The Trinity

[Board]

Board,
You didn't tag me in, I just fell upon this.
Will reply tomorrow morning.

You didn't tag in hawkman
Either.

Use the REPLY button at the lower right hand corner or tag the other poster by using the @
Key and the name,with no space.

Sorry I was not aware of this. Take your time responding. I will be indisposed for a few days due to age related maladies.

 

[Board]

Board​

Member
From Las Vegas Gender Male
Christian No

Before I go any further with this I need to know if you are a Christian or not ?

Because you said this .

Is God teaching you through the Holy Spirit ?

Hawkman

“Before I go any further with this I need to know if you are a Christian or not?”

The term Christian is found in the New Testament three times. The term was not originally used as a self-designation by believers. But rather was a designation given to them by unbelievers. Followers of one who they claimed is the Messiah or the Christ. What is now known as Christianity began to develop in the fourth century, beginning with the Council of Nicaea (325 AD). They took the term Christian as a self-designation around that time. So that historically, the term and the religion has been associated for a millennia and a half. The foundation of the Christian religion is the doctrine of the Trinity, as is self-evident by the developments of the doctrine and how it is regarded within the religion. While there is a more general sense in which the term Christianity includes any individual or institution that calls itself Christian; properly the term refers only to those who adhere to the developed doctrine of the Trinity. By the more limited definition of Christian and Christianity, if one does not adhere to the historical definitions of the Trinity, then one can not legitimately be called a Christian. I no longer adhere to the historically developed doctrine that God is a Trinity of persons. Ergo, I do not, indeed can not, call myself a Christian.

Neither can I designate myself as being a part of any of the Protestantized institutions that also do not adhere to the historically developed doctrine of the Trinity. Such as the Christadelphians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, or the Pentecostal Modalists. I understand that Jesus is a generated being, not a created being, nor a mode of God. And I understand that the Holy Spirit is a person, not simply the active force of God, nor a mode of God. And as Christianity has usurped the term Christian as a self-designation (I say “usurped” because if Trinitarianism is a false doctrine, then the Christian religion is obviously not following the real Christ), so also has the Unitarians usurped the term Unitarian to designate themselves. Ergo, though I believe that God is a singular person, I can not call myself a Unitarian. So far as I know, there is no institution, nor am I aware of any other individual, that adheres to what I understand to be the objective truth unadulterated by human interpretations in the Bible. Therefore, usually when asked, if at the time I don’t have time to discuss the matter, I only say that I am in Christ.

Of course this would be unacceptable to a Trinitarian who regards the Christ I am in as another Christ. And I agree with their assessment that the Trinitarian Christ is a different Christ from the regenerated Christ as portrayed in the New Testament. According to John 17:3 “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent”, it is clear that anyone who does not know the only true God does not have eternal life. Trinitarians have interpreted John 17:1-5 to refer to themselves in many different ways. But this passage understood apart from these human interpretations, for what it says in and of itself in a very clear fashion, shows that it is Trinitarianism that is portraying another God and another Christ. Like the Jews, “they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge” (Romans 10:2). And like Paul my heart’s desire and prayer to God is that they might be saved. And I rely on the mercy of God on their behalf.

Trinitarianism does not have its source in pagan religions or secular philosophies, as is often claimed. It has its source in the constant claim of the Jews that Jesus called himself God. Upon realizing that fact, I came to understand that the Jewish religion of the first century divided into two religions, and is two religions to this day. One is modern Judaism and the other is Christianity. Both of these religions claim that Jesus called himself God. But the Judaism of the Old Testament is the true religion that has its source in God. And the Old Testament clearly portrays a God that is a singular person. It is continued through the New Testament the writers of which followed the Old Testament without interpretation. The purpose of the New Testament as such a continuation is to reveal Jesus Christ as the Messiah and what that means for the world. The true religion of God was followed by all true believers prior to the authoritative definition of the Nicaean Council in the fourth century that developed into a different religion from the true religion of God. There is no doubt a remnant of the true religion exists today. But thus far I have not met any such persons.

“Is God teaching you through the Holy Spirit?”

God directs (Proverbs 3:5-6), those who are in Jesus Christ who teaches them (Ephesians 4:21), through the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:14). So yes, I regard myself as being in Christ who teaches me through the Holy Spirit, using the Scriptures as they were originally written unembellished by the interpretations of man as the written word of God.

There is only one requirement. That one continue to be a seeker with an open mind. That is, one has to be willing to be taught by Christ through the leading of the Holy Spirit. No matter where that leads. Once you start interpreting the Scripture to conform it to a presumed doctrine, the Scripture becomes useless to you as a source of objective truth. And rather than being taught by Christ, you will be taught by the authority of your institution or presumption of Choice. The Bible merely becomes a basis (if that) for interpretation. And the interpretations consequently become the Scriptures, the objective truth, in the mind of the interpreter. There is nothing new in the practice of interpretation. Non-believers, not having such a source for truth as the Scriptures of God, had no choice but to create truth through their own mind. Consider that the Jews who opposed Jesus were already practicing interpretation in relation to the Old Testament Scriptures.

The Catholic Church has many extra-Biblical forms of authoritative interpretations.

Martin Luther initially claimed to follow the Scripture alone. In less than ten years he denied that claim when he approved the Augsburg Confession in 1530 as representative of objective truth. That Creed became his Bible along with further such Creeds as time went by. Creeds are extra-Biblical forms of authoritative standards. The denominations of Lutheranism have their source in Martin Luther. Most other Protestant leaders followed in the footsteps of Martin Luther. Including John Calvin, out of whom came Calvinism and the Calvinistic denominations.

 

[CherubRam]

This is why Christ is equal to God in certain scriptures.

Pope is God on Earth

April 30, 1922, Pope Pius XI said, “You know that I am the Holy Father, the representative of God on Earth, the Vicar of Christ, which means that I am god on Earth.” Revelation Four Views, A Parallel Commentary. pg 288

“God Himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of His priest, and either not to pardon or to pardon according as they refuse or give absolution.---The sentence of the priest precedes, and God subscribes to it.” Dignities and Duties of the Priest, Vol 12, pg 27.


“The Pope has power to change times, to abrogate laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ.” Decretal De Translot Espiscop Cap


Pope Nicholas I declared: "the appellation of God had been confirmed by Constantine on the Pope, who, being God, cannot be judged by man."
Labb IX Dist.: 96 Can. 7, Satis evidentur, Decret Gratian Primer Para

"The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, he is Jesus Christ himself, hidden under the veil of flesh."
Catholic National, July 1895

"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty"
Pope Leo XIII Encyclical Letter of June 20, 1894


Pope John Paul II:
"The mystery of salvation is revealed to us and is continued and accomplished in the Church...and from this genuine and single source, like 'humble, useful, precious and chaste' water, it reaches the whole world. Dear young people and members of the faithful, like Brother Francis we have to be conscious and absorb this fundamental and revealed truth, consecrated by tradition: 'There is no salvation outside the Church.' From her alone there flows surely and fully the life-giving force destined in Christ and in His Spirit, to renew the whole of humanity, and therefore directing every human being to become a part of the Mystical Body of Christ." (Pope John Paul II, Radio Message for Franciscan Vigil in St. Peter's and Assisi, October 3, 1981, L'Osservatore Romano, October 12, 1981.)

“Don’t go to God for forgiveness of sins, come to me” Source: “The Pope’s Apology” by Professor Author Noble


Pope Nicholas:
“I am in all and above all, so that God Himself, and I, the Viccar of God, have both one consistory. And I am able to do almost all that God can do. I then being above all, seem by this reason to be above all gods.” Source: “The Church Historians of England: Reformation Period” by Josiah Pratt, 1856, p 159

Nicholas also claimed that the Popes had the power to change the gospel itself, “Wherefore no marvel if it be in my power to dispense with all things, yea, with the precepts of Christ.” Source: “Ibid”, Pratt, p 159


"All names which in the Scriptures are applied to Christ, by virtue of which it is established that He is over the church, all the same names are applied to the Pope."
On the Authority of the Councils, book 2, chapter 17

"The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth."
Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, "Cities Petrus Bertanous"

"The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth...by divine right the Pope has supreme and full power in faith, in morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true vicar, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God himself on earth." Quoted in the New York Catechism.

These words are written in the Roman Canon Law 1685: "To believe that our Lord God the Pope has not the power to decree as he is decreed, is to be deemed heretical."


Father A. Pereira says: "It is quite certain that Popes have never approved or rejected this title 'Lord God the Pope,' for the passage in the gloss referred to appears in the edition of the Canon Law published in Rome in 1580 by Gregory XIII."

Writers on the Canon Law say, "The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in heaven and earth."
Barclay Cap. XXVII, p. 218. Cities Petrus Bertrandus, Pius V. - Cardinal Cusa supports his statement.


Roman Catholic Canon Law stipulates through Pope Innocent III that the Roman pontiff is
"the vicegerent upon earth, not a mere man, but of a very God;" and in a gloss on the passage it is explained that this is because he is the vicegerent of Christ, who is "very God and very man." Decretales Domini Gregorii translation Episcoporum, (on the transference of Bishops), title 7, chapter 3; Corpus Juris Canonice (2nd Leipzig ed., 1881), col. 99; (Paris, 1612), tom. 2, Devretales, col. 205



We Catholics are the "Mother" Church and Our Protestant Daughters Are Harlots - (Rev. 17:5)

"It must always be clear, when the expression sister churches is used in this proper sense that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic universal church is not sister but mother of all the particular churches"
-- Cardinal Ratzinger.

Indeed we declare, say, pronounce, and define that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

"That there is only One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church we are compelled by faith to believe and hold, and we firmly believe in her and sincerely confess her, outside of whom there is neither salvation nor remission of sins.....FURTHERMORE WE DECLARE, STATE AND DEFINE THAT IT IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR THE SALVATION OF ALL HUMAN BEINGS THAT THEY SUBMIT TO THE
ROMAN PONTIFF [Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronunciamus omnino
esse de necessitate salutis]."

​

 

[CherubRam]

"THE POPE IS AS IT WERE GOD ON EARTH, SOLE SOVEREIGN OF THE FAITHFUL OF CHRIST, CHIEF OF KINGS, having plenitude
of power." Lucius Ferraris, in "Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica, Juridica, Moralis, Theologica, Ascetica, Polemica, Rubristica, Historica", Volume V, article on "Papa, Article II", titled "Concerning the extent of Papal dignity, authority, or dominion and infallibility", #1, 5, 13-15, 18, published in Petit-Montrouge (Paris) by J. P. Migne, 1858 edition.

• The Pope is God On This Earth

• The Pope is Immortal

• The Pope is Infallible

• The Pope's Crown Bears This Inscription - VICarIVs fILII DeI=666

• The Pope Has All Power in Heaven and Earth and Can Change Divine Laws

• The Pope Can Change, Add to, or Take Away From,
and His Word is Greater than the Holy Scriptures

• All People Must Be Subject to the Authority of the Pope
in Order to be in God's True Church

• All Who Separate From the Control of the Pope are Without Christ

• All People Must Be Subject to the Authority of the Pope in Order to be Saved

• Even if the Pope is in Error or Were Evil,
He Still Holds Power Over All Christ's Faithful!

• The Pope is Christ's Replacement (Vicar or Vicegerent) on Earth

• Supreme Papal Authority Comes From the Law of the Caesars
September 13, 2013 at 3:24pm · Like

These words are written in the Roman Canon Law 1685:
"To believe that our Lord God the Pope has not the power
to decree as he is decreed, is to be deemed heretical."


Pope John XXIII:
"The Saviour Himself is the door of the sheepfold: 'I am the door of the sheep.' Into this fold of Jesus Christ, no man may enter unless he be led by the Sovereign Pontiff; and only if they be united to him can men be saved, for the Roman Pontiff is the Vicar of Christ and His personal representative on earth." (Pope John XXIII, homily to the Bishops assisting at his coronation on November 4, 1958Papal Teachings: The Church, Benedictine Monks of Solesmes, Boston, St. Paul Editions, 1962, par. 1556.)

"And you, venerable brothers, will not fail, in your teaching, to recall to the flocks entrusted to you these grand and salutary truths; we cannot render to God the devotion that is due Him and that is pleasing to Him nor is it possible to be united to Him except through Jesus Christ; and it is not possible to be united to Jesus Christ except in the Church and through the Church, His Mystical Body, and, finally, it is not possible to belong to the Church except through the bishops, successors of the Apostles, united to the Supreme Pastor, the successor of Peter." (Pope John XXIII, Address on the creation of three new dioceses on Taiwan, L'Osseratore Romano, June 29, 1961.)



​

Quotes from the Catholic Church

The antichrist speaks his blasphemies. Below you will find a large number of quotes that have come from the Roman Catholic Church during it's history. Please don't look at these quotes and say "Oh the Catholic Church has changed", because it hasn't changed one bit. The pope is declared as infallible, which means he cannot make error, and all doctrines and teachings no matter how old still exist in the church. Take indulgences as an example. Martin Luther exposed this doctrine as wrong and wicked hundreds of years ago, but this doctrine still continues in Catholic Churches today! See the following blasphemous quotes from this church.

Pope Declared as "God on Earth"

"The Pope is not simply the representative of Jesus Christ. On the contrary, he is Jesus Christ Himself, under the veil of the flesh." (Evangelical Christendom, January 1, 1895, pg. 15, published in London by J. S. Phillips)

"Against this background of love towards Holy Church, 'the pillar and bulwark of the truth' (1 Tim 3:15), we readily understand the devotion of Saint Francis of Assisi for 'THE LORD POPE', the daughterly outspokenness of Saint Catherine of Siena towards the one whom she called 'SWEET CHRIST ON EARTH'." (Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation on the Consecrated Life and Its Mission in the Church and in the World, to the bishops and clergy, religious orders and congregations, societies of apostolic life, secular institutes, and all the faithful, given in Rome, at Saint Peter's, March 25, 1996)

"The Pope is of so great dignity, and so exalted that he is not a mere man, but as it were God and the vicar of God." (Ferraris Ecclesiastical dictionary)

"All names which in the Scriptures are applied to Christ, by virtue of which it is established that He is over the church, all the same names are applied to the Pope." (On the Authority of the Councils, book 2, chapter 17)

"The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth." (Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, "Cities Petrus Bertanous)

"To believe that our Lord God the Pope has not the power to decree as he is decreed, is to be deemed heretical." (the Gloss "Extravagantes" o.f Pope John XXII Cum inter, Tit. XIV, Cap. IV. Ad Callem Sexti Decretalium, Paris, 1685)

"Hence the Pope is crowned with a triple crown, as king of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions." (Ferraris, «Prompta Bibliotheca», 1763, Volume VI, 'Papa II', p.26)

"The Saviour Himself is the door of the sheepfold: 'I am the door of the sheep.' Into this fold of Jesus Christ, no man may enter unless he be led by the Sovereign Pontiff; and only if they be united to him can men be saved, for the Roman Pontiff is the Vicar of Christ and His personal representative on earth." (Pope John XXIII in his homily to the Bishops and faithful assisting at his coronation on November 4, 1958)

 

[hawkman]

Ergo, I do not, indeed can not, call myself a Christian.

Got my answer , thank you .

So far as I know, there is no institution, nor am I aware of any other individual, that adheres to what I understand to be the objective truth unadulterated by human interpretations in the Bible.

At this point I must ask are you human ?

 

[GodsGrace]

Got my answer , thank you .

At this point I must ask are you human ?

Your reply to Board
Is funny. However, it must be sad to think you're the only person that believes he's alone in his doctrinal beliefs.

I'd like to go through his post, but later.
See you there.

 

[Josef]

Hey All,
I love this discussion. It is one of the best I have ever seen. It is being done with politeness and openness. I have seen these break down into sides (for and against) and endless debate without respect for others understanding. So cudos.
Understanding p Trinitarian doctrine is not easy for
anyone. He revealed Himself to us in a family structure (father and son) so we can understand some of what God is. I believe God made this hard on purpose. Having said all of that, what can we know?

The doctrine of the Trinity exists within the totality of Scripture. But as a word, it is not found in Scripture. (the plot thickens) Trinity is a word used to express the doctrine of the oneness of God as existing within the three distinct Persons (or personalities) of the one God. It is originates from the Greek word "trias." The first time "trias" was used was by Theophilus around 168-183 A D. The first time for the Latin term "trinitas" was by Tertullian in 220A.D. to express the Trinity doctrine. We can break down the doctrine to these four points:
1. That God is one. There is only one God (Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29, 32).
2. The Father is God and is a distinct divine Person distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit. (Exo. 4:22-24, Isa. 44:6. 1Cor.8:6)
3. Jesus Christ is equally God, and is a Person distinguishable from the Father and the Holy Spirit. (Deut. 18:15, Dan. 3:23-24, John 1.1; 14, John 5:18)
4. The Holy Spirit is equally God and a distinct divine Person distinguishable from the Father and the Son. ( Genesis 1.2, Isa. 63:14, Matthew 28:19, Acts 5:3-4)

The doctrine of the Trinity was developed to help people understand the relationship between God as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Remember that, at this time 168-183 A.D., believers did not have access to a completed Bible as we do. They received their teaching through oral communication. So doctrines were introduced to help believers retain critical information.

So how can three distinct persons be one distinct person? This doesn't seem possible. How can three ones be one in total?

1 • One • I = 1 or One or I.

I can multiply any form of one in any order. Each of the ones are separate, distinct unto itself, yet they all equal each other to the point that any form may be used as the answer. That is probably as close as I can get to explainiy the doctrine of the Trinity.

Have I fully explained the Trinity? Qf course not. How can the finite (me) fully describe the infinite (God)? I hope this helps a little in the discussion. Keep walking everybody.
May God
bless,
Taz

 

[hawkman]

However, it must be sad to think you're the only person that believes he's alone in his doctrinal beliefs.

Yes , that was one of my thoughts too .

 

[Free]

Free

In answer to previous posts.

Jesus Christ initially was completely of the same nature as his father. Spirit. Only later adding human or created nature to his Spirit nature. But this does not imply he must be eternal like his father.

But is that all that the nature of God entails, that he is spirit? Isn't that only his mode of being which is only one aspect of his nature? Jesus said that God is spirit, but John also says that God is love. Should we also not include the attributes of God that are what make God God? Shouldn't we include things such as omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, eternal self-existence (necessary being), immutable, etc.?

https://www.biblestudytools.com/bib...f-god-what-they-mean-and-why-they-matter.html

Given that those things are intrinsic to the nature of God, those things that make God who he is, would those things not also apply to his Son, who "was completely of the same nature as his father"? I don't see how they couldn't apply, since we know that a son is always of the same nature as his father.

Nor mortal like his mother for that matter. What is revealed is that he could die. Something God can not do.

Does it not follow that since Jesus died that he was, at least in some way, mortal, like his mother? No, God cannot die, but humans obviously can.

That Jesus is a generated person reveals he had a beginning.

Isn't that just begging the question, though? John 1:1-3, 1 Cor 8:6, and Col 1:16-17, show that Jesus cannot have had a beginning. Such is the Greek grammar of John 1:1-2 and the logical conclusions of John 1:3 and the other passages.

Inherent in the word used. To say that Jesus is eternally generated is to redefine the word to mean something it does not mean. It is a redefining of Jesus Christ himself. It is what the Jews tried to do.

But, if the Bible explicitly and implicitly states that there never was a time when Jesus did not exist, yet it also clearly states that he was begotten (or generated), then isn't the only logical conclusion that he is eternally begotten (or generated)? Wouldn't that be an accurate understanding of what the NT states?

Is it not also logical to believe that if the Son is of the exact same nature as his Father, and the Father is infinite (has never not existed), that similarly the Son necessarily has always existed?

Also consider that angels are of the same nature as God (Hebrews 1:7). Are they therefore also God? And that those who are in Christ will be like Christ or the same nature as Christ (1John 3:2). How many of them are God?

Angels are spiritual beings, yes, but that is their mode of being, which is one aspect of nature.

The numerous Biblical passages that state Jesus is God only do so interpretively and only to those who believe the interpretations. God as an eternal being has always been God. God was not Father until he generated the Son.

As I have stated above, I think there are passages which can only be understood as saying Jesus is God, based on the Greek grammar and simple logic.

To one who understands the Bible as saying what it means and meaning what it says, to regard Revelations as conjecture is to also regard it as not being Scripture. The purpose of Scripture, including Revelations, is to reveal. So that, if Revelation is indeed Scripture, it must be possible to clearly understand what it reveals. Any idea that Revelations is a conjectural document is purely out of the mind of man. But it is true that Revelation has historically often been regarded as questionable by a great many Christians. Revelations is the only Scripture that the Eastern Orthodox will not read in their Liturgy. Conjecturally, the seven Spirits of God could mean anything to one who can not accept that they are as stated.

“Matt 18:26 is the only instance I can see where it is possibly used of reverence towards another person without a rebuke.” Not if one understands that the references to the worshipping of Jesus Christ are examples of the same thing. Trinitarians understand references of followers worshipping Jesus as worshipping him as God rather than as an authoritative teacher and/or the Messiah. And to them the term Son of God is equal to the term God the Son. Even though the context of the Old Testament religion belies such a practice of Worship. As a follower of the Old Testament and the God it portrays, Jesus would never have allowed himself to be worshipped as God. That he did allow worship is the primary evidence that his followers were not worshipping him as God.

Look at the times he was worshiped:

Mat 14:32 And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased.
Mat 14:33 And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” (ESV)

That context for worshiping Jesus and calling him "the Son of God," is not insignificant:

Psa 65:7 who stills the roaring of the seas, the roaring of their waves, the tumult of the peoples, (ESV)

Psa 107:29 He made the storm be still, and the waves of the sea were hushed.
Psa 107:30 Then they were glad that the waters were quiet, and he brought them to their desired haven. (ESV)

Also, immediately after his resurrection:

Mat 28:9 And behold, Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him.
...
Mat 28:17 And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. (ESV)

Immediately after healing a man:

Joh 9:38 He said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped him. (ESV)

And, most importantly:

Joh 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” (ESV)

Again, no rebuke in any of these cases from Jesus, unlike the previous instances I gave when Peter told Cornelius not to do that to him, and angels said not to do that to them.

The idea that Jesus claimed to be equal to God originated with the Jews as an excuse to kill him.

That claim originates with Jesus, as per John's gospel:

Joh 8:23 And He was saying to them, "You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.
Joh 8:24 "I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins." (NASB)

Note first that Jesus says he is "from above" and that he is "not of this world." Second, "He" is capitalized in the NASB (and other versions) because it isn't in the Greek text. It is an explicit claim to be the I Am of Ex 3:14, which he repeats shortly after:

Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
Joh 8:59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple. (ESV)

Stoning was, of course, the penalty for blasphemy. The Jews were correct that Jesus, in calling himself the "Son of God," was to make himself equal with the Father. Again, a son is always the same nature as his father. I would argue that this is one of the very reason God chose to use this terminology.

Joh 5:18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. (ESV)

Note that John doesn't say the Jews believed that by calling God his own Father, Jesus was making himself equal with God. It is John himself that is making that claim, which shouldn't be surprising given what he says in John 1:1-18.

Later on John says the Jews understood the claim Jesus was making by calling himself the Son of God:

Joh 10:30 I and the Father are one.”
Joh 10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?”
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”
...
Joh 10:36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? (ESV)

This Jewish claim was the precursor of the Trinitarian idea. Not paganism.

On this we agree.

That the singular name of Matthew 28:19 is the person of God. Yes. It would have to be understood in that way by a Trinitarian. But consider that this passage is as Christocentric as the rest of the New Testament. Consider that the context concerns the Son. So that the singular name refers to the person of Jesus Christ, the New Testament center of the work of the three. And note the word “given”. Jesus as God would not need to be given authority. He would either exercise that authority or he would not.

I don't see how the singular name can refer to the person of Jesus Christ, when what follows "in the name" is "of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." That is a Oneness and Modalist view of the verse. If M. R. Vincent is correct, that "The name . . . is the expression of the sum total of the divine Being: not his designation as God or Lord, but the formula in which all his attributes and characteristics are summed up" and "It is equivalent to his person," then the singular name must be the name of God, Yahweh.

 

[Free]

The beginning of John 1 refers to the beginning of Genesis 1. One of the many things about which I disagree with Christianity is regarding that Genesis 1 refers to the beginning of the creation of all things.

I agree with the beginning of John 1:1 referring to Genesis 1, but what is the basis for you disagreement with Christianity that that refers to the beginning of all things? If one is going to disagree with historic, orthodox teaching, they should have very strong reasons for doing so.

Satan the Serpent already existed by this time.

What support do you have for this?

The same Hebrew word translated as Heaven in Genesis 1:1 obviously refers to the atmosphere around the earth in Genesis 1:28. The context of Genesis 1 shows that this also refers to that same atmosphere in Genesis 1:1. Because that context is the creations of God on the earth.

The Hebrew word used for "heaven(s)" in Gen 1:1 is also used elsewhere in Genesis and throughout the OT to refer to the entire universe or everything but the earth (Gen 1:14-15, 17; 15:5; 22:17; 26:4; Deut 1:10; 3:24; 4:19, 39; Job 9:8; etc.). So, that cannot be an argument that only the earth and the atmosphere around the earth are in view in Gen 1:1.

For the Trinitarian, the emphasis of John 1:1 is on Logos as a person. Specifically of Jesus Christ. What if Logos is used here in the way it is used in the rest John? A reference to an idea given voice. Isn’t that what Jesus did? Give voice to what his Father told him to say and to do? That would make Logos the common thinking of Father and Son. And in that sense the Son as the representative of the thought of God (the source) is the Logos of God on earth.

The Greek word pros, "with," in John 1:1-2, speaks of direction towards, as in intimate relationship and communion from one to another. It would be a stretch to make that fit a thought or idea, rather than a person. It supports John's claims in 1 John 4:8 and 16 that "God is love." If God is not a Trinity (or at least a "binity"), then God cannot be love. The highest and fullest expression of love is that from one person to another (such as in John 15:13). If God's nature is love, then it necessarily must have always been expressed in the highest and fullest expression towards another. If God needed creation in order to become love, then he could not be love; love could not be intrinsic to his nature.

If progressive revelation referred to something before revealed made clearer, there would be no problem. But the idea of the Trinity is far from a past revelation clarified. The Old Testament revelation, even by God Himself, is that of a God that is a singular person. The Trinitarian God can in no way be regarded as a singular person. A singular God yes, but not a singular person. The Trinitarian God is a totally different God from the one revealed in the Old Testament.

This is a mistake every anti-Trinitarian makes. There are many verses that teach monotheism, that he is the only God, but there is not a single verse which clearly or directly states that God is an absolute unity (only one person). The door is actually left open for God to be a Trinity in the OT. Given that and the several times God refers to himself in the plural (Gen 1:26-27, for instance), and the case for progressive revelation in the NT that God is triune, is not without merit.

And I contend that the Trinitarian God is a totally different God from the one revealed in the New Testament.

I think the only way to understand the God of the NT, given the weight of evidence, is that he is triune.

Indeed, the Biblical God is different from the Gods revealed among the Protestantized (and thus Christianized) non-Trinitarians as well. With the proceeding Holy Spirit being a force instead of a person. And a Son that is just a man or an angel, either way just a created being. Including the Modalists (and the Jesus Only idea) wherein the three persons are regarded as different modes of the one God who is one person. Even the non-Trinitarians are hard pressed to make sense of their ideas apart from the idea of progressive revelation.

On that we agree. I don't think any of those are the God of the Bible.

When the “Christian” Bible was initially compiled, it was determined that the Old Testament is to be a part of that Bible. To the New Testament writers, the Old Testament was the only Scripture. It was the source for all that they claimed, and they quoted it constantly. They did this following the example of Jesus Christ. To think that the New Testament writers were revealing new truth in a progressive fashion is to think that the Old Testament was insufficient, indeed, inaccurate.

In a way the OT was insufficient, because the NT is the continuing story of the Messiah and God's provision of salvation. There is no salvation to be found in the Law; it is only in the gospel which is revealed in the NT. Note that this does not mean the OT was inaccurate. If God simply "dumped" all the information he reveals about himself all at once, it would have been chaos. He had called a people to himself, a people with very different beliefs which had to be changed.

It also gives credence to the thinking that progressive revelation continued after the last writing of the New Testament was written. This is the thinking of both the eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. Not to mention the Protestant influenced Holiness/Pentecostal Movements. The problem for the Evangelical Protestant is that this is also the thinking that accompanied the development of Trinitarianism. Basing doctrine on the Bible alone is not a part of that historical thinking. If you are a Protestant, you really need to take a longer look at Christian history and the Christian Faith as it developed in Christian history. The history of the development of Trinitarianism reveals that progressive revelation did not end with the New Testament. And among the current Christian educated, that progressive revelation is ongoing. Even the renowned John MacArthur, a notable Biblicist, has acknowledged that he is a Calvinist. The most obvious of the Protestant doctrinal standards that is based on progressive revelation. When I was still a Trinitarian, the choice to follow the teachings of an unrepentant murderer (John Calvin) or the teachings of the Historic Roman Catholic Church was an easy choice to make. And before the moderators remove that statement as slander, I ask that they consider the historical fact that Calvin instigated the burning at the stake of Michael Servetus for denying the Trinity. And there is no record of Calvin ever repenting of his complicity in that event. It is comparable to Paul standing by while the Jews stoned Stephen. The difference being that Paul repented.

I don't think any of that is progressive revelation. The revelation needed for salvation, Christian living, and eschatology ended with the Bible. Those things above are simply people trying to understand what the Bible says.

 

[Free]

Free

“Trinitarian thinking revealing "the Old Testament God to be conjecture"?”

Since two different God’s are being presented, one of the two revelations must be conjecture, indeed, must be false. If Trinitarianism is true, then the Old Testament God (presented clearly as a singular person) must be conjecture. I believe that it is Trinitarianism that is the conjecture.

“Especially as one realizes that Jesus Christ believed in the Old Testament God 400 years prior to the beginning of the development of the Trinitarian God.”

Begging the question: A form of circular reasoning. An argument wherein premises assume the truth of the conclusion.

As I stated above, there is not a single verse m in the OT which clearly or directly states that God is an absolute unity (a single person). So, it is begging the question to say that the OT God and Trinitarianism are mutually exclusive.

The development of Trinitarianism began with the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. The fourth century. Certainly there were individuals who believed in the deity of Christ prior to that time. But the real development of that idea into the Trinity did not begin until it was authoritatively stated in that Council. Jesus walked the earth in the first century. That is 400 years prior to the Council of Nicaea. Surely you agree that he believed in the Old Testament God.

The foundations of the Trinity are seen in the writings of the early Church, long before Nicaea. Nicaea simply brought it altogether into a formal statement to combat the heresy of Arianism.

There are three basic foundations of the Trinity, as given by James R. White:

1. There is only one God.
2. There are three divine Persons.
3. The Persons are coequal and coeternal.

Those are foundations based on what the Bible states and that is what we have to make sense of.

The Old Testament God is stated by Hebrew individuals and by God Himself through the Old Testament writers as being a singular person. That should not be, but probably is, questionable to a Trinitarian. But it is the fact of the case. As clearly evidenced especially by God’s use of singular pronouns with reference to himself. So no. I do not think I am guilty of the fallacy you propose.

Again, there is nothing stating that God is ontologically a single person, just that there is one God. Those are two different claims; one is about his nature, the other monotheism.

Gen 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (ESV)

Humans are only made in the image of God, so when God is speaking using first person, plural personal pronouns, saying "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness," he can only be speaking to and of himself. That verse 27 then clearly switches to first person, singular personal pronouns when simply stating the act of the creation of male and female, is significant. There is only one God, as verse 27 shows, but there is a diversity within God, as verse 26 shows.

 

[CherubRam]

The Holy Spirit is a manifestation of Yahwah Himself and not a third person. There are more scriptures that go with these. Selah


Leviticus 24:16
anyone who blasphemes the name of Yahwah must be put to death.

Matthew 12:31
And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.


John 4:24
God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

Genesis 1:2
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Psalm 51:11
Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me.

Joshua 24:19
Joshua said to the people, "You are not able to serve Yahwah. He is a holy God; he is a jealous God. He will not forgive your rebellion and your sins.

1 Samuel 6:20
and the men of Beth Shemesh asked, "Who can stand in the presence of Yahwah, this holy God? To whom will the ark go up from here?"

Isaiah 5:16
But Yahwah Almighty will be exalted by his justice, and the holy God will show himself holy by his righteousness.

Psalm 99:3
Let them praise your great and awesome name— he is holy.

Psalm 99:5
Exalt Yahwah our God and worship at his footstool; he is holy.

Psalm 99:9
Exalt Yahwah our God and worship at his holy mountain, for Yahwah our God is holy.

Isaiah 57:15
For this is what the high and lofty One says— he who lives forever, whose name is holy:

Isaiah 63:10
Yet they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit. So he turned and became their enemy and he himself fought against them.

Isaiah 63:11
Then his people recalled the days of old, the days of Moses and his people— where is he who brought them through the sea, with the shepherd of his flock? Where is he who set his Holy Spirit among them,

1 Thessalonians 4:8
Therefore, anyone who rejects this instruction does not reject a human being but God, the very God who gives you his Holy Spirit.

Genesis 6:3
Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal ; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

Isaiah 30:1
“Woe to the obstinate children,” declares the LORD, “to those who carry out plans that are not mine, forming an alliance, but not by my Spirit, heaping sin upon sin;

Isaiah 42:1
“Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will bring justice to the nations.

Isaiah 44:3
For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour out my Spirit on your offspring, and my blessing on your descendants.

Isaiah 59:21
“As for me, this is my covenant with them,” says Yahwah. “My Spirit, who is on you, will not depart from you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will always be on your lips, on the lips of your children and on the lips of their descendants—from this time on and forever,” says Yahwah.

Ezekiel 36:27
And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.

Ezekiel 37:14
I will put my Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I the LORD have spoken, and I have done it, declares the LORD.’”

Ezekiel 39:29
I will no longer hide my face from them, for I will pour out my Spirit on the people of Israel, declares the Lord Yahwah.”

Joel 2:28
“And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions.

Joel 2:29
Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days.

Haggai 2:5
‘This is what I covenanted with you when you came out of Egypt. And my Spirit remains among you. Do not fear.’

Zechariah 4:6
So he said to me, “This is the word of Yahwah to Zerubbabel: ‘Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit,’ says Yahwah Almighty.

Zechariah 6:8
Then he called to me, “Look, those going toward the north country have given my Spirit rest in the land of the north.”

Numbers 11:29
But Moses replied, “Are you jealous for my sake? I wish that all Yahwah’s people were prophets and that Yahwah would put his Spirit on them!”

Job 34:14
If it were his intention and he withdrew his spirit and breath,

Isaiah 34:16
Look in the scroll of Yahwah and read: None of these will be missing, not one will lack her mate. For it is his mouth that has given the order, and his Spirit will gather them together.

Isaiah 48:16
“Come near me and listen to this: “From the first announcement I have not spoken in secret; at the time it happens, I am there.” And now my Lord Yahwah has sent me, endowed with his Spirit.

Zechariah 7:12
They made their hearts as hard as flint and would not listen to the law or to the words that Yahwah of Host had sent by his Spirit through the earlier prophets. So Yahwah of Host was very angry.

Romans 8:11
And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you.

1 Corinthians 2:10
these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.

2 Corinthians 1:22
set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.

Galatians 3:5
So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard?

Ephesians 2:22
And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

Ephesians 3:16
I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being,

Philippians 3:3
For it is we who are the circumcision, we who serve God by his Spirit, who boast in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh—

1 John 4:13
This is how we know that we live in him and he in us: He has given us of his Spirit.

 

[GodsGrace]

To Wondering:

When I was a Trinitarian, I was in the habit of being “pushy” about what I believed at the time. After that era ended I learned to present the truth as Jesus did. He rarely pushed, he merely presented and let the Jews interpretively misunderstand what he was saying. Which gives the impression that most of what he said was not for the Jews, but rather for all the believers through the ages. Christians are Biblical interpreters just as the Jews were. Complete with extra-Biblical ideas and Traditions. It is an exercise in futility to claim to a Christian that I no longer interpret the Bible. They believe that everyone interprets the Bible because they do and the idea of not interpreting is a foreign idea to them. Initially, I would sometimes get upset by the blindness of Christians regarding things that seemed so obvious to me as a non-Trinitarian. Then finally I realized upon a study of John that the Jews were the same way. And that the first century Jews eventually divided into two. Represented today by modern Judaism as one line and Christianity as the other.

Hi Board,
What exactly do you mean by "interpret the bible?"

I don't feel that I have capacity to interpret the bible.
I get a lot of messages from it, but some of it is not easy to understand and I rely on 3 different denominations that I've studied with and get a lot of information from there.

Of course Jesus caused a division in the Jewish population.
Some did not believe He was the Messiah, and some did.
Those that did came to be known as Christians in the city of Antioch.
Acts 11:26

Jesus sent the Apostles to teach all nations.
Matthew 28:19

Although the "three Gods" can be seen in both the OT and the NT, the final understanding of the trinity did not happen until many years after Jesus had resurrected.

The Council of Nicea was held in 325AD because there was a heresy being disseminated that taught that Jesus was a man. This was called Arianism.

I wonder if you trust yourself more than the early church theologians that studied this at great length.
Was Jesus a man?
Was Jesus God?
Did He exist before the incarnation?
Why is it called incarnation?

All these questions were answered at Nicea.

One problem I have had with Christians is that due to their practice of interpretation they redefine Biblical words. “Only begotten” is one of those instances. It is one Greek word composed of two. The first part means “alone” implying unique. The second part, “begotten”, means when a person is involved “to be born”. It is easy to see if the how the word is used in the New Testament is followed. That is why I say that Jesus did not initially have a created nature, but was a generated being with a beginning.

I have long disliked the word begotten.
I like the Latin/Italian translation better.
Generato, non creato.
Generator, Non Creatus.

It means Jesus was GENERATED, NOT MADE, ONE IN BEING WITH THE FATHER.

A lot gets lost in translation.

Jesus was generated from God.
He "came out" of God.
He always existed because He was always with the Father.

John 1:1 The Word was WITH GOD, and the Word WAS GOD.

It's Jesus Christ of Nazareth that had a beginning....
NOT The Son, The 2nd Person of the Trinity.
In that capacity, Jesus always existed.

And if he had a beginning, he can not be God. If memory serves, the Christian answer to that is that Jesus is eternally born or begotten. Which doesn’t really answer the problem since it really makes no sense and is against the meaning and use of the word. It was unreasonable ideas such as this that started me on my quest to understand the Trinity better and eventually to reject it. So then, I agree with the Trinitarians against the Unitarians that Jesus did have an existence prior to his time on earth. But it is not an idea that leads me to think he is God, as it does the Trinitarians.

I know that it's not easy to understand the Trinity.
But who was Jesus anyway?

He forgave the sins of the paraplegic man...
and then to show He had the authority to forgive sins, Jesus told him to get up and walk.
Only God can forgive sins.

Thomas exclaimed: My Lord and My God.
He was referring to Jesus.
Thomas was a Jew and knew about Deuteronomy 6:4 There is only One God.
Was Thomas a heretic?

And the Word BECAME FLESH...
John 1:14

The above means that Jesus existed before and then became flesh.

There's more.
I think Jesus had to be divine, or He had to be crazy or a liar.
I don't believe He was crazy or a liar.

Regarding Matthew 28:16-20 Actually contains two ideas foundational to Trinitarians. Worship and Baptism. Jesus himself uses the word worship to refer to human acts of reverence toward humans (Matthew 18:26). The instance of Baptism includes the singular name of the three - Father, Son, and Spirit; I can understand the interpretation, but I now realize it is just that, an interpretation.

Yes, worship can be directed toward humans although in our era we worship only God.
And if Jesus said in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, why not believe that He included all three and gave to all three the same authority since all three are God rolled into one?

Salvation is not just the result of Jesus. It is a unified affair wherein the Father, the Son, and the Spirit have a part. Note that the name is singular. Referring to this unity of action.

You're correct.
In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit,
is referred to by ONE NAME.
Because it is ONE GOD!

Note also the “give”. All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth” Why would a God or person of God need to be “given” power? Why would a God or person of God not already have this power? The fact remains that Jesus says it was given to him. Trinitarians can’t say that this refers to just his human nature. It is nowhere implied as such. And it is against the Trinitarian idea that one can not separate the two natures (Divine and human) of Jesus Christ.

I agree that the natures cannot be divided; however, Jesus was also 100% human when He was on earth and also 100% divine. The hypostatic union. He was not 50% man and 50% God.

Regardìng being given power, I've never pondered this fully.
Here is a commentary I like:

Saying, All power is given unto me — Gr. πασα εξουσια, all authority. It is manifest, as Beza observes, that “authority and power differ from each other; for many are not able to perform those things which they have a right to do; and, on the contrary, many have power to do those things which they have no right to do.”

Our Lord’s authority, however, implies power also. It is the exaltation of our Lord’s human nature that is here chiefly intended, in union, however, with the divine. His meaning is fully explained in the following words: Because he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross: therefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name; that at his name every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and in earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess him Lord, to the glory of God the Father, Php 2:7-11.

God hath raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come, and put all things under his feet, and given him to be the head over all things to (that is, for the benefit of) the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all, Ephesians 1:20-23. See the notes on these passages, and also on John 5:26-27; and Romans 14:9.

The authority and power intended is that which Christ exercises as Son of man and Mediator; but it is evident, if he did not possess all divine perfections, he could not exercise it. Thus Dr. Whitby, “He to whom any office is duly committed, must have sufficient power and wisdom to discharge that office.

Now to govern all things in heaven and earth belongs only to him who is the Lord and Maker of them, and therefore is known by this title, both in Scripture and by the heathen.

source: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/28-18.htm
Benson Commentary

The central purpose of the New Testament is to reveal that the Messiah has come in the person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. It is no different in these last few verses of Matthew. The center is Jesus Christ. The one name is Jesus, who is the Christ or Messiah, the Son of God (cf., Acts 2:38). For in that one name is eternal life (cf., John 3:14-18). Does that in any way imply that salvation is totally of Jesus Christ alone? Not at all. As is clearly revealed in all of the New Testament, though salvation is in Jesus Christ, salvation is not of Jesus Christ alone (cf., 1Corinthians 1:27-31; Romans 8:1-17). One is baptized into the death of Jesus Christ for a reason (cf., Romans 6:1-7). Does that exclude the work of the Father or of the Holy Ghost? Not according to the New Testament.

Do you mean by the above that salvation also comes by the Father and by the Holy Spirit?
If so, I agree.
But it was Jesus' job/work to be an atonement for our sins.
I think that's why we say that Jesus saves us. He is our propitiation.
Not because Father and Holy Spirit have nothing to do with salvation.

 

[Board]

Wondering

Perhaps you could help me out. How do you quote a portion of someone’s post for a response? How do you transfer a Greek word into a response?

 

[hawkman]

How do you quote a portion of someone’s post for a response?

https://xenforo.com/community/threa...ion-of-post-and-get-quote-reply-option.79677/

 

[Board]

Hawkman

Thanks, made a post, but it didn't turn out right at all. so I had to delete it

 

[Free]

Perhaps you could help me out. How do you quote a portion of someone’s post for a response?

The best way is to just click on "Reply" and then you can either delete the text you don't want to answer, or, if you want to do multiple replies to different portions of text, just put the cursor where you want to divide the text and press "enter," which is what I did to separate your two questions.

How do you transfer a Greek word into a response?

Copy and paste.

 

[Board]

Wonder

Part 1

[[Wonder said:
What exactly do you mean by "interpret the bible?" I don't feel that I have capacity to interpret the bible.
I get a lot of messages from it, but some of it is not easy to understand and I rely on 3 different denominations that I've studied with and get a lot of information from there.]]

Interpret – to explain or tell the meaning of : present in understandable terms. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

This is an exercise of the human mind. A textbook that is interpreted by a teacher or student because the author of the textbook is not present to explain it for himself. Interpretation would be necessary in relation to the Bible if the author of the Bible is comprised of only the human writers. They lived and died in the first century.

Christians will say that the Trinity is not a problem. It’s a solution. A solution to what? To a perceived problem. How can a Bible be understood to be a revelation when it has a problem that requires a solution? Especially a problem of such importance, since the Trinity is the foundation of Christianity? And how is this problem solved? By interpreting the Bible. What Christians fail to realize is that an interpreted Bible is not the Bible. The interpretation is the Bible. The interpretation replaces what the Bible says. So that to the interpreters and to whomever they can convince, the interpretation is the Bible, it is what the Bible actually says. The Bible then ceases to have a face value. It is considered unclear in and of itself. This leads to the necessity of a Tradition that is the interpretive understanding of an unclear Bible. A Bible that ceases to be a revelation. Because the interpretation of the Bible has become the revelation. Which makes the real Bible of no value at all.

Summary? That the interpretation is a summary of what the Bible says is the greatest myth of all.

Interpretation is the result of a mindset, a human mindset. Trinitarianism is not the result of revelation. Simply because the accepted and original revelation of the Old Testament is not Trinitarian. It is monotarian. In which the God who revealed Himself, and was understood to be by the people of God as recorded by the Old Testament, a singular person. If the revelation of the New Testament is that of a Trinitarian God, then it is the revelation of a false God. Which would imply the obvious. That the central figure of New Testament revelation, Jesus of Nazareth, is a false Messiah or Christ. In which there can be no salvation. In order for the New Testament to be the true revelation of the Messiah, it would have to espouse the same God that is revealed in the Old Testament.

Martin Luther seemed to understand that Christianity as he knew it was a false religion, when he advocated the doctrine of Sola Scriptura or the Scripture alone as the only authority for all faith and practice. The false religion claimed to follow the Bible and a man-made Tradition. But after ten years he approved the Augsburg Confession as the correct interpretation of the Bible. In so doing he approved a Tradition, an interpretive Tradition, a man-made Tradition. Including therein the Trinity. Revealing that he did not actually understand the problem with Christianity. Martin Luther showed himself to only be a rebel against Western history, against the Western Church (later called Catholicism or Roman Catholicism). The Reformation was not a reformation, it was a revolution against the Western Church as it existed in the 16th century. The head of which was the then reigning Pope. Interesting that so much of present day Protestantism not only has created its own Traditions, its own universality, but looks back to the so called “Church Fathers” to prove their interpretation of the Trinity. As if the “Church Fathers” were equal in authority with the Bible. Two sources of God inspired authority. So that the only substantial difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is that the Catholic liturgy emphasizes worship of the Triune God while the Protestant worship service worships itself as it emphasizes the sermon – the interpretation of the Bible.

But the Bible is a unique document, which uniqueness is acknowledged by both Catholicism and Protestantism. It not only has a human aspect, it also has a supernatural aspect. But this uniqueness is overshadowed by Tradition. Catholics are more honest in that they acknowledge that Tradition is regarded to be the result of a supernatural authority that gives it its own authority and makes it at least equal to, if not superior to, the authority of Scripture.. Protestants do not acknowledge the authority of Tradition, even though they look to it as an authority.

The Bible is God-breathed:

2Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God [God-breathed], and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2Timothy 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

through the Holy Spirit,

2Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

2Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

2Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

These things are written with regard to the Old Testament revealed by the prophets (Heb 1:1). The frame of reference of the New Testament is always the Old Testament, the only Bible that existed in the first century. As evidenced by the constant quotation of the Old Testament by the New Testament writers as the authority. Peter here makes reference to the Psalms.

Psalms 119:105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

The New Testament is revealed by the Son of God (Heb 1:2) through the Apostles (John 16:12-14). It is an extension of the Old Testament. If it does not express the same truths as the Old Testament, then the New Testament is not a part of the written Word of God already given and accepted as authoritative. It is how the “Christian” Bible is compiled. Old Testament first, then the New Testament. The New Testament writers quoted the Old Testament as an authority, not to interpret it to conform it to personal ideas. Rather to show that what they said was in line with the Old Testament.

But Christianity interprets the Bible as if the Old Testament is an extension of the New Testament. As if the author is not present. Why didn’t they compile it New Testament first according to their idea of Progressive Revelation that they advocate? The idea of Progressive Revelation is an interpretive idea that automatically degrades into a Tradition becoming the ultimate written authority. So that in Christianity, the Old Testament is the extension of the New Testament that in turn is the extension of the Creed or Tradition. This is not the true Bible that is God-breathed through the Holy Spirit. The true Bible is a revelation by God. In order to be a revelation it has to be clear in what it says. Otherwise its only value is to be a basis of an interpretation. It has no value in and of itself. And the idea of Sola Scriptura is seen as nothing more than a joke.

 

[Board]

Wonder

Part 2

The Jews did the same thing in the first century and modern Judaism continues the practice to the present day. Jesus refers to the first century Jewish Tradition they followed as the Traditions of men:

Matthew 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

Matthew 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

Mark 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

Mark 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Christianity has chosen to follow the Jews. Not only in having a backwards Bible, not only by following a man-made Tradition, but also by agreeing with the Jews that Jesus claimed to be God. The Jews of the first century remarkably continued to believe in the God of the Old Testament as part of their Tradition, that which God originally revealed to them, that God is a person. With which Jesus agreed. If he had not, then by the Law he rightfully died for not following the God-breathed Old Testament nor the true God. He could not have been the Messiah, he could not be a source of salvation. But the reality is that Jesus never claimed to be God the Son, but rather the Son of God in whom is salvation.

John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

This is so clear that Trinitarians have no choice but to resort to interpretation to conform it to their Trinitarian presupposition.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in[to] him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

1Corinthians 1:30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

1Corinthians 1:31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

The Bible must be clearly understandable to be a revelation. An unclear Bible is not a revelation of any thing. If the Bible is unclear, it is because one is trying to understand it through the human mind alone. As if it is the same as any other humanly written book. In such a case, one must resort to the practice of interpretation to give the Bible a semblance of meaning. The interpretation then replaces the Bible as objective truth, as the revelation.

A supernatural book requires a supernatural connection in order to be properly understood. The human mind is fallen and prone to seeing imaginary realities. Without a supernatural connection the practice of either interpretation or the negation of the Bible is necessary. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are involved in the living education of the true believer. God as the source, in the Son who teaches, through the Holy Spirit. This is the living author that is present for those who are in Christ, if they walk by the Spirit – and – retain an open seeking mind that is not closed by the acceptance as objective truth of a denominational Tradition of Christianity.

Colossians 1:12-13 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son.

Ephesians 4:20-21 But ye have not so learned Christ; If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus.

Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

The difference between this form of education and the secular form common in Christianity is that in this form of education, the author is present. Hence, personal interpretation is unnecessary.

1John 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.

The Greek word translated as “unction” is the same Greek word translated “anointing” in 1John 2:27. “Holy one” refers to Jesus Christ (cf., Luke 4:34; Acts 2:27, 3:14, 13:35).

1John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

The experience of the anointing is not the special gift of a teaching Elder, nor of the one who speaks in tongues, nor the specially educated leader that teaches the interpretation of a denominational Tradition. It is for anyone who is led by the Spirit. Without which only the human mind is available to understand a Spiritual writing. A human mind that is fallen and too limited to understand much of anything on its own (cf., Evolutionism). A mind that has no choice but to either interpret the Bible to give it meaning or regard it as merely an out of date collection of ancient writings by long dead humans that is of little or no value to someone living in the modern world of the twenty first century.

 

[Free]

Interpret – to explain or tell the meaning of : present in understandable terms. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

This is an exercise of the human mind. A textbook that is interpreted by a teacher or student because the author of the textbook is not present to explain it for himself. Interpretation would be necessary in relation to the Bible if the author of the Bible is comprised of only the human writers. They lived and died in the first century.

Christians will say that the Trinity is not a problem. It’s a solution. A solution to what? To a perceived problem. How can a Bible be understood to be a revelation when it has a problem that requires a solution? Especially a problem of such importance, since the Trinity is the foundation of Christianity? And how is this problem solved? By interpreting the Bible. What Christians fail to realize is that an interpreted Bible is not the Bible. The interpretation is the Bible. The interpretation replaces what the Bible says. So that to the interpreters and to whomever they can convince, the interpretation is the Bible, it is what the Bible actually says. The Bible then ceases to have a face value. It is considered unclear in and of itself. This leads to the necessity of a Tradition that is the interpretive understanding of an unclear Bible. A Bible that ceases to be a revelation. Because the interpretation of the Bible has become the revelation. Which makes the real Bible of no value at all.

A person can't read the Bible or anything else without interpreting it. Interpretation is something done automatically by the mind as what is read is filtered through every experience, prior reading, etc. It's why we see "as in a mirror dimly." We can't not interpret.

Interpretation is the result of a mindset, a human mindset. Trinitarianism is not the result of revelation. Simply because the accepted and original revelation of the Old Testament is not Trinitarian. It is monotarian. In which the God who revealed Himself, and was understood to be by the people of God as recorded by the Old Testament, a singular person. If the revelation of the New Testament is that of a Trinitarian God, then it is the revelation of a false God. Which would imply the obvious. That the central figure of New Testament revelation, Jesus of Nazareth, is a false Messiah or Christ. In which there can be no salvation. In order for the New Testament to be the true revelation of the Messiah, it would have to espouse the same God that is revealed in the Old Testament.

Except that there is not a single verse in the entire Bible that clearly or directly states that God is unitarian. In fact, the OT leaves open the door for a triune God.

Martin Luther seemed to understand that Christianity as he knew it was a false religion, when he advocated the doctrine of Sola Scriptura or the Scripture alone as the only authority for all faith and practice. The false religion claimed to follow the Bible and a man-made Tradition. But after ten years he approved the Augsburg Confession as the correct interpretation of the Bible. In so doing he approved a Tradition, an interpretive Tradition, a man-made Tradition. Including therein the Trinity. Revealing that he did not actually understand the problem with Christianity. Martin Luther showed himself to only be a rebel against Western history, against the Western Church (later called Catholicism or Roman Catholicism). The Reformation was not a reformation, it was a revolution against the Western Church as it existed in the 16th century. The head of which was the then reigning Pope. Interesting that so much of present day Protestantism not only has created its own Traditions, its own universality, but looks back to the so called “Church Fathers” to prove their interpretation of the Trinity. As if the “Church Fathers” were equal in authority with the Bible. Two sources of God inspired authority. So that the only substantial difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is that the Catholic liturgy emphasizes worship of the Triune God while the Protestant worship service worships itself as it emphasizes the sermon – the interpretation of the Bible.

I don't think a case can be made that Luther "seemed to understand that Christianity as he knew it was a false religion." He saw that there were problems with certain aspects of it and wanted only to reform it, to get back to biblical Christianity. He was interested in reformation; the Radical Reformation followed but that was by different people.

Note among those things that Luther was not against were the deity of Jesus and the doctrine of the Trinity.

The New Testament is revealed by the Son of God (Heb 1:2) through the Apostles (John 16:12-14). It is an extension of the Old Testament. If it does not express the same truths as the Old Testament, then the New Testament is not a part of the written Word of God already given and accepted as authoritative. It is how the “Christian” Bible is compiled. Old Testament first, then the New Testament. The New Testament writers quoted the Old Testament as an authority, not to interpret it to conform it to personal ideas. Rather to show that what they said was in line with the Old Testament.

I agree. The NT is a continuation of the OT and also brings further revelation of the nature of God. This is why the writer of Hebrews writes:

Heb 1:8 But of the Son he says...
...
Heb 1:10 And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;
Heb 1:11 they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment,
Heb 1:12 like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.” (ESV)

That is a direct quote from Psalm 102:

Psa 102:25 Of old you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.
Psa 102:26 They will perish, but you will remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away,
Psa 102:27 but you are the same, and your years have no end. (ESV)

That Pslam is clearly written to and about God. So how is it that the Spirit-inspired writer of Hebrews, in a God-breathed passage of Scripture, writes that the Father himself applies a passage about Yahweh to his Son? If the Son isn't also God, then who is wrong, God or the writer of Hebrews?

What John 1:1-3, 1 Cor 8:6, and Col 1:16-17 which all agree with Heb 1:10-12? What about John 8:58 in which Jesus himself claims to be God? What about Rom 10:9-13 in which Paul equates confessing Jesus is Lord with calling on the name of Yahweh (quoted from Joel 2:32)? What about Phil 2:6-8 where Paul shows that the Son was first "in the form of God," but then "emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant" and was "found in human form"?

There are numerous other such passages. These are things we need to study and make sense of given what we already know of God from the OT.

But Christianity interprets the Bible as if the Old Testament is an extension of the New Testament. As if the author is not present. Why didn’t they compile it New Testament first according to their idea of Progressive Revelation that they advocate?

Because it's progressive revelation, so it would make no sense to put it in reverse order.

The true Bible is a revelation by God. In order to be a revelation it has to be clear in what it says.

Does it? There are a number of passages that translators, scholars, and theologians struggle with precisely because they are not clear for one reason or another. Some of it has to do with the difficulties in translating and others with ambiguous meaning, where there could be several possible meanings.

However, I would argue that the foundations of the doctrine of the Trinity are clear. How to put it altogether isn't very clear and we cannot fully comprehend it with our finite minds, but that doesn't mean that the foundations aren't clear.