The Trinity

[lifeisgood]

Show me.
My Aramaic English New Testament disagrees with you.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using TheologyOnline mobile app

It has been shown to you by myself and many others, and in many different ways, for many years, however, you have volitionally and knowingly rejected it for THE LIE that came to you when you were not looking for it and you have swallowed THE LIE line, hook, and sinker.

 

[jamie]

We're born of the spirit in this lifetime, not when we die.

Hebrews 9:27-28 "And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation."

 

[jamie]

We're born of the spirit in this lifetime, not when we die.

You must mean we are begotten by the Spirit in this lifetime, not when we die.

 

[lifeisgood]

....Jesus isn't God...

Then you are presenting yourself as your own mediator for only God can come in the presence of God for no human being will ever see God's face.

Ah, but I digress, you do not believe in the BLOOD for your salvation, because as you have declared you believe you are saved by the life of Jesus' and not His BLOOD being shed in your stead; however, God say, 'When I SEE THE BLOOD I will pass over you (save you)'.

I guess had you been there when Moses said to apply blood on the door posts of your house, you, marhig, would have said 'No, I will not place blood on the door posts of my house because it makes me cry to see a little lamb be sacrificed in my stead, but I will enter in my house anyway.' I wonder if you would have been one of the ones who crossed the Red Sea as only those who applied THE BLOOD crossed it.

You, marhig, being that you say you reject THE BLOOD for you salvation (have not applied it to the door posts of your heart), as you say you are saved by Jesus' life (no blood), present yourself without any protection before the presence of God.

 

[marhig]

You must mean we are begotten by the Spirit in this lifetime, not when we die.

I mean born of the spirit, we are to be born again in this lifetime. We are born of the flesh, but once have the indwelling spirit then we are born of the spirit and we all walk in the spirit and worship God in spirit and in truth

 

[marhig]

Then you are presenting yourself as your own mediator for only God can come in the presence of God for no human being will ever see God's face.

Ah, but I digress, you do not believe in the BLOOD for your salvation, because as you have declared you believe you are saved by the life of Jesus' and not His BLOOD being shed in your stead; however, God say, 'When I SEE THE BLOOD I will pass over you (save you)'.

I guess had you been there when Moses said to apply blood on the door posts of your house, you, marhig, would have said 'No, I will not place blood on the door posts of my house because it makes me cry to see a little lamb be sacrificed in my stead, but I will enter in my house anyway.' I wonder if you would have been one of the ones who crossed the Red Sea as only those who applied THE BLOOD crossed it.

You, marhig, being that you say you reject THE BLOOD for you salvation (have not applied it to the door posts of your heart), as you say you are saved by Jesus' life (no blood), present yourself without any protection before the presence of God.

Nope, there's only one Mediator, the man Jesus Christ. But that doesn't mean he's God, he had the spirit of God dwelling in fullness through him thus he brought God to us, making him Emmanuel. God with us. Because God was fully seen through Jesus because he denied his flesh completely and never sinned thus showing God fully through his life and he spoke every word that God gave him by the spirit. and we are saved by that life within, you don't seem to grasp that it actually says in the Bible that we are saved by the life of Jesus.

If we don't have Christ in our hearts, and God doesn't see the life of his son in us and through us then he won't see us. He'll just see our flesh. Christ in our hearts is having his blood on the doorposts, because if his life is within us, then the destroyer can't enter and he will pass over us.

You just say the same thing over and over and over, there's no life in your posts just death, and God is life and love! And the life of Christ saves his life is the blood!

 

[jamie]

I mean born of the spirit, we are to be born again in this lifetime. We are born of the flesh, but once have the indwelling spirit then we are born of the spirit and we all walk in the spirit and worship God in spirit and in truth

What is the Greek word for born?

 

[keypurr]

It has been shown to you by myself and many others, and in many different ways, for many years, however, you have volitionally and knowingly rejected it for THE LIE that came to you when you were not looking for it and you have swallowed THE LIE line, hook, and sinker.

I can never return nor do I wish to.

Sent from my A622GL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Crucible]

Anti-Trinitarians are little more than conspiracy theorists I've come to learn. When all else fails, they'll turn to making comparisons of other religions and whatnot- it's an irreparable denial complex.

 

[Rosenritter]

The question is not what you are called - rather, how you worship The God of the Holy Bible.

Only those that worship the Triune Name of God are saved.

Act 16:30-31 KJV
(30) And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
(31) And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

False, Apple, it is written "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved" not "worship the Triune Name of God and be saved."

 

[Rosenritter]

You don't need to try to prove anything, your right, Jesus isn't God. the very next verse in Hebrews 1 shows clearly that God is the God of Jesus. There is one God, and he is God the father and one Christ, Jesus the son of the living God, there's no such thing as a trinity, no God the son in the Bible, and Jesus clearly says that God is his God also. So if Jesus says that, then who are we to deny it?

John 20

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Hebrews 1 verses 8 and 9

But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God,even thy God,hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

And this is Jesus speaking in John 17

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

Clearly Jesus is saying that there is only one true God, and that's God the father and that he has sent Jesus and he is the Christ.

And I know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom God has sent.

Your reasoning here (and Keypurr also shares the same argument is that Jesus cannot be God because God is his God.

But if God had a God that God would be God. Who else would it be? Or would you suggest that God would be Godless? Think for a moment, your argument doesn't actually prove anything. Plays on words with semantics don't stand up to where Jesus is identified as the Creator of heaven and earth, the first and the last, named as "the Mighty God" and "the LORD of Hosts", and so forth.

Compare, for a moment. If I spoke of an atheist and said "He is his own god" or "He says he has no God" you'd consider him irreverent or blasphemous. Now if God walked among us in the flesh (and it said he did) then how is he going to refer to himself while still in incognito mode? Is he going to appear as a blasphemer or self-worshiper? Your conclusion of "Jesus cannot be God because God was his God" doesn't necessarily follow.

 

[Rosenritter]

If you don't understand or believe the Trinity you do not understand the nature of God. There are allusions to the Trinity throughout scripture. Why do you disregard what scripture says.

Be careful of how you cast judgment. Perhaps you may not understand the nature of God perfectly because you believe in a Trinity. The biblical text does not naturally create a "Trinity" doctrine or else it wouldn't have had to be constructed and mandated several hundred years later. The Old Testament did not teach a Trinity and neither did Jesus or his apostles.

When you say the scripture "alludes" to a Trinity you are admitting that it's not clearly taught. Many things could be said to "allude" but that doesn't mean you have a perfect model, just that you have some areas that seem to agree with what you think. If you stick with what scripture flat-out says you're safe.

Things like:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, In the beginning was the Word, the Word was made flesh, God was manifest in the flesh, Jesus created all things and without him nothing was created that was created, and so on and so forth. If people accept what scripture literally says there's no need to force-sell a model that was created hundreds of years after the fact.

 

[Rosenritter]

Not really.

My Lord and my God is addressing two Persons.

There was only one person standing before him.

 

[Rosenritter]

I think that's true. The thief on the cross was not concerned with theology of things such as predestination. He simply knew that Jesus was His Savior. I don't know if the thief realized that his Lord and Savior, the Messiah, was also his Creator

He must have realized:

1) That he and Jesus were both about to die,
2) That he and Jesus would both be alive at some point in the future
3) That Jesus would be "coming into his kingdom"
4) That Jesus would have power over him when he came into that kingdom
5) (Probably) that Jesus had the ability to forgive sin.

It's hard to tell what the malefactor knew but for sure points 1-4 and maybe point 5.

 

[Rosenritter]

And why do you disregard Jesus when he says the that God is his God? And the apostles also, when they say that God is the God of our lord Jesus Christ? Why should I believe you and others when there is no God the son in the Bible? No trinity? There is only God the father, I'm believing the scriptures, you're believing men's interpretations from 300 years after the birth of Jesus when they worked out a duality then decided to add the holy ghost and make the trinity. You're telling me that I should believe things that aren't in the Bible.

Rev 22:6-16 KJV
(6) And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.

(7) Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.
(8) And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.
(9) Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.
(10) And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.
(11) He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
(12) And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
(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.


Marhig, look again please. I normally focus on the "first and the last" + "I Jesus" part of this because that so absolutely names Jesus as "besides which there is no other God" from the Old Testament, but take a look at the surrounding part I boldfaced as well. Who sent the angel?

a) the Lord God
b) Jesus
c) John of Patmos
d) both A and B

You have it right there in multiple forms. Jesus is the Lord God, Jesus is the first and the last. If you are believing the scriptures, believe that.

 

[Rosenritter]

What about Hebrews 1:9? What does your translation say about that?

The son isn't God, it doesn't say that in the Bible, he is the son of God, and Jesus calls himself this also!

Can you show me where the Bible says that the Son of God (capitalized, referencing the begotten son) is not God, specifically as one calls God in the flesh? You are running on a couple assumptions that I haven't seen you support.

 

[Rosenritter]

You can create many phrases and titles not found in the Bible. It does not negate the fact that scripture shows Jesus has every attribute the Father has (omnipresence, omniscience etc). Jesus is the mighty God.

Just admit that "God the Son" is not in the Bible. Trinity dogma is a dead weight in this case. Focus on "the Son of God" and what the Bible does say. There are so many clear statements as to Jesus is God that why would you want to bog yourself down fighting on something that there isn't proof for?

 

[jamie]

Perhaps you may not understand the nature of God perfectly because you believe in a Trinity.

The kingdom of God is a trinity. There is the Father, the Son, the Son's bride.

Revelation 22:17 "And the Spirit and the bride say, 'Come!' And let him who hears say, 'Come!' And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely."

The water of life symbolizes God's Spirit.

 

[jamie]

Just admit that "God the Son" is not in the Bible.

Nor does it need to be. If A = B does B = A?

:deadhorse:

 

[Rosenritter]

Nor does it need to be. If A = B does B = A?

:deadhorse:

There's a distinction actually.

"The Son of God" is used as a title in the bible, and Paul elsewhere describes "like unto the Son of God" as being without father, without mother, without beginning or end of days. Taken literally that fits only one person, whom we know as God. Also, the one who called himself the Son of God revealed himself as none other than God in a multitude of ways that I lose track of how many.

I see a few issues with using "God the Son."
1) The phrase and title does not appear in the Bible but rather from Trinitarian doctrinal statements. For those suspicious of extra-biblical terminology this is an immediate red flag. It's a very slippery slope because once one non-biblical concept is allowed then others can follow unchecked.
2) The term itself implies multiple Gods, such as "God the Father" "God the Son" "God the Daughter" "God the Mother" "God the Grandpa" and so forth. I think the usage of that term does contribute to a three-God philosophy that has more in common with polytheism, or alternatively a three-ish God philosophy with Gnostic roots.
3) The "Son of God" only bears distinction when God is manifest in the flesh. He is not manifest in the flesh right now, not until his second coming. So it would be incorrect to speak of an "Eternal God the Son" when there was no "Son of God" before he manifested as the Son of God.

Perhaps a (probably flawed) example might help. If I am forty years old, and I am a father, it would be incorrect to say that I was a father of forty years. Perhaps "forty-year old father" might be correct. As such the person of Jesus can be the eternal God and from everlasting, and the Son of God, but to say he was the eternal Son of God from everlasting would be incorrect if "Son of God" is a distinction that applies to God manifest in the flesh.

It's not an A != B, therefore B != A type of instance. It's easy to prove that Jesus was the Son of God, and the Lord God Almighty, from scripture alone. You don't need a Trinity belief for that. Arguing that Jesus is God because Trinity says so presents a very weak (and flawed) argument.