jesus is and the writer clearly used a passage from the OT which speaks of Yahweh, and applied it to the Son. The point is clear: the Son is also Yahweh.

Note that verse 25 speaks of the Son being the Creator, which is supported by verse 2, not to mention John 1:3, 1 Cor 8:6 and Col 1:16-17. Verses 26 and 27 speak of the Son's eternality.

Sorry, but from my perspective verses 25-27 are the words of an afflicted man as he cries out to Yahweh (the Father). As for the other references you gave to prove the Son is the Creator, in my opinion not one of them prove that. To me they prove just the opposite, that Yeshua's Father is the Creator and He created everything "through" His Son.

I'm not at all concerned with your opinions and perspectives but rather what the Bible actually says. What's interesting though is that you don't even address my argument; you didn't address what the writer of Hebrews is showing. Of course verses 25-27 are of someone crying out to Yahweh, that is the whole point, that is the significance of the passage being applied to the Son.

As for my other passages, they prove the eternal pre-existence of Jesus because everything that has been created was created through him. Once again, the only logical conclusion is that the Son is uncreated.

The only logical conclusion of these passages is that the Son is true deity; he is God in the same way as the Father is God, of the same substance and nature. And yet the Bible is clear that there is only one God, hence why the doctrine of the Trinity best takes into account all that the Scripture reveals about the nature of God.

The view I am presenting makes far more sense.

Not at all. It is all unsubstantiated opinion that ignores what the texts are actually saying.

 

[jocor]

You either believe on "The LORD [Yahweh] from Heaven" (1 Cor 15: 47) or you twist the Scriptures to make Him less than God.

You accuse me of twisting Scripture and then you distort Scripture by changing "Lord" to "LORD [Yahweh]". Yahweh cannot die. He is eternal.

 

[jocor]

This argument makes no sense. No one is building a doctrine on an English word, not that it matters. We have Greek manuscripts which use theos, which is translated as "God" many, many times in the NT. You won't argue that theos shouldn't be translated as "God" in John 20:17, so why would you argue against the use of "God" in verse 28? It seems quite evident that you are not at all exegeting the text, as you claim to be. Proper exegesis does not included unwarranted opinion.

The Greek word "theos" was also used of beings other than the one true God.

You really need to look at this link: http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articles/Jesus_Hebrew/Greek_NT/greek_nt.html

I trust the Greek. I don't trust the English.

Look again at Hebrews 1:8-12. Verse 8 begins, "But of the Son [God] says," and verse 10 begins with "And," which is followed by the quote from Psalms 102. The "and" at the beginning of verse 10 links it back to the initial statement in verse 8. That is the natural and plain reading of the text.

The entire context of chapter 1 is referring to the Son and verse 10 uses the "and" to link back to verse 8. There is absolutely no reason to think that the writer of Hebrews took a pause in verses 10-12 to talk about the Father. It's all about who Jesus is and the writer clearly used a passage from the OT which speaks of Yahweh, and applied it to the Son. The point is clear: the Son is also Yahweh.

As I see it, “and” cannot link it back to the initial statement in verse 8 because God did not say what is in verses 10-12, but He did say what is in verse 8.

I'm not at all concerned with your opinions and perspectives but rather what the Bible actually says. What's interesting though is that you don't even address my argument; you didn't address what the writer of Hebrews is showing. Of course verses 25-27 are of someone crying out to Yahweh, that is the whole point, that is the significance of the passage being applied to the Son.

The point is, verses 25-27 do NOT follow the pattern of all the preceding verses in which God says something to or about His Son. Why? Because as I see it, they are not about the Son, but about the Father.

As for my other passages, they prove the eternal pre-existence of Jesus because everything that has been created was created through him. Once again, the only logical conclusion is that the Son is uncreated.

It depends on how you interpret “through”. You interpret it as God using a pre-existent Son to create everything. In my view, Yahweh created everything all by Himself having His Son in mind. Yahweh created a planet for His Son to exist. He created people for him to save. He created trees so he could die on one. He created iron so he could be nailed to the tree. He created …

This view is in complete harmony with verses such as Isaiah 44:24:

Thus says Yahweh, thy redeemer, and He that formed thee from the womb, I am Yahweh that makes all things; that stretches forth the heavens alone; that spreads abroad the earth by myself;​

I don’t see room for two Creators in this passage or in Isaiah 45:12 and others.

 

[Free]

The Greek word "theos" was also used of beings other than the one true God.

It was Thomas' first time seeing Jesus since he was raised from the dead and he not only calls him his Lord, but his God. It is pretty clear what Thomas is saying.

I trust the Greek. I don't trust the English.

That doesn't address my point. You keep arguing against the English and to the Hebrew, which doesn't exist for the NT. I'm simply pointing out that you are quite wrong for doing so. The NT was written in Greek, not Hebrew.

Look again at Hebrews 1:8-12. Verse 8 begins, "But of the Son [God] says," and verse 10 begins with "And," which is followed by the quote from Psalms 102. The "and" at the beginning of verse 10 links it back to the initial statement in verse 8. That is the natural and plain reading of the text.

The entire context of chapter 1 is referring to the Son and verse 10 uses the "and" to link back to verse 8. There is absolutely no reason to think that the writer of Hebrews took a pause in verses 10-12 to talk about the Father. It's all about who Jesus is and the writer clearly used a passage from the OT which speaks of Yahweh, and applied it to the Son. The point is clear: the Son is also Yahweh.

As I see it, “and” cannot link it back to the initial statement in verse 8 because God did not say what is in verses 10-12, but He did say what is in verse 8.

Two questions:

1) Do you believe in the inspiration of all of Scripture?
2) What basis do you have for ignoring grammar?

I'm not at all concerned with your opinions and perspectives but rather what the Bible actually says. What's interesting though is that you don't even address my argument; you didn't address what the writer of Hebrews is showing. Of course verses 25-27 are of someone crying out to Yahweh, that is the whole point, that is the significance of the passage being applied to the Son.

The point is, verses 25-27 do NOT follow the pattern of all the preceding verses in which God says something to or about His Son. Why? Because as I see it, they are not about the Son, but about the Father.

And here the two above questions must be asked again.

As for my other passages, they prove the eternal pre-existence of Jesus because everything that has been created was created through him. Once again, the only logical conclusion is that the Son is uncreated.

It depends on how you interpret “through”. You interpret it as God using a pre-existent Son to create everything. In my view, Yahweh created everything all by Himself having His Son in mind. Yahweh created a planet for His Son to exist. He created people for him to save. He created trees so he could die on one. He created iron so he could be nailed to the tree. He created …

No, it is not at all how one interprets "through". No where in Scripture is it even implied that the Son was only an idea and that is how the Father created through him. To say that that is stretching things is quite the understatement. Everything we read strongly suggests that the Son was actually in existence before creation began.

This view is in complete harmony with verses such as Isaiah 44:24:

Thus says Yahweh, thy redeemer, and He that formed thee from the womb, I am Yahweh that makes all things; that stretches forth the heavens alone; that spreads abroad the earth by myself;​

I don’t see room for two Creators in this passage or in Isaiah 45:12 and others.

You are reading into the text something of the nature of God which you presume to be true. It simply says Yahweh created all things. These statements support monotheism, which the doctrine of the Trinity fully affirms. They say nothing about the nature of Yahweh's existence.

 

[Malachi]

You accuse me of twisting Scripture and then you distort Scripture by changing "Lord" to "LORD [Yahweh]". Yahweh cannot die. He is eternal.

"Lord" (Gk kurios) corresponds to the Hebrew Adonai (Adonay), and is also used in conjunction withYahweh (YHWH = LORD) the personal name of the Lord God Almighty. The reason LORD has been applied to 1 Cor 15:47 is because Jesus is here called "the Lord from Heaven".

This is a direct reference to Yahweh in Isaiah 6:1-4 where Adonai is found in verse 1 and Yahweh is found in verse 3. Isaiah saw a vision of God upon His throne. The significant thing is that this passage in Isaiah is referred to by the apostle John in John 12:41 with reference to Jesus, and the context of this verse is John 12:35-41. John says (v. 41): "These things said Esaias [Isaiah] when he saw His [Jesus'] glory, and spake of Him [Jesus]." Isaiah saw the glory of the LORD God Almighty, and recorded the seraphim as saying: "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD [YHWH] of Hosts: the whole earth is full of His glory". But John, writing under Divine inspiration, applied this to Jesus. This is yet another Scriptural "proof" of the Deity of Christ.

 

[eddif]

Trinity. I wonder what we are to learn? Unity of agreement between the three? Three aspects / persons in agreement?

Jesus broke down the middle wall between Jew and Gentile. So if God (let us make man...) was in agreement; should not we (in Christ Jesus) become one. Not muddled together in lukewarmness, but in Christ. I talk of creation, but this is but a part of the trinity of: God, man and nature expressing the same thoughts. In fact male, female, bond, free, Greek, Roman, Jew, Gentile, weak, strong, etc are one in Christ Jesus.

Sure there is rubble that we trip over (from the broken down wall- Ephesians 2 ), but we have hope. Not to sit, soak and sour in our beliefs (not my saying), but to have abundant life.

I live in an area of creeks (streams). The creek banks are slippery, and if you are not careful you can slip in. It is my hope that those who mess around trinity talk might slip in. LOL. Sometimes we think we are divided; only to discover the wall is gone.

eddif

 

[jocor]

It was Thomas' first time seeing Jesus since he was raised from the dead and he not only calls him his Lord, but his God. It is pretty clear what Thomas is saying.

You are stuck on the English. He didn't say "God". Did he speak Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic? Neither of us can be certain although I personally believe he spoke Hebrew. However, the corresponding word for "God" in all three languages was also used for men. IMO, if Yahweh Himself could call men "elohim" or "theos", then so can Thomas, especially after seeing his Master back from the dead.

That doesn't address my point. You keep arguing against the English and to the Hebrew, which doesn't exist for the NT. I'm simply pointing out that you are quite wrong for doing so. The NT was written in Greek, not Hebrew.

I am also arguing against the English and to the Greek.

Two questions:

1) Do you believe in the inspiration of all of Scripture?
2) What basis do you have for ignoring grammar?

#1 - Yes (originals, not translations)
#2 - I try not to ever ignore grammar. You think I am ignoring "and", but I am just understanding its use in that verse differently. Since it cannot tie back into verse 8, it must tie back to the end of verse 9. The "Lord" in verse 10 is a reference to the last "God" mentioned in verse 9 (Yeshua's God - Yahweh). In my opinion, the author of Hebrews begins addressing himself to Yeshua's God in celebration of His power and immutability. Such power can sustain the throne and sceptre of Yeshua forever.

No, it is not at all how one interprets "through". No where in Scripture is it even implied that the Son was only an idea and that is how the Father created through him. To say that that is stretching things is quite the understatement. Everything we read strongly suggests that the Son was actually in existence before creation began.

Yeshua was "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev 13:8). He was in the Father's plan of salvation in His mind. Yahweh foreknew him before the world was created (1Pe 1:20).
All believers were in that plan in His mind as well (Eph 1:4). I understand these verses to teach that Yeshua and all believers were foreknown by the Father before anything was created and came into existed (were manifested) at the appointed time.

You are reading into the text something of the nature of God which you presume to be true. It simply says Yahweh created all things. These statements support monotheism, which the doctrine of the Trinity fully affirms. They say nothing about the nature of Yahweh's existence.

As I understand the trinity doctrine, it states the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three separate persons. Yet, Isaiah 44:24 says Yahweh created "by myself". There was no other person helping Him. Isaiah 45:12 says "my hands" stretched out the heavens. There were no other hands helping Him. Other verses say Yahweh "spoke" and things were created. One person spoke. How do you harmonize these verses with three persons? Did three persons create using six hands and three mouths?