Proof of Trinity

[Jesse Stone]

Part 1

Free #266
And right from the start we see, as has been pointed out, that God says "Let us make man in image, after our likeness" which is then immediately followed by "so God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." (ESV)

We see then that God is speaking to someone about making man in their image (plural), which happens to be only the image of God (singular), no one else. Interesting, too, is the end of verse 27--"in the image of God he created him [singular]; male and female he created them [plural]." We have the same as of God, the singular then getting defined as a plurality.

How do you explain this?

Let us make man in our image. (Gen 1:26)
Behold, the man has become like one of us. (Gen 3:22)
Come, let us go down and there confuse their language. (Gen 11:7)

After reading the New Testament (John 17:5; Hebrews 1:2, etc.), I knew that Jesus was there. But I don't automatically presume that Jesus is God because of that. Just that he was with God. The worlds were created through the Son, not by the Son. All things were created by God. Through the Son, which makes him someone other than God.

The Angels were there having been created sometime before the creation of the earth, since Satan was there.I don't see any reason to think Jesus was an Angel as the JW's do.

I don't see a problem with God saying us with all those persons around.

The image obviously isn't flesh and blood. God is a spirit. So also the son at that time. And the Angels. The reason that man is fundamentally different from all other earthly life, even though they are alike physically, is that man is a spiritual being (Genesis 2:7). Man has a spiritual aspect to his nature. Evolutionists don't know this. So they think that man is just another step in the evolution of life on earth. And that superior intelligence is what differentiates man from the rest of life on earth.

Free #266
The NT very clearly shows the full deity of Jesus and the "personhood" of the Holy Spirit. There is no contradiction between the OT and NT. Just because there is very little in the OT regarding the idea of a triune God, doesn't mean that its clear revelation in the NT is contradictory.

I can't see Paul passing up teaching explicitly on such a crucial doctrine as the Trinity that would be so radically different from Jewish theology. The original believers being Jews. I don't see Luke the companion of Paul passing up mentioning the conflict.

I don't agree the New Testament clearly shows that Jesus is God or part of a Trinitarian God. Only that Jesus is the unique son of God and thus divine because God is uniquely his father. And Jesus is simultaneously the son of man because Mary is his mother through whom he was made in the likeness of men. Today Jesus is a unique person, a unique being. Divine and glorified human. The firstborn among many brethren. The unique mediator between God and men. Jesus is not "a god", except in the sense of a ruler or a judge (see Isaiah 9:6-7 & John 10:22-38).

I do agree the New Testament clearly shows the Holy Spirit is a person. But not that the Spirit is part of a Trinitarian God. Anymore than the seven Spirits of God in Revelation are part of a Trinitarian God. And that understanding prevents me from being a part of the less than .1% composed of non-Trinitarian Christian denominations. They believe the Holy Spirit is some kind of force of God. In a sense they believe in a di-une God in that the Spirit and the Father are part of the same God.

Divinity does not automatically mean deity. John says that in the end believers will be like Christ and see him as he is. Does that mean that believers will be God? Peter says that believers are partakers of the divine nature. Does that mean that believers become God? Even Trinitarians would answer no to both questions. Divinity does not automatically mean deity.

I agree there isn't any contradiction between the Old and New Testaments. Only between the Bible and the Trinitarians.

Free #266
Jesse Stone said: ↑

The Trinity is the primary essential doctrine of Christianity. The choice is simple. Believe it and be a Christian or don't believe it and be a non-Christian. Doesn't really matter whether or not I believe in the God (Old Testament) or the Son of God and his purpose on the earth (New Testament) of the Bible. I can't be a Christian because I think the idea of a God composed of three persons is just a theory, not a fact. Christians, like Evolutionists, think their theory is a fact.

Really, the stronger argument could be made that if one doesn't believe that Jesus is God then they aren't saved:

Rom 10:8 But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim);
Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
Rom 10:11 For the Scripture says, "Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame."
Rom 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him.
Rom 10:13 For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (ESV)

In the very context of confessing "Jesus is Lord" as a necessary condition for salvation, Paul refers back to Joel 2:32:

Joe 2:32 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the LORD has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the LORD calls. (ESV)

But we see in Joel that it is whoever "calls on the name of [YHWH] shall be saved." It seems pretty clear as to what Paul is saying--confessing "Jesus is Lord" is what is meant by calling "on the name of [YHWH]". In other words, confessing "Jesus is [YHWH]" is a necessary condition for salvation.

Jesus is the central figure of both the Old and New Testaments, through whom we have salvation made possible. It is absolutely necessary we believe he is who the Bible says he is.

Okaay. So we agree that from the perspective of 99.9% of Christianity (including you) I'm not saved because I don't think Jesus is God.

Other than that, it sounds like you're thinking like a Jehovah's Witness. The correct translation of Romans 10:9 should be "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Jehovah". Why didn't the JWs see that? They didn't translate that verse that way. Probably because it would contradict a doctrine very important to them.

"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of (lit. out of) whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by (lit. through) whom are all things, and we by him." (1 Corinthians 8:6)

"one Jehovah Jesus Christ"?

"And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:8-11)

"Jesus Christ is Jehovah, to the glory of God the Father"?

Do you suppose there's a reason why none of these verses are translated this way in mainline translations? Perhaps because that's not what the text is saying?

Christians can't seem to understand the Bible unless they interpret it. Makes me wonder who really are the ones who are saved. Does the historic interpretation save them? Are they being saved according to whatever interpretation they have? Or are they being saved in spite of their interpretations? From what I know about God and man from reading the Bible, I'd say the latter.

I'm not trying to be facetious here. I'm making a point.

In Old Testament times people were saved by calling on Jehovah or God. The Messiah had not yet come. Since the Ascension of Jesus the Messiah people are to call on Jesus. Not just unbelievers to be saved (Romans 10:9), but also believers, to whom Jesus is the head of each church (local) and of the Body (universal), as Paul said and for the reason he gave in Philippians 2:8-11 (see 1 Corinthians 1:2).

 

[Jesse Stone]

Part 2

Free #266
Jesse Stone said: ↑

I don't think Christians believe in the Bible. Not really. They believe in interpretations of the Bible. Christian denominations are based on different interpretations. Even their music is based on different interpretations for the most part. Sometimes interpretations of the Bible. Sometimes interpretations of interpretations of the Bible.

The same could be said about you and those like you. In rejecting orthodox Christian belief, you set yourself up as your own authority on Scriptural interpretation. You reject hundreds of years of scholarly work because you think you're right. Of course, it doesn't mean that certain orthodox Christian beliefs are necessarily correct, but unless very good reasons to reject such beliefs can be given, and in the case of the Trinity they cannot, then one really should be careful about saying who does and doesn't believe in the Bible.

In the end such arguments get us nowhere

I knew when I wrote that paragraph that someone wouldn't be able to resist answering with an ad hominem. And the very one you used.

If the Bible can only be understood by scholarly work (interpretation), then it makes no sense for us less then scholarly folks to read it. No need to even own a Bible. Let "the Church" (through its scholarly and educated leaders) interpret the Bible for us, especially in historical context that they also interpret, and just believe their educated interpretations. Is that what you're defending? The original conflict over Sola Scriptura in the 16th century was over this very issue, the authority of scholarly men chosen by "the Church" vs. the authority of the Bible as the written word of God.

If you're a Catholic, I'm sorry. Of course that's what you're defending. Except the part about not needing or owning a Bible. If you're a Protestant who believes in the Bible plus anything else, like scholarly or historic interpretations, I'm disappointed. The Catholics have been at that a lot longer and do a better job.

Free #266
Jesse Stone said: ↑

The Trinity is one of their interpretations. An essential interpretation. Christians are strangely unified regarding the basics of the Trinity interpretation.

Interesting that you point out so much division within Christian belief and practice, yet find it strange that Christians are so unified in something you believe to be false. One would think that if unity is lacking regarding many Christian beliefs, that unity among the relative few would mean the likely truth of those few.

To clarify. I'm not surprised that Catholics believe in the Trinity. Their perspective demands it. But I am surprised that Protestants are so unified on the Trinity when they are unified on hardly anything else. Not just because I personally disagree with Trinitarianism. But because they are unified to the point that if one doesn't believe it, one not only can't be a part of their exclusive clubs (denominations), one can't even be saved. Is it any wonder that Catholics now refer to Protestants as separated brethren? The only practical issue between Catholics and Protestants these days is will the real Pope please stand.

Free #266
Jesse Stone said: ↑

Christian denominations are like an exclusive club. One either goes along with the program and believes the interpretations (by-laws) or not be a member. The Bible is just a figurehead. The interpretations and their interpreters have the real authority. I've never been one to belong to exclusive clubs for long. They tend to think way too much of themselves. And that can feed the need for interpretations that solve all problems. Except the problem of exclusivity. That's solved by an action, closed communion or banning. An action based on interpretation. The necessity for such an action is another area that Christians are strangely unified about.

This goes on regardless of religion or belief system, whether or not the beliefs are held by many many or by one. Even though you say you are not a Christian, I am going to go out on a limb and assume that you mean you are not a Christian as set forth by the beliefs of this site. It's quite likely you think you're a true Christian and we are not, thereby being in your own exclusive club, or, if you are a JW, you belong to that exclusive club.

I don't think that what goes on in other religions or belief systems is an excuse for Christians to be like them. Unless it's conceded that Christianity is a religion in the same sense they are. Non-Christians see Christianity as just another religion. Colleges teach that it's just another religion without a single qualm or regard for political correctness. I'm trying my best to be more open minded about that. Christians and their interpretations make it difficult.

No, I'm not some "we're the only true Church", or "only true Christian" kind of Christian. I'm not any kind of Christian for reasons already stated. Here. Let me help you up since your limb broke.

I was raised Atheist. I'm no longer an Atheist because, like Christians, they believe in interpretations more than what is evident. Example: Evolutionism. A theory that is a fact.

I'm an Agnostic. An Agnostic with Theistic leanings since I've been reading the Christian Bible. Christianity is the only religion that claims to follow the Christian Bible. At least that I'm aware of. But I can't be a Christian because Christians won't let me. I could be a Christian if Christians were more about reconciliation and less about judgment over interpretations.

I know of no reasonable reason to think the Bible does not give a truthful account. Other than what Christians have made of it by their interpretations. So I believe to the best of my ability what the Bible says insofar as I understand it. About God and about the Son of God as the propitiation for the sins of the world. I accept the free gift with all the faith I can muster, and for the rest I pray "help my unbelief". And Christians make my believing all the more harder. I'm under this strange impression that the New Testament teaches salvation through Christ alone by grace alone. Apparently in a different way than Christians do, especially Protestants. Since they add that I have to also believe the by-laws of their club to be saved. I could attend a Christian Church, and even take communion, so long as they didn't know what I believe. But my conscience wouldn't allow me to usurp their by-laws. After all, it is their Church. Not a church of Jesus Christ. And for that reason alone I probably have no business attending anyway. Truth is, it probably doesn't matter because my not gathering together isn't my fault. I get on Christian forums as the next best thing, such as it is.

The idea of a universal Church is only in the mind of Christians. The New Testament only mentions local churches. Christianity has a lot of universal Churches today. Called denominations. There has to be something very wrong with a Christianity whose denominationalism takes the divisions that Paul was fighting against in 1 Corinthians to such an extreme.

But what do I know. I'm just a small town cop. Mostly I give out parking tickets.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Randy,
JohnD has given the scripture and in doing so, he nailed it. You just need to think it through, there is "One" God and none other is. Jesus, the Son of God always has been, John 1:1-3. Jesus is that God just Jesus said He and the Father are one. They are two persons of the One God and they are the One God just as is the Holy Spirit that indwells us.

JohnD,
Good words my brother and nice to meet you.

May God bless both of you.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Part 1



Let us make man in our image. (Gen 1:26)
Behold, the man has become like one of us. (Gen 3:22)
Come, let us go down and there confuse their language. (Gen 11:7)

After reading the New Testament (John 17:5; Hebrews 1:2, etc.), I knew that Jesus was there. But I don't automatically presume that Jesus is God because of that. Just that he was with God. The worlds were created through the Son, not by the Son. All things were created by God. Through the Son, which makes him someone other than God.

The Angels were there having been created sometime before the creation of the earth, since Satan was there.I don't see any reason to think Jesus was an Angel as the JW's do.

I don't see a problem with God saying us with all those persons around.

The image obviously isn't flesh and blood. God is a spirit. So also the son at that time. And the Angels. The reason that man is fundamentally different from all other earthly life, even though they are alike physically, is that man is a spiritual being (Genesis 2:7). Man has a spiritual aspect to his nature. Evolutionists don't know this. So they think that man is just another step in the evolution of life on earth. And that superior intelligence is what differentiates man from the rest of life on earth.



I can't see Paul passing up teaching explicitly on such a crucial doctrine as the Trinity that would be so radically different from Jewish theology. The original believers being Jews. I don't see Luke the companion of Paul passing up mentioning the conflict.

I don't agree the New Testament clearly shows that Jesus is God or part of a Trinitarian God. Only that Jesus is the unique son of God and thus divine because God is uniquely his father. And Jesus is simultaneously the son of man because Mary is his mother through whom he was made in the likeness of men. Today Jesus is a unique person, a unique being. Divine and glorified human. The firstborn among many brethren. The unique mediator between God and men. Jesus is not "a god", except in the sense of a ruler or a judge (see Isaiah 9:6-7 & John 10:22-38).

I do agree the New Testament clearly shows the Holy Spirit is a person. But not that the Spirit is part of a Trinitarian God. Anymore than the seven Spirits of God in Revelation are part of a Trinitarian God. And that understanding prevents me from being a part of the less than .1% composed of non-Trinitarian Christian denominations. They believe the Holy Spirit is some kind of force of God. In a sense they believe in a di-une God in that the Spirit and the Father are part of the same God.

Divinity does not automatically mean deity. John says that in the end believers will be like Christ and see him as he is. Does that mean that believers will be God? Peter says that believers are partakers of the divine nature. Does that mean that believers become God? Even Trinitarians would answer no to both questions. Divinity does not automatically mean deity.

I agree there isn't any contradiction between the Old and New Testaments. Only between the Bible and the Trinitarians.



Okaay. So we agree that from the perspective of 99.9% of Christianity (including you) I'm not saved because I don't think Jesus is God.

Other than that, it sounds like you're thinking like a Jehovah's Witness. The correct translation of Romans 10:9 should be "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Jehovah". Why didn't the JWs see that? They didn't translate that verse that way. Probably because it would contradict a doctrine very important to them.

"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of (lit. out of) whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by (lit. through) whom are all things, and we by him." (1 Corinthians 8:6)

"one Jehovah Jesus Christ"?

"And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:8-11)

"Jesus Christ is Jehovah, to the glory of God the Father"?

Do you suppose there's a reason why none of these verses are translated this way in mainline translations? Perhaps because that's not what the text is saying?

Christians can't seem to understand the Bible unless they interpret it. Makes me wonder who really are the ones who are saved. Does the historic interpretation save them? Are they being saved according to whatever interpretation they have? Or are they being saved in spite of their interpretations? From what I know about God and man from reading the Bible, I'd say the latter.

I'm not trying to be facetious here. I'm making a point.

In Old Testament times people were saved by calling on Jehovah or God. The Messiah had not yet come. Since the Ascension of Jesus the Messiah people are to call on Jesus. Not just unbelievers to be saved (Romans 10:9), but also believers, to whom Jesus is the head of each church (local) and of the Body (universal), as Paul said and for the reason he gave in Philippians 2:8-11 (see 1 Corinthians 1:2).

Jesse,
You do well for what you have quoted but you have left important scripture out of the mix.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Jesus is the Logos/Word and as it is in verse two of One John, He is God and in verse three, all things were "made by Him." Jesus is the Creator/God, co-equal with God.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Genesis 1:1;
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth",...
And yet we know that Jesus created all things.
And so, who is Jesus?

 

[th1b.taylor]

Part 2



I knew when I wrote that paragraph that someone wouldn't be able to resist answering with an ad hominem. And the very one you used.

If the Bible can only be understood by scholarly work (interpretation), then it makes no sense for us less then scholarly folks to read it. No need to even own a Bible. Let "the Church" (through its scholarly and educated leaders) interpret the Bible for us, especially in historical context that they also interpret, and just believe their educated interpretations. Is that what you're defending? The original conflict over Sola Scriptura in the 16th century was over this very issue, the authority of scholarly men chosen by "the Church" vs. the authority of the Bible as the written word of God.

If you're a Catholic, I'm sorry. Of course that's what you're defending. Except the part about not needing or owning a Bible. If you're a Protestant who believes in the Bible plus anything else, like scholarly or historic interpretations, I'm disappointed. The Catholics have been at that a lot longer and do a better job.



To clarify. I'm not surprised that Catholics believe in the Trinity. Their perspective demands it. But I am surprised that Protestants are so unified on the Trinity when they are unified on hardly anything else. Not just because I personally disagree with Trinitarianism. But because they are unified to the point that if one doesn't believe it, one not only can't be a part of their exclusive clubs (denominations), one can't even be saved. Is it any wonder that Catholics now refer to Protestants as separated brethren? The only practical issue between Catholics and Protestants these days is will the real Pope please stand.



I don't think that what goes on in other religions or belief systems is an excuse for Christians to be like them. Unless it's conceded that Christianity is a religion in the same sense they are. Non-Christians see Christianity as just another religion. Colleges teach that it's just another religion without a single qualm or regard for political correctness. I'm trying my best to be more open minded about that. Christians and their interpretations make it difficult.

No, I'm not some "we're the only true Church", or "only true Christian" kind of Christian. I'm not any kind of Christian for reasons already stated. Here. Let me help you up since your limb broke.

I was raised Atheist. I'm no longer an Atheist because, like Christians, they believe in interpretations more than what is evident. Example: Evolutionism. A theory that is a fact.

I'm an Agnostic. An Agnostic with Theistic leanings since I've been reading the Christian Bible. Christianity is the only religion that claims to follow the Christian Bible. At least that I'm aware of. But I can't be a Christian because Christians won't let me. I could be a Christian if Christians were more about reconciliation and less about judgment over interpretations.

I know of no reasonable reason to think the Bible does not give a truthful account. Other than what Christians have made of it by their interpretations. So I believe to the best of my ability what the Bible says insofar as I understand it. About God and about the Son of God as the propitiation for the sins of the world. I accept the free gift with all the faith I can muster, and for the rest I pray "help my unbelief". And Christians make my believing all the more harder. I'm under this strange impression that the New Testament teaches salvation through Christ alone by grace alone. Apparently in a different way than Christians do, especially Protestants. Since they add that I have to also believe the by-laws of their club to be saved. I could attend a Christian Church, and even take communion, so long as they didn't know what I believe. But my conscience wouldn't allow me to usurp their by-laws. After all, it is their Church. Not a church of Jesus Christ. And for that reason alone I probably have no business attending anyway. Truth is, it probably doesn't matter because my not gathering together isn't my fault. I get on Christian forums as the next best thing, such as it is.

The idea of a universal Church is only in the mind of Christians. The New Testament only mentions local churches. Christianity has a lot of universal Churches today. Called denominations. There has to be something very wrong with a Christianity whose denominationalism takes the divisions that Paul was fighting against in 1 Corinthians to such an extreme.

But what do I know. I'm just a small town cop. Mostly I give out parking tickets.

Jesse,
I was an Atheist until I was spoken to by God at 21. I did not take Jesus for my Savior until I was three weeks short of 45. I pray you make the trip to Heaven so we can meet and spend Eternity together... Oh, and welcome.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Genesis 1:1;
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth",...
And yet we know that Jesus created all things.
And so, who is Jesus?

Allen,
I'm the sicky with strange hours... go to bed, Dude. Your keeping the hours of a Blues Freak and Believe me, the Blues made me grow but the hours wrecked my body.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Bill, it's raining so heavy down here, I can't sleep.
Now I've got my men's prayer group in a few hours, so, no more sleep.
At my age, afternoon naps are common.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Bill, it's raining so heavy down here, I can't sleep.
Now I've got my men's prayer group in a few hours, so, no more sleep.
At my age, afternoon naps are common.

LOL! I'll be 69 the 25th... I got this nap thing.

 

[Asyncritus]

Regarding the idea that "God cannot be tempted with evil," all that means is he has no inclination to actually act on the temptation, that any attempt to temp is pointless. As for whether or not Jesus could have sinned, take your pick:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/temptations-of-christ

Coming from you, Free, I find that comment 'take your pick' absolutely depressing.

You have demonstrated a certain degree of accuracy in your scriptural expositions, except in this matter here. For you to say 'take your pick' is to fly in the face of so much scripture it's unbelievable.

As John is your favourite support for the trinity, then perhaps you'll listen to him when he says:

1Jo 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1Jo 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
2Jo 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

As you can see, he gets very ugly about this matter. 'In the flesh' means as a human being - with the propensity to sin that is in all of us.

If He was God, then that propensity could not exist. The first article you quoted is a hopeless mealy-mouthed double minded piece of work, not knowing where he's going:

My colleague Thomas Flint has argued for the novel view that Christ's human nature could, in fact, have sinned, but that if it had, then it would have been a person—that is, a merely human person—and so Jesus would not have been the Second Person of the Trinity.

At least he's got that far. But now proceeds to water it down into unrecognisability:

So Flint agrees that Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity, incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth, could not have sinned; but the human nature of Christ, which is, in fact, not a person and which was tempted by the devil, could have sinned and so been a person, a sinful, human person.

Whoever Flint is, he sounds like, in scriptural terms, a double-minded man who is unstable, particularly in this matter.

There is no 'pick' to be had Free. He either could have sinned, or He could not, and all these theological thrashings about cannot deny or gainsay that fact.

If 'He was in all points tempted like as we are' (Heb 4.15) - then He could have sinned. No ifs buts or maybes.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/temptations-of-christ#ixzz2qN2uYhfA


Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/temptations-of-christ#ixzz2qN2bxqls

This second is even worse. Hear this:

So the person who is Christ is a divine person and as such cannot sin.

Now certainly Jesus could have physically performed the actions Satan was calling upon him to do, like throwing himself off the temple or turning stones to bread; but he could not have done these things at Satan's behest, for that would have been sinful.

This is what I call a theological gordian knot. It cannot be untied - because it is so unscriptural, and totally illogical.

Here is the worst of the lot:

God infallibly preserved the sinlessness of Christ's individual human nature by not permitting it to be placed in circumstances in which God knew that it would sin.

Marvellous, isn't it?

Thanks for the links - but they are truly hopeless. Unsurprisingly so.

So you are left fairly high and dry, I would say.

You cannot answer The Great PROBLEM. Neither can these guys. And at the root of it all, is the very plain testimony of Scripture: He was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Heb 2.15 For we do not have a High Priest Who is unable to understand and sympathize and have a shared feeling with our weaknesses and infirmities and liability to the assaults of temptation, but One Who has been tempted in every respect as we are, yet without sinning. (AMP)

15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. AV

15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. ESV

15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tested in every way as we are, yet without sin. HCSB

15 For we have not a High Priest who is unable to feel for us in our weaknesses, but one who was tempted in every respect just as we are tempted, and yet did not sin. WEY

Now denying that Jesus could have sinned is equivalent to denying that He came in the flesh, as John stated above,

John takes an extremely dim view of that. He does a bit of name calling too. Antichrist, deceiver. So beware.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Coming from you, Free, I find that comment 'take your pick' absolutely depressing.

You have demonstrated a certain degree of accuracy in your scriptural expositions, except in this matter here. For you to say 'take your pick' is to fly in the face of so much scripture it's unbelievable.

As John is your favourite support for the trinity, then perhaps you'll listen to him when he says:

1Jo 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1Jo 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
2Jo 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

As you can see, he gets very ugly about this matter. 'In the flesh' means as a human being - with the propensity to sin that is in all of us.

If He was God, then that propensity could not exist. The first article you quoted is a hopeless mealy-mouthed double minded piece of work, not knowing where he's going:



At least he's got that far. But now proceeds to water it down into unrecognisability:



Whoever Flint is, he sounds like, in scriptural terms, a double-minded man who is unstable, particularly in this matter.

There is no 'pick' to be had Free. He either could have sinned, or He could not, and all these theological thrashings about cannot deny or gainsay that fact.

If 'He was in all points tempted like as we are' (Heb 4.15) - then He could have sinned. No ifs buts or maybes.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/temptations-of-christ#ixzz2qN2uYhfA


Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/temptations-of-christ#ixzz2qN2bxqls

This second is even worse. Hear this:



This is what I call a theological gordian knot. It cannot be untied - because it is so unscriptural, and totally illogical.

Here is the worst of the lot:


Marvellous, isn't it?

Thanks for the links - but they are truly hopeless. Unsurprisingly so.

So you are left fairly high and dry, I would say.

You cannot answer The Great PROBLEM. Neither can these guys. And at the root of it all, is the very plain testimony of Scripture: He was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Heb 2.15 For we do not have a High Priest Who is unable to understand and sympathize and have a shared feeling with our weaknesses and infirmities and liability to the assaults of temptation, but One Who has been tempted in every respect as we are, yet without sinning. (AMP)

15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. AV

15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. ESV

15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tested in every way as we are, yet without sin. HCSB

15 For we have not a High Priest who is unable to feel for us in our weaknesses, but one who was tempted in every respect just as we are tempted, and yet did not sin. WEY

Now denying that Jesus could have sinned is equivalent to denying that He came in the flesh, as John stated above,

John takes an extremely dim view of that. He does a bit of name calling too. Antichrist, deceiver. So beware.

Async,
God, through the Holy Spirit, through men wrote the Bible. God is able to do, start and complete anything... He is God! The Bible is the Word of God. For this reason all scripture must stand in the light of all other scripture. This is one very important rule of Hermeneutics and you are guilty of the most common error men make here. Jim Jones, David Koresh, you and billions of others jerk a verse from it context and then impute your desired intent upon it. The context of any verse, in the greater sense is all of the Bible and any verse, selection of verses or any froup of verses must be considered with every other verse in the Scriptures.

When you get around to it, if you ever push pride out of the way, you will be just as embarrassed as I was when 1998 ended and the Rapture had not occurred. Mistakes are the one thing all men have in common, I know that for certain, I'm guilty. But when I stopped being the proud Bill Taylor and submitted "all" of me to the leading of the Holy Spirit, He began and has not ceased to teach me some amazingly glorious truths.

The scriptures you quote are great scripture but you are drawing them out of their context because they must be reconciled with John 1:1-3 and every one of the others you have been presented with in this string.

I know, I know! You're offended! You would not e if you will just submit to the reconciling truth of the Holy Spirit. These past twenty-four years have seen the tops of my toes worn out from Pastors, Teachers and friends tromping over them. I did not take offense as a result, I, instead began to pray, read and to meditate on what I read and the Holy Spirit/God began and is still working on me and my problems, multiple!

Brother, please study in this light.

 

[Asyncritus]

I know, I know! You're offended! You would not e if you will just submit to the reconciling truth of the Holy Spirit. These past twenty-four years have seen the tops of my toes worn out from Pastors, Teachers and friends tromping over them.

No, Bill, I'm not offended. I've taken a lot of stick over the years about this matter, so my turtle shell may be a bit cracked here and there, but not significantly.

I only hope that I haven't upset you too much either.

This, I know, is a very sensitive issue, and provokes much high feeling, and I would not voluntarily hurt anybody with my views. But I believe my position is the truth, and that is what I must stand or fall by, irrespective of my own or others' feelings.

So here's a handshake across the miles, and a wish that the Almighty may bless you as you have need.

 

[JohnD]

Getting right down to technicalities... Jesus is God the Word become a man (which Philippians 2:6 in the Greek clearly indicates he did while never ceasing to be God "morphe theos huparchon").

God the Word (second individual in the Godhead) and God the Authority (first individual in the Godhead) has a conversation before the incarnation of God the Word...

Hebrews 10:5-7 (KJV)
5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

Only in the incarnation is there sonship and fatherhood...

Hebrews 1:5 (KJV)
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

God the Word is not a son. God the Word incarnate IS the (only begotten / creation) Son of the Father (John 1:14).

God the Word is just as much God as God the Authority (God the Father). When Jesus expresses his limitations in John 5:19ff following a discussion about his being equal with the Father... as you keep reading you realize he is not saying his limitations are due to his inability but rather his restraint (the constraints required to be our human kinsman redeemer). That as far as his abilities go, he is just as capable of doing what the Father is capable of doing.

Jesus is the Son in his humanity (Son of man and Son of God). In his Spirit he is God the Word (and not a son).

Spirit beings do not reproduce. They are the creations of God the Word:

Colossians 1:16 (KJV)
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Spirits do not die. This is why the judgment of angels is sin in their present (forever) state is to be doomed with no hope of redemption.

Our spirits do not die either. But we are hybrids of spirit and flesh with a soul to buffer the two realities. And the ability of our flesh to die affords us the ability to be redeemed because the law of God is kept "the soul that sins shall die." and we can be redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ our Creator and raised / perfected to our eternal body-spirit state with him forever.

Stripping the subject down to the basic clinical origins of the revelation from God to man... minus the confusing sometimes conflicting terms we use like Father Son Holy Spirit

God is three individuals as the Bible reveals.

God the Authority (Acts 1:7)
Who became the Father of Jesus

God the Word (John 1:1)
Who became Jesus the only Son of the Father

God the Author (2 Peter 1:20-21)
Who is called the Spirit of God, Holy Spirit

The confusion comes from the inadequacies of human language and understanding.

For each are Spirit. Each are Holy. Each could be called Holy Spirit but each are not "the Holy Spirit" (third individual of the Trinity).

Each are A (note I said A not THE) father...

God the Authority is the Father of the incarnate Word.

God the Word is the Father of creation. This answers the nagging question in Isaiah 9:6 "his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace" as to his fatherhood but not being the Heavenly Father....

God the Author is the father of the written word of God and of the revealing of the living Word (Jesus Christ).

The only aspect which does not apply to all three is the Sonship which is Jesus' alone.

While Jesus is both God and man, he is unique (another way of saying all alone) in that neither God or man are totally like him. We will be like Jesus in his resurrection (1 John 3:2) but we will not be deity as he is. And God the Father and the Holy Spirit do not have bodies which Jesus will have for all eternity to come.

 

[chessman]

If Jesus COULDN'T sin, then that facts negates the biggest fact of Christianity - that He is the EXAMPLE we must follow…

1 Cor 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,

The “biggest fact of Christianity” is not Christ’s EXAMPLE in the desert we must follow. The biggest fact (of First Importance) in Christianity is that we believe; 1)Christ died for our sins (not His sins, I might add) in accordance with the Scriptures (that, by the way, spoke of Him, I might add), 2) Christ was buried (just like humans are) and 3) rose from death (which is nothing like an “example” of what humans do).
Why is it “of First Importance”?

v 16 if Christ has not been raised, your faith is empty; you are still in your sins.​

I am unaware of any Scripture in the Bible that says, for example, if Christ were not tempted in the desert by Satan as an example for us to follow… we are still in our sins.

Once again, you err in claiming that Christ’s “example we must follow” = “the biggest fact of Christianity”. It’s one thing to misunderstand and misrepresent some aspect of the Trinity doctrine, I suppose. Quite another to misunderstand and misrepresent “the biggest fact of Christianity”. But that’s another story. I’m trying to stay focused on this ‘great problem’ that you’ve accused me and others of ducking.

At least the ‘great problem’ tries to lay out a logical argument. If you do a Google search, using your exact words within the ‘great problem’/logical argument, you’ll find the exact same thing discussed and presented on many sites. Many websites using the exact same emphasis that you have. Many even on Atheist’s websites, I might add.

The specific problem is, this ‘great argument’ has a false premise within it. That is, ‘Jesus could sin’. Let’s try and stay focused on that premise.

Now, you are trying to justify this premise with your statement and illustration that if Jesus couldn’t sin, then He’s no example. Okay, fine. If you had a Bible verse or two that said Jesus could have sinned, I’d listen and might even be persuaded to change my mind. But you simply haven’t presented any. You’re just stating that you think it’s true (‘since we [humans] CAN sin”). Frankly, that’s not going to convince any Trinitarian in this A&T section (or it shouldn’t) that you think Jesus could have sinned since we can. We all view Jesus as BOTH human and God. That is one of the very tenants of the Trinity.

But since we CAN sin, then there is no example there at all, is there?

Since Jesus is BOTH 100% Deity and 100% human I see a great example. Again, if you think the Trinitarian doctrine teaches that Jesus had no human nature, then you don’t understand the doctrine of the Trinity.

My point is that on a Trinitarian view, there’s a great example in Jesus for us Christians to strive to follow. In fact, the same example you point to. But if you think Jesus (because He was a sinless human) can forgive sins, then you are in a sinking boat.

John 8:24 (ESV) 24 I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.”​

Yet, you say:

He was a man - and still is. How many times does He call Himself 'Son of Man'? Do you want that list again to convince you?

Again, if you think it’s an argument against the Trinitarian doctrine that Jesus was human, then you don’t understand Trinitarian doctrine. But you do realize that He also called Himself the Son of God, right?

Now, of these four theoretical options above: The most logical assessment is that Jesus is BOTH human and God. Even If you don’t think John 8:24 is Jesus claiming to be God, here’s yet another reason I think it’s Biblical:
1 Cor 15 says this is of “first importance” to the Christian:
Jesus (via 1 Cor 15)

1) Died for our sins (had the ability and paid the price for them) in accordance with the Scriptures (O.T. ‘Yahweh’ Scriptures of which Paul obviously spoke. That is, Jesus somehow, in some way, had the ability to pay the debt owed for our sins. In and of Himself. Talk about evidence that Jesus had to be more than just a human.

2) and yet still suffered, bleed, died and was buried (i.e. human traits)​

The 100% God view (which I assume you reject) makes no sense of Jesus’ taking on a human nature and suffering, bleeding, dying (which again is what Paul says is of “first importance”).

Likewise, the 100% Jesus=only a human view makes no sense of Jesus (if He were merely a sinless human) being able to die “for our sins”. Why and how could one human’s sinlessness have any effect on another’s?

Note: “for” in 1 Cor 15:3 http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/huper.html
Definition: in behalf of, for the sake of,​

I'm afraid it is true.

Don’t be afraid of the truth.

The Father states categorically in any number of places that He is God, and the ONLY one at that. Why does He do that? Because it is the simple truth.

A fact that zero Trinity believers would disagree with. Why do you keep bringing this up against the Trinity doctrine? Sounds like a ‘catch phrase’ you’ve heard over and over to me.

Jesus NEVER says that He is God. In fact He strenuously denies it:

Wrong and wrong.

But I note how you shift in your logical flow from talking about so called facts concerning “God”, to statements about “The Father”. You do realize that the Trinity is about three persons that are one God, right? The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit.

Which brings up probably the best time to answer a question you had for me, even though it’s a bit out of sequence in responding to your post. I almost hate to answer it because it might divert the discussion of this false premise of the ‘great argument’ you’ve asked to be answered. But since you asked, I’ll answer. Plus you’ve now accused William Lane Craig of being illogical. The man has a PhD in philosophy and Religion and has taught logic for decades. Yet you say:

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/temptations-of-christ#ixzz2qN2bxqls
This is what I call a theological gordian knot. It cannot be untied - because it is so unscriptural, and totally illogical.

Just because you are confused about something, doesn’t make it illogical (or un-Scriptural).

My response to you was directed to where you made the statement:

Jesus NEVER CLAIMED TO BE GOD. …That is a striking fact which sinks any and all trinitarian claims.

I merely pointed out that there are several Trinitarian claims (claims concerning three persons). One is that the Holy Spirit is God. If Jesus never claimed to be God, that would have nothing whatsoever to do with the claim that the Holy Spirit is God. Yet, you say this 2nd Premise would sink “any and all” Trinitarian claims. You are once again clearly wrong. It may be that you are using 'illogical' as a synomyn for complicated.

Yet you say:

You've lost me with that masterpiece of illogic and confusion.

Just because you are confused, doesn’t mean something is illogical.

 

[chessman]

Back to this 2nd premise in your “great argument”:

Where does it ever say the Jesus claimed to be God?
No CM. You really ought to read that verse in its context. As Teddy has pointed out, it's not really a name of God, merely the present indicative of the verb 'to be'.

You’re joking right? Are you suggesting that God doesn’t answer Moses’ question Ex 3:13? Talking about a late to develop theological doctrine.

13 Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” 14 God said to Moses, .. “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘____ has sent me to you.’”​

Are you actually telling me that it is your opinion that God didn’t answer Moses’ question.
I’ve never heard a person argue that there was no name given whatsoever (which doesn’t make it false of course) but I suppose I'm lucky not to have been exposed to such exegesis.
But just so I’m sure.

Are you saying there is literally no name for God given here in Ex 3:13? That’s your position?

I’ve heard people disagree on what the name is precisely, but God not giving Moses an answer at all. Now that’s a new one on me. Sounds like a very late to develop doctrine to me.

You realize that God said “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘____ has sent me to you.’” What do you think fills in the blank?

Have a bit of common sense Rev 22.13 is talking about the New Creation in Christ.

Common sense tells me that ‘Rev 22:13” is not talking. Rev 22:13 is a record of Jesus talking to John. You either believe that really happened, or you don't. Rev 22:13 is a record of Jesus talking to John.

Which defeats your theory's Premise that Jesus never claimed to be God..

 

[Gregg]

The Angels were there having been created sometime before the creation of the earth, since Satan was there.I don't see any reason to think Jesus was an Angel as the JW's do.

Jesse, or anyone,

Where does it say the angels were there when God created the heavens and the earth?

Where is the chronology stating that angels were created before man?

The answer to these questions may shed light on the audience [or lack of it] present when God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness" (Gen 1:26).

 

[Free]

Let us make man in our image. (Gen 1:26)
Behold, the man has become like one of us. (Gen 3:22)
Come, let us go down and there confuse their language. (Gen 11:7)

After reading the New Testament (John 17:5; Hebrews 1:2, etc.), I knew that Jesus was there. But I don't automatically presume that Jesus is God because of that. Just that he was with God.

I have no problem with that.

The worlds were created through the Son, not by the Son. All things were created by God. Through the Son, which makes him someone other than God.

But here you have a significant problem. This is precisely the problem which have pointed out many times in this thread but which has largely gone unanswered by the anti-trinitarians.

You state "All things were created by God." Correct. You also state that this was done "Through the Son," which is also correct. Yet, incredibly, you then state that this "makes him someone other than God." But such a conclusion ignores all logic.

If "all things" were created "through the Son," as you and John 1:3, Col 1:15-16, and 1 Cor 8:6 state, then it is logically impossible that the Son could have been created. God alone is self-existent and has existed for eternity past. If the Son has always existed, which is very much implied by "all things" having been created "through the Son," then by definition, this makes him God in nature. The argument is sound and its conclusion inescapable.

The Angels were there having been created sometime before the creation of the earth, since Satan was there.I don't see any reason to think Jesus was an Angel as the JW's do.

I don't see a problem with God saying us with all those persons around.

The main problem with that argument is that we are made in God's image, not the image of angels or any other created being. Therefore, the "us" and "our" cannot be said to reference anyone but God.

I can't see Paul passing up teaching explicitly on such a crucial doctrine as the Trinity that would be so radically different from Jewish theology. The original believers being Jews. I don't see Luke the companion of Paul passing up mentioning the conflict.

But yet Paul makes many statements which only make sense if Jesus is God. In fact, he explicitly states that Jesus is God, as does Peter:

Titus 2:13, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, (ESV)

2 Pe 1:1, Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: (ESV)

Not to mention the many other times it is implied.

I don't agree the New Testament clearly shows that Jesus is God or part of a Trinitarian God. Only that Jesus is the unique son of God and thus divine because God is uniquely his father. And Jesus is simultaneously the son of man because Mary is his mother through whom he was made in the likeness of men.

You are not the first to suggest this in this thread but the other completely ignored the implications of such reasoning. If Jesus is "the son of man" because he has a human nature, it follows then that his being called "the Son of God" would mean he is also God in nature.

Today Jesus is a unique person, a unique being. Divine and glorified human. The firstborn among many brethren. The unique mediator between God and men. Jesus is not "a god", except in the sense of a ruler or a judge (see Isaiah 9:6-7 & John 10:22-38).

I agree with all those things except that the NT makes explicit and implicit claims that he is God, just not the Father. It is precisely because he is both God and man that he can be the mediator between God and men.

I do agree the New Testament clearly shows the Holy Spirit is a person. But not that the Spirit is part of a Trinitarian God. Anymore than the seven Spirits of God in Revelation are part of a Trinitarian God. And that understanding prevents me from being a part of the less than .1% composed of non-Trinitarian Christian denominations. They believe the Holy Spirit is some kind of force of God. In a sense they believe in a di-une God in that the Spirit and the Father are part of the same God.

There is one Holy Spirit and he is also put on equal footing with Jesus. Not nearly as much is said about the Holy Spirit but enough that he can be said to be God, just not the Father nor the Son.

I agree there isn't any contradiction between the Old and New Testaments. Only between the Bible and the Trinitarians.

On the contrary, I and others have given ample evidence, much of which has been dismissed with the wave of a hand or ignored altogether, that Jesus is God in the flesh. We agree that he is not the Father nor the Holy Spirit and we also agree that there is only one God. These are facts of Scripture which must be adequately accounted for.

Other than that, it sounds like you're thinking like a Jehovah's Witness. The correct translation of Romans 10:9 should be "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Jehovah". Why didn't the JWs see that? They didn't translate that verse that way. Probably because it would contradict a doctrine very important to them.

Of course that is why they did it. They purposely inserted Jehovah into the NT text, in numerous places, when it is completely unwarranted. Theirs is unfortunately a purposeful mistranslation of Scripture to support their erroneous doctrine. We are talking here about context and the parallel that Paul uses.

I am continually surprised at the consistent inability or unwillingness of anti-trinitarians to understand the significance of context. It really seems to me that there is no mistaking that Paul is here equating the confession of "Jesus is Lord" as a necessary condition of salvation, with "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." There is no point in him bringing up this OT text otherwise.

Regardless, I could be wrong and I want to move away from such discussion, and focus rather on what the Scriptures say that supports the doctrine of the Trinity.

"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of (lit. out of) whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by (lit. through) whom are all things, and we by him." (1 Corinthians 8:6)

"one Jehovah Jesus Christ"?

No, the context best supports "one Lord." And yet this is another of those passages which clearly imply that Jesus is God. If "of whom are all things" speaks of the eternal preexistence of the Father, it follows then "through whom are all things" speaks of the eternal preexistence of the Son. Again, the argument is sound.

"And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:8-11)

"Jesus Christ is Jehovah, to the glory of God the Father"?

It is possible that this could be saying "Jesus Christ is God, to the glory of God the Father," especially given the context. This is a key passage which speaks of the deity of Jesus but also how he became man. But "Lord" is probably the better rendering.

Do you suppose there's a reason why none of these verses are translated this way in mainline translations? Perhaps because that's not what the text is saying?

First and foremost because "Jehovah" doesn't appear in any manuscript. And, of course, theos is not the word used in those passages, so to directly translate them as "God" would be incorrect. That doesn't mean though that the use of "Lord" does not mean "God". The main point of these passages is that of Jesus' lordship but in at least some instances, the use of "Lord" carries a double meaning.

 

[Free]

Christians can't seem to understand the Bible unless they interpret it. Makes me wonder who really are the ones who are saved. Does the historic interpretation save them? Are they being saved according to whatever interpretation they have? Or are they being saved in spite of their interpretations? From what I know about God and man from reading the Bible, I'd say the latter.

I'm not trying to be facetious here. I'm making a point.

And yet salvation hinges on who Jesus is. We simply cannot take the central figure of the entirety of Scripture, through whom alone salvation is possible, and make him out to be whatever we want him to be, something different than what Scripture reveals. This is an absolutely central issue to salvation.

In Old Testament times people were saved by calling on Jehovah or God. The Messiah had not yet come. Since the Ascension of Jesus the Messiah people are to call on Jesus. Not just unbelievers to be saved (Romans 10:9), but also believers, to whom Jesus is the head of each church (local) and of the Body (universal), as Paul said and for the reason he gave in Philippians 2:8-11 (see 1 Corinthians 1:2).

In the OT it is stated that God is the only Savior, he says so himself. And I have posted on this previously, again with no response:

Titus 1:1-4, 1 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God's elect and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness, 2 in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began 3 and at the proper time manifested in his word through the preaching with which I have been entrusted by the command of God our Savior; 4 To Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.

Titus 2:10-13, 10 not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior. 11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, 12 training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, 13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

Titus 3:4-7, 4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

In each chapter Paul is drawing some significant parallels between God being our Savior and Jesus being our Savior, not to mention the clear statement, "our great God and Savior Jesus Christ."

 

[th1b.taylor]

No, Bill, I'm not offended. I've taken a lot of stick over the years about this matter, so my turtle shell may be a bit cracked here and there, but not significantly.

I only hope that I haven't upset you too much either.

This, I know, is a very sensitive issue, and provokes much high feeling, and I would not voluntarily hurt anybody with my views. But I believe my position is the truth, and that is what I must stand or fall by, irrespective of my own or others' feelings.

So here's a handshake across the miles, and a wish that the Almighty may bless you as you have need.

Thanks and the hand shake returned as given. My concern is that each of us goes to Heaven and the truth of that matter is that the truth is offensive to many today and many claiming the name of the Christ have and are selling out without so much as a thought. Jesus gave us the Great Commission and folks would rather be a member some place than to tell the harsh truth.

God bless my friend.

 

[eddif]

Colossians 2:9
For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

Full moon on the 15th.
Greater and lesser lights:
The moon is solid. Reflects sun's light
I hear the sun is gasses and plasma state material. I really do not know
Some use the photon theory for light. Mississippi folks do not know for sure

Just as created nature is hard to pin down, I think trinity is about next in line. God ,IMHO, uses nature to help us understand.

eddif