The Trinity

[Rosenritter]

I have no idea what you're getting at here.

It's simple if you would read what the scripture literally says. The angel of the LORD said that Jesus was called "Son of God" because Mary had been made pregnant by God. The definition is there, "Son of God" is because of the way God entered the world, "Son of God" didn't exist as a designation until that point. Whereas you argue against the archangel Gabriel and the Holy Ghost (which wrote that scripture) as you maintain that "Son of God" was a valid designation before said event. Go back and read the posted scripture.

Luk 1:34-35 KJV
(34) Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
(35) And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Oh my poor, little pedantic one. Which post was it? I will repair that post so as to make it perfect for you. (The only post is see [http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?115654-The-Trinity&p=4779422&viewfull=1#post4779422] does NOT have three capitalized).

Try reading what you reply towards.. "The three" is not the term. "These three" is correct. I'm sure you can figure out the difference if you put your mind to it. "The" would indicate a fixed defined set, as "The" indicates title. "These" is what the passage reads, because "these" is simply a reference without connotation of title.

Regarding the "Eternal Son', that's just what the Bible teaches. I'm not going to try to change it to fit your mood.

I would be satisfied if you could present even one place where the Bible speaks of "the Eternal Son" or "Eternal Son of God." Whereas you call me a heretic for listening to the words of scripture, your claim of "that's just what the Bible teaches" falls short as you fail to show any biblical support for such a term. Gabriel said Jesus was called the Son of God because Jesus was born of Mary and the Holy Spirit. One of you is wrong.

Again I'll ask: Was Adam God?

Because Jesus is the ONLY BEGOTTEN Son. That is because He IS GOD.

More straw man? Adam was no more God than you are. Simply, NO. Now answer this simple question. When does the BIBLE say that the Son of God was begotten of God? Answer plainly and clearly, and quote your supporting text.

 

[Right Divider]

It's simple if you would read what the scripture literally says. The angel of the LORD said that Jesus was called "Son of God" because Mary had been made pregnant by God. The definition is there, "Son of God" is because of the way God entered the world, "Son of God" didn't exist as a designation until that point. Whereas you argue against the archangel Gabriel and the Holy Ghost (which wrote that scripture) as you maintain that "Son of God" was a valid designation before said event. Go back and read the posted scripture.

I'd say that you are reading that particular passage through Rosenritter colored glasses.

Prov 30:4 (AKJV/PCE)​

(30:4) Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what [is] his name, and what [is] his son's name, if thou canst tell? ​

This scripture shows that you are incorrect.

Nope, try reading. "The Three" is not the term. "These Three" is correct. I'm sure you can figure out the difference if you put your mind to it. "The" would indicate a fixed defined set, as "The" indicates title. "These" is what the passage reads, because "these" is simply a reference without connotation of title.

Ok, "these three". Sorry for the mistake. I'll make sure that I have a committee proof-read my posts to make sure all my facts are fully in order.

I would be satisfied if you could present even one place where the Bible speaks of "the Eternal Son" or "Eternal Son of God." Whereas you call me a heretic for listening to the words of scripture, your claim of "that's just what the Bible teaches" falls short as you fail to show any biblical support for such a term. Gabriel said Jesus was called the Son of God because Jesus was born of Mary and the Holy Spirit. One of you is wrong.

Refer to John, he will tell you.

John 1:1-3 (AKJV/PCE)​

(1:1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (1:2) The same was in the beginning with God. (1:3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. ​

Who is "the Word"?

Also see Prov 30:4

More straw man? Adam was no more God than you are. Simply, NO. Now answer this simple question. When does the BIBLE say that the Son of God was begotten of God? Answer plainly and clearly, and quote your supporting text.

You need to lookup "the straw man fallacy", you don't even know that it means.

Please see John and Proverbs.

 

[Rosenritter]

I'd say that you are reading that particular passage through Rosenritter colored glasses.

Prov 30:4 (AKJV/PCE)​

(30:4) Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what [is] his name, and what [is] his son's name, if thou canst tell? ​

This scripture shows that you are incorrect.

Actually, that scripture destroys traditional Trinity theory. Try to answer it. If the son's name is Jesus, then who made the heavens and the earth as it asks for the first name? We are told that Jesus also created the heavens and the earth. "Confusion of the persons" arises and Trinity is destroyed.

Whereas as I maintain that there is one God, and that the One who created the heavens and the earth walked among us and we called him Jesus is supported by that passage.

What you lack (failed at) was to show where the Bible speaks of an "Eternal Son" of God. There is no "Son of God" before God is manifest in the flesh. Show me where "Eternal Son of God" is used. But it's unbiblical so of course you can't. You'll just keep fuming and screaming "You're wrong!" and "Heretic!"

 

[Rosenritter]

Originally Posted by Rosenritter
More straw man? Adam was no more God than you are. Simply, NO. Now answer this simple question. When does the BIBLE say that the Son of God was begotten of God? Answer plainly and clearly, and quote your supporting text.


Answer the question, Divider One.

 

[Right Divider]

Actually, that scripture destroys traditional Trinity theory. Try to answer it. If the son's name is Jesus, then who made the heavens and the earth as it asks for the first name? We are told that Jesus also created the heavens and the earth. "Confusion of the persons" arises and Trinity is destroyed.

That proverb asks about TWO NAMES. It's not talking the the name "Jesus". Your incredible lack of understanding and logic makes it virtually impossible to communication with you.

Whereas as I maintain that there is one God, and that the One who created the heavens and the earth walked among us and we called him Jesus is supported by that passage.

I agree with the idea there. If you're trying to accuse me of polytheism, that is false.

What you lack (failed at) was to show where the Bible speaks of an "Eternal Son" of God. There is no "Son of God" before God is manifest in the flesh. Show me where "Eternal Son of God" is used. But it's unbiblical so of course you can't. You'll just keep fuming and screaming "You're wrong!" and "Heretic!"

I guess that you still don't understand who "the Word" of John 1 is and what it means that "the Word as made flesh".

 

[Right Divider]

Originally Posted by Rosenritter
More straw man? Adam was no more God than you are. Simply, NO. Now answer this simple question. When does the BIBLE say that the Son of God was begotten of God? Answer plainly and clearly, and quote your supporting text.

Answer the question, Divider One.

You should put an EXCLAMATION POINT if you're going to make demands!

 

[keypurr]

@ Keypurr,

If "Jesus" is a created spirit-son, and there was a different Jesus who was born of Mary, then which one is speaking in Revelation? The human or the created spirit? Because in that context I just noticed this:

Revelation 22:13-16 KJV
(13) I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
(14) Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
(15) For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
(16) I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

How can a created spirit son be the root and offspring of David, if it merely possessed the body of someone who was the root and offspring of David? That seems like a strange thing to say, or at least a strange way to say it, if that were indeed the context. Wouldn't "I am the offspring of the Lord, he who took the body of Jesus?" or something to that effect be more appropriate?

The spirit that was given him is from the beginning, but the body is from the line of David. Both that spirit and that body are creations. Only the Father is the true God.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[keypurr]

God does not have the power to die when he wants and raise himself up again? Aren't you the one placing limits?

No, dead is dead. How else can the word be plainer?
The dead know nothing so they could not awaken themselves.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[keypurr]

What I'm hoping to accomplish is for you to view and describe God the way that He describes Himself and not this actor "god" of yours.

Jesus has ALWAYS been the Son of God, even before He took a human body. That's what the Bible says. There is NO "Father and Son" relationship without BOTH a Father and a Son.

Do you believe that there was a time then God "became" a Father?

What you fail to understand is Jesus came to be when he was born as a man. It was the spirit that was in him that was before the world was.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Right Divider]

The spirit that was given him is from the beginning, but the body is from the line of David. Both that spirit and that body are creations. Only the Father is the true God.

The Bible says that you're either confused or a liar.

John 1:1-14 (AKJV/PCE)​

(1:1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (1:2) The same was in the beginning with God. (1:3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (1:4) In him was life; and the life was the light of men. (1:5) And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. (1:6) ¶ There was a man sent from God, whose name [was] John. (1:7) The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all [men] through him might believe. (1:8) He was not that Light, but [was sent] to bear witness of that Light. (1:9) [That] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. (1:10) He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. (1:11) He came unto his own, and his own received him not. (1:12) But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: (1:13) Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (1:14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. ​

Who is "the Word"?

 

[keypurr]

Hi Keypurr

I've just got a couple of things that I don't understand.

If Jesus was given the spirit of Christ at baptism, who was in Jesus before his baptism?

And why would it say in the Bible that Jesus grew stronger spirit as a child, if he didn't have the holy spirit until his baptism?

Jesus was conceived by the holy spirit, so i believe that the holy spirit was always with him. I believe that he gained strength in the spirit as he grew and he grew stronger and stronger and by the time he was 30, after being baptised, God anointed him with power. And he was given the absolute fullness of the holy spirit and he was in the absolute image of God bodily, making him Immanuel, God with us. And there was nothing of this world or the nature of the flesh in him, because he denied it and he was sinless.

He brought God to us and he was in the fullness of the father, with the fullness of strength and power of the spirit given to him of God. And Satan couldn't touch him. And as Satan tempted him, and he denied him, God strengthened him and God strengthened him as he suffered. And he suffered and he glorified the living God, baring witness to the truth laying down his life to bring a new and living way to us. He is the life and he is the only way back to the living God.

Why not as yourself why he had to grow stronger if he was God? The spirit son laid the foundation of the Universe, he did not need to grow stronger.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Right Divider]

What you fail to understand is Jesus came to be when he was born as a man. It was the spirit that was in him that was before the world was.

Nonsense, as usual.

According to your "story" what happened to the spirit that lived in Jesus BEFORE your supposed spirit came down from heaven?

 

[keypurr]

Your answers aren't following the conversation exactly.

1. Being "anointed with the Holy Ghost and with power" does not mean "possessed." Before Jesus was born David was anointed with the Spirit of the LORD (see 1 Samuel 16:13) ... so was David possessed as well?

2. When a passage can be read more than one way, it cannot "prove" your special interpretation. Do you understand the meaning of "proof?" A proof is absolute, not requiring unproven assumptions.

3. You have said that Christ did not give his own life willingly. You said that he gave someone else's life willingly. Jesus didn't give himself, the spirit that possessed him gave him.

4. You totally skipped the entire section that Jesus received and accepted worship from men and angels. Thus he really is the LORD or he is blasphemous, accepting honor that is only due the LORD.

What do you see as the POWER?

Sent from my SM-T330NU using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[keypurr]

So David was or was not possessed?

Only Jesus was given the express image.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[keypurr]

The Bible says that you're either confused or a liar.

John 1:1-14 (AKJV/PCE)​

(1:1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (1:2) The same was in the beginning with God. (1:3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (1:4) In him was life; and the life was the light of men. (1:5) And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. (1:6) ¶ There was a man sent from God, whose name [was] John. (1:7) The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all [men] through him might believe. (1:8) He was not that Light, but [was sent] to bear witness of that Light. (1:9) [That] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. (1:10) He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. (1:11) He came unto his own, and his own received him not. (1:12) But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: (1:13) Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (1:14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. ​

Who is "the Word"?

You have no depth in your understanding of what is in the verses you quote. You display that your in the darkness of religion, not theology.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Right Divider]

You have no depth in your understanding of what is in the verses you quote. You display that your in the darkness of religion, not theology

Your wrong opinion about me does not affect me. It's just as bad as your understanding of God.

 

[Rosenritter]

That proverb asks about TWO NAMES. It's not talking the the name "Jesus". Your incredible lack of understanding and logic makes it virtually impossible to communication with you.

I'd say your unwillingness (or inability) to answer straight questions might be more at fault. But regardless, try to answer that riddle. It doesn't work with Trinity presuppositions. I will concede that God was not known by the name "Jesus" until he was manifest as the Son of God, and as such "YHWH" and "Yeshua" would be the answer that I would choose. Yet John chapter 1 tells us that he who created the worlds (the "YHWH" of the riddle) is the same as he who was made flesh and walked among us.

According to what you've said already, that would make Jesus the same as the Father. Yet there it is in the Old Testament. Again. Isaiah 9:6 names the child that is born as "Everlasting Father" and the "what is his name" riddle doubles back on itself when you include the rest of scripture. Your Trinity dogma has flaws. Because it's not taught from scripture, it's a model that was created to explain scripture.

I agree with the idea there. If you're trying to accuse me of polytheism, that is false.

It's not that I want to accuse you of polytheism, but you so adamantly maintain it as you blindly side with folk like James White.

I guess that you still don't understand who "the Word" of John 1 is and what it means that "the Word as made flesh".

Now, see there? That was an unfounded accusation. And absurd besides. Don't you get tired of that?

 

[Rosenritter]

Only Jesus was given the express image.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using TheologyOnline mobile app

I don't see where it says that Jesus was given the express image of God, I just saw where it said he was the express image of God. I think your theory is adding more than what we have been directly told.

 

[daqq]

Nonsense, as usual.

According to your "story" what happened to the spirit that lived in Jesus BEFORE your supposed spirit came down from heaven?

Paul clearly states that Yeshua the Anointed one emptied himself, (Philippians 2:7 ASV).
That is what happens when you do not actually believe Paul.

 

[Right Divider]

I'd say your unwillingness (or inability) to answer straight questions might be more at fault.

You can have any opinion that you want, I don't really care.

But regardless, try to answer that riddle. It doesn't work with Trinity presuppositions.

The trinity doctrine is not a "presupposition", no matter how many times you want to repeat that opinion.

I will concede that God was not known by the name "Jesus" until he was manifest as the Son of God, and as such "YHWH" and "Yeshua" would be the answer that I would choose. Yet John chapter 1 tells us that he who created the worlds (the "YHWH" of the riddle) is the same as he who was made flesh and walked among us.

I get the feeling that you're another GT. Is it your opinion that "the Father with a body" makes a "son".

According to what you've said already, that would make Jesus the same as the Father. Yet there it is in the Old Testament. Again. Isaiah 9:6 names the child that is born as "Everlasting Father" and the "what is his name" riddle doubles back on itself when you include the rest of scripture. Your Trinity dogma has flaws. Because it's not taught from scripture, it's a model that was created to explain scripture.

So are the Father and Son related (along with the Holy Spirit)? Are "THESE THREE" one?

It appears that according to you that there are not three at all.

It's not that I want to accuse you of polytheism, but you so adamantly maintain it as you blindly side with folk like James White.

AGAIN you make the false accusation that I side with James White. I do not associate myself with James White, but don't let that stop your false accusations.

Now, see there? That was an unfounded accusation. And absurd besides. Don't you get tired of that?

So how do you get to the "these three are one", if you never actually have three in the first place?

Are you and GT in agreement that "the Father with a body" constitutes TWO of the THREE?