Why belief in Jesus' deity is essential for salvation...

[Imagican]

Can I answer?

As Solo's poll in the other thread shows: http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=28156,
we do believe Christ is the Son of God. So we readily acknowledge the verse you posted.

But other verses plainly state that Christ IS God as well. I offered a very plain one a number of times. Titus 2:13

How do I explain that Christ can be Son of God and God at the same time?

Well, maybe I should answer with a rhetorical question.

How do I explain eternity?

How do I explain an all powerful God?

How do I explain an all present God?

How do I explain God's love for treacherous creatures like us?

Some things are just not explainable like we'd like them to be, our minds just can't quite grasp it, but scripture confirms it and our hearts plainly know it to be true.

BUT, with THIS understanding you OBVIOUSLY FAIL to take EVERY THING else concerning this doctrine into CONSIDERATION. You have simply ACCEPTED what has been "OFFERED" you without the ABILITY to discern the truth.

Veritas,

YOU are on a deserted island. It is JUST you and NO ONE ELSE. You are walking along the beach one day. You look down and discover a book covered with sand. You take this book, (the HOLY BIBLE), and for lack of ANYTHING 'better' to do, you start 'reading' it. As you read further and father INTO it, you discover Christ and accept Him INTO your heart. You drop to your knees one day and ASK for forgiveness. Christ becomes MANIFEST in your heart.

Follow me SO FAR?

Now, SERIOUS question; Do YOU have the ability to be SO deceptive that you would STATE that you would HAVE the ability to KNOW 'trinity' WITHOUT 'someone' there to TEACH IT TO YOU?

It took HUNDREDS of YEARS 'after' Christ's DEATH to come to this 'belief'. SOMEONE HAD to 'create' this 'trinity' in order for the NAME ITSELF to be 'introduced' into Christianity.

Now, there is NO DOUBT that MANY have 'come' to 'believe' in this doctrine. But, WHERE DID IT COME FROM? From Christ? From His apostles? NO!!!! It came from a 'people' that would torture or MURDER ALL those that OPPOSED it once they had INTRODUCED it into Christianity.

Now, I will ask THIS; is THIS the example God's SON offered us on the cross? Did He offer us the ABILITY to HARM our brothers and sisters in the NAME of ANY doctrine?

NO. God's SON was willing to LAY His LIFE down for those that WOULDN'T even ACCEPT Him as their Savior IN THE HOPES that they WOULD. This Son of God was willing to DIE for His ENEMIES.

There was NO enmity between HIM and His brothers and sisters. This is a 'man' that was willing to PRAY for the FORGIVENESS of those that were MURDERING Him. An innocent man that had NOT EVEN SINNED.

Now, THIS was the EXAMPLE that was offered by God's SON. Does this even REMOTELY resemble the example FOLLOWED by those that 'created' this 'trinity'?

There IS NOT PERSONAGE with God as offered through the CATHOLIC CHURCH. God IS NOT A PERSON. God IS God. There is ONLY ONE. NOT THREE persons, but ONE ENTITY that is KNOWN as GOD.

To 'create' this IDEA of God BEING 'persons' is NOTHING short of man-made philosophical 'BAGGAGE'. The RUDIMENTS of the WORLD in the PLACE of the WISDOM of God.

And there are those that have 'bought INTO this' lock, stock and barrel.

There is ONLY ONE TRUE GOD. This is STATED OVER AND OVER AGAIN. That the DESIRE of man was to 'create' THREE is NOTHING short of 'itching ears' and carnal MINDS desiring to 'create' their OWN god.

God IS God. The SON of God IS the Son of God. There is NO WAY that ANYONE can offer argument AGAINST 'ThIS'. But NOT ONCE is it defined IN THE WORD; God the Son. NEVER ONCE. This is 'man-made' baggage that has been PASSED down from 'generation to generation'. It does NOT exist in the Word.

Guys and Gals, I am STILL waiting for JUST ONE OF YOU to explain HOW God could be the OWNER of Christ yet Christ IS God. Christ WAS created FOR God as WE were 'created' FOR Christ. To deny this IS to deny the FOUNDATION of the Word.

MEC

 

[protos]

Now, SERIOUS question; Do YOU have the ability to be SO deceptive that you would STATE that you would HAVE the ability to KNOW 'trinity' WITHOUT 'someone' there to TEACH IT TO YOU?

I used to be an Arian Christian regardless of what all the Trinitarian places I visited. Then one day as I was reading into the Bible and thinking about it, I realized that with respect to the Bible, Christ is God. Unfortunately, I forgot what made me do so.

It took HUNDREDS of YEARS 'after' Christ's DEATH to come to this 'belief'. SOMEONE HAD to 'create' this 'trinity' in order for the NAME ITSELF to be 'introduced' into Christianity.

Justin Martyr acknowledges Christ as God and he wrote around 140 CE. So the idea was clearly long before him, who was a new convert as per his own testimony.

Now, there is NO DOUBT that MANY have 'come' to 'believe' in this doctrine. But, WHERE DID IT COME FROM? From Christ? From His apostles? NO!!!! It came from a 'people' that would torture or MURDER ALL those that OPPOSED it once they had INTRODUCED it into Christianity.

Evidence please.

Now, THIS was the EXAMPLE that was offered by God's SON. Does this even REMOTELY resemble the example FOLLOWED by those that 'created' this 'trinity'?

Such as?

There IS NOT PERSONAGE with God as offered through the CATHOLIC CHURCH. God IS NOT A PERSON. God IS God. There is ONLY ONE. NOT THREE persons, but ONE ENTITY that is KNOWN as GOD.

This subtle trick is equating a personage with God. Yes there is only God, but no there aren't three gods. One is three, when one God is three persons. So, please, stop using this ancient trick. Think of it like time: past, present and future. All three are time. Past is time, present is time, and future is time, but without either one, it isn't time. (man, where would we be without the analogy of time?)

To 'create' this IDEA of God BEING 'persons' is NOTHING short of man-made philosophical 'BAGGAGE'. The RUDIMENTS of the WORLD in the PLACE of the WISDOM of God.

Philosophy? No. Theology? Yes

There is ONLY ONE TRUE GOD. This is STATED OVER AND OVER AGAIN. That the DESIRE of man was to 'create' THREE is NOTHING short of 'itching ears' and carnal MINDS desiring to 'create' their OWN god.

God IS God. The SON of God IS the Son of God. There is NO WAY that ANYONE can offer argument AGAINST 'ThIS'. But NOT ONCE is it defined IN THE WORD; God the Son. NEVER ONCE. This is 'man-made' baggage that has been PASSED down from 'generation to generation'. It does NOT exist in the Word.

This argument that Christ is just the Son of God is a narrow-minded view that doesn't like to indulge into the Bible. It's a surface read. May I suggest Philippians 2:6-8?

Guys and Gals, I am STILL waiting for JUST ONE OF YOU to explain HOW God could be the OWNER of Christ yet Christ IS God. Christ WAS created FOR God as WE were 'created' FOR Christ. To deny this IS to deny the FOUNDATION of the Word.

MEC

Christ was created for God? Where do you get that from?

 

[MarkT]

Veritas

As usual, I should have slept on it before answering. There's only one way of looking at Paul's letter to Titus. Logically Paul isn't saying something new in midletter or contradicting himself. I would take the footnotes as a helper and say Paul is calling Jesus the glory of God and our Saviour. So he's saying two things about Jesus. When he says, 'of the glory', he is speaking of the glory of the Father, 'our great God', referring to 'our Saviour' Jesus Christ who is the glory of the Father. In other words, he is saying Jesus is our Saviour, the glory of our great God. If Paul had simply said 'our great God', without speaking of the glory of God, I would see your confusion. But he doesn't. He says, 'the appearing of the glory of'. This is consistent with the appearing of the 'glory of' or the 'light of' the Father and Jesus, our Saviour', being the said 'glory of God'.

 

[MarkT]

This subtle trick is equating a personage with God. Yes there is only God, but no there aren't three gods. One is three, when one God is three persons. So, please, stop using this ancient trick. Think of it like time: past, present and future. All three are time. Past is time, present is time, and future is time, but without either one, it isn't time. (man, where would we be without the analogy of time?)

Congratulations protos. You interpreted your own word. Well, not really. It's not your word in that it didn't originate with you. You didn't coin it. But you equate it with the words that do come from God for some reason. How come? We don't equate any words with the words that are found in the Book. If you had root in yourself, you wouldn't accept any word that God didn't plant. Fortunately you will only lose the reward you would have received for seeking and finding the knowledge of God. The man will still be saved.

 

[MarkT]

I wouldn't use 'Trinity' in place of 'the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit' even if that is what you mean. Also the 'fully man and fully God' understanding is poor. If the writer had something else in mind, I don't know. I can't question him. If 'Trinity' refers to the Athanasian Creed, then I would reject it completely. I wouldn't accept anything that is less than perfect to build my house on. 'Christ, the Son of the living God' is perfect. Why would anyone take someone else's understanding instead of the words of God and make it their foundation?

You know what it tells me? It tells me you people have no fear of God at all. It's a self serving religion, isn't it? If you had the fear of God in you, you would be working out your salvation in fear and trembling, as Paul said. Every word would be important to you. You wouldn't skim over the words of God for fear of missing something. You would keep every word in your heart and mind and the Holy Spirit would bring it back into your remembrance. Did you hear right? Did you forget something? Was there something else? Your eye would be narrowly focused on every word and you would keep the words and never let them go.

You have the perfect words of God, which Jesus said would last forever, "My words will not pass away" Mt. 24:35 and the imperfect understanding of some man or committee of men, I don't know which. Choose now what you will stake your life on!

We're not looking for the 'evidence' that Jesus is God. The scholars and the wise men (theologians) do that. We're not looking for evidence of a preconceived notion. The Jews did that. To them, the Scriptures were lines and precepts taken as evidence of being right. We don't do that. We understand the words.

 

[Veritas]

Sorry PotLuck, I'm trying to be as clear as possible.

And MarkT, you pretty much affirmed the trinity, at least two parts of it, which is cool. I'm not sure if thats what you meant to do, but let me pick out the key concepts you laid forward:

MarkT wrote:
But we know now that no one has ever seen the Father so who did Abraham see? It was the light of God. The light was with God in the beginning. Being in the form of God, like a master workman, he created the world and everything in it.

MarkT wrote:
...the Holy One of God became one of us.

MarkT wrote:
The LORD, the Holy One said, "I am God, and also henceforth I am He." So God is our Saviour. The LORD is He.

Is it just that you don't like the word "Trinity"? The concept you just put forth is it.

And Imagican, even if I was on a deserted island and had no contact with other people, I would gain the same concept as what the word "trinity" implies. I wouldn't call it by the same name because that particular word is not in the Bible, but I would have the same concept.

 

[Imagican]

veri,

I 'hear' you but find it 'difficult' to agree with your conclusion.

It took the Catholic Church HUNDREDS of years and a multitude of MURDERS in order to 'cement' this 'trinty' into Christianity.

And YOU would 'say' that you would STILL come to this UN-understandable conclusion EVEN if NO one had EVER mentioned it to you. Highly UNLIKELY. For even if YOU and I sat down RIGHT now and discussed it, you would be FORCED to answer MANY of my questions of this 'trinty' with 'something' on the line of; 'Well, you know, it's a mystery. There's NO WAY to 'understand 'trinity' completely'.

So HOW you could come to a conclusion that CAN'T be understood is beyond my comprehension.

So, while you openly ADMIT that this WORD 'trinity' is NOT something that you would perceive through The Word, you still down play the scenario by offering that you TOO, would come to the SAME conclusion that 'Jesus IS God' even WITHOUT 'any man' teaching you 'trinty'? Hmmmmm........

You know, I NEVER had ANYONE teach me 'trinity' PERIOD. And after accepting Christ into my heart was when I FIRST actually heard anyone offer this 'concept'. It IMMEDIATELY sent up a 'red flag'. FIRST I questioned God. HOW could He have left me IGNORANT of such a VITAL piece of information concerning the identity of Christ.

It didn't take long to FIND the answer. God had NOT left me 'ignorant' AT ALL. He had simply allowed me the perception and understanding to 'recognize' EXACTLY what 'trinity' IS. And after MUCH observation and study and prayer, it became MORE AND MORE clear that 'trinty' was UN-Biblical as well as being 'man-made'. Created in the minds and hearts of those that had a 'previous pagan trinity' in MUCH of their religion. Something that they 'saw' feasible in the Godhead.

Then when it is taken into consideration ALL that is warned about concerning the 'turning Christ into 'something different' than what was taught by the apostles, it becomes EVEN more apparent that 'trinity' is EXACTLY what we were WARNED ABOUT.

Forbidding to wed, calling priests Father, Mary the MOTHER OF GOD, denial of the sacrimental cup, torture and murder in the NAME of Christ,..............
And THESE were the 'creators' of 'trinity'? Quite shaky ground there my friend. Not alot of example of The Spirit HERE. No FORGIVENESS. NO being 'good sheppards'. No simply accepting what was offered, but a willingness and insistence upon 'creating their OWN doctrines', including this 'trinity'. Taking AWAY the Son and attempting to 'turn Him INTO the Father'. And for WHAT REASON. To satisfy their OWN carnal wishes.

You KNOW what was warned about adding to or taking away a SINGLE word of God's Holy Bible. 'Trinity' ADDS NOT ONLY WORDS but ENTIRE concepts that were NOT taught by the apostles, Christ OR God Himself.

MEC

 

[francisdesales]

BUT, with THIS understanding you OBVIOUSLY FAIL to take EVERY THING else concerning this doctrine into CONSIDERATION. You have simply ACCEPTED what has been "OFFERED" you without the ABILITY to discern the truth.

Veritas,

YOU are on a deserted island. It is JUST you and NO ONE ELSE. You are walking along the beach one day. You look down and discover a book covered with sand. You take this book, (the HOLY BIBLE), and for lack of ANYTHING 'better' to do, you start 'reading' it. As you read further and father INTO it, you discover Christ and accept Him INTO your heart. You drop to your knees one day and ASK for forgiveness. Christ becomes MANIFEST in your heart.

Follow me SO FAR?

Have you ever considered that the first Christians taught the faith without the entire Bible packed up in their little travel bags? Have you considered that the first Christians taught using the knowledge they had received orally to explain what they believed? Is it any wonder that you are completely at loss to explain the Trinity from "Bible alone" without taking into account what the Church of the time taught? (Sola Scriptura is a concept which is NOWHERE taught in the Bible itself)

A little knowledge and common sense will go a long way in answering this "problem" that you see. Christ taught the disciples ORALLY. He obviously explained things in much more detail than we have written down in the Bible. Don't you think that Christ said A LOT MORE in three years than what we have in the couple hundred pages of the New Testament??? Don't you think the same is true of the Apostles during the first 20 years of the Church??? Don't you think Peter and Paul said A LOT MORE in 20 years than what is recorded in Acts???

A little common sense will go a long way here...

The first Christians believed in the Trinity. They explained this belief, utilizing the Scriptures and interpreting it under the same paradigm that was taught ORALLY to them in the first 25 years - BEFORE the NT was even written! There is no need to INVENT this idea that Christians invented the Trinity in 150 AD... We see it as a natural continuation of what we find in Scriptures when they are interpreted a certain way - this "way" taught by the first Christians. We know it is a continuation of what is taught because we find those who are considered orthodox Christians by the community discussing the very belief (Trinity) as if it was part of the faith that ALL Christians believed. WE DON'T FIND orthodox Christians saying "Wait a minute... Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch, is NOT teaching the faith" We just don't see it because those who read it AGREED with it!!!

People don't go to the lions for a false, made-up belief...

A little common sense goes a long way...

The Bible is NOT a systematic catechism. It is not layed out "Chapter One - Trinity. Chapter Two - Jesus Christ. Chapter Three - the Holy Spirit". There are a lot of gray areas - areas that Christians have been discussing for 2000 years. That is why we have a Living Church - to interpret the Word of God and its meaning. This community utilizes the teachings given, both orally and written - to preach the Word of God to the People of God.

Regards

 

[Imagican]

fran,

OH YES, my friend. And I have ALSO come to understand that the Bible WITHOUT The Spirit is NOTHING but a 'bunch of words'. IMPOSSIBLE to discern through the 'wisdom of man'.

The FIRST Christians were 'led' BY The Spirit and this is HOW they became 'saved'. NOT through 'wise men' teaching them ANYTHING. But simply hearing the 'words' offered BY the apostles and others, there WERE those that were 'touched' BY The Spirit and 'led' to an understanding of God and His Son.

Fortunately THIS IS EXACTLY how I 'was FOUND'. For I WAS LOST UTTERLY until being 'touched BY The Spirit'. And 'I' BELIEVE that this is the ONLY way in which one IS 'saved'. Just 'my' belief of course and it is NOT up to ME to SAY for a 'fact' HOW God 'chooses' those that He does. But I WILL say that 'I' believe that it is IMPOSSIBLE to be 'saved' without the GRACE of God. Just 'saying' that one IS 'saved' is but WORDS.

Fran,

I WILL give 'credit' where credit is due. I believe that the CC has come to realization that 'faith WITHOUT works IS dead'. MOST denominations simply teach that to simply utter that Christ IS one's Savior IS ENOUGH. What a 'weak' form of Christianity this would be. For the WORKS WILL BECOME apparent in those that ARE 'saved'. You certainly CAN'T 'work' your way to heaven, but you ARE certainly able to 'build treasure IN heaven by that which you perform ON THIS PLANET. The fruit IS apparent in those that are 'truly saved' in that which they 'present' to the 'WORLD'.

As stated previous, fran, I have NOTHING against YOU. I can do nothing BUT offer you this assurance. And I have NOTHING MORE against 'your church' than ANY OTHER that is formed of 'men leading other men'. I will OPENLY speak out against ANY denomination that INSISTS that IT is the ONLY way. For I know that God has plans for EACH of INDIVIDUALLY. That we are TOLD to gather takes NOTHING away from our PERSONAL relationship with God through His Son. And we were NEVER told to gather with those that are 'simply pretending' to BE Christians. And I AM QUITE SURE, that there ARE those out there that realize that MOST of todays 'Christianity' is MORE 'pretend' than an actually FOLLOWING of Christ To His Father.

I want NOTHING other than THE TRUTH. There is NO ROOM in my mind or my heart for 'pretending'. I have been 'given a second chance' and AM willing to do with it WHAT I CAN and to follow WHERE I am LED. If my understanding 'differs' from that of others, I can NOT apologize. For MY understanding is NOT 'my own'. And the Word bears witness that what I offer is NOTHING other than that which has been offered.

I PURPOSELY avoid those questions and strifes that I KNOW NOTHING about. But when a question arises that I AM able to offer 'sound words' of prophecy or instruction, I am BOUND to offer what I 'can'.

So, DO not fault me if you take offense to my offerings. I did not 'create' ANYTHING. I simply offer it as 'I' have been 'led' to understand it. And 'I' JUST as EVERY OTHER that chooses to 'teach' others is RESPONSIBLE for EVERY word that they utter. If it is WRONG, the penalty WILL BE severe. WE HAVE BEEN WARNED. But there is MUCH forgiveness offered for ANY that are able to offer words of God's wisdom to others. And BOY do I NEED FORGIVENESS. If I live to be a thousand years of age, there is NO WAY that I could EVER 'make up' for the SIN that I have performed in my life. NO WAY. So you see, I am attempting to 'work OVERTIME'.

I have been accused of offering contradiction to 'my own offerings'. Impossible, my friends. IF there is INDICATION of such, it is ONLY because those that 'see such' have misunderstood what I have offered. My words are NOT able to BE contradiction. For I offer NOT what I would have 'previous', but what I am 'led' to offer in the present. And there CAN BE NO contradiction in The TRUTH.

I will openly offer when something IS something that I 'simply' believe. But there IS MUCH that I KNOW, and this I WILL state as KNOWLEDGE. NOT guesses, but actual revelation that has been offered through factual history, the Scriptures, and EVEN some that has been directly offered THROUGH THE SPIRIT.

I come here offering NOTHING other than 'understanding. And I MUST admit, to those that have NOT been able to follow my postings, and those that are SO adamantly opposed to "LEARNING ANYTHING', my posts probably ARE seeming 'foolishness'. NOT a problem folks. But IF one would simply open up their minds and hearts TO THE SPIRIT, I KNOW that these WILL be moved to a 'greater understanding'. For I was CHOSEN for a 'reason'. Each of the PARTS of the 'body' have their OWN purpose and 'gifts'. I can't HELP but believe through revelation that my 'gift', if that's what you would 'call it', IS evangelism and 'teaching'.

We MOSTLY argue here over DOCTRINE for I AM A FIRM BELIEVER that 'man-made' doctrine has LITTLE bearing on one's becoming SAVED other than to possibly IMPEDE one's ability to ACCEPT the 'TRUTH'.

I assumed that when I 'came' to a Christian Forum that those that participated WOULD BE Christians. I have 'tried' to treat EVERYONE as 'an equal'. But I have come to realize that there are MANY that have NOT trodden as 'far' as some others. That their walk has been more of a casual stroll. And in this regard I must apologize, for I probably HAVE been way too critical and skeptical of their offerings. BUT, there IS that which IS legitimately offered, and then there IS that which is just 'spouted out' by those that HAVE 'little, if ANY understanding' OF THE TRUTH.

MEC

 

[Free]

The FIRST Christians were 'led' BY The Spirit and this is HOW they became 'saved'. NOT through 'wise men' teaching them ANYTHING. But simply hearing the 'words' offered BY the apostles and others, there WERE those that were 'touched' BY The Spirit and 'led' to an understanding of God and His Son.

In other words, they were taught by 'wise men'. :-? They were lead by the Apostles and teachers, the leaders of the Church.

But IF one would simply open up their minds and hearts TO THE SPIRIT, I KNOW that these WILL be moved to a 'greater understanding'

And the rest of Christianity, through 2000 years at that, haven't been open to the Spirit? Do you realize the arogance of that statement? The implication is that only those who believe as you are the ones open to the Spirit. And you speak that against those who spent nearly their entire lives in isolation seeking God and rejecting worldy things, yet wrote about the deity of Christ.

We MOSTLY argue here over DOCTRINE for I AM A FIRM BELIEVER that 'man-made' doctrine has LITTLE bearing on one's becoming SAVED other than to possibly IMPEDE one's ability to ACCEPT the 'TRUTH'.

"Man-made", "man-made". Yet you fail to realise that your doctrine is just as "man-made" as anything else.

I assumed that when I 'came' to a Christian Forum that those that participated WOULD BE Christians. I have 'tried' to treat EVERYONE as 'an equal'. But I have come to realize that there are MANY that have NOT trodden as 'far' as some others. That their walk has been more of a casual stroll....BUT, there IS that which IS legitimately offered, and then there IS that which is just 'spouted out' by those that HAVE 'little, if ANY understanding' OF THE TRUTH.

You are more mature than the rest of us because we don't believe what you do? You are not nearly as far as long as you think, your arogance betrays you.

 

[MarkT]

Imagican

You're a good and faithful servant. Don't be surprised that most men are followers of what they do not fully understand. I was watching a Catholic Mass yesterday and I found their words and their spirit quite pleasing. Let's not tear down the church just because it doesn't meet our standards yet. It will eventually, I'm sure.

 

[Imagican]

Free,

You mistake CONFIDENCE with arrogance.

I suppose that you would have 'spoken' to Paul in the 'same way'?

I have LITTLE doubt that those durring his 'time' would have treated him 'little different'. There WOULD have been those that WERE willing to 'listen', yet MOST would have simply chucked a 'rock or two'.

Yes Free, there HAS been the Spirit THERE for 'a few'. God has NOT 'left us' ALONE. But there ARE spirits MANY and most have simply chosen to follow the ONES that have been MOST appealing to their carnal spirit. Lacking a proper 'FOUNDATION' and therefore NEVER able to come to an 'understanding of the TRUTH'. And these PERPETUATING 'their spirit' in the 'guise' of THE SPIRIT.

I have offered NOTHING other than what 'I' have BEEN GIVEN. When I offer 'opinion', I point it out with words like; I think, maybe, perhaps, etc....But there is MUCH that IS KNOWN. And HOW does one come to these conclusions? Understanding. For ONCE there IS a 'proper FOUNDATION' layed, at this point one IS able to 'move on' to a 'more DETAILED' understanding. And THIS IS what I have attempted to offer.

MEC

 

[francisdesales]

Fran,

I WILL give 'credit' where credit is due. I believe that the CC has come to realization that 'faith WITHOUT works IS dead'. MOST denominations simply teach that to simply utter that Christ IS one's Savior IS ENOUGH. What a 'weak' form of Christianity this would be.

Good to see we agree on something...

As stated previous, fran, I have NOTHING against YOU. I can do nothing BUT offer you this assurance. And I have NOTHING MORE against 'your church' than ANY OTHER that is formed of 'men leading other men'. I will OPENLY speak out against ANY denomination that INSISTS that IT is the ONLY way.

I am not aware of a church or a community that says that God only speaks through them and no one else. Perhaps you can clarify. It would be a contradiction that becomes evident when you take into account the first paragraph I clipped above. When we see God's graces working in other people who may not be from our community, we are assured that God's aid extends beyond one Church.

I want NOTHING other than THE TRUTH. There is NO ROOM in my mind or my heart for 'pretending'. I have been 'given a second chance' and AM willing to do with it WHAT I CAN and to follow WHERE I am LED. If my understanding 'differs' from that of others, I can NOT apologize. For MY understanding is NOT 'my own'. And the Word bears witness that what I offer is NOTHING other than that which has been offered.

Well, that is based entirely on subjective opinion. You are basically equating your current mindset to "God's Word". Men throughout the ages have realized that discernment is deeper than "God is speaking to me" without any question. What we must realize is that the Bible provides us with an OBJECTIVE point of view - that being something outside of ourselves and our opinions. This objective view is from the Church.

So, DO not fault me if you take offense to my offerings. I did not 'create' ANYTHING. I simply offer it as 'I' have been 'led' to understand it. And 'I' JUST as EVERY OTHER that chooses to 'teach' others is RESPONSIBLE for EVERY word that they utter. If it is WRONG, the penalty WILL BE severe. WE HAVE BEEN WARNED.

As have you.

But there is MUCH forgiveness offered for ANY that are able to offer words of God's wisdom to others. And BOY do I NEED FORGIVENESS. If I live to be a thousand years of age, there is NO WAY that I could EVER 'make up' for the SIN that I have performed in my life. NO WAY. So you see, I am attempting to 'work OVERTIME'.

No one can earn forgiveness. Fortunately, God freely offers it.

I have been accused of offering contradiction to 'my own offerings'. Impossible, my friends.

:P

You know what you are full of?

IF there is INDICATION of such, it is ONLY because those that 'see such' have misunderstood what I have offered.

Since when have you become infallible? :P

Wow. Not even the Pope declares HIMSELF to be infallible! But you have the arrogance, apparently. What an amazingly proud and arrogant attitude - quite unlike the humility that the TRUE God calls us to display. As such, it is very difficult to believe your claims that remain unproven. Please forgive my doubt, but your arguments contradict because they are from YOU and YOU are NOT infallible. Making the absurd claim that you speak for God and CANNOT be wrong is infantile.

Your "doctrine" is man-made", there can be no doubt. You are a man and you made it up. Don't bother with the 'God told me so' garbage. In the last few weeks, you have shown how your doctrine is at odds with itself. Clearly, you contradict Scriptures. It is not a matter of "us" not understanding it, the problem is that your doctrine is not from God - but from yourself.

You seem to be confused with what is God and what is you.

I'll keep you in my prayers that you may overcome this "God-complex" and come to realize that the doctrine you discuss is NOT from God.

 

[Imagican]

fran,

Not infalible. Simply unable to offer contradictions. If it 'appears' as if I have offered contradictions, it is ONLY for the REASON that my understanding 'differs' from that of MOST others.

To 'cover a multitude of sins' is direct indication that; while we CANNOT 'work our way to heaven' we are certainly able to 'cover sins' with our 'good works'.

Let's put it this way; IF we are ABLE to 'build treasure in heaven', surely these treasures WILL offset sins. OTHERWISE there would be NO WAY to 'build treasure' or REASON. We WILL be rewarded for our 'righteous BEHAVIOR' as well as PUNISHED for that which is UNRIGHTEOUS.

Fran, do you KNOW Jesus Christ? What if someone came along and 'told' you differently? How adamantly would you 'defend' your relationship with Christ? Do you BELIEVE the words of Paul? Matthew? John? Now, there is MUCH that 'I' DO NOT understand completely. AS noted previous; on these things I will rarely expound. But there ARE 'things' that I don't ONLY understand, but I KNOW THEM. And these things CANNOT be 'taken from me' no matter how hard another may try.

The difference between thee and me is that I followed NO MAN to God through His Son. I did NOT CHOOSE to follow Christ to His Father. As a 'matter of FACT', what I find MOSTLY when I 'turn to men' is utter comfusion. Pastors that would rather create their OWN glory than offer it to God. Pastors that would MUCH rather 'seek their OWN' than bow to the wishes of God. Leading their 'sheep' to slaughter rather than Salvation.

WHY I was chosen to have the 'truth revealed' to me is NOT something that I can answer. All I can do it spread it to the best of my ability. In the HOPES that there WILL BE a 'few' that ARE able to 'hear'. And by HEARING, able to come to the TRUTH in Christ.

And fran, I am WELL aware that MOST will simply accuse ME of being the 'one confused'. Not something that I am ABLE to 'let get in the way'. For ALL I know is what I know and it is that which I would willingly offer to ANY willing to listen.

There IS but ONE TRUE GOD. There is but ONE BEGOTTEN OF GOD. These two ARE ONE in the SAME respect as WE can become ONE as well. But 'being ONE' is NOT being the 'same'. It is the Spirit that brings union. 'Trinity' has NEVER brought union through The Spirit. It has brought division and strife. Why? Because it is NOT Holy inspiration that 'created' this doctrine, but 'MEN'.

Jesus IS Our Savior, THROUGH the power of God. One that has 'seen' Christ HAS seen the manifestation OF the Father. NOT The Father manifested in flesh. One that has 'seen ME' has 'seen' the reflection of 'my Father'.

You know, there is RARELY EVER a doctrine created that is TOTALLY 'different' than the TRUTH. The differences BEGIN as very SUBTLE differences. It takes TIME for them to UTTERLY alter the truth as offered through scripture and The Spirit. 'Trinity' has had JUST such time to 'become' TOTALLY different than The Truth. And there can BE only ONE REASON for this 'difference'.

MEC

 

[francisdesales]

...

 

[francisdesales]

fran,

Not infalible. Simply unable to offer contradictions.

Enough already - you're cracking me up!

:P


I have to say that you HAVE offered numerous contradictions. You just cannot tell the difference between God's Word and your word...

A person with God's Spirit is humble. Your ramblings do not lead me to believe you are being led by the Spirit of God.

So long. If I want to argue with someone who thinks they know everything, I'll go argue with my teenage daughter...

 

[Imagican]

fran,

You ARE a 'funny guy'. In my last post, I offered that 'I' DON'T 'know EVERYTHING'. But, IF you choose to argue with 'someone who DOES' then your teenage daughter would probably BE the person you should choose.

But, there ARE things that I DO know even if they do NOT coincide with your beliefs. Many I have offered here. That YOU are UNABLE to grasp The TRUTH indicates that you have NO desire to understand it.

We are ALL able to come to 'our OWN' truths. Of this there is NO doubt. But there IS 'TRUTH' that transends the 'truth of man'. And it is THIS that I attempt to offer. A discernment of scripture as REVEALED through The Holy Spirit. But I MUST admit that it can ONLY be found THROUGH The Spirit.

That I defend this 'truth' would be 'downplayed' in the guise of 'my LACK of humility' offers NOTHING but 'stone throwing'. I have NEVER once observed Paul or ANY of the apostles allowing HUMILITY to 'get in the WAY of' TRUTH. Christ facing Pontius COULD have simply 'laid down' and sought FREEDOM over 'TRUTH'. Fortunately for US, He willingly 'stood up' and FACED that which was NEEDED for US to receive Salvation. Paul, being threatened with stoning 'stood UP' and suffered the 'rocks thrown' rather than 'laying down' and allowing US to remain IGNORANT of the Truth.

So, if my confidence in The Word makes me appear to YOU as one that is arrogant and infalible, so be it. But is a CONFIDENCE in Christ and the Word of GOD that I 'hang on'.

I am rarely in NEED of defense of 'myself'. I would MUCH rather discuss the wonderous Word of God than 'defend myself'. But you have CONTINUALLY attacked ME much more than 'my understanding'. Attempting to discredit ME moreso than the 'truth' that I offer. Forgive me for appearing 'self seeking' if that's the 'way' you 'see it'.

MEC

 

[francisdesales]

fran,

But, there ARE things that I DO know even if they do NOT coincide with your beliefs. Many I have offered here. That YOU are UNABLE to grasp The TRUTH indicates that you have NO desire to understand it.

There is a difference between your beliefs and TRUTH. That's where our point of contention lies. I understand your beliefs alright! I do not believe that they are TRUTH, however. Maybe you believe in relativism, where "your truth is truth and my truth is truth". However, that is faulty philosophy. There are not many "truths". Thus, when you put forward your "truths", don't be upset that I point out the contradictions within your scheme - claiming "you don't get it" or just flat out ignoring the contradictions.

What cracks me up is your idea that your version of "truth" is correct, when it can't even stand up under a bit of scrutiny - and you don't recognize it - while continuing the boring mantra that you are right and we just don't understand you...

Enough people have pointed out Scripture verses to you. There is no need to argue this further.

I leave you with the last word, since I won't be responding anymore to this thread.

Regards

 

[Packrat]

Revelation 1:1

1The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

2Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

3Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

4John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;

5And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

When do you good folks reacon this Revelation of John was written? Somewhere between Christ's death and the end of the first century AD?

If one reads this book written by John, one is QUICKLY able to SEE that there was NO 'trinity' being taught here. There is AN obvious separateness of Father and Son and this pointing out the the Father IS God, and the Christ IS The Son.

I know what you folks have been 'taught' by your 'churches'. And ALL I can offer is that one MUST 'put aside' the teachings of 'men' and opt instead to follow the TEACHINGS OF GOD and His Son.

Fran has, on numerous occasions, 'ATTEMPTED' to show through ancient writings that 'trinity' existed from a time 'shortly AFTER' Christ's death. While I will OPENLY admit that there WERE writings of men of 'religion' AROUND a hundred years AFTER Christ's death that BEGAN to write of their understanding of Christ and God being of the SAME essence, the IDEA of 'trinity' took HUNDREDS of years of development BEFORE it became DOCTRINE. And EVEN then, there were STILL MANY that died in defence of their understanding that this 'trinity' was NOT TRUTH and that Jesus Christ WAS/IS the Son of God rather than God Himself.

So, these statements that 'trinity' existed in the FIRST CENTURY AD are simply NOT TRUE. UNINFORMED GUESSES at BEST, out right FALSEHOOD at worst.

IF a 'belief' in this 'trinity' WERE necessary for Salvation NONE Of the apostles were 'saved'. For NOT A SINGLE ONE wrote of this 'trinity'. And, as offered by John in the opening of Revelation above; This PLAINLY shows that the interpretation of 'trinitarians' concerning the Word ARE WRONG. Instead of opting to ARGUE with 'me', simply read what is written by Saint John;

2Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

Can you 'see it'? Right here in these words. Who bare record of the 'word of God', AND of the testimony of Jesus Christ. Now, wouldn't the testimony of Jesus Christ BE THE WORD IF Jesus Christ WERE the Word? Yet John points out clearly that there is 'difference' between THE WORD and the testimony of Jesus Christ for John bears witness of THEM BOTH.

And, wait until a 'trinitarian' tries to 'reason' their way around this PLAIN statement. Watch how these simple words are MANIPULATED to 'mean something else'.

When one reads Revelation, it is OBVIOUS that God does NOT fight the battle of Armageddon. It is HIS REPRESENTATIVE that does so. It is Christ that returns to earth to fight and God will STILL be in heaven. It is God that has empowered Christ for in this respect Christ would have NO POWER if NOT given by God, His Father. IF THIS IS TRUE, then Christ simply CANNOT BE God Himself. Christ would, by NECESSITY, HAVE TO HAVE HIS OWN POWER to BE GOD Himself. But we PLAINLY see that Christ operated by the POWER OF GOD. He TOLD us this OVER AND OVER again. NOT HIS POWER, but the POWER OF GOD, HIS FATHER. For there IS God, The Father, but there is NO; God the Son EVER written of in The Word.

Once this 'trinity' was FORCED into The Word. NOW, it 'seems' it's simply the 'thing to believe'. No longer a matter of being 'forced' to accept it, but more of 'a fad' of sorts. Like 'WWJD', or sticking a 'jesus fish' on one's bumper.

And LOOK what this 'trinity' has DONE to God and the relationship He HAS with His Son. IT has taken AWAY the Honor of the Father and PLACED IT ON HIS SON. I asked before; WHO DO YOU PRAY TO. Most SEEM to be praying to CHRIST. And even others go so far as to pray to statues of Mary or Saints. But, WE DO HAVE AN ANSWER OF EXACTLY HOW AND TO WHOM WE ARE TO PRAY. Ever even 'think about that'? And this offered by the 'one' that MANY would CALL God. Yet even Christ when offering us the 'way' makes an UTTER DISTINCTION, one that takes away ALL CONFUSION, in that He STATES plainly that we ARE to pray in THIS MANNER, OUR FATHER...... Would a 'trinitarian' go SO FAR as to claim that Jesus WAS the Father? NO, even the 'creators of trinity' wouldn't go this far. For they even openly offered that there are THREE SEPARATE PERSONS 'in' their 'trinity'.

Fran, to YOU and YOUR church, what I offer IS ridiculous. So much so that I would wager that it doesn't only raise the hackles up your back, but makes you want to find a 'way' to utterly destroy me. Why do you reacon this makes you 'feel' such a way. Love, love of God and love of your neighbor. NO, not quite. Love of your 'trinity' is what inspires the 'feelings' you would have 'against' those that would speak out against 'your trinity'.

And, for those that DO have The Spirit within their hearts; simply ALLOW It to 'speak to you' and you will PLAINLY be able to Spiritually separate the 'wheat from the chaff'. The Spirit IS able to 'point out' that which is 'truth' and SEPARATE this from that which is NOT truth.

ANYTHING offered through a 'spirit of HATE' CANNOT be CORRECT. For God IS LOVE and His SPIRIT IS LOVE. There is NO HATE in LOVE. And there is CERTAINLY NOT A ONE OF US CAPABLE OF JUDGEMENT OF ANOTHER. I don't MEAN discernment of their actions. We may CERTAINLY KNOW that what one 'DOES' is WRONG, BUT WE ARE NOT THEIR JUDGES. It is NOT UP TO US to treat one that is WRONG any different than we would have 'treated' a SAINT. But LOOK what this 'spirit of trinity' does to the hearts of those that accept it and worship it. It IS able to 'turn them AGAINST' their brothers and sisters. It allowed those that 'created it' to actually FORCE their brother and sisters to accept it. Accept it or DIE.

Christ PLAINLY AND OPENLY taught us to LOVE. And NOT ONLY our families and friends BUT, the most important part of ALL, to LOVE our ENEMIES. Those that would SPITEFULLY abuse us. Those that would HURT us. Those that would STEAL from us. For it is THEY that NEED 'more' of what Christ had to offer than those that HAVE ALREADY accepted the Love of God and His Son.

Many seem OBLIVIOUS to this concept. Choosing instead to create their own 'groups' of love they offer ONLY CURSORY to 'each other'. WRONG folks. For it IS those that would treat their brothers and sisters POORLY that NEED our LOVE and FORGIVENESS MORE than we, (those that CLAIM to BE Christians), ourselves NEED to be loved by each other.

After 'studying' this 'lack of love' I have been FORCED to come to the conclusion it has 'something' to DO with Doctrine MORE than an 'understanding of God' and His will for mankind. I have YET to 'find' a more destructive doctrine that could POSSIBLY be 'responsible' for this 'lack of love' than this 'trinity'. These are PERSONAL observations and I would by NO MEANS encourage ANYONE to 'follow these words that I offer' JUST because they 'SOUND GOOD'. NO, what I WOULD encourage is for those that would even ATTEMPT to follow in the 'footsteps' of Christ to search their OWN hearts and come to an understanding that is between themselves and God through His Son.

Guys, I am NOT here to CONVINCE Anyone of anything other than what 'I' have come to understand. If this is 'different' than that understanding of MANY, so be it. But I can ALSO offer that what I understand is TOTALLY different than that which I understood when I was NOTHING other than another 'person of this WORLD'. I have been 'cleansed' of MUCH of my PREVIOUS understanding. Given NEW insight and understanding of a 'different' nature than that which was 'taught' to me BY THIS WORLD. Whether one chooses to accept it as 'truth' or just the 'wacky thinking of Mike' is certainly up to the individual. And, IF one chooses to follow churches INSTEAD of The Spirit, I will CERTAINLY appear to be 'one WACKY Dude'. No doubt. For what I offer is VERY SIMPLE to understand. So SIMPLE that even a 'wacky simpleton such as myself' can understand it.

No church or churches formed my understanding. I searched the scriptures DILIGENTLY and prayed DILIGENTLY and my understanding has been 'given me' NOT 'created' BY me. Of 'that', one would be FORCED to 'prove' to themselves. For I am a 'FIRM' believer that IF one were to SEEK as I have 'sought', there is NO reason that I can imagine that could prevent them from coming to MOST of the 'same' conclusions.

But, if one simply 'sits back' and ACCEPTS what the 'churches' have to offer, then THAT understanding will CERTAINLY be 'different' than that offered THROUGH The Spirit. And THIS I PROMISE you.

That there MAY BE churches out there that DO lean on The Spirit, rather than their "OWN" understanding I CANNOT tell. All I can offer is what I have personally observed. I would LOVE to 'think' that I could simply TRUST the 'name' church to be able to walk in and be 'led' to 'truth'. But I have WITNESSED that this is NOT The case. That ALL that I have witnessed choose 'tradition' over 'truth'. All that I have witnessed 'seem' to be VOID of MOST understanding concerning HISTORY and 'UNDERSTANDING'. I didn't ALWAYS 'see' this. It took a 'conversion' of the heart for the ability of discernment to become manifest in any appreciable way. And it took MUCH submission to The Spirit.

'Think' what you will, but NEVER forget that it IS OUR DUTY to discern the spirits that we choose to follow. And there is NO WAY that The Spirit can DIFFER from the TRUTH. And IF something is NOT able to be PROVEN through scripture or ANYTHING that CONTRADICTS scripture CANNOT be given from ABOVE. That many 'think' that because something 'FEELS' right, it IS right just goes to show how DANGEROUS 'feelings' can truly be. And as PROOF of THIS offering; There HAVE been those that 'believe' and 'feel' that it's OK to 'judge their brothers and sisters'. What MORE proof does one of understanding NEED in order to 'see' JUST how dangerous 'feelings' CAN BE.

MEC

You said: Now, wouldn't the testimony of Jesus Christ BE THE WORD IF Jesus Christ WERE the Word?

The testimony of Jesus Christ would be the testimony of the Word if Jesus Christ is the Word. I see no contradiction to the Trinity here. Jesus is not apart from God; he is God since he is the Son of God. Whether his flesh is somehow part of God... that remains to be seen since we do not know what God is made of if anything. :wink: But his spirit or soul was the Spirit of God.

Look at ourselves. Our bodies can die apart from our soul or spirit. This is obvious from the Biblical passage that talks about fearing the One who is able to destroy BOTH body and soul in hell. Christ is a spirit just as you and I are spirits; Christ is also a body just as you and I are bodies. We are composed of both body and spirit. Our bodies are canopies or fleshy tents. Christ's spirit was the Spirit of God. Let me rephrase this to emphasize my point: Christ was the Spirit of God and the flesh of a perfect body. He referred to himself as the Son of Man quite often during his ministry, but he also agreed with others when they asked him if he was the Son of God. So Christ was both the Son of Man or mankind and the Son of God. The two are not mutually exclusive just as I can be the son of my father, but that does not mean that I am not also the son of my mother. Christ was the Word of God. Christ himself makes a distinction among the members of the Trinity. In the New Testament there is a passage where he mentions the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I'm fairly sure it is in those words, in that order, and in that amount of words at least in the English translation.

An infant in a mother's womb is both the infant and the mother. The two are joined together. They can be talked about separately, but for the most part they are the same being.

Just as I could say God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, I could say Human Being the Mother and Human Being the Son. The Human Being is composed of the mother-infant entity. If the Mother of the Human Being has twins, then I might even be able to say Human Being the Mother, Human Being the Son, and Human Being the Daughter.

God the Father is the head of God. God the Son is who the Father creates and sustains his creation through. God the Holy Spirit is the giver of gifts - one of them being salvation, for it is the Holy Spirit that is able to raise us from the dead just as the Holy Spirit was within the body of the Son and raised the Son's body from the dead. If God the Father is greater than God the Son, then it is probably because God the Father is the head of God the Son. Who would be greater? Human Being the Mother or Human Being the Son or Human Being the Daughter? Human Being the Mother would be because she has the ultimate power. In the same way the Father has the ultimate power. Christ - God the Son - was not able to say anything apart from what God the Father wanted him to say. That would seem to indicate that the Father had the greater power.

In John 1 it explains this all. It says that the Word was God but it also speaks separately about the Word. It also says the Word became flesh. Read John 1:15 and then John 1:29-30 and John 1:36. So what do we have? Word of God = God. Word of God = Word in the flesh. The Word in the flesh = the One greater than John. The One greater than John = Jesus. Also see John 1:14. The Word of God = the Son of God. And Jesus agreed with others, as I've already said, when they asked if he was the Son of God.

In a way you might be able to say that everything that is known and unknown - all of God's creation - is God because it came from God. But also in a way it is not entirely God because God's creation has a will of its own and chooses freely. This is what sets apart God's creation from God; it has its own will. God the Son had no other will than that of the Father's. Therefore, God the Son was the same as the Father and was therefore God entirely. I do not know whether Christians are one with God now, but I believe that they will be one with God in the future.

The creation would have been the offspring of God's thought and therefore the Word of God, for from one's heart (perhaps thought?) our words and actions come. However, the creation of God attained a new heart since God gave to his creation the ability to create and form thought. That is how the creation in general is not the Word of God and therefore not God. But Christ is the Word of God because he is the offspring of God's thought or heart and he had no ability to think separately from God. Whatever Christ's Father in heaven tells him to say, that the Son says. The Word of God is God because it comes from God's thought or 'heart.' Therefore being the Word of God, Christ is God.

Read Genesis 1:26-27. Do you think that God is referring to the angels when he says, "Let us make man in our image?" Whether or not God is referring to the angels, it later in verse 27 explains that God made man in his own image. That would seem to suggest a plural yet singular God. God is plural and God is singular - maybe not exactly as a mother-child is one being, but that is one illustration.

And I believe the reason how we will not make the same mistake as Satan did is that we will be one in thought and heart with God because we as Christians make this choice. We choose to become one with God. Our flesh may strive against the Spirit of God because it is imperfect, but we - spirits - I believe will become one with the Spirit of God. Therefore, our heart will be the same as God's, our thoughts God's thoughts and our will God's will. Our sins have been atoned for now and for all time, but to make sure that we do not sin again I believe that we will be one in nature with God. If two twins are joined together, does not harming one harm the other? Why then would we want to choose anything but God's will if we are joined to God?

When we are resurrected, we will be made anew. Our old sinful bodies will be destroyed but we will be born of the Holy Spirit as the Son of God was born of the Spirit in the virgin. Christ, the Son of God, was able to overcome sin since he was not born with a sinful body but born with divine intervention by the Spirit of God. He was the perfect lamb of God. And I would think that such a title entails that he was born without a sinful nature in his body, being a blemishless sacrifice as we needed to atone for our sins. And everyone should know that the only One who is blemishless is God. If Christ was a blemishless sacrifice, then he must have been one with God and therefore he must have been God.

Also see Matthew 19:16-17. Christ may have replied, "Why me do you call good? No one is good except One - God," but he was God. He may have been attacking the man's thoughts, knowing that he only thought of him as a 'teacher' and not as God. Therefore, in that man's mind he was calling a normal sinful human being good. If Christ really was implying by saying this that he wasn't good as God was good because he wasn't God, then he wouldn't be a blemishless sacrifice would he?

Well, those are my thoughts. I edited this post, including and revising some of my thoughts in red font.

 

[MarkT]

And MarkT, you pretty much affirmed the trinity, at least two parts of it, which is cool. I'm not sure if thats what you meant to do, but let me pick out the key concepts you laid forward:

Quote:
MarkT wrote:
But we know now that no one has ever seen the Father so who did Abraham see? It was the light of God. The light was with God in the beginning. Being in the form of God, like a master workman, he created the world and everything in it.


Quote:
MarkT wrote:
...the Holy One of God became one of us.


Quote:
MarkT wrote:
The LORD, the Holy One said, "I am God, and also henceforth I am He." So God is our Saviour. The LORD is He.

Is it just that you don't like the word "Trinity"? The concept you just put forth is it.

But it's not Scripture. Why would you waste your time interpreting doctrine?

The Holy Spirit leads us to understand the Scriptures; the writings of the prophets that told of the coming of the Messiah.

We see things in the light of Christ. The church, on the other hand gives you a doctrine to see by. Is the doctrine the light? No. Jesus said he was the light. How can you examine the doctrine without light? If you make the doctrine your light then how can you examine it?

I think what it comes down to is faithful; how faithful you are to the words that Jesus gave us. In other words, if I gave you a message, could I count on you to deliver it as I gave it. For example, Jesus said, "I am the Son of God". The faithful servant would say he was the Son of God. That would be faithful to the words of God. The unfaithful servant would say he was God. Likewise, Jesus said, "do this in remembrance of me". The faithful servant would eat the bread and drink the cup in remembrance of him. The unfaithful servant eats and drinks to be in communion with God. Jesus said, "I am the light" and he taught us that we are the light. So the faithful servant would say he was the light and we are in his light and we are the light. I don't know what the unfaithful servants say about this. So this is about being faithful to the words of God; can God trust you, are you worthy of being his son.

You said the words of Isaiah I quoted expressed the Trinity or something to that effect. The words were, "I, I am the LORD" and "I am God, and also henceforth I am He." Isaiah 43:11-13

When Moses asked God what to tell the people if they asked for the name of God, God said, " I AM WHO I AM" or WHAT I AM or WHAT I WILL BE, as given in the footnotes, as if to say he was who he was and what he was and henceforth he would be his name.

He said, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'" We can see that 'I AM' is part of the sentence, 'I AM WHO I AM'. 'I AM' is the 1st part and 'I AM' is the last part. According to the Revelation, John saw one like a son of man ... his head and hair were white as wool; his eyes were like a flame of fire. He said, "Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one; I died and behold I am alive for evermore." John writes, 'The words of the first and the last, who died and came to life.', 'the words of him who has the seven spirits of God and the seven stars.' Of course we know he was the Lord Jesus Christ. But he talks about 'my God' and he said, "I will confess his name before 'my Father' and his angels."

So we can say the Christ was 'I AM' and 'I AM', the first and the last. But the first and the last of what? The first and the last words of God that were given to Moses; the first and the last words that would be God?

'I AM' is only part of 'I AM WHO I AM' and God said the words in answer to the question, 'What is his name?', not, 'what are you?' Clearly it was God. But what did God say? He said, in essence, 'say my name sent me to you'.

God didn't say I AM the I Am in Exodus. God said his name would be his name. His name was who he was and Moses was to say 'my name sent you'. My understanding is that the 'name' of God was given life. He was the first and the last, the Holy One of Israel, the Christ, the Son of God.