Misunderstand by Jws and Protestants

[journeymanisnothing]

Hi journeyman

I'm sorry, I guess I missed that point in your explanations so far. Could you be so kind as to point me to your specific posts that have shown where you find God's word condemns us for attempting to separate the Son from the Father is the reason for all error?

Gladly. Jesus could not have been separated from His Father by penal substitution because it's forbidden by Moses law,

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. Deut.24:16 KJV

And the prophets,

whoso confesseth and forsaketh themshall have mercy. Psa.28:13 KJV and Eze.18 (whole chapter.)

The law never allows any father or child to be punished in place of the guilty.

The law demands confession of sin over the sacrifice. The sacrifice is sitting on the Throne in Heaven because only He can forgive sin against Himself.

I think, as I said, God was appeased by the death of His Son.

God never viewd His Son dead. Men did.

I don't think that either of those issues you're asking about was the event that appeased God's wrath.

Jesus curbed His own wrath, which is the same as Gods'.

However, God was surely pleased with the life that His Son lived while here with us.

Yes and God didn't want His Son tortured but He forgave them. God is well pleased that Jesus is merciful. Exactly as His Father is merciful,

Consider it thought about. Ok, here's what I get. Yes, God's Son was the unblemished sacrifice. No, he did not sit on any throne that I can find. The ascension of Jesus mentions that he ascended to sit at the right hand of the Majesty.

Yes Ted the Throne in Heaven,

What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? Jn.6:62 KJV

appreciate your telling me your understanding on that, but I'm not clear on how that applies to this statement: I honestly can't find anywhere in the Scriptures that God alluded to Israel when giving them the law that their sacrifices were somehow to hold Satan at bay.

Who would before the Messiah came Ted? Seriously. Do you think when Paul lived as Saul a Pharisee ( before he came into contact with our Lord, before NT times) would have ever entered a synoguge and said,

For we wrestle notagainst flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Eph.6:12 KJV

And I think that the Scriptures are fairly clear that Jesus will return with his armies to defeat his enemies.

I think the scriptures are clear since our Savior appeared that He returned to us in Spirit and we're in that war now.

I don't really know whether the descriptor of 'mortal' has any purpose, but ok.

Explain how anything mortal survives all heaven and earth engulfed in (a lake of?) fire and you'll see how germane it is.

I do agree, however, just to close out any misunderstanding on the issue you bring up, although it doesn't seem germane, that the majority of Israel expected their Messiah to destroy their enemies on the earth at his first appearance.

They still do and this heretical doctrine was adopted into the church by peoole who taught Jesus is coming back to rule for 1000 years over unrepentant people who ignored Him the first time,

For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, andin the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.) 2Cor.6:2 KJV

The time accepted is when the prayer is genuineg. It better be genuine now...before He returns in Person.

 

[journeymanisnothing]

I am not "seeing" anything at all. I just responded to your post that somehow 1000 years does not mean a literal 1000 year reign of Christ. I am simply saying that it is a literal 1000 years!

The word for one (in Greek "eis") is in no text you cited.

 

[journeymanisnothing]

No sir....I am not thinking any thing at all. YOU said that you were NOT a Trinitarian or did I misunderstand.

I never said that.

 

[miamited]

Hi journeyman

Gladly. Jesus could not have been separated from His Father by penal substitution because it's forbidden by Moses law,

And what post number will I find that?

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. Deut.24:16 KJV

And the prophets,

whoso confesseth and forsaketh themshall have mercy. Psa.28:13 KJV and Eze.18 (whole chapter.)

And what post was that in?

The law never allows any father or child to be punished in place of the guilty.

The law demands confession of sin over the sacrifice. The sacrifice is sitting on the Throne in Heaven because only He can forgive sin against Himself.

And again, respectfully, what post was that in?

I honestly don't remember reading any of that in your previous posts.

God never viewd His Son dead. Men did.

So then the Scriptures are wrong when they say that God raised him from the dead.

Honestly, the rest of your points seem fairly disjointed to me.

God bless,
Ted

 

[Rodger]

No returns in Spirit and yhr Holy Spirit im us along with Christ are Two Faithful Witnesses.
They will let us know if we are approved at the judgement seat Christ, aka the "great white throne judgement.

I used it that way because Peter did and it makes sense. You're seeing us now as being under the authority of other men and demons, but we're not anymore with Christ in us, going to war against them and conquering.

No one is transformed without being tried by fire.

My bad then.

I never said that.

I must have confused you with someone elses post. My apologies.

 

[Rodger]

I am aware of verses that use Father, Son, and Holy Spirit or some combination therefore, but nothing in context describes or explains that they are a Triune God. For me that's a problem. Yet what I can find with frequency is the Father is the only true God in so clear and explicit terms.

What I see in the Bible is that Jesus is an anointed and glorified man with a God that he obeyed, but could have simply chosen not to. Too many issues with Jesus being susceptible to temptation, but God not. The easiest way to make sense of it to me is by what is apparently true. It's that the Bible says Jesus is a man who God was with.

Scarcely is there anything in the New Testament that Jesus was said to have done, received, or became that others cannot. I don't believe that makes Christians God. I use the same standard for what Jesus received from God as what others received; they are all apparently God's children with Jesus being the firstborn.

Also, apparently Jesus didn't say or do anything in the Old Testament. I have seen it said that Jesus = YHWH and yet there are clear instances where Jesus is not. So while I understand and respect your perspective, I myself just can't come to agree with it.

WOW!

I will say this, the doctrine of Predestination and the Trinity The two most difficult things about the Christian faith that there is.

Speaking of the Trinity is that there is no way to perfectly and completely understand it. The Trinity is a concept that is impossible for any human being to fully understand, let alone explain. God is infinitely greater than we are; therefore, we should not expect to be able to fully understand Him. The Bible teaches that the Father is God, that Jesus is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God. That is what we see from Genesis to the Revelation.

The Bible also teaches that there is only one God. Though we can understand some facts about the relationship of the different Persons of the Trinity to one another, ultimately, it is incomprehensible to the human mind. However, this does not mean the Trinity is not true or that it is not based on the teachings of the Bible.

I do not mean to be rude, but may I ask you if you are born again? Have you received the Lord Jesus as your saviour?

Now I can explain this doctrine to you but IMHO, I have to wonder if the time needed to do so would be received by you. I say that because what you post says that your mind is fixed.

 

[Rodger]

Gladly. Jesus could not have been separated from His Father by penal substitution because it's forbidden by Moses law,

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. Deut.24:16 KJV

And the prophets,

whoso confesseth and forsaketh themshall have mercy. Psa.28:13 KJV and Eze.18 (whole chapter.)

The law never allows any father or child to be punished in place of the guilty.

The law demands confession of sin over the sacrifice. The sacrifice is sitting on the Throne in Heaven because only He can forgive sin against Himself.

God never viewd His Son dead. Men did.

Jesus curbed His own wrath, which is the same as Gods'.

Yes and God didn't want His Son tortured but He forgave them. God is well pleased that Jesus is merciful. Exactly as His Father is merciful,

Yes Ted the Throne in Heaven,

What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? Jn.6:62 KJV

Who would before the Messiah came Ted? Seriously. Do you think when Paul lived as Saul a Pharisee ( before he came into contact with our Lord, before NT times) would have ever entered a synoguge and said,

For we wrestle notagainst flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Eph.6:12 KJV

I think the scriptures are clear since our Savior appeared that He returned to us in Spirit and we're in that war now.

Explain how anything mortal survives all heaven and earth engulfed in (a lake of?) fire and you'll see how germane it is.

They still do and this heretical doctrine was adopted into the church by peoole who taught Jesus is coming back to rule for 1000 years over unrepentant people who ignored Him the first time,

For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, andin the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.) 2Cor.6:2 KJV

The time accepted is when the prayer is genuineg. It better be genuine now...before He returns in Person.

Brother, that is not true.

The people who are human and live in the 1000 year rule of Christ will be those humans who accepted the Lord Jesus Christ during the Tribulation and actually lived through it. They are born again Believers and they will enter the Millennialium as humans. THEY will be repentant and saved!

That is what is seen in the Sheep/Goat Judgment in Matthew 25:31-46. The goats symbolized unbelievers who will “go away into eternal punishment” or hell in Matthew 25:41-46. The sheep symbolized believers in Christ who will enter the millennial kingdom or millennium in Matthew 25:31-40. Those who enter the millennial kingdom will enter with mortal bodies. As a result, they can have babies in the millennial kingdom. Those mortal babies will be sinners, just like their mortal parents

 

[journeymanisnothing]

Hi journeyman

And what post number will I find that?

And what post was that in?

And again, respectfully, what post was that in?

No forget that. We're going back to square one. I just showed you where Torah forbids penal substitution. Do you agree or not?

I honestly don't remember reading any of that in your previous posts.

You'll understand why when we're through, along with the heretical ransome theory

So then the Scriptures are wrong when they say that God raised him from the dead.

Not from the viewpoint of us sinners. If people think His life ended for one second then they are. He possessed eternal life before the cross,

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life Jn.3:36 KJV

He said this before He died.,

Honestly, the rest of your points seem fairly disjointed to me.

God bless,
Ted

I know. They did to me once too because I wasn't looking at the scriptures from Gods' viewpoint.
I was indoctrinated with the belief that Jesus came as a substitute for man. He didn't. He came as a substitute for His Father,

I have come in my Father's name, and you do not receive me. Jn.5:43 KJV

 

[journeymanisnothing]

Brother, that is not true.

Rodger,
I want you to understand I'm not at all angry so don't take it that way, but you accused me of saying something I never said. I ask you questions you don't answer. You simply post scripture that appears to conflict. Then, I show you how the verses you cite and I agree my way, but don't your way.

Now you're doing it again with a post of mine that wasn't addressed to you.

So you want an answer? Get together with any commentary you want an explain how substitutionary sacrifice fits with the Torah I cited which forbids it. And please remember in the Eze 18 passage God swears by His Own Name that penal substitution is outlawed in Israel.

 

[miamited]

Hi journeyman

Do you agree or not?

No.

God bless,
Ted

 

[journeymanisnothing]

Hi journeyman

No.

God bless,
Ted

That's ok Ted, but until you can tell me how you interpret the passages I cited which forbid substitutionary sacrifice, there's no point in what you are saying.

 

[Runningman]

WOW!

I will say this, the doctrine of Predestination and the Trinity The two most difficult things about the Christian faith that there is.

Speaking of the Trinity is that there is no way to perfectly and completely understand it. The Trinity is a concept that is impossible for any human being to fully understand, let alone explain. God is infinitely greater than we are; therefore, we should not expect to be able to fully understand Him. The Bible teaches that the Father is God, that Jesus is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God. That is what we see from Genesis to the Revelation.

The Bible also teaches that there is only one God. Though we can understand some facts about the relationship of the different Persons of the Trinity to one another, ultimately, it is incomprehensible to the human mind. However, this does not mean the Trinity is not true or that it is not based on the teachings of the Bible.

There are a lot of reasons why people believe in the Trinity, but I am sure it's a misunderstanding of what the Bible says. The Bible does not say the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit "are God" from Genesis to Revelation. I know this because I used to be a Trinitarian so I have some perspective on this. I recall what it's like holding a belief and then looking for validation for it even if I needed to reach a bit, make deductions, or even project an idea.

There are just too many holes, flaws, and contradictions in the Trinity for me to take it seriously. It's probably the least likely of all possible doctrines to explain God.

I do not mean to be rude, but may I ask you if you are born again? Have you received the Lord Jesus as your saviour?

Yes I am born again. I have received Jesus as both Lord and savior. How about you?

Now I can explain this doctrine to you but IMHO, I have to wonder if the time needed to do so would be received by you. I say that because what you post says that your mind is fixed.

Yes I am fixed on what I believe, but if you would like to try to explain it then I would actually enjoy reading it. Who knows, maybe we'll discover something upon taking a closer look at it.

 

[Rodger]

There are a lot of reasons why people believe in the Trinity, but I am sure it's a misunderstanding of what the Bible says. The Bible does not say the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit "are God" from Genesis to Revelation. I know this because I used to be a Trinitarian so I have some perspective on this. I recall what it's like holding a belief and then looking for validation for it even if I needed to reach a bit, make deductions, or even project an idea.

There are just too many holes, flaws, and contradictions in the Trinity for me to take it seriously. It's probably the least likely of all possible doctrines to explain God.


Yes I am born again. I have received Jesus as both Lord and savior. How about you?


Yes I am fixed on what I believe, but if you would like to try to explain it then I would actually enjoy reading it. Who knows, maybe we'll discover something upon taking a closer look at it.

You are correct that the Bible does not specifically teach the Trinity. However it does so by "Implied Truth"!

Yes I am born again and thanks for asking.

I can explain it but again, why do I need to do that.

You said......"Yes I am fixed on what I believe"!

You see my friend, I am one who believes that you do not need to believe in the Trinity to be saved. However, once it is explained to you, it then becomes an essential of the Christian faith to believe it.

You see, YOU can not be saved with out the grace of the Father, and you can not be saved without the sacrifice of the Son and you can not be saved without the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

Where do we see the teaching that we have one God? We see it throughout the Old Testament. In fact, this was the teaching that at that time separated Judaism from other religions. Monotheism during ancient times was unique, as most nations accepted many gods.

We see this in Deuteronomy 6:4–5: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might” (emphasis mine).

But that is not the only thing the Scripture teaches about the Trinity. It also teaches that God is three separate persons.

Where do we see this?

We have seen this in every place that speaks of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit as uniquely and fully God. We will consider a few Scriptures that teach this.


Isaiah 9:6 says this:

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. (emphasis mine)

In the book of Titus, Paul called Jesus God as well. He said: “While we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ (emphasis mine)” (Titus 2:13).

It should be noted that not only does the Bible teach that Jesus is God, but that he is fully God. He is not fifty percent man and fifty percent God, but one hundred percent God and one hundred percent man, even though we may not be able to fully comprehend how this is possible. Listen to what Colossians 2:9 says about Jesus: “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.”

 

[miamited]

Hi Rodger

And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Just a small point of order. This passage says that 'he will be called...' not that 'he is...' It's possible that God is offering us a prophecy to know who his Son is by what we hear people calling him. It doesn't actually say that he is, or will be, the Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Just sayin'

God bless,
Ted

 

[Rodger]

Rodger,
I want you to understand I'm not at all angry so don't take it that way, but you accused me of saying something I never said. I ask you questions you don't answer. You simply post scripture that appears to conflict. Then, I show you how the verses you cite and I agree my way, but don't your way.

Now you're doing it again with a post of mine that wasn't addressed to you.

So you want an answer? Get together with any commentary you want an explain how substitutionary sacrifice fits with the Torah I cited which forbids it. And please remember in the Eze 18 passage God swears by His Own Name that penal substitution is outlawed in Israel.

Yes I did and I apologized for that. I mistook you for another posters post!!!!

"Runningman" is who said he did not believe in the Trinity. Again, I apologize.

Now......I will be glad to discuss substitutional atonement with you. It is the cornerstone of faith IMHO.

Now, IF the Torah forbides it, what was all the bulls and sheep and doves killed for???

In the simplest possible terms, the biblical doctrine of penal substitution holds that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross takes the place of the punishment we ought to suffer for our sins. As a result, God’s justice is satisfied, and those who accept Christ can be forgiven and reconciled to God.

May I say that according to the doctrine of penal substitution as seen in the Bible, God’s perfect justice demands some form of atonement for sin. Humanity is depraved, to such an extent that we are spiritually dead and incapable of atoning for sin in any way (Ephesians 2:1).

Penal substitution means Jesus’ death on the cross propitiated, or satisfied, God’s requirement for justice. God’s mercy allows Jesus to take the punishment we deserve for our sins. As a result, Jesus’ sacrifice serves as a substitute for anyone who accepts it. In a very direct sense, Jesus is exchanged for us as the recipient of sin’s penalty.

I find that In Genesis 3:21, God used animal skins to cover the naked Adam and Eve. This is the first reference to a death (in this case, an animal’s) being used to cover (atone for) sin.

Then In Exodus 12:13, God’s Spirit “passes over” the homes that are covered (atoned) by the blood of the sacrifice. God requires blood for atonement in Exodus 29:41–42.

The description of Messiah in Isaiah 53:4–6 says His suffering is meant to heal our wounds. The fact that the Messiah was to be “crushed for our iniquities” (verse 5) is a direct reference to penal substitution.

Every bull, every dove and sheep sacrificed in the Old Test. economy "pointed" to what Messiah Jesus would do on the cross.

I for one think that it should be noted, that not only does Christ sacrifice himself on behalf of others, die in their place, and settle their account of sin, but he also becomes a “curse”—bearing that which should have fallen on sinful humanity. This is the very heart of penal substitution; the innocent receives the penalty due the guilty, and the guilty receive the pardon due the innocent.

Now, I do not live by what the Torah says or does not say. Yes, I agree that Jewish roots run deep in the CHristian faith, however Christ died to set me free from the barriers of the Law. and works.

 

[Rodger]

Hi Rodger

Just a small point of order. This passage says that 'he will be called...' not that 'he is...' It's possible that God is offering us a prophecy to know who his Son is by what we hear people calling him. It doesn't actually say that he is the Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Just sayin'

God bless,
Ted

I do not agree with your opinion Ted......That Scripture and especially "He will be called" in the Hebrew is referred to as "Proleptic".

That means that when Isaiah wrote it, he saw it as already having been done.

An example is that in that same verse we see......"A child is born". That in the original speaks of a "completed act"! That same idea applies to ................'he will be called...'.

The Apostle John writes the Revelation in the very same way.

 

[Runningman]

Hi Rodger

Just a small point of order. This passage says that 'he will be called...' not that 'he is...' It's possible that God is offering us a prophecy to know who his Son is by what we hear people calling him. It doesn't actually say that he is, or will be, the Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Just sayin'

God bless,
Ted

And not to quibble, but he wasn't ever called those things. Actually, it would seem most Trinitarians deny the Son is the Everlasting Father. I have yet to find a "mighty God" reference to Jesus in the Bible.

 

[Runningman]

You are correct that the Bible does not specifically teach the Trinity. However it does so by "Implied Truth"!

Yes I am born again and thanks for asking.

I can explain it but again, why do I need to do that.

You said......"Yes I am fixed on what I believe"!

You see my friend, I am one who believes that you do not need to believe in the Trinity to be saved. However, once it is explained to you, it then becomes an essential of the Christian faith to believe it.

You see, YOU can not be saved with out the grace of the Father, and you can not be saved without the sacrifice of the Son and you can not be saved without the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

Where do we see the teaching that we have one God? We see it throughout the Old Testament. In fact, this was the teaching that at that time separated Judaism from other religions. Monotheism during ancient times was unique, as most nations accepted many gods.

We see this in Deuteronomy 6:4–5: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might” (emphasis mine).

But that is not the only thing the Scripture teaches about the Trinity. It also teaches that God is three separate persons.

Where do we see this?

We have seen this in every place that speaks of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit as uniquely and fully God. We will consider a few Scriptures that teach this.


Isaiah 9:6 says this:

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. (emphasis mine)

In the book of Titus, Paul called Jesus God as well. He said: “While we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ (emphasis mine)” (Titus 2:13).

It should be noted that not only does the Bible teach that Jesus is God, but that he is fully God. He is not fifty percent man and fifty percent God, but one hundred percent God and one hundred percent man, even though we may not be able to fully comprehend how this is possible. Listen to what Colossians 2:9 says about Jesus: “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.”

Thank you for sharing what you believe. I have heard the mystery of the incomprehensible Trinity explained numerous times. Yes I do reject it still.

One thing I would add is that I think the verses you quoted get by on technicalities. For example, as miamited pointed out, Isaiah 9:6 says he would be "called" those things and yet where was he called those things? There don't seem to be any examples. I would offer you that language translation can take many different possible directions, but the general context of the Bible should inform a good translation. Isaiah 9:6 has been translated differently.

Also, in Titus 2:13, it actually doesn't necessarily say Jesus is God still. Why? Because in English translations the placement of punctuation can drastically alter the way a sentence reads. For example, if the comma is removed then suddenly Jesus is isn't the Great God and Savior anymore, but rather Great God and Savior Jesus become two distinct persons. As John 3:16,17 says, God saves through Jesus. They can both be saviors without being the same person, but only one is God. With the Father being that one God, that's the precedent I believe we should work from.

Colossians 2:9 saying "in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form" doesn't really hit the mark either. Ephesians 3:19 says that Christians can be filled with the fullness of God. That changes everything. Being filled with God doesn't mean someone is God then.

May I get your perspective on those points I made, please?

 

[miamited]

I do not agree with your opinion Ted......That Scripture and especially "He will be called" in the Hebrew is referred to as "Proleptic".

That means that when Isaiah wrote it, he saw it as already having been done.

An example is that in that same verse we see......"A child is born". That in the original speaks of a "completed act"! That same idea applies to ................'he will be called...'.

The Apostle John writes the Revelation in the very same way.

Hi Rodger

I'm not familiar with the term 'proleptic', but you do recall that the Hebrews got several other matters about Jesus wrong also... right? I honestly doubt that anyone can even know what Isaiah meant or understood about the passage when he wrote it. It's my understanding that a lot of Hebrews never understood Daniel's prophecy of the 69 sevens. So, while I'm always willing to hear what others, especially the Jews, thought about the things of God, I do know for an absolute fact that a lot of them got some of it wrong. Even Jesus brought this up among them!

For example, I'm all in that the Jews are correct about the number of years the creation has existed from the beginning. But that's an easy matter of them just keeping an accounting of the years as they passed, and accepting the basic understanding and construct of the book of Genesis. The historical books are much, much easier to be in agreement with than the prophetic books. It is the prophetic books that they had trouble understanding. At least as it pertains to their Messiah.

God bless,
Ted

 

[miamited]

And not to quibble, but he wasn't ever called those things. Actually, it would seem most Trinitarians deny the Son is the Everlasting Father. I have yet to find a "mighty God" reference to Jesus in the Bible.

Hi Runningman

I should have been more clear. I didn't mean that there would be places in the Scriptures where he would be called these things. I meant that people living on the earth as we learn to know God and gain the wisdom and understanding that He has given us through His word and through His Spirit would be referring to him as these things. So, for me, it's possible that God was telling us to look for the one of whom these such claims were being made by those living on the earth concerning him.

God bless,
Ted