if one doest accept the trinity then what was jesus?

[shad]

Granted, the phrase "God the Son" is not in scripture. But you seem like an intelligent person so surely your theological approach does not hinge on fact that those 3 words, in that order, are not in scripture.

WT,

When God and Jesus are addressed Jesus is never called God.
Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

That is how it goes every time, Jesus is Lord and Father is God. They don't have the same title.

 

[westtexas]

WT,

When God and Jesus are addressed Jesus is never called God.

Obviously you didn't read anything that was written. Go back up and read some of the posts and then respond to the questions instead of just writing something down. How about Hebrews 1 :8? We'll talk about that one first. Unless you need MM to answer for you again.

Westtexas

 

[francisdesales]

Joe, if you havn't gotten the hint yet, let me make it clear for you. Your comments are only carnal. The reason we will never be on the same page , is for this very reason. Carnality verses spirituality and truth.

This is exactly why I have chosen to rarely speak to you anymore. I had thought maybe some time would change things, but it hasn't. It is still "my views are spiritual and yours are carnal".

You need to get over this "my views are spiritual" and just speak to me man to man, man to boy, man to girl, whatever, if you are able...

If you are able, you'll argument will speak for itself. No need to fall back on the childish "my views are spiritual". That is not how one proves another argument is faulty.

 

[shad]

WT,

When God and Jesus are addressed Jesus is never called God.

Obviously you didn't read anything that was written. Go back up and read some of the posts and then respond to the questions instead of just writing something down. How about Hebrews 1 :8? We'll talk about that one first. Unless you need MM to answer for you again.

Westtexas

I am not interested in your version of God and Jesus. I go with what the Bible clearly says over and over. I don't try to understand man-made doctrines.

BTW, You should be honest in responding to MM without your preconceived notion of man-made doctrines.

 

[westtexas]

WT,

When God and Jesus are addressed Jesus is never called God.

Obviously you didn't read anything that was written. Go back up and read some of the posts and then respond to the questions instead of just writing something down. How about Hebrews 1 :8? We'll talk about that one first. Unless you need MM to answer for you again.

Westtexas

I am not interested in your version of God and Jesus. I go with what the Bible clearly says over and over. I don't try to understand man-made doctrines.

BTW, You should be honest in responding to MM without your preconceived notion of man-made doctrines.

In other words, you have no answer to why, IN SCRIPTURE---not a man-made doctrine---The Son is referred to as God. Correct???

Edited to add: We are speaking about Hebrews 1:8, it's a pretty clear verse too!!!

 

[shad]

If you are able, you'll argument will speak for itself. No need to fall back on the childish "my views are spiritual". That is not how one proves another argument is faulty.

Francis,

I dont think you can convince anyone to trust you as Christian teacher unless they are Catholic. Because most Christians who are not in the mainstream churches rely on the Bible only for spiritual and Biblical knowledge and understanding.

We cannot communicate. That is what is going on between Catholics and non-Catholics.

 

[shad]

In other words, you have no answer to why,

No, you are putting your word into mine. What I am saying is that I will not try to understand your doctrine. You are trinitarian and I am not.

I am only pointing out your inconsistancy.

 

[westtexas]

Francis,

I dont think you can convince anyone to trust you as Christian teacher unless they are Catholic. Because most Christians who are not in the mainstream churches rely on the Bible only for spiritual and Biblical knowledge and understanding.

We cannot communicate. That is what is going on between Catholics and non-Catholics.

I disagree. I have learned much from Joe and Dadof10. Even if I disagree and it is a simple thing like studying a little harder to make sure that I really disagree. It's a shame that YOU cannot approach scripture and these forums to learn and not to attempt to show everyone that your doctrine is correct (you havn't done very well at it either) I communicate well with Joe and I am a Protestant. Your statement about mainstream churches is ridiculous!! You don't think that Christians should use the Bible for spiritual guidance and Biblical knowledge and understanding?? What's it for?

Westtexas

 

[Mysteryman]

Hi Westtexas :

After everything I explained and asked of you, this is your reply ?

Here, let me try once more --- trinitarinas rewrite the phrase - "the Son of God" and twist it to say -- "God the Son". Yet, there is not one verse of scripture where this phrase is written in this manner. So how do you justify changing scripture in the manner that you do, and continue to hold onto this false phrase ?

We can deal with Hebrews 1:8, but you must realize, that verse 8 must harmonize with verse 9, and verse 9 must harmonize with verse 8 . If you believe that verse 8 is claiming to say, that God, his Father is calling Jesus a god, you are sadly mistaken, and this would totally contradict what it says in verse 9, and the Word of God would not harmonize.

Granted, the phrase "God the Son" is not in scripture. But you seem like an intelligent person so surely your theological approach does not hinge on fact that those 3 words, in that order, are not in scripture. Let me get your response to these questions. Jesus Christ is the Son, correct? If 2 Peter 1:1 is translated "Our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" Jesus Christ is addressed as God, thus the Son is addressed as God. The same in Hebrews 1 "Unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God" If the Son is addressed as God, you have the concept of, God the Son.

Westtexas

Hi Westtexas :

Thanks, but that was like pulling teeth without novacaine. True, there is no such phrase as --- God the Son. So why do people use such a phrase that is not within scripture ? We all know, that scripture clearly says --- The Son of God.

Now lets address the rest of your post.

God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him - Correct ?

Adam was a Father and Cain and Able and Seth were his sons, correct ?

Everyone in their right mind knows that a father and his son are not the same entity (being). The son comes from or preceeds from the father. Since God created man in his own image, there is no difference - correct ?

A son is your seed son, as the Father is the one who produces the seed. Abraham had two sons. One of promise - Isaac. The same holds true, that God promised a son, His only begotten Son. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son. Just as God asked the same of Abraham, when he was to offer up Isaac.

Consistency is one of the keys in understanding scripture. God is not the author of confusion.

II Peter 1:1 does not claim to call Jesus as a god. There are two entities 1. God and Jesus Christ, his Son.

Just before we look at Hebrews 1:8 , let us look at Hebrews 1:6 - "And again, when "he" (God) bringeth in the firstbegotten into this world, he (God) saith, And let all the angels of God whorship him" < This verse clearly shows us, that God sent his Son , his firstbegotten into this world.

Hebrews 1:8 states that God is talking to his Son, about himself. "Thy" ( is equal to "one's own") throne -God, is forever. A throne dictates a kingdom. The word God and King are titles, so God is using this word as a title to His throne. And in I Corinth. 15:27 and 28 we see Jesus handing over the kingdom to his God and his Father, and the son being subject unto God, his Father, that God may be all in all.

Hebrews 1:9 tells us clearly, that Jesus has a God, "therefore God, Thy (one's own) God, hath anointed thee with oil, this is why he is called the messiah, the anointed one.

All scripture must harmonize, and if read properly, they also will harmonize with John 20:17, as well as all of scripture.

There is only one God, and anyone having other gods is idoatry. And anyone who brings about confusion, we know is not of the one true God. I Corinth. 14:33. Confusion always does not bring about peace. The reason that within the church there is envy and strife, is because of confusion, and every evil work.

Making Jesus the Christ - God the Son, is confusion, and brings about envy and strife. Jesus the Christ is the Son of the living God, just as Jesus asked Peter , who do you say that I am. Jesus said to Peter, that flesh and blood has not revealed this unto you, but my Father which is in heaven.

We as Christians rely upon God revealing unto us. These revealings are critical to understanding. This is why we both believe that Mary, a virgin, conceived by the Holy Spirit and brought forth a son. The Spirit of God, the seed of God, the promised Son, was in Christ. and Jesus the Christ came to do the will of his Father , and to reveal unto us his Father, and his God.

God Bless

 

[Danus]

There is nothing wrong with using "persons" if you understand that a hypostasis is not the same thing as a human person with a separate intellect and a separate will. Many non-trinitarians are confused because they see a "person" as a separate entity with an intellect and a will, different than any other human person's intellect and will. God is not that way. There are three persons, hypostasis, but the Being that is God has only ONE intellect and ONE will. Thus, the Son of God does not have a different intellect or will than the Father. Thus, the Words of Jesus. Apply this also to the Spirit of God. There is only one will and one intellect, and this means God retains the "Oneness" of monotheism, since it would not do to have several divine Beings with different wills and intellects running around. There is only one Being called God, and this Being (Entity) is three persons, three hypostasis. Each hypostatis, Father, Son and Spirit, are of the same essence, God. Thus, non-technicians can become confused with this dogma.

Regards

Well I agree. I just think using the word "entity" helps alleviate that confusion. I'm not sure why it has to be a nitty-gritty issue to begin with. I tried to explain the trinity to my daughter once and I went on and on about what it means thinking I was helping her grasp it. At some point she said; "Dad your doing that thing you do again." (being too detailed unnecessarily)

 

[shad]

I disagree. I have learned much from Joe and Dadof10. Even if I disagree and it is a simple thing like studying a little harder to make sure that I really disagree.

Of course you do, you are trinitarian too. We are not. You are on the fence.

I take heed of everything what Jesus teaches and warns. I dont just learn it, I practice it. Mainstream churches are more of talker than doers. Jesus does not approve of lip servers.

Good example is "love your enemy"; You know the verse but you don't practice it.

Jesus says we know them by their fruit, mainstream churches are not showing godly fruit.

 

[Danus]

Hi Danus:

God is a God that changes not ! He can not be less than in one nature, and greater than in another nature. And one can not say that the natures are not similar. Yet you claim by this , that their natures have one identical essence or nature. We all know the scritpure , which states, that Jesus said, his Father was greater than him. And we also know, that Jesus said that he did not come to do his own will, but he will of the Father who sent him.

So many contradictions, and not once have I see any trinitarian solve all these contradictions that they produce by their explanations.

Simply, if Jesus was God, he would have to be God in all essences and attributes. Yet , he is not !

Jesus Christ, after being ascended up into heaven, sits at the right hand of power, the right hand of God, the right hand of his Father. He submits to the will of his Father. And , he hands over the kingdom to his Father, so that God may be all in all. I Corinthians 15:28

So that I'm clear on what your saying; Jesus was not God? I ask this because of your sentience "if Jesus was God, he would have to be God in all essences and attributes. Yet , he is not !"

I'm not seeing where we (Trinitarians) are saying he is grater in one nature and less than in another. I understand the scriptures you are referring to, but I don't read the same thing into them. I don't see that trinitarians are trying to solve it. I'd say non-trinitarians are the ones wrestling with it, and that's fine but the logic we use in solving these issue is like a chain. Each link of the logical chain must pass the pull test. One weak link and the whole thing fails.

Theological issues like this can about be written out like a formula in thought.....you know...If this then this....trouble is I'm not sure where to start on this one. Any suggestions? We can all make statements about what we think but often those statements have predisposed conclusions tied to them. I have to admit I have predisposed conclusions on this subject. I need to establish some true/false statements to tackle this and the fist one is. "Was Jesus God in the flesh?

 

[Mysteryman]

Joe, if you havn't gotten the hint yet, let me make it clear for you. Your comments are only carnal. The reason we will never be on the same page , is for this very reason. Carnality verses spirituality and truth.

This is exactly why I have chosen to rarely speak to you anymore. I had thought maybe some time would change things, but it hasn't. It is still "my views are spiritual and yours are carnal".

You need to get over this "my views are spiritual" and just speak to me man to man, man to boy, man to girl, whatever, if you are able...

If you are able, you'll argument will speak for itself. No need to fall back on the childish "my views are spiritual". That is not how one proves another argument is faulty.

Hi Joe:

I am sorry you feel that way, but this is also the way in which Paul talked to the Corinthians in I Corinth. 3:1 - 3.

He cared, but he was also honest with them. He also could not talked to them spiritually, because they were thinking carnally. So Paul only gave them the milk of the Word, because they could not digest the meat.

Your explanation of calling God a person fits your thinking as being carnal. The word "person" in scripture is only associated with mankind. God is all knowing, and has many attributes. But none of this makes him a person.

God is Spirit ! He is the Holy Spirit. He is a Spirit being.

God is Spirit, a Spirit being. He is not a person !

 

[Mysteryman]

Hi Danus:

God is a God that changes not ! He can not be less than in one nature, and greater than in another nature. And one can not say that the natures are not similar. Yet you claim by this , that their natures have one identical essence or nature. We all know the scritpure , which states, that Jesus said, his Father was greater than him. And we also know, that Jesus said that he did not come to do his own will, but he will of the Father who sent him.

So many contradictions, and not once have I see any trinitarian solve all these contradictions that they produce by their explanations.

Simply, if Jesus was God, he would have to be God in all essences and attributes. Yet , he is not !

Jesus Christ, after being ascended up into heaven, sits at the right hand of power, the right hand of God, the right hand of his Father. He submits to the will of his Father. And , he hands over the kingdom to his Father, so that God may be all in all. I Corinthians 15:28

So that I'm clear on what your saying; Jesus was not God? I ask this because of your sentience "if Jesus was God, he would have to be God in all essences and attributes. Yet , he is not !"

I'm not seeing where we (Trinitarians) are saying he is grater in one nature and less than in another. I understand the scriptures you are referring to, but I don't read the same thing into them. I don't see that trinitarians are trying to solve it. I'd say non-trinitarians are the ones wrestling with it, and that's fine but the logic we use in solving these issue is like a chain. Each link of the logical chain must pass the pull test. One weak link and the whole thing fails.

Theological issues like this can about be written out like a formula in thought.....you know...If this then this....trouble is I'm not sure where to start on this one. Any suggestions? We can all make statements about what we think but often those statements have predisposed conclusions tied to them. I have to admit I have predisposed conclusions on this subject. I need to establish some true/false statements to tackle this and the fist one is. "Was Jesus God in the flesh?

Hi Danus:

Jesus is the one who made these claims that his Father was greater than him. Trinitarians are suggesting that their natures are the same. How can their natures be the same, when Jesus clearly states that the Father is greater than him ? God does not change. Jesus clearly is telling us that he is not God. He made it clear, that he is the Son of/from God.

On the contrary, non trinitarians do not struggle with the words of Jesus. We accept his words for what they say. If Jesus says that his Father is greater than him, we accept this as truth. But when a trinitarian says that Jesus is God, then we have a controversy. Jesus can not be of the same essence and nature, yet be less than the Father. It is impossible.

Let me answer your last question with scripture (was Jesus God in the flesh)

I John 4:12 - 15
I John 5:1 - 5
I John 5:9 - 13
I John 4:2 and 3

 

[Danus]

Hi Danus:

Jesus is the one who made these claims that his Father was greater than him. Trinitarians are suggesting that their natures are the same. How can their natures be the same, when Jesus clearly states that the Father is greater than him ? God does not change. Jesus clearly is telling us that he is not God. He made it clear, that he is the Son of/from God.

On the contrary, non trinitarians do not struggle with the words of Jesus. We accept his words for what they say. If Jesus says that his Father is greater than him, we accept this as truth. But when a trinitarian says that Jesus is God, then we have a controversy. Jesus can not be of the same essence and nature, yet be less than the Father. It is impossible.

Let me answer your last question with scripture (was Jesus God in the flesh)

I John 4:12 - 15
I John 5:1 - 5
I John 5:9 - 13
I John 4:2 and 3

Thank you Mysteryman. I'll dig into these verses. I will use these verses to establish your chain of logic. Then I'll see if they pass the pull test against other verses we might find, or the whole of scripture.
along the way I'm going to have questions. here is the first.

John 10:29-30
29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30I and the Father are one."

Here we see Jesus seeming to back some of what you state. In 29 he clearly seems to differentiate himself from God, but then he says; "No one can snatch them out of my Father's hand." this is odd. Why would the sheep be in the possession of his Father (God) when he just said his father gave them to him? As we read further he explains; "I and the Father are one".

How would you reconcile that to fit the non-trinitarin view?

No trick questions here by the way. Not trying to trap anyone, just want to know.

Lastly, I'm a little disappointed that you did not answer my direct question with a direct answer. Was Jesus God in the flesh? I already believe he was. I don't want to go on an Easter-egg hunt, I want to know what you think and why, from you.

 

[shad]

Was Jesus God in the flesh? I already believe he was.

Do you find the Scripture actually saying this? Where?

thanks.

 

[francisdesales]

This is exactly why I have chosen to rarely speak to you anymore. I had thought maybe some time would change things, but it hasn't. It is still "my views are spiritual and yours are carnal".

You need to get over this "my views are spiritual" and just speak to me man to man, man to boy, man to girl, whatever, if you are able...

If you are able, you'll argument will speak for itself. No need to fall back on the childish "my views are spiritual". That is not how one proves another argument is faulty.

Hi Joe:

I am sorry you feel that way, but this is also the way in which Paul talked to the Corinthians in I Corinth. 3:1 - 3.

He cared, but he was also honest with them. He also could not talked to them spiritually, because they were thinking carnally. So Paul only gave them the milk of the Word, because they could not digest the meat.

And this has nothing to do with you...

Your explanation of calling God a person fits your thinking as being carnal. The word "person" in scripture is only associated with mankind. God is all knowing, and has many attributes. But none of this makes him a person.

No, you are being carnal...

How's that for logic...

Anyone can say "I'm spiritual" and "your carnal". It proves nothing at all. This is a forum where ideas are exchanged, not where people puff themselves up and talk about how spiritual they are and how carnal anyone who disagrees with them are.

God is Spirit ! He is the Holy Spirit. He is a Spirit being.

Yes, God is spirit. He is Holy. He is a spirit-being.

Which does not address whether he is a person or not... The definition I posted does not distinguish between whether a being is material or spiritual. It addresses the ability of an entity to think. Now, are you telling me God cannot think???

Dictionaries. They can be our friends. Don't be afraid of them...

 

[Sinthesis]

Was Jesus God in the flesh? I already believe he was.

Do you find the Scripture actually saying this? Where?

thanks.

• 1Ti 3:16 - And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

 

[francisdesales]

If you are able, you'll argument will speak for itself. No need to fall back on the childish "my views are spiritual". That is not how one proves another argument is faulty.

Francis,

I dont think you can convince anyone to trust you as Christian teacher unless they are Catholic. Because most Christians who are not in the mainstream churches rely on the Bible only for spiritual and Biblical knowledge and understanding.

Shad,

That is quite unnecessary and unfair.

There are a variety of Christian doctrines that non-Catholics and Catholics agree on. I believe I can help people by what I have learned. Many have told me so. In addition, many people here are interested in what Catholics believe, even if they don't want to become Catholic. I try to respect everyone's desire and share my faith with others, understanding that this is a forum where we can exchange beliefs and ideas. I have learned quite a bit from some of my separated brothers here. I believe, even when I disagree with the likes of someone like Mondar, such discussion strengthens my own faith.

Those who rely on "Bible alone", I try to point out the problems with that, but at the end of the day, they must choose whether sola scriptura really is a "pillar" or not... Just saying 'I am spiritual and you are carnal' doesn't really cut it.

We cannot communicate. That is what is going on between Catholics and non-Catholics.

I can communicate and have been for years on this forum.

 

[shad]

Was Jesus God in the flesh? I already believe he was.

Do you find the Scripture actually saying this? Where?

thanks.

• 1Ti 3:16 - And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Thanks but it is not saying Jesus was God in the flesh. Manifesting means revealing. Jesus did the will of God, so everything He did was the same as the Father did.