Trinitarianism: What Non-Trinitarians Believe

[Free]

"We are also made in the form of God."

Scripture please.

 

[JudaicChristian]

You have completely missed Paul's point. To translate verse 6 as "Who being in the form of God did not think equality with God as obtainable," doesn't even really make sense. If Christ wasn't God, if he was a mere creature, then it never need be said that he would of thought that equality with God was not obtainable. It really does go without saying.

Not to mention that it doesn't make sense of the verse following: "But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men." How would "but made himself of no reputation" make sense of his not thinking "equality with God as obtainable"? His having no reputation is explained, at least in part, by his taking the "form of a servant" and being "made in the likeness of men." So what then was his reputation? Or as other translations put it, of what did he empty himself?

We are not made in the form of God. Notice that Paul makes the distinction between Jesus being in the form of God and then being in the form of man. This most definitely implies that the "form of God" is not the same as the "form of man." If we are "in the form of man," then we cannot also be "in the form of God."

You are presupposing that Christ isn't equal to God when reading this passage and are not letting the passage speak for itself. Paul is pointing out the humility of Christ who was "in the form of God" when he "thought it not robbery to be equal with God." The word used for "robbery" has a few meanings but the one that best fits is "something to be forcibly retained or held on to."

In other words, while Christ was "in form of God" he did not think that equality with God was something to be forcibly retained or held on to, "but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men." As I have stated more than once already, this is the ultimate example of humility--God, the Creator, willing to give up his heavenly position and become a mere creature for the salvation of man and the redemption of all creation.

Let's look at the flow of the two verses starting from the end and moving to the beginning:

Christ's being "made in the likeness of men" further explains what is meant by taking "the form of a servant." (I sure hope you would agree that this means he had the nature of a servant, of man, otherwise it is a meaningless statement). In turn, these two statements further explain what is meant by "made himself of no reputation" (KVJ/NKJV) or "emptied himself" (NASB, HCSB) or "made himself nothing." (ESV, NIV) This statement, however it is worded, is preceded by the all important "but," here meaning "on the contrary," as Paul is clearly differentiating between Jesus' existence and pre-existence.

Immediately preceding the "but" is that Christ thought that equality with God was not something to be forcibly or eagerly held onto or retained, since, as the beginning of verse 6 states, he was "in the form of God." One cannot eagerly hold onto something that isn't theirs to begin with. And as "the form of a servant" would naturally mean he was human in nature, so "being in the form of God" means he was God in nature. And, again, one must pay careful attention to the use of the word "but" and what precedes it and what comes after it.

You do not explain what Paul means by "equal" as it relates to this passage. Please read my previous post where I mention the Ontological Trinity and Economic Trinity--a difference in function does not indicate an inferiority of nature. You also do not explain what Paul means by "thought it not robbery to be equal with God."

You seem to know a lot about what this passage doesn't mean but you provide nothing substantial as to what it does mean. The explanation I have given makes perfect sense of the passage both in what is said and why it is said. And it also agrees with John 1:1-18, Col. 1:16-17, and John 14:28, et all.


Scripture please.

Genesis 1:26
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.â€
Genesis 1:27
So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

 

[Who Says]

Hebrews 2:11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

Now that is curious, sons of God and brothers to Christ? What do you think about that principle expressed at Hebrews 2:11? "both he that sanctifieth (Christ) and they who are sanctified ARE ALL OF ONE"

 

[Free]

Genesis 1:26
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.â€
Genesis 1:27
So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

The onus is on you to prove that "image" and "likeness" in Genesis are not only the equivalent of "form" and "likeness" in Phil, but that they are used in such a way that they are saying the same thing. However, that is far beyond either of our knowledge and anyone on these forums. This is the problem with proof-texting, it inevitably leads to such exegetical fallacies.

 

[JudaicChristian]

[/SIZE] The onus is on you to prove that "image" and "likeness" in Genesis are not only the equivalent of "form" and "likeness" in Phil, but that they are used in such a way that they are saying the same thing. However, that is far beyond either of our knowledge and anyone on these forums. This is the problem with proof-texting, it inevitably leads to such exegetical fallacies.

Form
v.intr.
1. To become formed or shaped.
2. To come into being by taking form; arise.
3. To assume a specified form, shape, or pattern.

 

[Free]

Form
v.intr.
1. To become formed or shaped.
2. To come into being by taking form; arise.
3. To assume a specified form, shape, or pattern.

Like I said, to prove they are saying the same thing is impossible for anyone in these forums. Scholars even disagree to the exact meanings in the passages themselves, never mind two different languages, two different uses, thousands of years apart.


We must deal with what Paul says, in the same breath, two verses in a row.

 

[johngummadi]

Here is the link to the thread. If It becomes a big can of worms, then they can delete this thread. Judaic Christian Forum - Trinitarianism: What Non-Trinitarians Believe

JudaicChristian,

Before I start, let me confess that my knowledge is very limited and I might be wrong, and if someone corrects me with the Scripture, I am more than willing to alter my view.

While I appreciate that you're not afraid of opening the "can of worms", your theory is based on another theory (called Trinitarianism) rather than the Scriptures. Here is my understanding of the whole topic:

1. Introduction:
When dealing with God, His nature, etc., we need to be EXTREMELY CAREFUL. Especially when something's not revealed in the Scriptures clearly, people often come to conclusions based on assumptions. This happened in almost all so called "doctrines" (or "positions") and the "Trinitarianism" is no different. But when making a doctrine about God, we have to be very careful not to make assumptions. I'd rather be ignorant than coming to wrong conclusions (based on assumptions).

2. Son of God = ?
Before I go further, let me make myself clear that I do believe with all my heart (and can prove with Scriptures) that the Lord Jesus Christ is indeed God! However the Trinitarians went way too far to prove the deity of the Lord Jesus (with good intention) and brought God down to their imaginations. One should not study the Scriptures to prove anyone wrong, rather to show themselves "approved unto God" (2 Timothy 2:15), they missed this basic point. The assumption they made is that the Son of God" means God. We do not read that anywhere in the Scriptures. As you rightly pointed out that when the Jews accuse the Lord of blasphemy for calling Himself "Son of God", the Lord Jesus replies with Psalms 82:6 ("Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods..." - John 10:34-35). Also we see that the "Son of God" was begotten on a DAY ("this day have I begotten thee" - Psalms 2:7, Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5). So whatever the "Son of God" means, He had a beginning (as the Son of God). We often ignore that fact that Jesus is a MAN, born in time, 2000 years ago! So for the MAN Jesus, there was a beginning! He was BORN as a human (i.e., begun to exist as a human). That doesn't mean His person has beginning. Scripture says that He was "God... manifest in the flesh".


3. Dissecting God:
Our scholars have dissected Godhead at their whims and imaginations. While the Scripture talks about "God the FATHER", we never read about "God the SON". It clearly appears from the Scripture that the "Son" refers to the Lord Jesus' HUMANITY! God is called FATHER, the title "Father" equally applies to the Lord Jesus because He was GOD manifest in flesh. That is why we read that the SON who's given to us, was also called "The mighty God, The EVERLASTING FATHER" (Isaiah 9:6). You might ask, how then did Lord Jesus prayed to the "Father"? I'd say, that is the MYSTERY, "without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh" (1 Timothy 3:16). How the "Father" and "Son" existed within each other!? That is a mystery (and a GREAT one at that)! When the Scripture explicitly tells you that it is a MYSTERY (and not fully revealed yet), we better be careful before coming to conclusions.

4. Why didn't Judaism teach Trinity:
As for your argument that the Trinity is not taught in orthodox Judaism, it doesn't matter! In-fact the Jews did not even know that Messiah would be the "Son of God". They knew that He would be the "Son of David", but the Lord explains them that He was not only the Son of David, He was the Son of God (Matthew 22:44-46). There is no way they could have got that Christ would be God in flesh (that was a MYSTERY, although there are glimpses in Old Testament)!

5. Trinity according to the Scriptures:
The Lord Jesus Christ is indeed GOD, no question! Scripture is crystal clear about it. Even we see at-least THREE persons in the Godhead (the Scripture does not explicitly teach us, but we see glimpses).
Eg: Isaiah 48:16: "Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.".

But the issue was that our people have mistaken that the "Son of God" MEANS God. And your whole theory is based on their mistake.

God bless,

John.

 

[Who Says]

You have completely missed Paul's point. To translate verse 6 as "Who being in the form of God did not think equality with God as obtainable," doesn't even really make sense. If Christ wasn't God, if he was a mere creature, then it never need be said that he would of thought that equality with God was not obtainable. It really does go without saying.

Not to mention that it doesn't make sense of the verse following: "But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men." How would "but made himself of no reputation" make sense of his not thinking "equality with God as obtainable"? His having no reputation is explained, at least in part, by his taking the "form of a servant" and being "made in the likeness of men." So what then was his reputation? Or as other translations put it, of what did he empty himself?

Actually you have not looked at the entire context of this letter.

Throughout chapter one the issue is raised of men who: Philippians 1:15-16 "indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds"

This is the theme. Paul is admonishing them to resist the Satanic attitude of those who "preach Christ even of envy and strife" and who thus "preach Christ of contention" resisting Paul as Satan resisted God. You do recall the Satan means "resistor"?

And so in Philippians 2:5-11 it makes perfect sense that Paul encourages them not to have Satan's resistive attitude whereby he took to himself to usurp God, but instead be like Jesus who would not consider usurping God but instead humbled himself even further, in fact humbling himself as far as anyone could possibly so humble themselves.

And by the way, you can draw from other examples of scripture from the rest of this letter and from other letters which show this same thing. But that is up to you.

2 Corinthians 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

 

[4given]

2. Son of God = ?
Before I go further, let me make myself clear that I do believe with all my heart (and can prove with Scriptures) that the Lord Jesus Christ is indeed God! However the Trinitarians went way too far to prove the deity of the Lord Jesus (with good intention) and brought God down to their imaginations. One should not study the Scriptures to prove anyone wrong, rather to show themselves "approved unto God" (2 Timothy 2:15), they missed this basic point. The assumption they made is that the Son of God" means God. We do not read that anywhere in the Scriptures. As you rightly pointed out that when the Jews accuse the Lord of blasphemy for calling Himself "Son of God", the Lord Jesus replies with Psalms 82:6 ("Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods..." - John 10:34-35). Also we see that the "Son of God" was begotten on a DAY ("this day have I begotten thee" - Psalms 2:7, Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5). So whatever the "Son of God" means, He had a beginning (as the Son of God). We often ignore that fact that Jesus is a MAN, born in time, 2000 years ago! So for the MAN Jesus, there was a beginning! He was BORN as a human (i.e., begun to exist as a human). That doesn't mean His person has beginning. Scripture says that He was "God... manifest in the flesh".

God bless,

John.

Dear John / Who Says / mamre....

No man has seen God the Invisible Spirit of Love, at any time, but Moses, Ezekiel, Shadrack, Meshesh, and Abednigo, who were with the LORD God in the fiery furnace, will tell you that they have witnessed and have known the Son of God (OT)... for He is the Only Begotten Image of the Invisible Spirit of God. His Image is that of a man Glorified, whose Glory is Brighter than the Noonday Sun.

Even King Nebuchadnezzar was astonished to see that there was a fourth man, who saved the three Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego from the burning furnace ... who looks like the Son of God!… see Scripture below…

DANIEL 3
23 And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.
24 Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonied, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king.
25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

If so, another question is … how could King Nebuchadnezzar knows about the Son of God in the OT or his look a like?

The answer is very simple….

Our Lord God (YHWH) of the OT, the Son, is the only God physically formed for us to see and witness. He was later sent AGAIN into this world and made flesh to save us from our sins and became known as Jesus Christ in the New Testament.

HEBREWS 1
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And AGAIN, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
6 And AGAIN, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

What is the significance of the word "AGAIN" in the context of the texts ... you may ask?

Well, it is because the Son was first begotten or brought forth into this world in the beginning (Gen. 1:3) when God said...... LET THERE BE LIGHT... coming from everlasting (spiritual realm of the Father) into this physical world of ours..... as I have explained and posted before.

PROVERBS 8
22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
24 When there were no depths, I was BROUGHT FORTH (begotten); when there were no fountains abounding
with water.

God Bless

 

[JudaicChristian]

JudaicChristian,

Before I start, let me confess that my knowledge is very limited and I might be wrong, and if someone corrects me with the Scripture, I am more than willing to alter my view.

While I appreciate that you're not afraid of opening the "can of worms", your theory is based on another theory (called Trinitarianism) rather than the Scriptures. Here is my understanding of the whole topic:

1. Introduction:
When dealing with God, His nature, etc., we need to be EXTREMELY CAREFUL. Especially when something's not revealed in the Scriptures clearly, people often come to conclusions based on assumptions. This happened in almost all so called "doctrines" (or "positions") and the "Trinitarianism" is no different. But when making a doctrine about God, we have to be very careful not to make assumptions. I'd rather be ignorant than coming to wrong conclusions (based on assumptions).

2. Son of God = ?
Before I go further, let me make myself clear that I do believe with all my heart (and can prove with Scriptures) that the Lord Jesus Christ is indeed God! However the Trinitarians went way too far to prove the deity of the Lord Jesus (with good intention) and brought God down to their imaginations. One should not study the Scriptures to prove anyone wrong, rather to show themselves "approved unto God" (2 Timothy 2:15), they missed this basic point. The assumption they made is that the Son of God" means God. We do not read that anywhere in the Scriptures. As you rightly pointed out that when the Jews accuse the Lord of blasphemy for calling Himself "Son of God", the Lord Jesus replies with Psalms 82:6 ("Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods..." - John 10:34-35). Also we see that the "Son of God" was begotten on a DAY ("this day have I begotten thee" - Psalms 2:7, Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5). So whatever the "Son of God" means, He had a beginning (as the Son of God). We often ignore that fact that Jesus is a MAN, born in time, 2000 years ago! So for the MAN Jesus, there was a beginning! He was BORN as a human (i.e., begun to exist as a human). That doesn't mean His person has beginning. Scripture says that He was "God... manifest in the flesh".


3. Dissecting God:
Our scholars have dissected Godhead at their whims and imaginations. While the Scripture talks about "God the FATHER", we never read about "God the SON". It clearly appears from the Scripture that the "Son" refers to the Lord Jesus' HUMANITY! God is called FATHER, the title "Father" equally applies to the Lord Jesus because He was GOD manifest in flesh. That is why we read that the SON who's given to us, was also called "The mighty God, The EVERLASTING FATHER" (Isaiah 9:6). You might ask, how then did Lord Jesus prayed to the "Father"? I'd say, that is the MYSTERY, "without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh" (1 Timothy 3:16). How the "Father" and "Son" existed within each other!? That is a mystery (and a GREAT one at that)! When the Scripture explicitly tells you that it is a MYSTERY (and not fully revealed yet), we better be careful before coming to conclusions.

4. Why didn't Judaism teach Trinity:
As for your argument that the Trinity is not taught in orthodox Judaism, it doesn't matter! In-fact the Jews did not even know that Messiah would be the "Son of God". They knew that He would be the "Son of David", but the Lord explains them that He was not only the Son of David, He was the Son of God (Matthew 22:44-46). There is no way they could have got that Christ would be God in flesh (that was a MYSTERY, although there are glimpses in Old Testament)!

5. Trinity according to the Scriptures:
The Lord Jesus Christ is indeed GOD, no question! Scripture is crystal clear about it. Even we see at-least THREE persons in the Godhead (the Scripture does not explicitly teach us, but we see glimpses).
Eg: Isaiah 48:16: "Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.".

But the issue was that our people have mistaken that the "Son of God" MEANS God. And your whole theory is based on their mistake.

God bless,

John.

Psalm 82:6
“I said, ‘You are “godsâ€; you are all sons of the Most High.’
All who do God's will by keeping His commandments are Sons of God.

 

[JudaicChristian]

Dear John / Who Says / mamre....

No man has seen God the Invisible Spirit of Love, at any time, but Moses, Ezekiel, Shadrack, Meshesh, and Abednigo, who were with the LORD God in the fiery furnace, will tell you that they have witnessed and have known the Son of God (OT)... for He is the Only Begotten Image of the Invisible Spirit of God. His Image is that of a man Glorified, whose Glory is Brighter than the Noonday Sun.

Even King Nebuchadnezzar was astonished to see that there was a fourth man, who saved the three Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego from the burning furnace ... who looks like the Son of God!… see Scripture below…

DANIEL 3
23 And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.
24 Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonied, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king.
25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

If so, another question is … how could King Nebuchadnezzar knows about the Son of God in the OT or his look a like?

The answer is very simple….

Our Lord God (YHWH) of the OT, the Son, is the only God physically formed for us to see and witness. He was later sent AGAIN into this world and made flesh to save us from our sins and became known as Jesus Christ in the New Testament.

HEBREWS 1
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And AGAIN, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
6 And AGAIN, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

What is the significance of the word "AGAIN" in the context of the texts ... you may ask?

Well, it is because the Son was first begotten or brought forth into this world in the beginning (Gen. 1:3) when God said...... LET THERE BE LIGHT... coming from everlasting (spiritual realm of the Father) into this physical world of ours..... as I have explained and posted before.

PROVERBS 8
22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
24 When there were no depths, I was BROUGHT FORTH (begotten); when there were no fountains abounding
with water.

God Bless

"And let all the angels of God worship him."

That verse is a corruption of text. Before the first century that text was written to apply to Yahwah. Look for foot notes in study bibles.[/COLOR]

 

[4given]

"And let all the angels of God worship him."

That verse is a corruption of text. Before the first century that text was written to apply to Yahwah. Look for foot notes in study bibles.

Your correction is arguably based only on your own religious view that you subscribe to. I like to think that you will not be able to sustain that objection with Scripture. Are you saying our Lord YHWH, the Son of God, is not worthy of worship of all the angels in heaven?

ISAIAH 66
22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.
23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.
24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.

 

[deaconbluez]

Secondly we look at Phil 2.​

This passage raises the question about forms. What does being in God's form mean and what does being in man's form mean? Though we are not provided specific answers, a cursory evaluation of the entirety of scripture may suggest that God's form is spirit while man's form is flesh. So saying or translating this text as "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped," is incorrect and flat out deliberate translator bias and deception. Jesus EXISTED in the FORM of God, but was not in his very nature, God. We are not told what the specifics of Jesus' preincarnate forms was, only that there was one.​

What question is there about form? The very first chapter of Genesis tells us that God created man in his own image. The image of our Creator which we all bear is primarily an invisible, inner likeness. In regard to attributes of personality, mind, creativity, capacity for love and express emotions, the existence of will, conscience, imagination, memory and moral responsibility, and capacity for worship---God has made us very much like Himself.

Jesus EXISTS (not existed) in the FORM of God and thus as his eternally begotten Son, became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and Virgin Mary. That only tells us that physically, man is not like God, albeit a creation of God...in fact God's highest creation. Jesus, the Son of Man, is God made flesh.

 

[JudaicChristian]

Your correction is arguably based only on your own religious view that you subscribe to. I like to think that you will not be able to sustain that objection with Scripture. Are you saying our Lord YHWH, the Son of God, is not worthy of worship of all the angels in heaven?

ISAIAH 66
22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.
23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.
24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.

The worship of Christ is a Catholic corruption. John 5:41 (King James Version)

41. I receive not (honour, praise, glory, worship) from men.

 

[4given]

The worship of Christ is a Catholic corruption. John 5:41 (King James Version)

41. I receive not (honour, praise, glory, worship) from men.

That's not true. What is enlightening though is what Christ said on the next suceeding verses.... in reference to your own cited text....

JOHN 5
42 But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.
43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

 

[mamre]

Again, not a valid debate strategy - anybody can "pray to God and you will that I am right". Trust me, like you I have studied this issue quite extensively. It seems you disagree with what I am saying (although I am actually not sure), but it is not helpful to suggest that I need "pray" so that I will come around to your view.

Drew,

Question for you.

What do want the most? Do you want to keep debating for the sake of debating? Or Do you want to know what is the truth about God, His character, attributes, and who He really is?

mamre

 

[mamre]

Remember all, that the word, 'god' is a descriptive term and not a name. Anyone or anything that is mighty can correctly be called a god. So when Jesus is referred to as a god, that does not necessarily equate him to the FATHER. It just confirms his own might.

Psalm 82 - GOD stood in the gathering of the gods.

Exodus - GOD made Moses a god unto pharoah.

2 Cor 4 - calls presumably the devil, the god of this age/world.

The next issue is how we describe or define deity. Do we mean spirit being or do we mean the FATHER of all? Who fits into the catagory changes depending on how the word is defined.

In other words, there are other gods beside God the Father, that are not idols. Correct?

mamre

 

[Drew]

Drew,

Question for you.

What do want the most? Do you want to keep debating for the sake of debating? Or Do you want to know what is the truth about God, His character, attributes, and who He really is?

mamre

What kind of a question is this? Obviously I want to know the "the truth about God, His character, attributes, and who He really is?". But let's be clear - it is entirely unhelpful for anyone - me, you, whoever - to make this kind of suggestion: "I know you disagree with me about doctrine X, but you really need to pray so that you will see that my position on doctrine X is really the correct one."

It seemed clear to me that you were indeed making such a statement. I suggest the proper road to truth is to examine the scriptural arguments, with the (likely overly charitable) assumption that we are all fundamentally interested in getting at "God's real truth", and praying to that effect.

 

[Free]

Drew,

Question for you.

What do want the most? Do you want to keep debating for the sake of debating? Or Do you want to know what is the truth about God, His character, attributes, and who He really is?

mamre

Should I not also ask you the same since you have twice now not responded to my posts which clearly refute your statements that Jesus is the God of the OT but not the Father? Your polytheism has been soundly refuted and yet you want to pose the above question to someone else?

 

[mamre]

Dear John / Who Says / mamre....

No man has seen God the Invisible Spirit of Love, at any time, but Moses, Ezekiel, Shadrack, Meshesh, and Abednigo, who were with the LORD God in the fiery furnace, will tell you that they have witnessed and have known the Son of God (OT)... for He is the Only Begotten Image of the Invisible Spirit of God. His Image is that of a man Glorified, whose Glory is Brighter than the Noonday Sun.

Even King Nebuchadnezzar was astonished to see that there was a fourth man, who saved the three Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego from the burning furnace ... who looks like the Son of God!… see Scripture below…

DANIEL 3
23 And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.
24 Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonied, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king.
25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

If so, another question is … how could King Nebuchadnezzar knows about the Son of God in the OT or his look a like?

The answer is very simple….

Our Lord God (YHWH) of the OT, the Son, is the only God physically formed for us to see and witness. He was later sent AGAIN into this world and made flesh to save us from our sins and became known as Jesus Christ in the New Testament.

HEBREWS 1
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And AGAIN, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
6 And AGAIN, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

What is the significance of the word "AGAIN" in the context of the texts ... you may ask?

Well, it is because the Son was first begotten or brought forth into this world in the beginning (Gen. 1:3) when God said...... LET THERE BE LIGHT... coming from everlasting (spiritual realm of the Father) into this physical world of ours..... as I have explained and posted before.

PROVERBS 8
22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
24 When there were no depths, I was BROUGHT FORTH (begotten); when there were no fountains abounding
with water.

God Bless

Some questions:
1. Heb 1:5 - "Thou art my son this day I have begotten thee." So the Father is saying to someone (Jesus) directly today I have begotten thee. Does that mean that before that day, the son was not His son? Was this before or after the creation of the world?

2. Heb 1:6 - "...when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world..." First begotten means first born, correct? So, was Jesus the first born of all creatures?

3. Prov 8 - I have read Proverbs 8 in its entirety. The proverb is one long piece revolving around one theme: wisdom. Is the passage you quote referring to "wisdom" that God possessed before the creation? Or, is it referring to someone?

mamre