The Trinity

[Eventide]

But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

Hebrews 7 also teaches us that our Lord Jesus Christ is a priest forever after the order of Melchisedek.. who had no father, nor mother, nor beginning or ending of days...

What does that mean ?

IMO it's obvious.. it's written in Genesis which is ALL ABOUT fathers and mothers and genealogies etc.. and then we see Melchizedek who has no father, no mother, no beginning or end..

And of course that's Christ's priesthood.. unchangeable.. because He continueth ever..

 

[Deborah13]

Matthew 12:17-19

King James Version (KJV)

17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,
18 Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.
19 He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets.

Jesus, God come in the flesh.

God - spirit, soul, and body

 

[Eventide]

The Father loveth the Son and hath given all things into His Hand...

God's creation has Father and Son written all over it.. wouldn't we think that THAT has something to do with who God is.. why else would such extreme emphasis be placed upon a Father and Son..?

The first time love is mentioned in the scriptures is with respect to Abraham and his only begotten son Isaac..

Why can't God be a Father, a Son, and Holy Spirit..? There is no problem with that at all.. we don't need to fully grasp it.. and we know through the born again experience and by the word of God that the Father is in us.. that Christ is in us.. and that the Holy Spirit is in us.. we have this unspeakable gift within this earthen vessel that the GLORY may be of GOD and not us..

And this is the EARNEST of our inheritance in HIM unto the praise of His glory.. it's the advance of an inheritance that is beyond measure.. and will consume even the ages to come.. for we are sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise.. even unto the DAY of redemption.. even unto the Day of Jesus Christ..

For He that hath begun a good work in you shall perform it.. even until the Day of Jesus Christ..

And we can (or should) clearly see that Day approaching...

 

[Asyncritus]

Asyncritus, I don't understand how you can think that He didn't exist prior to being conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, in Mary ? ? ?

Very easily.

He is the Son of God.

Therefore God is His Father. He said so many times.

He was CONCEIVED by the Holy Spirit of God. How then could He have existed before His CONCEPTION?

If the relationship is accurately described as a Father/Son relationship, then the Father must precede the Son. Otherwise the figure is incorrectly used.

Therefore, Jesus was NOT from eternity. God preceded Him. And just in case you might be thinking of those verses (as in Jn 17) which speak of 'before the foundation of the world' you are then forced to admit that we also existed 'from the foundation of the world'.

Eph 1.4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

and

Revelation 17:8 [...] whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is

Were you there before the foundation of the world? You were. Not literally of course. But IN THE MIND OF GOD you were.

And so it is with Christ. He was 'slain from the foundation of the world'

Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Was Jesus killed before Gen 1.1? I don't think so.

If, however, you see that the world which is being talked about is the New Creation, then the whole thing immediately makes sense.

Jesus did die FROM the foundation of the world. The New Creation began when He was raised from the dead.

So I want to understand your statement here.. You do not believe that Christ existed before He was manifest in the Flesh ? Even though the scriptures are clear in teaching that HE is the ROOT and the OFFSPRING of David ?

Isaiah 11:10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.

It's curious that the ROOT is above ground - since it STANDS for an ensign of the people.

Therefore, this is a figure of speech, which represents the resurrection of Christ. He went underground in His death, and emerged again, as the ensign of the people, the leader of His army.

He is the OFFSPRING of David, meaning his Son. And you're back in the Father/Son difficulties mentioned above. How can He be David's Son, if He existed before David was born?

The difficulties are enormous, and scripturally insupportable.

The scriptures don't teach that He was transplanted..

Absolutely correct.

but rather that He was miraculously conceived within Mary, after she believed the message from above..

Absolutely right again.

So I'm not sure where you're getting transplanted from etc..?

If Jesus existed in heaven before being born, then He could not have been conceived.

It had to be a process of implantation or transplantation. Mary was His real mother, not a surrogate.

That implanting or transplanting flatly contradicts the word conceived.

Therefore He could not exist before being born of a conception.

 

[Butch5]

Maybe you can classify your hot button flag?

s

There's no hot button. I'm just wondering if you've verified that information. There are websites everywhere that give incorrect information, have looked into these writers to verify that the statements from that website are accurate and true?

 

[smaller]

There's no hot button. I'm just wondering if you've verified that information. There are websites everywhere that give incorrect information, have looked into these writers to verify that the statements from that website are accurate and true?

Historical writings on these various heresies have been around quite awhile, the dissections and comparisions well known to any bothering to pick up on it.

I thought it somewhat strange that a poster would make claims to orthodox/historical understandings and then try to divide Christ from God.

That usually flavors things up to some particular sect slant or a hip shooter.

 

[Free]

Yes, Jesus IS God the Father in heaven AND the son. Jesus is not God’s Son in the sense of a human father and a son.

Yet you previously stated: "God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one person working together in unity, The Holy Trinity."

These two statements are contradictory. Your most recent statement that "Jesus IS God the Father...AND the son," is a statement of Modalism/Oneness theology, not trinitarianism. That is precisely one of the errors that the doctrine of the Trinity is avoiding. There is a very clear distinctness in persons between the Father and the Son--Jesus is the Son and the Father is the Father.

 

[Asyncritus]

Free

This last post of yours throws me into unutterable confusion.

I simply can't understand where you're coming from.

Here are you chastising Yah1 for this, and claiming that it is NOT trinitarianism:

Yet you previously stated: "God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one person working together in unity, The Holy Trinity."

Yet here is the Athanasian creed:

That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost.

Do you accept that, or do you diverge from the creed constructors?

Again, you:

That is precisely one of the errors that the doctrine of the Trinity is avoiding. There is a very clear distinctness in persons between the Father and the Son--Jesus is the Son and the Father is the Father.

How true.

The creed:

The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal.

I cannot see the difference between your position and the creed. Neither can I see the difference between Yah1's comment and the creed.

Try this:

So are we forbidden by the catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten

If this wasn't so serious, I think I could have a good laugh at the knots these THEOLOGIANS (remember them?) have knotted themselves in.

not made, nor created; but begotten

Now there's a fine bit of theological hairsplitting!

And why have they got themselves into such a tangle (and you along with them!)? Because they will not listen to Scripture.

I don't think you guys know what you believe, really. There are so many contradictory statements coming from you all, what is a poor student of scripture to say?

But of course, these contradictions are entirely due to the contradictory and illogical nature of the doctrine.

Wrestling with a combination of those two things is a nightmare of monumental proportions!

Contrast that with the simple statement of the Apostles Creed, to which I subscribe nearly whole heartedly:

I believe in God,the Father almighty,Creator of heaven and earth,

and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,

who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,

born of the Virgin Mary,

suffered under Pontius Pilate,was crucified, died and was buried;

he descended into hell;

on the third day he rose again from the dead;

he ascended into heaven,

and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty;

from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.

That's where we part company, because of the following:

I believe in the Holy Spirit,the holy catholic Church,the communion of saints,the forgiveness of sins,the resurrection of the body,and life everlasting. Amen.

But you will agree, I'm sure, that the neat, comprehensible, comprehensive, and scripturally correct statements above are not a little simpler than the Athanasian.

Now guess which one was earlier, and which one had the theologians beavering away on it for centuries, till the simple truth became totally unrecognisable in the nebulous obfuscations of the THEOLOGIANS (remember them?).

 

[Free]

Show how they do not? Just read them, there is nothing there that requires the Son always existed. For those passages to say the Son always existed there would have to be something to the effect of the Son has always existed, there's nothing indicating such in those passages.

You are giving in to an error which seems to be so prevalent on these forums. The error is believing that the Bible must explicitly state something in order for it to be true. But that clearly ignores other ways in which we and the Bible communicate. Another significant of communication is by stating things implicitly.

In all the passages I gave there are clear implicit statements which logically lead to only one conclusion: that the Son has always existed, in some form or another. But you just simply dismiss them without even trying to engage them.

Is a baby created or does it grow? A baby grows from two other living organisms, one from the male and one from the female. These in turn were formed by two previous organisms. This process goes all the way beack to Adam and Eve who were created. Only Adam and Eve were created, everyone else grow from those two people. Likewise, the Son came from the Father. He wasn't created. The Father has always existed, He brought forth the Son out of His very being thus the Son was not created but brought forth from the Father, just as a child is brought forth from the parents.

Again, semantics. For all intents and purposes babies are created through the act of sexual intercourse, hence the term pro-creation. Babies don't just spontaneously begin to exist and then grow.

It's not logic, it's a logical fallacy, the "No true Scottsman." You're taking an attribute of the Father and making it part of the definition of the word god to attempt to show that the Son ahs always existed.

No True Scotsman fallacy? lol No, it is not. I must state for the third time: in a discussion on the Trinity in a Christian forum, we most certainly are talking about the God of the Bible, not the general theos or a dictionary definition.

The contexts of the passages make it clear that Jesus is thought of as God in the same way that the Father is thought of as God. If not, Jesus is another god and we then have polytheism.

The same word that is applied to the Father, theos, is also applied to men by the David and Jesus.

6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. (Psa 82:6 KJV)

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?​

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; (Joh 10:34-35 KJV)

I'm sure you wouldn't suggest that these men had always existed. If not then, having always existed cannot be part of the definition of the word God. I agree it is an attribute of the one true God, the Father.

I really can't believe you would even try and make such an argument. Basic rules of biblical interpretation include understanding that Greek words can have multiple nuances in meaning, so it is the immediate context to which one first looks to try and get the meaning.

Yes, theos and kurios are used of both God and men, but clearly, even according to you, they mean different things when applied to men than when applied to God, or at least take on significantly more importance when applied to God.

When it comes to Jesus the same thing applies. Even the term "son of" takes on a greater significance when applied to Christ as seen in its many uses in the gospels. When theos is used of Jesus, there is no reason to think it is being used in the same way that it generally applies to men. Rather, as the context often indicates, theos is used of Jesus in the same way it is used of God.

As for "begotten," I suggest you are once again sticking to one definition while ignoring another, namely, that monogenes also means "unique" or "one and only."

Not at all. What I think you are missing is that then John calls him the only begotten he says "of the Father." Of the Father is translated thus because Father is in the genitive case. The genitive case can indicate stem. Couple this with Jesus statement about coming "out of" the Father it should be clear that begotten means He came from God. Whether you want to say He's the unique one out of God or the one and only out of God, the point is He's out of God.

You are saying that he had a beginning and that contradicts what John says in 1:1-3. If we are to think that Jesus "comes out of the Father," it would be necessary to think of the Son as being eternally begotten. But I think it is better to look at monogenes as speaking of the unique relationship of the Son to the Father without necessarily bringing into it the idea of having a beginning point.

 

[Free]

Free

This last post of yours throws me into unutterable confusion.

I simply can't understand where you're coming from.

Here are you chastising Yah1 for this, and claiming that it is NOT trinitarianism:

Yet you previously stated: "God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one person working together in unity, The Holy Trinity."

Yet here is the Athanasian creed:
Do you accept that, or do you diverge from the creed constructors?

You didn't quite follow what I was saying. It was this statement Yah1 gave that is not trinitarian: "Yes, Jesus IS God the Father in heaven AND the son. Jesus is not God’s Son in the sense of a human father and a son."

That statement contradicts his statement regarding the Trinity which you quoted.

 

[Yah1]

Yet you previously stated: "God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one person working together in unity, The Holy Trinity."

These two statements are contradictory. Your most recent statement that "Jesus IS God the Father...AND the son," is a statement of Modalism/Oneness theology, not trinitarianism. That is precisely one of the errors that the doctrine of the Trinity is avoiding. There is a very clear distinctness in persons between the Father and the Son--Jesus is the Son and the Father is the Father.

No, incorrect, my heart is literally breaking for you guys. You haven't come to FAITH yet! What do you think it means when scripture says you MUST be born of the Holy Spirit to see God, to enter into his Kingdom? In order to enter Holy Land, the Holy Spirit must dwell inside of you. In order for that to happen you need to come to FAITH. A sinner cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. Heaven is not defiled, Heaven is PURE!! If you knocked on a strangers door and asked them if you can live there, they would look at you like you were crazy. They don't know you, why should they let you in!? Well, same goes for Jesus in Heaven. Jesus is Holy and Heaven is his home..thus being baptized in the Holy Spirit. Do you understand? In my opinion, an atheist has a better chance of finding God than a religious man. If you're AVOIDING this, then you are headed down a religious path. The Holy Trinity IS Oneness, they are ALL THE SAME BEING! FAITH my friend, FAITH is what separates us from religious doctrine. Why do you think they mention the word FAITH over 200-300 times in the Bible? What does FAITH mean to you? Better yet, email Jason Upton, Kim Walker of Jesus Culture Band (Her email is on google), Brian and Jenn Johnson, all of Bethel Church in California for that matter..these are some of the prophets of our time in this generation. God's children in FAITH are scattered all over the world. They will tell you the same. They will all agree the Holy Trinity is oneness and that Jesus was God in the Flesh. There are so many worship videos on youtube of Bethel Church that it's incredible, but you haven't come to FAITH yet so worship wouldn't make sense to you. The spirit of Christ dwells inside these people because they have come to FAITH and have confessed they are sinners. That's why they worship! They are now ONE with the Lord. The BODY OF CHRIST now dwells inside them. If you want i can PM you with emails and worship videos. You will never see proof unless you come to FAITH first.

"Gnostism has been around for 2 millennium. As Solomon said in Ecclesiastes, "No new thing under the sun!" Every generation has to repreach the once for all message of Salvation in the Person and Work of Jesus death and resurrection. It will always be challenged because it is the TRUTH. Satan works overtime on dogma and subtle ways to mingle error with truth. Our nation is filled with confusing offshoots of dogma. It will only get worse as we near the end of days. Keep smiling and preaching Jesus Christ crucified and alive again for the dead, and He is coming soon for His Bride. Whether they agree with you or not they will be saved if their ears are opened by the Holy Spirit. Don't let them discourage you!" - Jon/Preacher/New Jersey

 

[Free]

No, incorrect, my heart is literally breaking for you guys

The Holy Trinity IS Oneness, they are ALL THE SAME BEING!

They will all agree the Holy Trinity is oneness and that Jesus was God in the Flesh.

No, I am correct. You believe in modalism, although you perhaps don't know it.

"Yes, Jesus IS God the Father in heaven AND the son," is not trinitarian. It is modalism. Jesus is not the Father, he is the Son only.

And, just to confuse Asyncritus a little more, upon re-reading your other statement more closely, "God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one person working together in unity, The Holy Trinity," I see that that is not trinitarian at all either and is self-contradictory. That is also modalism.

You said to "email...Brian and Jenn Johnson, all of Bethel Church in California for that matter." When I look up what Bethel Church believes, they state the following on their site: "He has revealed Himself to be eternally self- existent - one being in three persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit." That is trinitarian.

So, despite your "breaking heart," it is you that is very clearly denying the Trinity and believe in modalism.

I suggest reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism

 

[Yah1]

No, I am correct. You believe in modalism, although you perhaps don't know it.

"Yes, Jesus IS God the Father in heaven AND the son," is not trinitarian. It is modalism. Jesus is not the Father, he is the Son only.

And, just to confuse Asyncritus a little more, upon re-reading your other statement more closely, "God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one person working together in unity, The Holy Trinity," I see that that is not trinitarian at all either and is self-contradictory. That is also modalism.

You said to "email...Brian and Jenn Johnson, all of Bethel Church in California for that matter." When I look up what Bethel Church believes, they state the following on their site: "He has revealed Himself to be eternally self- existent - one being in three persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit." That is trinitarian.

So, despite your "breaking heart," it is you that is very clearly denying the Trinity and believe in modalism.
















I suggest reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism

Free, you're forgetting one thing. Brian has come to FAITH. Yes his trinity is correct. There's only one difference between you and Brian, and that is FAITH. You're being decieved and you don't even know it. Email Kim Walker kim@jesusculture(dot)org, the lead singer of Jesus Culture Band and worshiper of Bethel Church that sells out concerts all over the world. She has come to FAITH. Free, I still haven't heard what you think of FAITH.

 

[Free]

Free, you're forgetting one thing. Brian has come to FAITH. Yes his trinity is correct. There's only one difference between you and Brian, and that is FAITH. You're being decieved and you don't even know it. Email Kim Walker kim@jesusculture(dot)org, the lead singer of Jesus Culture Band and worshiper of Bethel Church that sells out concerts all over the world. She has come to FAITH. Free, I still haven't heard what you think of FAITH.

I have no idea that you're talking about. Brian, Kim Walker, the Jesus Culture Band, etc., have nothing to do with this discussion. Nor does the topic of faith. You are not even addressing my arguments and I strongly suggest you start doing so.

You are wrong in what you think the Trinity is. You believe in modalism, not trinitarianism. Your statements contradict those of Bethel Church. Now, please, deal with the arguments.

 

[Yah1]

I have no idea that you're talking about. Brian, Kim Walker, the Jesus Culture Band, etc., have nothing to do with this discussion. Nor does the topic of faith. You are not even addressing my arguments and I strongly suggest you start doing so.

You are wrong in what you think the Trinity is. you believe in modalism, not trinitarianism. Now, please, deal with the arguments.

Without FAITH, Modalism and Trinitarianism are just religious words and do not mean anything to me. FAITH is what separates us from each other Free. All these artists have everything to do with it, Jason Upton, Kim Walker, The Johnson's, Bethel Church. Email Kim Walker, ask her where her FAITH is? Jesus IS the Father, and only through FAITH do we believe.

 

[Free]

Without FAITH, Modalism and Trinitarianism are just religious words and do not mean anything to me.

Are you saying that they do not mean anything to you? If so, then you are without faith, according to your statement.

I should hope they mean something to you if you are going to come in this discussion and state: "The Bible, scriptures and anything that pertains to sin and flesh will never make sense to a person who doesn't believe Jesus was God in the Flesh."

 

[Butch5]

You are giving in to an error which seems to be so prevalent on these forums. The error is believing that the Bible must explicitly state something in order for it to be true. But that clearly ignores other ways in which we and the Bible communicate. Another significant of communication is by stating things implicitly.

In all the passages I gave there are clear implicit statements which logically lead to only one conclusion: that the Son has always existed, in some form or another. But you just simply dismiss them without even trying to engage them.

No, I’m not. Free, now you’re saying it’s implied. Please show me where it is implied. It simply doesn’t say anything that requires that the Son has always existed.

Again, semantics. For all intents and purposes babies are created through the act of sexual intercourse, hence the term pro-creation. Babies don't just spontaneously begin to exist and then grow.

It’s not semantic. Babies grow from tow living organisms coming together. This process has been continuous since Adam and Eve. They were the only ones “created.”

No True Scotsman fallacy? lol No, it is not. I must state for the third time: in a discussion on the Trinity in a Christian forum, we most certainly are talking about the God of the Bible, not the general theos or a dictionary definition.

The contexts of the passages make it clear that Jesus is thought of as God in the same way that the Father is thought of as God. If not, Jesus is another god and we then have polytheism.

It is. You’re making “Always existed” a requirement for being God. I gave you Scripture that called men gods, surely you wouldn’t suggest that those men have been from eternity. You can’t use the attributes of the Father as the definition of God. If that’s the case then your definition of God doesn’t fit Son either. The Father alone is unbegotten. The Son is begotten. You can’t just pick certain attributes of hte Father and say this is what it means to be God.

I really can't believe you would even try and make such an argument. Basic rules of biblical interpretation include understanding that Greek words can have multiple nuances in meaning, so it is the immediate context to which one first looks to try and get the meaning.

Yes, theos and kurios are used of both God and men, but clearly, even according to you, they mean different things when applied to men than when applied to God, or at least take on significantly more importance when applied to God.

When it comes to Jesus the same thing applies. Even the term "son of" takes on a greater significance when applied to Christ as seen in its many uses in the gospels. When theos is used of Jesus, there is no reason to think it is being used in the same way that it generally applies to men. Rather, as the context often indicates, theos is used of Jesus in the same way it is used of God.

The point is “theos” is used of both the Father, the Son, and men. Theos is translated from Eloheem. The word Thos does not require one to have always existed. I’ve look at multiple resources and found nothing that says anything about always existing being a definition of theos.

You are saying that he had a beginning and that contradicts what John says in 1:1-3. If we are to think that Jesus "comes out of the Father," it would be necessary to think of the Son as being eternally begotten. But I think it is better to look at monogenes as speaking of the unique relationship of the Son to the Father without necessarily bringing into it the idea of having a beginning point.

It doesn’t contradict John 1:1-3. In the beginning refers to the creation.
I don’t know how one could be eternally begotten. The point is Jesus Himself said He came out of the Father. That means He had a beginning. You can say He is the unique one of the Father, the point is that He is “Of” the Father.

 

[Butch5]

Free

This last post of yours throws me into unutterable confusion.

I simply can't understand where you're coming from.

Here are you chastising Yah1 for this, and claiming that it is NOT trinitarianism:
Yet here is the Athanasian creed:
Do you accept that, or do you diverge from the creed constructors?

Again, you:
How true.

The creed:
I cannot see the difference between your position and the creed. Neither can I see the difference between Yah1's comment and the creed.

Try this:
If this wasn't so serious, I think I could have a good laugh at the knots these THEOLOGIANS (remember them?) have knotted themselves in.

Now there's a fine bit of theological hairsplitting!

And why have they got themselves into such a tangle (and you along with them!)? Because they will not listen to Scripture.

I don't think you guys know what you believe, really. There are so many contradictory statements coming from you all, what is a poor student of scripture to say?

But of course, these contradictions are entirely due to the contradictory and illogical nature of the doctrine.

Wrestling with a combination of those two things is a nightmare of monumental proportions!

Contrast that with the simple statement of the Apostles Creed, to which I subscribe nearly whole heartedly:

I believe in God,the Father almighty,Creator of heaven and earth,

and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,

who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,

born of the Virgin Mary,

suffered under Pontius Pilate,was crucified, died and was buried;

he descended into hell;

on the third day he rose again from the dead;

he ascended into heaven,

and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty;

from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.

That's where we part company, because of the following:

I believe in the Holy Spirit,the holy catholic Church,the communion of saints,the forgiveness of sins,the resurrection of the body,and life everlasting. Amen.

But you will agree, I'm sure, that the neat, comprehensible, comprehensive, and scripturally correct statements above are not a little simpler than the Athanasian.

Now guess which one was earlier, and which one had the theologians beavering away on it for centuries, till the simple truth became totally unrecognisable in the nebulous obfuscations of the THEOLOGIANS (remember them?).

I agree that the Athanasian creed contradicts itself. I don't know how anyone came up with it.

 

[Butch5]

No, incorrect, my heart is literally breaking for you guys. You haven't come to FAITH yet! What do you think it means when scripture says you MUST be born of the Holy Spirit to see God, to enter into his Kingdom? In order to enter Holy Land, the Holy Spirit must dwell inside of you. In order for that to happen you need to come to FAITH. A sinner cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. Heaven is not defiled, Heaven is PURE!! If you knocked on a strangers door and asked them if you can live there, they would look at you like you were crazy. They don't know you, why should they let you in!? Well, same goes for Jesus in Heaven. Jesus is Holy and Heaven is his home..thus being baptized in the Holy Spirit. Do you understand? In my opinion, an atheist has a better chance of finding God than a religious man. If you're AVOIDING this, then you are headed down a religious path. The Holy Trinity IS Oneness, they are ALL THE SAME BEING! FAITH my friend, FAITH is what separates us from religious doctrine. Why do you think they mention the word FAITH over 200-300 times in the Bible? What does FAITH mean to you? Better yet, email Jason Upton, Kim Walker of Jesus Culture Band (Her email is on google), Brian and Jenn Johnson, all of Bethel Church in California for that matter..these are some of the prophets of our time in this generation. God's children in FAITH are scattered all over the world. They will tell you the same. They will all agree the Holy Trinity is oneness and that Jesus was God in the Flesh. There are so many worship videos on youtube of Bethel Church that it's incredible, but you haven't come to FAITH yet so worship wouldn't make sense to you. The spirit of Christ dwells inside these people because they have come to FAITH and have confessed they are sinners. That's why they worship! They are now ONE with the Lord. The BODY OF CHRIST now dwells inside them. If you want i can PM you with emails and worship videos. You will never see proof unless you come to FAITH first.

"Gnostism has been around for 2 millennium. As Solomon said in Ecclesiastes, "No new thing under the sun!" Every generation has to repreach the once for all message of Salvation in the Person and Work of Jesus death and resurrection. It will always be challenged because it is the TRUTH. Satan works overtime on dogma and subtle ways to mingle error with truth. Our nation is filled with confusing offshoots of dogma. It will only get worse as we near the end of days. Keep smiling and preaching Jesus Christ crucified and alive again for the dead, and He is coming soon for His Bride. Whether they agree with you or not they will be saved if their ears are opened by the Holy Spirit. Don't let them discourage you!" - Jon/Preacher/New Jersey

Question: If all three are one being, who raised Jesus from the dead?

 

[Yah1]

Are you saying that they do not mean anything to you? If so, then you are without faith, according to your statement.

I should hope they mean something to you if you are going to come in this discussion and state: "The Bible, scriptures and anything that pertains to sin and flesh will never make sense to a person who doesn't believe Jesus was God in the Flesh."

"The Bible, scriptures and anything that pertains to sin and flesh will never make sense to a person who doesn't believe Jesus was God in the Flesh."

I should of extended that, to say who doesn't believe Jesus was God in the Flesh and doesn't believe Jesus is also the Father. What i mean by not making sense is one who hasn't come to FAITH. FAITH is what saves us from sin. If you haven't come to FAITH you are still in bondage to sin.

If you are a religious person without FAITH, i'm not sure WHAT that is, a Jehovah Witness maybe. Preaching the gospel without FAITH?, why would you do that? I don't think you are ever going to email Kim Walker because you're afraid of what she'll say. Jesus is also the Father, you don't believe this because you don't have FAITH. Email Kim Walker, Free.