Only ONE TRUE GOD.

[mutzrein]

Ah dear MEC - once more into the breech :wink: Hopefully will be back later in the day (NZ time) with more ammunition.

 

[Oscar3]

Imagican wrote:
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.

Hello Mec. Its me again, your favorite poster.
I can't resist answering this question, since its a very easy question to answer, and being that I am not the sharpest tool in the shed, wll it will be fun. The simple truth is that While Jesus was chilling here on earth for 33 years or so, he gave himself completely to his humanity, while still being God. So while he was here with us, he did not know the day or the hour of when he would return. Now that he is back at the right hand of the father, you bet he knows when he is coming back. You see Mec, the only way the Scritures make sense from the beginning to the end is via the Godhead or Trinity.

Free, and you call this a 'reasonable answer'? Firstly, this scripture states that Christ was 'in the 'form' of God'. I ask you this: WHAT IS the 'form' of God? You answer this and you will quickly see how confused you are in your interpretation. Second, this scripture PLAINLY states that Christ 'DID NOT count equality A THING TO BE GRASPED. Do you NOT see what this is saying. IT PLAINLY states that Christ REALIZED that 'equality' with God was NOT a thing to BE GRASPED. Unlike Satan, Christ is PERFECTLY content with 'His place'. And realizes that equality with God is NOT a thing to attempt to 'create'.
MEC

mEC, Mec, mec
Another easy question. I seem to recall that Jg posted a thread on ''the angel of the Lord'' You have never answered who ''The Angel of the Lord'' is.
The Angel of the Lord is Jesus Christ in carnite. (GOD) I will see if I can find the thread for you.

 

[Oscar3]

Now, oscar, do us a favor and quote just ONE of the apostles that even MENTIONED this 'trinity'. Or a piece of scripture offered through Christ or EVEN God Himself perhaps, that speaks of this 'trinity'......................

Ah, I didn't think so. So, can I assume that you too would agree that this 'trinity' was 'created by men' instead of offered by God?

MEC

Not so fast :-?
I seem to recall that Paul is an Apostle. Does he count?

2 cor 13:14 kjv The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

:smt062 The term Smack down was used when I played football. So now this is a differant type of Smack Down :-D :smt075

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

and oscar, your eloquent us of the english language goes FAR in presenting the spirit which you follow, (and I suppose you are a 'big' wrestling fan eh?) Smack-down? I guess that could have been used to describe the treatment of the brothers and sisters of those that 'created' this 'trinity' whom they tortured and murdered for REFUSING to accept this 'man-made' doctrine. And your quotes do NOTHING but offer this same conclusion; 'man-made' doctrine.

Now, oscar, do us a favor and quote just ONE of the apostles that even MENTIONED this 'trinity'. Or a piece of scripture offered through Christ or EVEN God Himself perhaps, that speaks of this 'trinity'......................

Ah, I didn't think so. So, can I assume that you too would agree that this 'trinity' was 'created by men' instead of offered by God?

MEC

Howdy MEC
I believe that the word English is supposed to be capitalized.

 

[mutzrein]

Yet there is nothing to indicate that this is what Jesus was referring to. Are you and your father not one in another way? Are you not both human by nature? Your father, being human, begat you, a human.

So how is it that the Father, who is God, begat someone who isn't God, who isn't of the same nature? Why can it not be said that they are one in nature? If Jesus isn't God then how can he be the Son of God?

Free – and any others

Ah . . . I hadn’t realised that folks had an issue differentiating between nature and position. But I thought that would have been a given – unless of course the doctrine clouds a person’s mind to it.

You see, a king is a person of royalty. A son of that king (a prince) is no less royal by virtue of the fact that he is ‘from’ the king. So while the prince is by nature royalty also, he is nevertheless still only a prince as long as his father is the king.

So Jesus by nature inherited all the attributes of perfection attributed to his Father but his position remained as subservient to God, his Father.

 

[mutzrein]

Mutz
The problem that you forgot to mention to Jon-marc is that; not only do you not believe in the trinity, but you believe the ''sin'' of not believing that Jesus is God. Yes this is a ''sin'' for you are denying Jesus of his deity. As the scriptures teach;''ONLY GOD CAN FORGIVE SINS'' so if Jesus is not God who will forgive your sins?

Mutz and Mec or Mec and Mutz
You two are dangerously close of commiting the unpardonable sin. You guys are basically doing the same thing the pharissess accused Jesus of by telling him that he was casting out demons by belzzabub. In the the same way they denied him his deity, you are also doing the same.

Don't get mad, think about it. Who are you attributing the things that Jesus has done on the Cross to? Certainly not God, because you don't believe Jesus is God. If you don't believe Jesus is God, then God is not God.

Now more than a few minutes ago Adrian Rodgers had a good point.

''The Devil would much rather send you to hell while sitting in a church pew instead of using a Gun''

It's peculiar how selective some people are in the reading of scripture isn't it.

This is what Jesus said (KJV), "Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

But as far as the unpardonable sin is concerned - scripture and verse?

And as far as 'attributing the things that Jesus has done on the cross' is concerned, what are you saying there?

And btw who is Adrian Rodgers?

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

And btw who is Adrian Rodgers?

Was.
He passed away last year.
He was the founder of "Love Worth Finding" Ministries, the Pastor of Bellevue Baptist Church, in Memphis Tenn.
If I am not mistaken, he served several terms as the President of the Southern Baptist Convention.
He was a wonderful man of God and a terrific preacher. Very much missed.

 

[mutzrein]

I have been in this world for 60 years and have known the Lord for 43 of those. I have heard about the Trinity from Baptist ministers all those years. I have also been to Bible college, read the Bible through many times and done extensive studying and have come to the same conclusion as those ministers. I have also learned that I am no Bible scholar, and there is much I don't know. The word of God is so vast and complex that no one can learn it all in one lifetime.

Of course, one thing I have also learned in my 60 years is that I am often wrong. I try to use scripture to back up what I say, but unfortunately not everyone sees the same scripture the same way. I try not to judge and condmen other people since only God has that right. However, I will say what I believe to be the truth without calling others a liar, or saying they are of the devil. I am positve that all I know and learn is taught to me by God's spirit, although satan is constantly lying to me and trying to get me to doubt God--just as he did with Eve.

Jon-Marc. Your photo belies your age and therefore I would have picked you for a younger man. :wink: I am still a few years from 60 and have known the Lord for the past 26.

I am not an academic either. And I've never been to bible college although there was a time when I knew that I must serve the Lord and thought that a bible college or similar would be a step toward whatever God desired for me. Of course I never got there and as I reflect on it I can only say that God had other plans for me.

Now I hear what you are saying Jon-Marc and I have no desire to be seen in your eyes as a vessel for satan's lies. As you have indicated, and I agree, we must walk by faith, so if I say anything that causes you to step outside of your walk of faith I would rather not do it.

So I find myself in a catch 22. I love talking about the Lord, since I am confident in the knowledge of my relationship and walk with him. My heart's desire is toward the Lord and I know that what he has borne within me, as far as the truth of the gospel is concerned, will not be quenched. And while I enjoy the opportunities that I am given to speak and write of the things that are dear to my heart, I would rather not pursue something that you are unable to receive as being from the Lord and with a heart that is open to it.

May the Lord bless you

 

[destiny]

Mutz, your picture makes me think of a professor type, with a hint of mischeviousness.
Jon Marc has a tough look, like someone you don't mess with.

OK...back on topic 8-)

 

[mutzrein]

Mutz, your picture makes me think of a professor type, with a hint of mischeviousness.
Jon Marc has a tough look, like someone you don't mess with.

OK...back on topic 8-)

Off topic

As I've said - I'm no academic so I'm no professor type. BUT the Lord has blessed me with an adequate sense of humour which often borders on the mischevious.

Some might say I play the devil's advocate at times but I am the Lord's.

Interestingly, my known name does seem to suit my character. It means 'happy spear'

On topic

 

[Jon-Marc]

Destiny,

I've had a hard life, and I'm sure it shows in my face. I took that photo with my Webcam a few weeks ago. However, I am a gentle person who would never hurt anyone except in self defense. I'm French on my dad's side and tend to be more of a lover than a fighter. Unfortunately, I do tend to be a bit outspoken and often say the wrong things, or I say the right things the wrong way. I tend to speak and write without using all of my thought process.

Mutz, your picture makes me think of a professor type, with a hint of mischeviousness.
Jon Marc has a tough look, like someone you don't mess with.

OK...back on topic 8-)

 

[scorpia]

O good grief - the difference is not in adding to or subtracting from scripture but in the way that scripture is interpreted.

By the way, who has the sole authority to interpret the scripture
[quote:87cab]
Many, it seems cannot get their head around any other interpretation of the word 'one' than the way they want to see it or have been told it should be interpreted.

Aren't you one among them in this case? Whose interpretation is the right one then?

So let me ask you this question. When a husband & wife are joined together in marriage are they two or one?

They are always two (physically and spiritually) and not one. A husband will be judged according to what he did and so is the wife that she will be judged according to what she did. They will not be judged as one. The Lord said that He did not really say that a man and a women when joined together in marriege will be one but what the Lord said then is this, ".....and I will give you one flesh", which is no other but the offspring of the husband and wife.

And btw I'm pretty sure some of your posts contained stuff that many here have not read in scripture.

I for once had put all my faith in what the scripture is saying but when the Lord God himself has came in to our life, the Lord is always reminding us to put all our trust in Him only, the Almighty Lord God of all ages, and not to anything else, even to any scripture for they are not the Lord God who is only One. What is important is that same comes from the mouth of the Lord God Jesus Christ and not from me or from anyone else. So, there is no big deal here if they are not found in the scripture, what is best, it surely comes from the Lord.

Why, even this post could be seen as an example could it not?

It could be unless you can directly testify to all that same were directly uttered to you by the Lord (Moses' case or Damascus' way, etc.) and that you did not just learn them from the bible. In that case, you have put the focus of faith on the deity of the Lord God himself and not on the scripture. Tell us how did the Lord teach you this thing.

My bible says, "I and my Father are one" Can you not see that you have added something that is not there. Instead of 'one' indicating unity, you have made it 'One'. Now why is that I wonder.

[/quote:87cab]
I'm sorry but if that means a lot to you, I agree with the word "one" and you can forget all about "One"..

 

[scorpia]

So how is it that the Father, who is God, begat someone who isn't God, who isn't of the same nature? Why can it not be said that they are one in nature? If Jesus isn't God then how can he be the Son of God?

Good point bro. Can a puppy be a begotten cab of a lion?

 

[destiny]

Destiny,

I've had a hard life, and I'm sure it shows in my face. I took that photo with my Webcam a few weeks ago. However, I am a gentle person who would never hurt anyone except in self defense. I'm French on my dad's side and tend to be more of a lover than a fighter. Unfortunately, I do tend to be a bit outspoken and often say the wrong things, or I say the right things the wrong way. I tend to speak and write without using all of my thought process.

I know i'm dragging this off topic again..

JonMarc, I was just kidding around, it's fun to try to guess a personality based on a photo.
I don't think you look your age at all, so I don't think you look like you've had a hard life. Saying you have a tough look wasn't meant to be negative or I wouldn't have said it.
Based on your posts I know you are a godly man with a gentle spirit.

 

[scorpia]

a man a woman wed and 'become ONE'

The bible says so but not the Lord God in actuality for the Lord said to us that when a man and a woman wed, He will give them one flesh and He really did not say that the two will become one flesh.

[quote:4f6b4]God and Christ are ONE. Instead of denial, please offer some scriptural or Spiritual understanding that shows that this 'oneness' between us, God, Christ and each other differs somehow?[/b]

Simply go back to the Old Testament books and you will see that there is only One God who spoke to the prophets and that very same God inhabited/lived/came in/dwelt only to a bodily flesh (like our very own body) born of Mary in the New Testament and the name of this God in the Old Testament is also Jesus or Emmanuel, or Prince of Peace or Counsellor, Everlasting Father, or Mighty God, or the Lord, or the Almighty Lord God or Jehovah, etc.

Christ CAN be the Son without being God Himself by the SIMPLE FACT that there is ONLY ONE GOD.

How did God beget Jesus then? REmember that the bible says "begotten Son" and not only Son of God.

And Christ was/IS CERTAINLY a 'part of God'.

Confusing! How is this?

This IS without doubt. But that He is also a 'separate entity is OBVIOUS from the words from His OWN MOUTH

Hence many are still in limbo as to who Jesus really is until this time.

Christ IS The Son of God.

How and in what way?

And like MY FATHER, even though I was begotten of my father, and in some ways, we are ONE,

The bible says I and the Father are one and not in some ways they are one.

we are NOT 'the same'. I am but a 'part' of my father and there is NOTHING that I can do to 'make' myself him.

[/quote:4f6b4]
You missed the important one, you and your father are both human beings and for your statement to be parallel in meaning to Jesus statement in John 10:30, Jesus and the Father must both be God too.

 

[Free]

Firstly, this scripture states that Christ was 'in the 'form' of God'. I ask you this: WHAT IS the 'form' of God? You answer this and you will quickly see how confused you are in your interpretation. Second, this scripture PLAINLY states that Christ 'DID NOT count equality A THING TO BE GRASPED. Do you NOT see what this is saying. IT PLAINLY states that Christ REALIZED that 'equality' with God was NOT a thing to BE GRASPED. Unlike Satan, Christ is PERFECTLY content with 'His place'. And realizes that equality with God is NOT a thing to attempt to 'create'.

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.

You asked me: "WHAT is the 'form' of God?". Your answer lies in vs. 7: "taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men". If you want to deny that the 'form' of God isn't also the same as being 'in nature God' (as some tranlsations state), then you must necessarily deny that he was human in nature - "taking the form of a servant" is immediately explained by "being born in the likeness of men".

Also, you seem to think that "something to be grasped" simply means "something to not attain to", and while this is a correct interpretation, it is only one possible interpretation and one that doesn't fit the context. "Something to be grasped" can also be understood as "something to be forcibly retained", that is, "held on to". And this fits the context perfectly since immediately following it is stated that "[Christ] made himself nothing," or "emptied himself".

This passage is most clearly contrasting his former state with his latter - he was in nature God, but in humility, took on the nature of a servant so that he could die on the cross to reconcile us to God. If this isn't the case, then perhaps you can shed some light both on what "form" means and what it was that Christ "emptied himself" of.

How deceptive you can be in your offerings. Constantine WAS THE ONE that made the DECISION to ACCEPT 'tinity' into the RCC.

Deceptive am I?

There was no RCC until the "Great Schism" of 1054 AD (I can't remember if this is the exact date). Constantine was one of the the Emperors of Rome who eventually moved the center of the Roman empire to Byzantium, which he called "New Rome". This became the center of the Roman empire and the Christian Church. After his death it was renamed Constantinople and then around 1930 it was renamed "Istanbul", which is where I was for a day this summer walking around the Hagia Sophia, the former head Christian Church.

The Council of Nicea attempted to settle the debate on the nature of Christ, not decide on whether or not to accept the Trinity. The question of the Holy Spirit's deity wasn't accepted until 381 AD, long after Constantine's death in 337 AD, at the Council of Constantinople which was again led by Athanasius.

Perhaps you would fair well by studying history before making such statements that could influence others that know no better

Perhaps you should take your own advice. You should be much more careful in insulting people...

Yet you state that this statement of Christ and God being ONE indicates that they are 'the same'. WRONG. Christ IS The Son of God. And like MY FATHER, even though I was begotten of my father, and in some ways, we are ONE, we are NOT 'the same'. I am but a 'part' of my father and there is NOTHING that I can do to 'make' myself him.

My point was that there is more than one way to be "one". Even the Jews understood Jesus' being the Son of God as being equal to God. The problem with your argument above is that I am not arguing Jesus is the Father, they are distinct, like you and your father. But just as "like begets like", your father begat you, both humans, the Father begat the Son, both God. That is my argument - the very natures of Christ and the Father are the same and it logically follows then that Christ is also God, just as the Father.

 

[scorpia]

Free – and any others

Ah . . . I hadn’t realised that folks had an issue differentiating between nature and position. But I thought that would have been a given – unless of course the doctrine clouds a person’s mind to it.

You see, a king is a person of royalty. A son of that king (a prince) is no less royal by virtue of the fact that he is ‘from’ the king. So while the prince is by nature royalty also, he is nevertheless still only a prince as long as his father is the king.

So Jesus by nature inherited all the attributes of perfection attributed to his Father but his position remained as subservient to God, his Father.

Well said and understood mutz but did you miss the important point in your presentation, that the king and the prince were both human beings by nature? It goes then that both Jesus and the Father must be God too by their nature, if not, then what you're saying is nothing.

 

[jgredline]

Now, oscar, do us a favor and quote just ONE of the apostles that even MENTIONED this 'trinity'. Or a piece of scripture offered through Christ or EVEN God Himself perhaps, that speaks of this 'trinity'......................

Ah, I didn't think so. So, can I assume that you too would agree that this 'trinity' was 'created by men' instead of offered by God?

MEC

Not so fast :-?
I seem to recall that Paul is an Apostle. Does he count?

2 cor 13:14 kjv The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

:smt062 The term Smack down was used when I played football. So now this is a differant type of Smack Down :-D :smt075

2 cor 13 η χαρις του κυριου ιησου(Iesous/Jesus) χριστου και η αγαπη του θεου(theos/GOD) και η κοινωνια του αγιου πνευματος (hagios Holy/pneuma Spirit)μετα παντων υμων αμην [προς κορινθιους δευτερα εγραφη απο φιλιππων της μακεδονιας δια τιτου και λουκα]

Mec and Mutz
You fellas are going to have a tough time explaining this one away. Great job Oscar.

As I was reading this in Greek I was in awe at how rich this single passage is.
In my Greek bible this is actually verse 13. It combines both 13 and 14 into one verse so that it flows like milk.

In this passage the way that the Apostle uses the definate article ὁ that preceeds θεός means the following from strongs ex concordance.
The Godhead, trinity.
God the Father, the first person in the trinity.
Christ, the second person of the trinity.
Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity.

And even with out this extra exposition, the Apostle Paul has you covered.

 

[Georges]

Well said and understood mutz but did you miss the important point in your presentation, that the king and the prince were both human beings by nature? It goes then that both Jesus and the Father must be God too by their nature, if not, then what your saying is nothing.

In the Pseudo-Clementines (the jewish perspective of the beginnings of Christianity from Peter's view) Simon the Magician makes the claim that Jesus is God by being of the same substance (words to that effect)...Peter states that Jesus never taught that there were other gods, nor that he was God.

From the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies where Peter and Simon debate about God and Jesus being God....

Pseudo-Clementine Homilies: Book 16, Chapter 15; In his confrontation with Simon the Sorcerer, Simon suggests that Jesus and God are the same. Peter affirms that Jesus is the Son of God, and not God.

Chapter XV.-Christ Not God, But the Son of God;

When Simon heard this, he said: "Since you say that we ought not to believe even the prophet that gives signs and wonders if he say that there is another god, and that you know that he even incurs the penalty of death, therefore your, teacher also was with reason cut off for having given signs and wonders." And Peter answered: "Our Lord neither asserted that there were gods except the Creator of all, nor did he proclaim himself to be God, but he with reason pronounced blessed him who called him the Son of that God who has arranged the universe." And Simon answered: "Does it not seem to you, then, that he who comes from God is God?" And Peter said: "Tell us how this is possible; for we cannot affirm this, because we did not hear it from Him.â€Â

…"In addition to this, it is the peculiarity of the Father not to have been begotten, but of the Son to have been begotten; but what is begotten cannot be compared with that which is un-begotten or self-begotten."

end of quote.....

This is available information for anyone to research.....

Disclaimer (for the mods TOS), The Pseudo-Clementine Literature is not Biblical canon. It is however a very important historical Christian document. It is recommended reading for anyone interested in the beginnings of the early Church...the beginnings of Paul, the importance of James and it is actually the commentary of Peter on these events.

There is much more to the debate between Simon (the father of Gnosticism) and Peter concerning the attributes of God....Peter also gives the criteria concerning false apostles (their origins) and false teachers.

 

[mutzrein]

Well said and understood mutz but did you miss the important point in your presentation, that the king and the prince were both human beings by nature? It goes then that both Jesus and the Father must be God too by their nature, if not, then what your saying is nothing.

Actually, I understand the point which I believe you are missing.

The king and prince are not king by nature. The king and prince are royal by nature but there is only one king.

By the same token, God and Jesus are not God by nature. They are divine by nature but there is only one God.