Gregg
Member
Are you saying that angels are not created, that they existed before creation?
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
Proof of Trinity
- Thread starter Rollo Tamasi
- Start date
Jesse Stone
Member
Gregg #585
I'll take that as a no.
Regarding:
I don't see man as a trichotomy. Or as a dichotomy for that matter. Man, according to what I understand of the Bible, and personal experience simply because I'm self-aware, is much more complex than either view. Since I was a young man I've questioned the Evolutionist view that man is simply a physical automaton. Guided by reflexes in the synapses of a physical brain. Some instinctive, some learned.
The idea that man is a trichotomy is based primarily on two verses.
First, 1 Thessalonians 5:23. Consider the context of this verse, which is the church in Thessalonica. Consider that it is referring to a particular church, rather than each member in that church individually. If you know some Greek, note how the pronouns are plural in that verse. And how the Greek word translated whole is also in the plural. Paul was specific when he was referring to a church or to an individual. Even though 1 Timothy is addressed to Timothy, it is mostly regarding a particular church, the church in Ephesus (1:3) and Timothy's place in relation to that church.
Second, Genesis 2:7. From the presupposition that man is a trichotomy, this seems to give a foundation for such an idea. But it only shows that man is connected to both the earth and to God. And the combination has given man a soul that is different from the souls of all other living things on the earth. I think it explains why man is different from the other animals. Why man is intelligent in a way other animals are not. Of course Evolutionists offer a different reason. Some people in their loneliness try to assuage that loneliness through an animal. A dog, cat, horse, whatever. The Bible says that's a mistake (Genesis 2:18-24). Those who try to assuage the loneliness through a garden may be closer to meeting their need (Genesis 2:15). But still not near close enough.
I'll take that as a no.
Regarding:
I don't see man as a trichotomy. Or as a dichotomy for that matter. Man, according to what I understand of the Bible, and personal experience simply because I'm self-aware, is much more complex than either view. Since I was a young man I've questioned the Evolutionist view that man is simply a physical automaton. Guided by reflexes in the synapses of a physical brain. Some instinctive, some learned.
The idea that man is a trichotomy is based primarily on two verses.
First, 1 Thessalonians 5:23. Consider the context of this verse, which is the church in Thessalonica. Consider that it is referring to a particular church, rather than each member in that church individually. If you know some Greek, note how the pronouns are plural in that verse. And how the Greek word translated whole is also in the plural. Paul was specific when he was referring to a church or to an individual. Even though 1 Timothy is addressed to Timothy, it is mostly regarding a particular church, the church in Ephesus (1:3) and Timothy's place in relation to that church.
Second, Genesis 2:7. From the presupposition that man is a trichotomy, this seems to give a foundation for such an idea. But it only shows that man is connected to both the earth and to God. And the combination has given man a soul that is different from the souls of all other living things on the earth. I think it explains why man is different from the other animals. Why man is intelligent in a way other animals are not. Of course Evolutionists offer a different reason. Some people in their loneliness try to assuage that loneliness through an animal. A dog, cat, horse, whatever. The Bible says that's a mistake (Genesis 2:18-24). Those who try to assuage the loneliness through a garden may be closer to meeting their need (Genesis 2:15). But still not near close enough.
Jesse Stone
Member
Free #587
You're right. Denominationalism isn't a doctrine. It's the fruit of a doctrine. An unspoken doctrine that says denominationalism is OK. Denominationalism isn't just the way things are organized. Things are organized in a certain way because of denominationalism. I think it shouldn't be at all. Neither Jesus Christ nor Paul give any indication it should be that way. I detect a note of apathy when you say that " it just is the way things are ". And I think that shouldn't be either.
1 Corinthians 11:18-19 is the first thing quoted against my view. And I think it is not being understood in its context of this letter. To understand those two verses out of that context is to make Paul contradict himself.
Romans 16:17-18 is usually the second thing thus quoted. Also taken out of context that includes all that went before in chapters 14 & 15.
If only it were that simple. That it isn't prevents me from being a Christian.
I make no such claim. Ironic that I may be more "Christian" than some who claim to be Christian. Thanks to denominationalism.
You're right. Denominationalism isn't a doctrine. It's the fruit of a doctrine. An unspoken doctrine that says denominationalism is OK. Denominationalism isn't just the way things are organized. Things are organized in a certain way because of denominationalism. I think it shouldn't be at all. Neither Jesus Christ nor Paul give any indication it should be that way. I detect a note of apathy when you say that " it just is the way things are ". And I think that shouldn't be either.
1 Corinthians 11:18-19 is the first thing quoted against my view. And I think it is not being understood in its context of this letter. To understand those two verses out of that context is to make Paul contradict himself.
Romans 16:17-18 is usually the second thing thus quoted. Also taken out of context that includes all that went before in chapters 14 & 15.
If only it were that simple. That it isn't prevents me from being a Christian.
I make no such claim. Ironic that I may be more "Christian" than some who claim to be Christian. Thanks to denominationalism.
Jesse Stone
Member
JLB #591
Can't answer your question without knowing where you're coming from. It's obviously a loaded question.
But I can point out four things you appear to be suggesting on the surface.
First, the Old Testament believers weren't. They knew nothing of being born again.
Second, as a corollary to the first, the Old Testament believers didn't have the knowledge we have today through the New Testament (the idea of progressive revelation). Which makes me wonder why Paul would say "whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope." and "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" referring to the Old Testament.
Third, that the Trinity is a mystery, hidden during Old Testament times, revealed in the New Testament. Too bad that the mystery Paul revealed wasn't the Trinity, rather Christ and the Church. Would have made it much easier if he had just defined the Trinity right then and there. Instead of waiting for a bunch of people who aren't among the New Testament writers to define it three centuries later. Or perhaps Paul wasn't suggesting anything to do with the Trinity.
Fourth, you think the reason I question the Trinity is because I'm not "born again" in the way that you understand it. That I'm trying to understand the Trinity as a "natural man", which to you is impossible. To which opinion you are entitled. As dangerous as it might be.
Can't answer your question without knowing where you're coming from. It's obviously a loaded question.
But I can point out four things you appear to be suggesting on the surface.
First, the Old Testament believers weren't. They knew nothing of being born again.
Second, as a corollary to the first, the Old Testament believers didn't have the knowledge we have today through the New Testament (the idea of progressive revelation). Which makes me wonder why Paul would say "whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope." and "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" referring to the Old Testament.
Third, that the Trinity is a mystery, hidden during Old Testament times, revealed in the New Testament. Too bad that the mystery Paul revealed wasn't the Trinity, rather Christ and the Church. Would have made it much easier if he had just defined the Trinity right then and there. Instead of waiting for a bunch of people who aren't among the New Testament writers to define it three centuries later. Or perhaps Paul wasn't suggesting anything to do with the Trinity.
Fourth, you think the reason I question the Trinity is because I'm not "born again" in the way that you understand it. That I'm trying to understand the Trinity as a "natural man", which to you is impossible. To which opinion you are entitled. As dangerous as it might be.
Gregg
Member
Jesse,
After reading several of your posts, I gather you have spent much time reading and studying the Christian Bible. In all of your reading, and contemplation, do you perceive a God who loves you?
I used Paul as a Pharisee as a reference to a natural man, not being born again, and not understanding the Mystery which he now shares with the church.
This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
God chose to reveal Himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit to those who He had given a divine nature to.
Those who have the capacity to understand this mystery.
Elohim is plural of the singular El, which is the shortened form for God.
The first verse of the bible introduces us to the Godhead.
In the beginning, God [Elohim] created the heavens and the earth.
JLB
I would state God the Farther formed their Spirit just as He formed Jesus's spirit first. I also believe God forms the spirits of man and women.
Randy
Jesse Stone
Member
Jesse Stone
Member
JLB #607
The context is a local church. The church in Ephesus. Consider that before you equate "the church" that Paul was talking about with some kind of universal Church.
Is this your answer to why God uses personal pronouns to refer to himself in the Old Testament?
Okaay. So you think that if God hasn't revealed himself as a Trinity to me, then I haven't been given a divine nature? Nor do I have the capacity to understand this mystery (unclear whether the mystery you refer to here is Christ and the church or the Trinity)?
God used both to refer to himself. Why was that less of a big deal to God and the Jews than it is to Trinitarians?
Why do you suppose that Bibles translated by Trinitarians don't translate Elohim as Godhead? Wouldn't that be a good plural translation for Elohim from a Trinitarian perspective? In the beginning the Godhead created the heavens and the earth. Seems to me they not only lost a good opportunity to show that the Trinity is revealed in the Old Testament, but they are inconsistent to not have done so. As if the idea that the Trinity is revealed covertly in the Old Testament isn't as widespread an idea as it seems. It's not like they didn't know of the existence of such a word. It's found in the KJV three times in the New Testament. Doesn't matter that modern translations have decided that Godhead isn't such a good translation for the Greek words used. The word is there and a definite choice was made not to Translate the plural Elohim with an obviously available plural English word denoting God. Available for over 400 years. Surely that would have given them sufficient opportunity to think to use such a word, instead of a word that is obviously singular.
The context is a local church. The church in Ephesus. Consider that before you equate "the church" that Paul was talking about with some kind of universal Church.
Is this your answer to why God uses personal pronouns to refer to himself in the Old Testament?
Okaay. So you think that if God hasn't revealed himself as a Trinity to me, then I haven't been given a divine nature? Nor do I have the capacity to understand this mystery (unclear whether the mystery you refer to here is Christ and the church or the Trinity)?
God used both to refer to himself. Why was that less of a big deal to God and the Jews than it is to Trinitarians?
Why do you suppose that Bibles translated by Trinitarians don't translate Elohim as Godhead? Wouldn't that be a good plural translation for Elohim from a Trinitarian perspective? In the beginning the Godhead created the heavens and the earth. Seems to me they not only lost a good opportunity to show that the Trinity is revealed in the Old Testament, but they are inconsistent to not have done so. As if the idea that the Trinity is revealed covertly in the Old Testament isn't as widespread an idea as it seems. It's not like they didn't know of the existence of such a word. It's found in the KJV three times in the New Testament. Doesn't matter that modern translations have decided that Godhead isn't such a good translation for the Greek words used. The word is there and a definite choice was made not to Translate the plural Elohim with an obviously available plural English word denoting God. Available for over 400 years. Surely that would have given them sufficient opportunity to think to use such a word, instead of a word that is obviously singular.
A
Asyncritus
Guest
I don't understand how you can adhere to this view of Christ before creation.
As I have pointed out on several occasions, God says in 2 Sam 7 that Jesus WILL BE His Son, and God WILL BE His Father.
Hadn't happened yet.
Same with Ps 2: 'Thou art my son, THIS DAY have I begotten thee'. It either happened the same day the psalm was written, or as Paul says, on the Day of Resurrection (Rom 1.4)
In either case, that was LONG AFTER creation.
Further, Ps 89 clearly says "I WILL MAKE HIM my firstborn" which clearly means that He wasn't God's Firstborn AS YET.
Free, as you can see from the above, I don't believe Jesus pre-existed apart from being a huge part of the purpose of God with the earth and its inhabitants.
Last edited by a moderator:
7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 1 John 5:7
These three are the Godhead.
These three are Elohim.
God is Spirit, therefore the Spirit is God.
JLB
Jesus, who is YHWH the Lord God is the Son of God who created all things.
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
John 1:1-3
Hear the words of YHWH the Lord God Himself -
10 "And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn. Zechariah 12:10
Jesus said -
18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. John 1:18 This is a reference to God the Father.
Yet we see the people in the old testament to whom God appeared.
1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am Almighty God; walk before Me and be blameless. Genesis 17:1
Almighty God appeared to Abraham, Moses, Hagar, Samsons Parents, Jacob... These all saw God. God the Son. YHWH
Jesus refers to Himself as Almighty God -
7 Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen. 8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End," says the Lord, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." Revelation 1:7-8
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.
1 Timothy 1:18
The Son of God was seen by the Three Hebrew Children.
"Look!" he answered, "I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire; and they are not hurt, and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God." Daniel 3:25
JLB
Gregg
Member
Are you saying that angels have spirits?
Other than Jesus pre-existing angels, do you equate Jesus with the angels?
Or more directly, do you believe Jesus is an angel [not in the sense of being a messenger but of their created order]?
It seems as though you are saying that the "great mystery" Paul is speaking of is the Trinity. But that clearly is not the case. He is speaking of the union of a husband and wife--"the two shall become one flesh"--as being analogous to the union of Christ and the church.
The most we could say with regards to the Trinity is that if in some mysterious way the intimate union of two persons makes them somehow "one flesh," then certainly God himself can somehow also be two or three in one. The analogy will fail at some point, as they all do when it comes to the nature of God, but still, the point can be made.
A
Asyncritus
Guest
With all due respect, JLB, you have utterly failed to even mention those highly important passages I listed.
Just to remind you, they are:
God says in 2 Sam 7 that Jesus WILL BE His Son, and God WILL BE His Father.
Hadn't happened yet.
Same with Ps 2: 'Thou art my son, THIS DAY have I begotten thee'. It either happened the same day the psalm was written, or as Paul says, on the Day of Resurrection (Rom 1.4)
In either case, that was LONG AFTER creation.
Further, Ps 89 clearly says "I WILL MAKE HIM my firstborn" which clearly means that He wasn't God's Firstborn AS YET.
Since these were written long BEFORE any of the New Testament, it is incumbent on you to address them, since the NT cannot contradict the OT.
Over to you.
Gregg
Member
"will be" and "this day" speak of the epoch wherein the Son of God has taken upon Himself the form of a man, a body prepared for Him. Those statements you are quoting do preclude that the Son of God was a Son to the Father beforehand. As Immanuel, God the Son having taken a body of flesh and blood, it was even necessary to declare to the angels that they should also worship the Son as Immanuel just as they worshiped the Son prior to His Incarnation. "And let all the angels of God worship Him" (Heb 1:6; LXX Deu 32:43).
The Son, now having a body of flesh and blood, was the One whom they worshiped beforehand as their God. "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; the scepter of Your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness" (Heb 1:8, Psa 45:6). The difference in the Son of God before and after His Incarnation is His body of flesh and blood; as He did not have that body beforehand. God the Father made it clear to both man and angels that they were not to refrain from worshiping the Son after taking upon Himself the form of a man.
What I state is "Our Heavenly Father is the God of all spirits even Jesus's. As in our FATHER who is in Heaven....
Didn't you read that the Fullness was pleased to dwell IN Jesus? I don't recall reading that gift was given to the angels of God do you?
Hebrews takes pain to show Jesus's name is above the angels of God.
I believe spirit gives birth to spirit and ONLY the Fathers Holy Spirt is the Spirit that gives the breath of life.
Randy
Gregg
Member
I am simply unable to discern your Christology from the answers you provide; except that you deny the Deity of the LORD Jesus Christ.
I have stated from the start Jesus is not the deity. He is the Son of God. The fullness of the deity (given) was pleased to dwell IN Him. In that He is the image of the living (invisible) God. As Jesus stated, all authority in heaven and earth was given to Him.
Again - Is Jesus God?
He never dies
Yes, He is all that the Father is
No, He has always been the Son
Now let me ask this. Do you believe the Holy Spirit has His own mind and will like the Son? Because what I read is that Spirit searches the deep thoughts or mind of God or mind of the Spirit. The Spirit speaks what He hears. As in those that listen to the Father and learn from Him go to the Son.
Because God is Spirit the God of Hosts can send His Spirit into the world and indeed into our hearts. (A circumcision not by the will and hands of man by by the Will of God and by the Spirit of God) How God writes a new covenant on the hearts of the people just as He foretold.
Randy