The Trinity

The Trinity


  • Total voters
    121

csuguy

Well-known member
could Jesus have done this without suffering and dying?

No; that would not have fulfilled prophecy. Also, this was important for his role as the ultimate servant - giving everything. Through his life and death we find the example of who we are supposed to be, what it means to be a Christian, what God wants from us. We also find in Christ the great reward for this sacrifice. As Jesus taught, the least shall be greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Jesus came as nothing, served everyone, and gave everything at great personal cost. As his reward he was raised from the dead, given all power and authority, and made Lord - entrusted with conquering all of God's enemies and the Judgment.
 

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
No; that would not have fulfilled prophecy. Also, this was important for his role as the ultimate servant - giving everything. Through his life and death we find the example of who we are supposed to be, what it means to be a Christian, what God wants from us. We also find in Christ the great reward for this sacrifice. As Jesus taught, the least shall be greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Jesus came as nothing, served everyone, and gave everything at great personal cost. As his reward he was raised from the dead, given all power and authority, and made Lord - entrusted with conquering all of God's enemies and the Judgment.
so what was special about Jesus?
-why couldn't any other man have done the same thing?
 

csuguy

Well-known member
so what was special about Jesus?
-why couldn't any other man have done the same thing?

They were not sent by God to do so. It wasn't a series of challenges for someone to come along and fulfill. Prophecy is a matter of what God is going to bring about.
 

csuguy

Well-known member
how do you understand antichrist?

Here's a biblical definition:

1 John 2:22-23 Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.​

One can accept Christ without accepting the Trinity; the Trinity is a concept that came along well after Jesus died, resurrected, and ascended to the Father.
 

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Here's a biblical definition:

1 John 2:22-23 Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.​

One can accept Christ without accepting the Trinity; the Trinity is a concept that came along well after Jesus died, resurrected, and ascended to the Father.

is Jesus the only Son of God?
 

lifeisgood

New member
Your wrong again. The notes continue on, they only support what I already knew.

I told you folks to spend the forty bucks and get this translation. For folks like us who are not Hebrews, it teaches a lot. The notes are priceless. I will post it one more time for any one who is seeking a better understanding of scripture.

Www.aent.org

ARAMAIC ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT
from Netware Press
Roth

It's my favorite translation out of the thirty that I have.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using TheologyOnline mobile app

Sure it has proven you wrong, keypurr. You have chosen your own interpretation of "Miltha" to fit your 'wider view' of what you have mixed up in your 'all of a sudden' 'new revelation' that came to you 'from who knows where' and the Aramaic says that it is best to leave it 'untranslated' in the context of John 1.

FOOTNOTE ON John 1. “Miltha” has no direct English equivalent. It can mean ‘Word’, ‘Manifestation’, ‘Instance’ or ‘Substance’, among many other things. In this context, it is best left untranslated.

So what you have 30 translations? I have 52 that is without counting commentaries (which number in the 100s). Again, so what you have 30? I am sure others have more than 52 Bible, so what?

Including in those 52, I have:

THE SYRIAC NEW TESTAMENT TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH FROM THE PESHITTO VERSION
Hastings, H. L., & Hall, I. H. (1915). The Syriac New Testament Translated into English from the Peshitto. (J. Murdock, Trans.) (Ninth Edition.). Boston: H. L. Hastings & Sons.

I have a couple of translations from certain books into English from the Peshitto.

So, you can boast you have 30 Bibles and I 52 and others more than 52, again, so what?

You get Jesus wrong, it matters not what else you get right, you, keypurr, got Jesus wrong. There's still time to get Him right. But that is a decision only you, keypurr can make.

I, keypurr, abandon my twice possessed lord for the True Lord and Savior and God Jesus Christ, the ONLY ONE that can save me by washing me in His precious blood so that I, keypurr, can be sealed by the Holy Spirit; therefore, He presenting me, keypurr, a sweet savor unto God the Father.

There's still time, keypurr. There's still time.
 

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. However, through Christ we have been given the right to become children of God (John 1:12)

when Jesus broke the bread and gave it to the apostles, He said it was His body
-what does that mean to you?
 

csuguy

Well-known member
when Jesus broke the bread and gave it to the apostles, He said it was His body
-what does that mean to you?

The bread and wine of the Eucharist symbolize his body and blood, through which he established the New Covenant. We observe this in remembrance of him.
 

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
The bread and wine of the Eucharist symbolize his body and blood, through which he established the New Covenant. We observe this in remembrance of him.

thank you for your well thought out answers but I am not persuaded by them
-I believe Jesus had to be God to redeem us
-I believe we are all part of His Body
-outside of that I agree with nearly everything you post here
-keep up the good work
-and forget about the trinity stuff if as you say it is not important to you
 

csuguy

Well-known member
thank you for your well thought out answers but I am not persuaded by them

I provided you my positions, but we didn't discuss them to any degree such that I would expect you to suddenly be persuaded to agree with my positions. That would require in depth arguments from logic, scripture, and history to truly make the case for all of my positions - and it would require going through the arguments for any of your competing positions and showing that my arguments are better. Not a small task, and certainly not something that can be done overnight on a single thread.

-I believe Jesus had to be God to redeem us
I have often heard people assert this, but I've never seen it established via scriptural testimony.

-and forget about the trinity stuff if as you say it is not important to you
As I said in my earlier post, the Trinity Doctrine itself is not important - but the divisions it has caused IS important to address. If you think it the best attempt at describing the relationship between the Father, Son, and HS - fine. But when you use it as a basis for judging who is truly a Christian and who is not - that is a problem which is in direct contradiction with Christ's teachings, and which has real consequences on people's lives.
 

beameup

New member
Trinity is much harder to find in the Old Testament, but references to "two powers in heaven" abound.
That would be like the "father and son" or "YHWH and The Holy One of Israel", etc.
 

csuguy

Well-known member
you will never see it if common sense doesn't already tell you that no man's suffering and death is sufficient to redeem all of us

Not just any man's death would be sufficient. However, the Son of God, who lived a blameless life and gave his life freely, fulfilling the Law and the Prophets - yes. There is nothing in scripture to support your "common sense" notion that God Almighty himself needed to die. In fact, the early church considered the notion that the Father himself came down, suffered, and died a heresy (Patripassianism).

Furthermore, your argument is a textbook case of the Common Sense Fallacy; a logical fallacy. Asserting that something is simply "obvious" does not make it so. Nor, for that matter, does it make it true. If there were well established evidences to support your claim then you could supply them - but you can't.

Scripture states that God cannot be tempted; yet scripture also says Jesus was tempted by Satan. It furthermore uses his sufferings and fights with temptation as a man to assure us that we have a mediator that understands us. This poses a significant problem for asserting Jesus is God; you must assert that some/all of these relevant scriptures are wrong. For example: some try to assert that Jesus could not have truly been tempted. Then you make a farce of his ordeal and temptation, and you take away his humanity and his ability to relate to us. If you say he was truly tempted, then he couldn't have been God - who cannot be tempted.
 
Last edited:
Top