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!

The Real Trinity please stand up!

The incarnate Son of God ascended into the highest heaven, where He is now seated at the right hand of the Father.

He could ascend because He was not only a Man, but 'the' Son God.

I do not contemplate that Jesus is an angel. Do you contemplate this?
No, never. I was making a simple point of contemplation. Can you imagine a 'person' accending into space? Then, imagine two angels standing next to you after you just witnessed it. Some things are essential, like faith in who he is and what he does for us, his promises. Other things are non-essential, like how did a human being accend into the upper heaven? As a Christian you really imagine a human being sitting on a throne, or maybe standing on the right side of one as an invisible Father sits on it? These are allegories and anthropomophisms used to help you understand who he is and what he does. Like I believe I just read today how someone believes this body of Messiah can shoot out a two-edged sword. It brings me back to 'the finger of God' verse that indicates God has a body. AND the JW make a doctrine with it.... (face palm) I'm not sure if Christians can see the absurdities they espouse from within the walls of their church. Meaning, as long as you have agreement there is no recognition of any disagreement. It's all 'heretical'. And to be ignored. But fear not, i'm not choosing to pick only on the church with these things, as I can fully see the same thing within orthdox Judaism, and most all orthodox expressions of religion. Redefine your parameters as needed to keep the disagreement out. This is akin to defining your opponent as 'evil' so as to justify your aggression against him. It's not a law of God. I believe he saw it as 'adding to his word'. When Messiah comes back how many people will he have to say; 'that's not what I meant'! Black is black, red is red, dead is dead, and white is white. Yes means yes, and no means no....... Now, all you false shepherds....follow me....

BTW, I don't believe someone who believes a lie unknowingly will be held accountable for that lie. I believe God will show each person his sin clear enough for them to make a conscious descision within their heart in time to save them. It will always be our choices that damn us. In my humble opinion. So I don't believe innocent people will be punished. I don't believe the criteria will be church doctrines, nor how well I followed the Torah, but how much I let the Spirit of Messiah dwell within my heart. This way when He comes back he will know me, and I him. As he promised. We are not being married to a husband we have never seen and do not know! We are being married to the one who knows us intimately. He chose us 'in Christ' before the foundation of the world, no?
 
Heb 2:17 kjva Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Was Flesh and blood.

1Jn 4:17 kjva Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.

1Jn 3:2 kjva Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

-As He is now, we are like Him. (Should be anyway, or working on it) When He appears, we shall be exactly like Him.
There you go then; now we know that we will also have flesh and blood as He now does.

Luk 24:39 kjva Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
This verse in Luke proves my point. Jesus was saying that He wasn't a spirit, but that He had flesh and bones as a man does.

-Jesus said, a spirit does not have flesh and BONES, as I have. Jesus never mentioned blood being in his body.
Nor did He then mention that He had eyes, or a nose. But because He didn't mention that, it does not mean that He did not have eyes and a nose.

1Co 15:50-54 kjva 50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

-Flesh and Blood does not inherit the Kingdom but dead is raised incorruptible, with a new body, and blood is not mentioned. So, Jesus would to have had the new body, without blood, and redemened flesh.
The correct translation of 1Cor 15:50 should read, ". . . that flesh and blood is not able to inherit the kingdom of God . . ."

1Cor 15:50 is saying that man will not inherit the kingdom of God by natural or physical means, not through a corruptible nature. This is similar to way in which we come to know the LORD; not through the flesh or natural means, but through the Spirit who has enlightened the eyes of our heart (Mat 16:17, Eph 1:17-18 a).
 
Last edited:
Jesus did have the ability to walk on water. What is a wall to the one who created water . . . earth, wind, and fire?

He had the ability to ascend into heaven, and will Himself descend again from Heaven. Surely His flesh and blood can walk through walls.

His Resurrections was a bodily resurrection.
:thinking
 
BTW, I don't believe someone who believes a lie unknowingly will be held accountable for that lie. I believe God will show each person his sin clear enough for them to make a conscious descision within their heart in time to save them.
Do you think I am believing a lie, and if so, what is that lie?

I do believe that the LORD Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God Incarnate; and I distinguish between the Father and the Son, both to whom belongs the same Holy Spirit.
 
There you go then; now we know that we will also have flesh and blood as He now does.

This verse in Luke proves my point. Jesus was saying that He wasn't a spirit, but that He had flesh and bones as a man does.


Nor did He then mention that He had eyes, or a nose. But because He didn't mention that, it does not mean that He did not have eyes and a nose.


The correct translation of 1Cor 15:50 should read, ". . . that flesh and blood is not able to inherit the kingdom of God . . ."

1Cor 15:50 is saying that man will not inherit the kingdom of God by natural or physical means, not through a corruptible nature. This is similar to way in which we come to know the LORD; not through the flesh or natural means, but through the Spirit who has enlightened the eyes of our heart (Mat 16:17, Eph 1:17-18 a).

I don't think we have blood flowing in our new Bodies Gregg. That would indicate a circulatory system that needed nutrients to stay alive. Then again, just because it's not mentioned, does not make it so. I get your point.

Philip was translated to his next meeting, instantly. So, the bodies ability to do something does not mean a thing, I agree there.
 
Do you think I am believing a lie, and if so, what is that lie?
I would never want to judge another in this way. I respectfully choose not answer your direct question.

I do believe that the LORD Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God Incarnate; and I distinguish between the Father and the Son, both to whom belongs the same Holy Spirit.
I can understand your belief too, and choose to resepct it. What we are likely disagreeing on would be 'how' Messiah is Son of God, and 'how' does God incarnate himself as a man. And why. When we delve into these things I believe doctrines like the trinity fade away. Though I can understand that for Christians the more they delve into these things the more they see a trinity. But I believe that's also because the beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and many people only want to see what they want to see. I too should be guilty of this! But it's why we must keep an open mind and not close ourselves off to that which seems opposed to us. Look how that turned out for the pharisee's?
 
There you go then; now we know that we will also have flesh and blood as He now does.

This verse in Luke proves my point. Jesus was saying that He wasn't a spirit, but that He had flesh and bones as a man does.


Nor did He then mention that He had eyes, or a nose. But because He didn't mention that, it does not mean that He did not have eyes and a nose.


The correct translation of 1Cor 15:50 should read, ". . . that flesh and blood is not able to inherit the kingdom of God . . ."

1Cor 15:50 is saying that man will not inherit the kingdom of God by natural or physical means, not through a corruptible nature. This is similar to way in which we come to know the LORD; not through the flesh or natural means, but through the Spirit who has enlightened the eyes of our heart (Mat 16:17, Eph 1:17-18 a).
Another avenue to take is the Kinsman redeemer. The Incarnation has to be in place in order for Christ to sit on the throne of David forever. Only a blood relative could be their(Israel/Davidic covenant) redeemer and sit on the throne.

Luke 1:32 "He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; Luke 1:33 and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and His kingdom will have no end."

Ps 89:28-29 My lovingkindness I will keep for him forever, And My covenant shall be confirmed to him. So I will establish his descendants forever, And his throne as the days of heaven.

1. the redeemer must be a blood relative/kinsman.
Leviticus 25:48-49 translation: NASB NIV MSG
25:48 then he shall have redemption right after he has been sold. One of his brothers may redeem him, 25:49 or his uncle, or his uncle's son, may redeem him, or one of his blood relatives from his family may redeem him; or if he prospers, he may redeem himself

2.the redeemer must have the capability to redeem.
Jeremiah 50:34 translation: NASB NIV MSG
50:34 "Their Redeemer is strong, the Lord of hosts is His name; He will vigorously plead their case So that He may bring rest to the earth, But turmoil to the inhabitants of Babylon.

3. The redeemer pays the righteous demands.


Leviticus 25:27 translation: NASB NIV MSG
25:27 then he shall calculate the years since its sale and refund the balance to the man to whom he sold it, and so return to his property.


In order for Christ to sit on that throne(forever), He has to be a kinsman/blood relative. In other words,the incarnation is required for the King to sit on the throne.
 
Last edited:
Another avenue to take is the Kinsman redeemer. The Incarnation has to be in place in order for Christ to sit on the throne of David forever. Only a blood relative could be their(Israel/Davidic covenant) redeemer and sit on the throne.

Luke 1:32 "He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; Luke 1:33 and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and His kingdom will have no end."

Ps 89:28-29 My lovingkindness I will keep for him forever, And My covenant shall be confirmed to him. So I will establish his descendants forever, And his throne as the days of heaven.

1. the redeemer must be a blood relative/kinsman.
Leviticus 25:48-49 translation: NASB NIV MSG
25:48 then he shall have redemption right after he has been sold. One of his brothers may redeem him, 25:49 or his uncle, or his uncle's son, may redeem him, or one of his blood relatives from his family may redeem him; or if he prospers, he may redeem himself

2.the redeemer must have the capability to redeem.
Jeremiah 50:34 translation: NASB NIV MSG
50:34 "Their Redeemer is strong, the Lord of hosts is His name; He will vigorously plead their case So that He may bring rest to the earth, But turmoil to the inhabitants of Babylon.

3. The redeemer pays the righteous demands.


Leviticus 25:27 translation: NASB NIV MSG
25:27 then he shall calculate the years since its sale and refund the balance to the man to whom he sold it, and so return to his property.


In order for Christ to sit on that throne(forever), He has to be a kinsman/blood relative. In other words,the incarnation is required for the King to sit on the throne.

Amen! I appreciate your perspective.
 
I would never want to judge another in this way. I respectfully choose not answer your direct question.

I can understand your belief too, and choose to resepct it. What we are likely disagreeing on would be 'how' Messiah is Son of God, and 'how' does God incarnate himself as a man. And why. When we delve into these things I believe doctrines like the trinity fade away. Though I can understand that for Christians the more they delve into these things the more they see a trinity. But I believe that's also because the beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and many people only want to see what they want to see. I too should be guilty of this! But it's why we must keep an open mind and not close ourselves off to that which seems opposed to us. Look how that turned out for the pharisee's?
Natural beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but the eyes of our mind have been enlightened that we might see the glory of God in Christ.
 
Colossians 2:16
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

IMHO
The reality of Christ being slain before the foundation of the earth caused:
The hearts natural pacemaker to look like a crucified man.
The blood moons to show the shedding of Messiah's
blood.
Our kidneys to show we have sin to deal with.
The ox to parallel a bishop.
Many etc.......

The physical is put in place as a prophecy to speak of what is in God's good pleasure. The sending of God's son was set up in divers ways: nature, law, prophets, etc.

All my information comes from / through Jewish writers / speakers.

Mississippi redneck
eddif
 
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1)
"All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."
"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Jesus is the Lord God.
 
Christ did not "pour out His blood" for our redemption. He was forsaken by the Father and died a substitutionary spiritual death for our redemption. He physically died for our bodily resurrection. Jesus Christ was still alive and had blood when He said,"It is finished." "The Blood" refers to the total work of Christ on the Cross.
All the above statements are totally fallacious and quite misleading, and do not line up with Scripture. It would pay you to study the doctrine of the shed blood of Christ and His atoning work in depth before making such fallacious statement. It is quite unfortunate that there is little or no teaching on this important truth, and some Bible teachers have actually been misrepresenting the meaning of the shed blood of Christ.
 
These are allegories and anthropomophisms used to help you understand who he is and what he does. Like I believe I just read today how someone believes this body of Messiah can shoot out a two-edged sword. It brings me back to 'the finger of God' verse that indicates God has a body. AND the JW make a doctrine with it.... (face palm) I'm not sure if Christians can see the absurdities they espouse from within the walls of their church. Meaning, as long as you have agreement there is no recognition of any disagreement. It's all 'heretical'. And to be ignored. But fear not, i'm not choosing to pick only on the church with these things, as I can fully see the same thing within orthdox Judaism, and most all orthodox expressions of religion. Redefine your parameters as needed to keep the disagreement out. This is akin to defining your opponent as 'evil' so as to justify your aggression against him. It's not a law of God. I believe he saw it as 'adding to his word'. When Messiah comes back how many people will he have to say; 'that's not what I meant'! Black is black, red is red, dead is dead, and white is white. Yes means yes, and no means no....... Now, all you false shepherds....follow me....

BTW, I don't believe someone who believes a lie unknowingly will be held accountable for that lie. I believe God will show each person his sin clear enough for them to make a conscious descision within their heart in time to save them. It will always be our choices that damn us. In my humble opinion. So I don't believe innocent people will be punished. I don't believe the criteria will be church doctrines, nor how well I followed the Torah, but how much I let the Spirit of Messiah dwell within my heart. This way when He comes back he will know me, and I him. As he promised. We are not being married to a husband we have never seen and do not know! We are being married to the one who knows us intimately. He chose us 'in Christ' before the foundation of the world, no?

It's somewhat refreshing to hear from people who have stepped out of various box constructs.

It is one thing to agree with Trinitarian constructs in the classic orthodox sense, which I certainly do, but the abuses of the holders of same are another matter altogether. Do we really want to fall into cutting out the tongues of people or burning people alive who don't see things our way? That is what some trinitarians fell into. Were they then any better for their correct doctrinal sights?

Uh, no. All that correctness didn't do them one bit of good if that is where they land.
 
All the above statements are totally fallacious and quite misleading, and do not line up with Scripture. It would pay you to study the doctrine of the shed blood of Christ and His atoning work in depth before making such fallacious statement. It is quite unfortunate that there is little or no teaching on this important truth, and some Bible teachers have actually been misrepresenting the meaning of the shed blood of Christ.
Really the problem is in mainstream christianity. 90% or better have never heard of Christs Substitutionary spiritual death. If the physical death(which was horrible for our Lord) paid for our sins, we would not physically die.And if it was His literal Blood that paid for the sins of the world, God would of just put Him on the alter and sacrificed Him like the animals in the OT. And if the OT sacrifices pointed to His physical death, those animals would have been nailed to a cross.His physical death has great importance but it did not provide salvation for men. His spiritual death did. He saved us from our spiritual death.

Gen 2:17~~New American Standard Bible
but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

But look at the YLT's version. You will see 2 deaths in their translation. And in the original Hebrew there are 2 deaths in this verse. Adam died spiritually the instant He ate of the fruit. He physically died many years later.

Gen 2:17~~Young's Literal Translation
and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.'

Psalm 22:1 (NASB95)
1 My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?

Far from my deliverance are the words of my groaning.....

Mark 15:33 notes The 3 hours of darkness when the Father had to forsake the Son because He had the sins of the world laid upon Him. For He is Holy and can have no part of sin, Psalm 22:3.This is Christs substitutionary spiritual death. He was alive when He said,"It is finished" and He still had a lot of blood and serum in Him when they pierced His side after He was dead. John 19:34


Isaiah 53:11 As a result of the anguish of His soul,
He will see it and be satisfied;
By His knowledge the Righteous One,
My Servant, will justify the many,
As He will bear their iniquities.
 
Parts stolen from:
wolpub.org/blog/?p=208


Praise God everyone, Brother Mike here with no spell checker, AWK!!! Bare with me. I am going to talk about the Trinity Doctrine today, Yesterday and beyond if you read this after the day posted.

No single doctrine has caused such a division in churches from the time of the Trinity's conception, and even today. OSAS (Once Saved Always Saved) doctrine comes as runner up somewhere, but not near as strong as the Trinity Doctrine.

Most believers say they believe in the Trinity doctrine. That's fine, the issue is they don't exactly know what they believe in, but only things they have picked up and heard. To make matters worse, there is another doctrine that is close to the Trinity doctrine, but not the Trinity doctrine, so both doctrines often get mixed together and called Trinity. It's actually called Modelism.

So, I'll break it down, just for fun. It's not a essential doctrine or all that important anyway. It's good to know what your actually debating though, and believe.

Now, I am not going to talk about all the Wannabe Trinity doctrines. There are many of them, all worded differently. We are going back to the original, where it all started.

It all came about when a guy named Arius contended that Jesus was a created being. He had a pretty large following, and was only going by the scriptures he read. Jesus was begotten, Jesus is not the Father, and Jesus and the father are listed together in many scriptures making two of them. Jesus being the lesser of them.

Folks, this is way back past 325ad, there were no bible programs and you did well to even get parts of the scripture together in one place. I think Arius did OK, for what He had to work with.

The Roman Cathloic church saw things a bit differently. They contended that Jesus was not a created being, or a lesser being.

There was a lot more to this, go google it to find all the arguements. The main thing is that Rome did not care much for what Arius was teaching.

So, in 325ad the council of Nicena came together to define Jesus. For you Anti-Trinitarians out there, the council did not make up the trinity out of the triune pagan gods that Anti-Trinitarians claim. That is nonesense. The original Trinity Doctine did not include a Triune anything, as you will see.

Original True Trinity Doctrine:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (ὁμοούσιον) (homoousion) with the Father; by whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.And in the Holy Ghost.But those who say: ‘There was a time when he was not;’ and ‘He was not before he was made;’ and ‘He was made out of nothing,’ or ‘He is of another substance’ or ‘essence,’ or ‘The Son of God is created,’ or ‘changeable,’ or ‘alterable’—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church

Lets examine this. Jesus is not the Father, but came from this same God substance as the FAther. Jesus was Begotten, not created. (ummmm, no, Jesus has always been here, begotten as human through Mary though by the spoken Word) The church sort of corrects this by saying, "If anyone says there was a time when he was not" then they are burned at the stake of course, or however Rome handled those type of things back in the day.

So, Jesus is God, Not the Father, Not the Holy Spirit, Not the creator, but of the same substance as God the Father. There is your Trinity Doctrine.

Modern pure Trinity believers have changed it to say Jesus is the same Nature as God the Father, or same God classs as the Father. I found many different versions of the doctrine, some leaning toward Oneness, others keeping pure Trinity Doctrine the best possible.

Much, Much, Much later the Holy Spirit was added in the Mix in 381ad. Later still these 3 are One God. The God substance was removed, and they just become one. 3 are 1.

Purist did not like the conversion to just being one God, but still of the same substance or nature. Hence small wars break out. Many debates on the interpetation of the original doctrine.

IN 1914 a new Doctrine comes to men. It's called Oneness. This Website believers in Oneness.

Oneness doctrine states that there 1 God that manifest himself as 3, or whatever is needed. 1 is 3, not 3 is 1.

This doctrine split the Assymblies of God church in 1928. A Major split of a major denomination based on a Roman Cathloic doctrine. Real dumb if you ask me.

Later, Different camps added their own spin. You will often hear phrases like the "Eternal Godhead" or Jesus, the 2nd Person in the Trinity. Jesus is the King of Kings He is not a 2nd person of anything, the Lord of Lords.

Keep in mind that the Johannine Comma was not around when the Trinity was formed. (1 John 5:7) The first record of it was not around until much, much later, it was added because of the pressure Rome was giving around 1522.

Modelist attempt to prove Trinity in scripture and end up in the Oneness camp. Trinity can't be proven or is found in scripture. Rome wrote that, the folks that made the doctrine, but is a mystery of the Christian faith. If the folks that made the doctrine says it's not there, then I just take their word for it.

What do I believe? Jesus is the son of God, not his Father, is God like His father and has always been ther the great I am. There are two, God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ as mentioned together in over 52 scriptures. I can count folks, there are 2. Trinity never tried to defend monotheism (Belief in one God) They were defending Jesus not being a created being or less then God the Father. Modern man came along later and used the doctrine from Rome to defend the One God stance.


Don't take my word for anything, go look this up on your own. I hope you had fun reading this.
Blessings.


Hi Brother Mike,

Actually, the one God three persons idea came into the church around the 400's or 500's AD. it is stated that way in the Antanasian Creed. Modalism, too, was around very early on
 
Last edited:
I seem to believe that the Father and Son are family. God spoke (the Word) in which creation came from nothingness, thus Christ being the agent who created everything, and then later will bring many sons to glory. So maybe instead of a Trinity we should be talking about a "milleniality" or more that will be one day.

So, the father is YHWH (or to put it another way, the family name) and Christ is Yeshua. I never heard of a Hebrew name for the Spirit other than that's God's power. There's some who protest that the Spirit is personified, but so is Wisdom in Proverbs, and so are the seven Spirits of God in Isaiah. Does that mean there's 7 Holy Spirit guys walking around up there? I can only accept it as a separate entity if there's a proper name for it. Right now I count only 2. This does not mean I don't believe in the Spirit of God and its awesome power. I merely see the nature differently.

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son. And of the Holy Ghost,
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.


What of the Holy Ghost? Teaching them to observe, etc. That's the power of God the way he does so.

Hi Tim,

Have you considered that the Holy Spirit is referred to as, He, first person singular?
 
Back
Top