Only ONE TRUE GOD.

[unred typo]

Yes it is but I am not sure if I will post them afterwards, who needs them anyway?

Are they given you to share to edify the body of Christ or to admonish and encourage your own heart?

:-?

 

[Imagican]

Imagican,

you say it is us who believe in the trinity that have forced God into a box so that we can understand Him, your arguements suggest to me it is the other way around.

Well, let's see.......... There WAS NO 'trinity' for at least the first two hundred years AFTER the death of Christ. Christ stated PLAINLY that what He had to offer was NOT His own BUT given Him by the Father.

Have you decided to reject the verses that say Jesus is God because you can't accept it was God on the cross taking the punishment for your sins? It is easier to think it was His only Son and not God himself?

I don't know that I have encountered these statements to which you refer. Just the opposite in fact. Christ NEVER stated that He was God. NEVER ONCE. Show me where He did and I will recant what I have stated.

Strange..........We KNOW that God IS The Father. And here we have Jesus Christ on the cross asking, 'My Father, why hath thou forsaken me?' And you claim that this was God Himself nailed to the cross.

As sin was introduced into this world by ONE MAN, so too must it need be that by ONE MAN sin be overcome.

As the trinity is something man can never fully understand, maybe it is us open to the spirit, and you have confined God into something you can understand, that God is not three in one.

There is ONLY ONE GOD. The Hebrews/Jews have know this since the beginning of the relationship of God with man. And exactly how is it that this 'three part God' was NEVER revealed to 'the chosen' of God? Hard one to answer, huh?

Strange once again. I have NO problem understanding Christ as WHO He Himself offered that He IS. It seems as though those that accept this 'trinity' are the ones that have a problem understanding. I don't have a 'need' to 'make up' stuff concerning the essence of Christ. I have simply accepted what has been offered by God, Christ and the apostles concerning such. It is those that have chosen to follow 'man-made' doctrine that seem to be confused as to the identity of Christ. And I needed NO MAN to teach me of God, The Father, and Christ, His Son.

You argue that the words Father and Son imply God the father being first, this is a restriction of language. The word Begotten solves this problem.

And I have already offered the falacy that the 'trins' offer concerning this word; 'begotten'. And this takes quite a stretch of the imagination to IGNORE the words used by God AND His Son concerning their relationship. For it was NOT me who used these words to describe the relationship, But God and Christ themselves.

What about Hebrews 1:
8But about the Son he says,
"Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,
and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy

This is God referring to Jesus as God, how can you ignore that, just cause it doesn't make complete sense to you?

I ignore NOTHING concerning The Word. It just seems that those that 'WANT' to see it in a way that justifies their beliefs can attribute MUCH to their beliefs that truly have different meanings than what they choose to percieve.

God sent His Son. God IS The Father of Christ. These two statements are FACT. Christ, The Son of God, came to this world, died, was ressurected and now sits at the 'right hand of God. This too is fact. That Christ and God are the same is NOT. That Christ IS a 'part of God' is without doubt. But that Christ IS God is 'man-made' theology that was NEVER offered by God or His Son.

 

[Imagican]

Mec and Mutz. I see you are still pagans.
Since words don't work, perhaps a diagram will

And oscar, I suppose next you will offer that God drew this diagram...............

MEC

 

[Imagican]

Now THAT IS INTERESTING. I have seen it before of course but have never thought of it like that. What are the predominant features of many pagan symbols? Triangle and Circle. Goodness that does look like a pagan symbol doesn't it :-?

Interesting observation Mutz. I do seem to recall these symbols being used by MANY pagan religions. Even religions involving satanism. Not that thier symbol represents such, but it does bring about a bit of suspicion that they would need to use such to describe something SO CRUCIAL to their beliefs.

MEC

 

[Jon-Marc]

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all ONE. Jesus said, "I and my Father are one" in John 10:30.

 

[jgredline]

And oscar, I suppose next you will offer that God drew this diagram...............

MEC

Actually this type of drawing was used by the first century church quite often.
The trinity was being taught in the first century church by the early church fathers.

 

[Georges]

Actually this type of drawing was used by the first century church quite often.
The trinity was being taught in the first century church by the early church fathers.

NON Truth.......you should know better than that....the trinity as you well know wasn't fully developed before the 4th century...any attempt to say it was an accepted truth before that is irresponsible...

 

[Solo]

NON Truth.......you should know better than that....the trinity as you well know wasn't fully developed before the 4th century...any attempt to say it was an accepted truth before that is irresponsible...

http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-catholic-nicene.htm

 

[jgredline]

NON Truth.......you should know better than that....the trinity as you well know wasn't fully developed before the 4th century...any attempt to say it was an accepted truth before that is irresponsible...

Georges
How goes there?... I see you came to discredit my post and Solo gave you the smack down :-D Don't feel bad, alot of people don't know that the trinity was infact a first century doctrine, and not a 3rd or 4th century doctrine like all you folk who don't believe Jesus is God would like to believe. Constantine only made it legal to believe it..... Thats it.......

Thanks Solo !!!!!


http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-catholic-nicene.htm

 

[jgredline]

Among the religious leaders who have attained a large following throughout history, Jesus Christ is unique in the fact that He alone claimed to be God in human flesh. A common misconception is that some or many of the leaders of the world’s religions made similar claims, but this is simply not the case.
Buddha did not claim to be God; Moses never said that he was Yahweh; Mohammed did not identify himself as Allah; and nowhere will you find Zoroaster claiming to be Ahura Mazda. Yet Jesus, the carpenter from Nazareth, said that he who has seen Him (Jesus) has seen the Father (John 14:9).
The claims of Christ are many and varied. He said that He existed before Abraham (John 8:58), and that He was equal with the Father (John 5:17, 18). Jesus claimed the ability to forgive sins (Mark 2:5–7), which the Bible teaches was something that God alone could do (Isaiah 43:25).
The New Testament equated Jesus as the creator of the universe (John 1:3), and that He is the one who holds everything together (Colossians 1:17). The apostle Paul says that God was manifest in the flesh (I Timothy 3:16, KJV), and John the evangelist says that “the Word was God†(John 1:1). The united testimony of Jesus and the writers of the New Testament is that He was more than mere man; He was God.
Not only did His friends notice that He claimed to be God, but so did His enemies as well. There may be some doubt today among the skeptics who refuse to examine the evidence, but there was no doubt on the part of the Jewish authorities.
When Jesus asked them why they wanted to stone Him, they replied, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God†(John 10:33, NASB).
This fact separates Jesus from the other religious figures. In the major religions of the world, the teachingsâ€â€not the teacherâ€â€are all-important.
Confucianism is a set of teachings; Confucius is not important. Islam is the revelation of Allah, with Mohammed being the prophet, and Buddhism emphasizes the principles of the Buddha and not Buddha himself. This is especially true of Hinduism, where there is no historic founder.
However, at the center of Christianity is the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus did not just claim to be teaching mankind the truth; He claimed that He was the truth (John 14:6).
What Jesus taught is not the important aspect of Christianity, but what is important is who Jesus was. Was He the Son of God? Is He the only way a person can reach God? This was the claim He made for Himself.
Suppose this very night the President of the United States appeared on all the major networks and proclaimed that “I am God Almighty. I have the power to forgive sin. I have the authority to raise my life back from the dead.â€Â
He would be quickly and quietly shut off the air, led away, and replaced by the Vice-President. Anybody who would dare make such claims would have to be either out of his mind or a liar, unless he was God.
This is exactly the case with Jesus. He clearly claimed all these things and more. If He is God, as He claimed, we must believe in Him, and if He is not, then we should have nothing to do with Him. Jesus is either Lord of all or not Lord at all.
Yes, Jesus claimed to be God. Why should anyone believe it? After all, merely claiming to be something does not make it true. Where’s the evidence that Jesus is God?
The Bible gives various reasons, including miracles and fulfilled prophecy, that are intended to convince us that Jesus is the one whom He said He was (John 20:30, 31). The main reason, or the sign which Jesus Himself said would demonstrate that He was the Son of God, was His resurrection from the dead.
When asked for a sign from the religious leaders, Jesus replied, “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth†(Matthew 12:40, RSV).
In another place He said, when asked for a sign, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up… but he spake of the temple of his body†(John 2:19, 21, KJV). The ability to raise His life back from the dead was the sign that separates Him not only from all other religious leaders, but also from anyone else who has ever lived.
Anyone wishing to refute the case for Christianity must explain away the story of the resurrection. Therefore, according to the Bible, Jesus proves to be the Son of God by coming back from the dead (Romans 1:4). The evidence is overwhelming that Jesus did rise from the grave, and it is this fact that proves Jesus to be God.

McDowell, J., & Stewart, D. D.

 

[mutzrein]

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all ONE. Jesus said, "I and my Father are one" in John 10:30.

I and my father are also one. That doesn't make me my father or even the same as my father. We are one in spirit and this is the unity that Jesus referred to.

 

[Solo]

I and my father are also one. That doesn't make me my father or even the same as my father. We are one in spirit and this is the unity that Jesus referred to.

Not true.

 

[mutzrein]

Not true.

Spoken like a true dyed-in-the-wool trinitarian. :wink:

But I can assure you. I and my father are one.

 

[jgredline]

I and my father are also one.

:o How do u figure? Are you saying that u are God?

That doesn't make me my father or even the same as my father. We are one in spirit and this is the unity that Jesus referred to.

Ahhhh, No.....
Please explain...

 

[mutzrein]

Ahhhh, No.....
Please explain...

No of course I'm not God. Did I say I was God?

And what is there to explain?

 

[Jon-Marc]

Why would they try to stone Him if that was the case? The verses following that one say, (31) Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. (32) Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? (33) The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."

The relationship between an earthly father and his son is NOT the same as the relationship between God the Father and His son. They ARE ONE. I and my earthly dad were never one; we were two separate beings. However, God is a triune God, Father, son, and Holy Spirit. NOTHING is impossible for God, and that includes being THREE in ONE. We cannot with our finite minds ever comprehend an infinite God.

I and my father are also one. That doesn't make me my father or even the same as my father. We are one in spirit and this is the unity that Jesus referred to.

 

[SpiritualSon]

To All,
God is one in Person and in Essence, and that God is Jesus Christ.

Harry :fadein:

 

[RJS]

To All,
God is one in Person and in Essence, and that God is Jesus Christ.

Harry :fadein:

The historic Christian faith is found in the Ecumenical Creeds. See the Athinasian Creed

 

[Imagican]

Ok, if Jesus and God were 'one', as in, 'the same' as in Jesus IS God, then HOW is it possible that there are things that God knows that Christ DOES NOT? If they are 'one' then why would they need to communicate with 'each other'? And if NO MAN has EVER 'seen God', then HOW could Christ BE God? I have yet for a 'trinitarian' to offer an acceptable answer to these types of questions. Talk around in circles? Sure. But a reasonable answer, NEVER.

Are the angels a 'part' of God? Yet we see and understand that they are NOT God Himself. Is the Son a 'part' of God? Absolutely. But once again, simply being a 'part' does not make ANYTHING 'that thing' period. Are WE a 'part' of God? Of course. But neither are we God Himself.

And j, once again, you offer false teaching in order to defend your belief. First of all. NOT EVEN IN THE WORD offered by the apostles is there a 'trinity'. THESE were the first Church fathers. And Constantine was a PAGAN Emperor. This man was NOT a Christian when the council of Nicea took place. He was simply tired of the bickering over 'trinity' and chose to incorporate it into Christianity for the sake of 'peace' among the Bishops. That proves NOTHING so far as the validity of this doctrine. If ANYTHING it goes further towards proving that it was more likely to have been formed through PAGAN roots than through The Spirit. And IF it was truly of Spiritual origins, then HOW could it be possible for those led by The Spirit to torture and murder their brothers and sisters who REFUSED to accept it?

MEC

 

[Free]

Ok, if Jesus and God were 'one', as in, 'the same' as in Jesus IS God, then HOW is it possible that there are things that God knows that Christ DOES NOT? If they are 'one' then why would they need to communicate with 'each other'? And if NO MAN has EVER 'seen God', then HOW could Christ BE God? I have yet for a 'trinitarian' to offer an acceptable answer to these types of questions.

You've been given some very good, very reasonable answers; you just don't accept them. This is the key passage that I have given to you several times:

Phi 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Phi 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Phi 2:7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Phi 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

If you understood what was being said, you would have the answer to your questions, except the last one because it makes no sense.

First of all. NOT EVEN IN THE WORD offered by the apostles is there a 'trinity'.

I just gave you a passage which gives one of the foundations of the Trinity, just as you have been given many other passages which support this and the other foundations of the Trinity.

And Constantine was a PAGAN Emperor. This man was NOT a Christian when the council of Nicea took place. He was simply tired of the bickering over 'trinity' and chose to incorporate it into Christianity for the sake of 'peace' among the Bishops. That proves NOTHING so far as the validity of this doctrine. If ANYTHING it goes further towards proving that it was more likely to have been formed through PAGAN roots than through The Spirit.

Constantine has nothing to do with the formulation of the Trinity. The purpose of the Council of Nicea, under the leadership of Athanasius, was to come to an agreement on the nature of Christ. That in itself proves that belief in Christ as God was already in existence and being taught in the churches. There are writings from the early second century which show as much.

And IF it was truly of Spiritual origins, then HOW could it be possible for those led by The Spirit to torture and murder their brothers and sisters who REFUSED to accept it?

If I remember correctly, trinitarians were also persecuted later on when Arianism enjoyed a brief resurgence. Regardless, your question begs the question of whether or not those who reject Christ as God are Christians, are "brothers and sisters".

Could it be that the early trinitarians were so zealous for the truth and realized the seriousness of the error of not believing Christ to be God that they did something about it? They were fighting for orthodoxy, for "right belief", at a very volatile time in the early church when there were numerous beliefs teaching different Christs. This certainly doesn't justify what they did but whether or not one believes Christ is God is a matter of life and death.