The Trinity

[Lon]

I will tolerate a little bit of name calling here and there and a few cheap jabs maybe, but you carry on the way you are and our discussions will stop. There is simply no need for such rudeness in a adult conversation, either fix up and pull yourself together or refrain from talking to me.

You sort of bring it on yourself, with overt challenging and inane ridicule. Perhaps you don't mean to, but as I'm reading, I've noted this (also why I refrained and offered prayer instead - that and it was off-topic from the thread intent in your and my case).
You don't have to reply to any of this, just observations about delivery rather than substance debated....

You did not use your words, you simply quoted scripture in reply to particular point I made. I can copy and paste the conversation if you like or you can stop your pointless lying. I suggest that the trinity teaches that Jehovah is one and you quoted three scriptures, Deuteronomy 6:4, Genesis 1:26 and 1 Thessalonians 5:23, you made no personal comments when doing so. Therefore I don't know how "you totally used words"???

To me, a bit pressed, a bit too persnickety. It took me a bit to get E.E's writing style. At times, he's still a bit global rather than concrete sequential. I think, like my post to you here, that you are talking more about delivery than substance. I'm not sure it needs to challenged this overtly when the topic material is more important. Does it matter, in the end, if he is quoting scripture or using his own words? Try this: "Can you explain your use of scriptures here to me, a bit further than just pasting them?" It this a sit-down or yell-posturing out the window between the Kingdom Hall and the Evangelical church across the street? I'm not really accusing, just trying to get a conversation between you two going. It 'seems' a taunt from across the street to me. If that is all you are looking for, it may have some purpose, I'm just asking.

So when I said you are unable to defend your own beliefs I wasn't wrong, I asked you numerous questions and raised numerous issues, your rebuttal and answer to those was to show me a link :Letsargu: A discussion works two ways, you talk I talk, you ask I answer, I ask you answer.

Why are showing me a link? Can't you defend what you believe to be true yourself instead of copy and pasting a post you made regarding a general topic of the anti-Christ? You expect a lot from me but give nothing in return... apart from your cheap insults.

All debates have purposes. If you can 1) Figure out the other guy's and 2) figure out what you want from the discussion, somewhere from the outset, you'll be more happy, I think, with the results. As far as most "God is not Triune" threads, It is generally just posturing. Some of it helps others who are studying a matter out, perhaps, but generally they do not change sides. I'm horrible (for my introspection by example) at being arrogant with Arians/Unitarians. It isn't entirely my fault, I've literally known too many and know their academic prowess. It taints conversations.
However, "I'll pray" is a good way to get out of my own impatience and not express it (like I've done here). Generally I come to these threads 1) after being asked to address something in particular 2) I am reading along what a friend or acquaintance has written. 3) Sometimes, just to give the orthodox perspective and as I said, to pray for people.

Here are some points and questions you failed to address in my last post to you, you're under no obligation to answer. However a discussion, as already mentioned, generally involves listening, asking questions and answering questions. If you're incapable of any one of these I suggest you quit while you're ahead.

:up: Try to remove 'failed' from your sentence and I think this is a better approach.

Spoiler

If there can be ONLY saviour how is it possible that Othniel (Judges 3:9) and Ehud (Judges 3:15) are referred to as saviour using exactly the Hebrew term as applied to God in Isaiah 43:11 that you mentioned? According to Judges 3:9,15 does scripture allow for their to be more than one Savior?

When God the Father subjected "all things" or gave "all authority" to Jesus, was God the Father himself included? Whether a yes or no please give an explanation, even if it's brief, so I can better understand your position.

If the classical trinitarian teaching is that Jehovah is one, who is three persons, and also that Jehovah is one according to Deut 6:4, why is it you claimed I'm telling lies when stating this? Am I incorrect, if so how?



Thanks for referring me to your thread.

Why am I not surprised that you again refer to someone else's writing and not produce your own exegesis regarding the scriptures I use along with my reasoning.

Hold up there, not everyone on TOL is capable of exegesis. Generally, however well we do in language, that is our ability to diagram sentences and use context to answer questions. You'd want to simply 'do' exegesis' and do more leading. I generally talk about what a sentence means, and refer back and further into a text for its contextual placement. Sometimes I'll post a Greek sentence and translate it simply if the objection is over the structure of the sentence, just so people know what is and is not there in a word-for-word conveyance.

Says the person who can only copy and paste, use reasoning relevant to the discussion.

Laughable.

We can call names, without calling names, and the slight is not missed. Sometimes we invite what we get.
Is it true he can 'only' copy/paste? What kind of person 'can only' copy/paste? When we say such is 'laughable' what does that convey regarding 'can only copy/paste?'

The only thing worth mentioning that I read in what you posted

I do this condescending thing too, and am always trying to edit it out of my posts before I submit. I'm not trying to get a response and again no need to respond. I'm just giving you a sounding board, if it helps. People don't generally do this for me, but I always appreciate when they do, and so I try to return that, for good. That's my only agenda. If it doesn't help, at least you know my attempt.

was in when comparing Isaiah 45:23 and Phil 2:10,11. You make the claim that since Isaiah 45:23 says "To me every knee will bend, Every tongue will swear loyalty" in regards to Jehovah and Phil 2:10,11 has "every knee" bending to Jesus, that Jesus must be the Jehovah of Isaiah 45:23.

What you fail to understand is the position Jesus holds in relation to worship and God the Father. We worship God the father THROUGH Jesus, "no one comes to the Father, except through me" (John 14:6), to deny Jesus is to deny the father since Jesus is the representative of the Father. Much like the Jews rejected God as King when rejecting Samuel as Judge over Israel (1 Samuel 8:7), by rejecting Jesus you reject the Father who sent Jesus.

It is an accusation. I'm sure it is understood and justified from your perspective. For me? Trying to get involved further would start me engaging your topic, and that isn't my intent. Obviously there is disagreement and so posturing on this particular.

As stated we worship the Father, not Jesus, by worshipping through Jesus. Thus we have Phil 2:10,11 that shows the Father Jehovah is the one who receive ultimate worship. We can clearly see Jesus words in John 14:6 being applied by every knee bending to Jesus, but that praise and glory doesn't go to Jesus, but rather through him and to the Father.

Since the Father is the one who ultimately receives the glory from the bending of the knee it is proper that knee in effect bend to Father, but through Jesus. Therefore what is said in Isaiah 45:23, if applicable, presents no issue, since, it simply qualifies the final outcome of glorification that goes to the Father Jehovah, leaving out the means by which it got there.

(Isaiah 64:8) "..But now, O Jehovah, you are our Father.."

(Isaiah 45:23) "..By myself I have sworn; The word has gone out of my mouth in righteousness, And it will not return: To me every knee will bend, Every tongue will swear loyalty.."

Scriptures work. Anyone can look them up and double-check as a Berean and study the matter out. It is my go-to as much and as often as I can muster it. Often, I will only post a scripture. Proverbs 18:24 for instance. I'm not sure how two uncompromising sides can do so across the street out the window. For me, prayer had to be my response. Neither of us are going anywhere.

 

[Lon]

I said
You seem to know your bible. I have refuted the Trinitarians for years now with the revelations of Jesus Christ. But I'm not allowed to show them anymore because they get to convicted.

:nono: Always an assertion game with you. You aren't allowed because you are naught but a scripture spammer in unwieldy copious amounts that a person might as well read his bible than read your disconnected readers digest enlarged version. Be honest. You know that is why, and not this other made up reason. It was never about your feigned prowess. :nono: Be honest. I can look up every time you were banned.

 

[Rosenritter]

As part of my pledge to be attempt more brevity, please forgive if any detail is too small and feel free to ask for clarification or citation. That said,

I don't claim that you relied on the trinity doctrine when it comes to the book of hebrews, nor do I think you claim the book of Hebrews teaches the trinity.

My intention is not to deviate, nor do I believe its part of your argument. But its hard to talk about Jesus, whom you believe is God in the flesh , without brining the trinity into it since, Jesus as God in the flesh is part of the trinity.

Please also tell me what person of the trinity was the Jehovah who appeared to abraham, was it the father, Jesus or the Holy Spirit?

1) I will ask another time, please stop attempting to assign "Trinity" doctrine to me. It's a straw man argument. There's a poll above asking "Is the Trinity Biblical" and "is the Trinity taught in the Bible." I answered "no" and was even blocked by one of the die-hard Calvinist Trinitarians here because of that (though in all honesty, for anyone who would be that block-headed it's no big loss.)

Besides, attempting to debate "Trinity" is an effort doomed to fail because it's an undefined moving target. Some people like James White and Bright Raven have a three-God model, and it ranges all the way to people who could easily be classified as "Oneness" and "Jesus Only." It's about impossible to get an agreed upon definition when more than a few people enter the discussion (and the scripture doesn't give a definition either, thus my aforementioned negative vote) and as such you can't hit a moving target.

So don't ask me "what person of the Trinity talked to Abraham?" Ask someone who wants to be dogmatic about Trinity doctrine. I said that Hebrews is about the Son of God being none other than our Creator, the One God.

Simply, No. Likewise Hebrews is not in regards the trinity, but does that mean that statements found within Hebrews can disprove or prove the trinity? Yes, can statements in Hebrews 1 disprove that Jesus is God? Yes.

Hebrews is not going to prove a Trinity nor disprove a Trinity, if for no other reason that there is no fixed definition or interpretation of Trinity. Per Sun Tzu, being without form is a perfect defense. Does Hebrews 1 disprove that Jesus is God? No, but I imagine that if you are willing to exclude major portions of the Bible, you might be able to construct an interpretation of a few verses that would seem to support "Jesus is not God."

Where are your thoughts regarding what type of God Jesus was in Hebrews 1 accordng to the application parrelled with the God, that referred to a man in Psalms 45:6?

None particularly, as your question is foreign to me. Psalms speaks to "God" and Paul also interprets this passage as relating to Christ. Your insertion of "a man" seems to be attempting to assume the very thing you are trying to prove. The scripture itself uses "God" in both places.

The confusion is yours and it quite clear. Nowhere does scripture state God was manifest in the flesh and nowhere does Jesus state he is the Alpha and Omega these are both common misconceptions. You may be bringing your assumptions from other books and reading them into Hebrews 1.

1 Timothy 3:16 KJV
(16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.


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 Jesushave 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.

I am pretty sure that scripture just stated that "God was manifest in the flesh" and that "Jesus" is the "Alpha and Omega."

If you are using the Jehovah's Witness New World Translation, it's very likely that's one of the many places they have edited out.

Now we're getting somewhere, you are correct. Angel is synomous with a spirit. However I disagree with you that Joshua was called and angel, read Exodus 14:19, God used an angel to guide Israel when travleing, when doing so it travlled in front of them as pillar of cloud, this is unrealted to the duscssiion so wiil leave it as that.

When Justin Matryr spoke to the Jews in the 2nd century, and this passage came up in discussion, it didn't seem that there was any disagreement that Joshua was the Angel spoken of in Exodus 23:20. This is not a cloud or a pillar of fire, this Angel has a voice, and if they obey that voice, God will protect them. This Angel of which God speaks, he says "my name is in him."

Didn't the successor of Moses used to be named Oshea, the son of Nun in Numbers 13:8-16? Moses changed his name, and it is with this new name that God later prophesies to Israel, "my name is in him." How do you pronounce Joshua in Greek? Hebrews 4:8 KJV, "For if Jesus had given them rest" (Jesus is the Greek version of Joshua.) Why do you suppose Moses changed Oshua to Jesus?

Why do you completely forget to talk about the context I highlighted which has the context clearly talking about the inheritance relating to Jesus firstborn position?

I have a seven-month old daughter which does take some of my time and it is had to navigate through these posts at the best of times. When your context is more relevant I do try to respond to it. It seems to me that you are persisting in attempting to cram God into the same confines as that of a physical father-son relationship. A confine which does not apply in this case.

If the titles you’re referring to is in regards to the A&O (alpha and omega) then you are mistaken. Moreover, I do not deny that Jesus was involved in creation, but there’s a difference in being the creator and being the one whom the creator creates through. Jesus was an agent who God used to create the world through, hence why the writer uses Greek passive word forms in Col 1:16, such as ektisqh, showing that Christ did not create, but that things were created through him by another. It is for this reason most modern translations, not like the one you decided to use, state that things were created through Jesus in Col 1:16. Hebrews 1:1,2 and 1 Cor 8:6 also show that things were created through Jesus by the creator.

Yes, I am deciding not to use translations that choose the Alexandrian texts that constantly choose source texts that conflicts with majority readings. I have decided to use the King James for most purposes. I find it to be entirely consistent with itself, as well as superior in terms of source text and translation. If you want to start a debate about the legitimacy of source text and Bible translation, that should have its own thread.

No it does not. Stop reading from one translation, compare the verse with many other translations to get a better understanding of the verse, when you do you'll find that the statement "made like onto the Son of God" is in regards to him being priest for all time, it does not apply it to Jesus. Reading the verse in old english does not bring out the meaning of the orgianl languages as do translations in modern english.

The King James translation defined Modern English. With it the language solidified and was standardized and spread across the entire globe with the printed bibles. Have you ever tried reading English from before that time, like the Wycliff translations? Do you have trouble understanding its words? I can help with that.

Have you forgot the implications this makes. It says regarding Melchizedek that he remains a priest for all time, if this was the case then why would there need to be another priest whom Jesus was according to Hebrews 7:11, you keep evading the implications I keep bringing out.

Your "implications" are moot because they depend upon first assuming what it is that you seek to prove. Back to the ten-year old analogy - it doesn't confuse anyone in that realm when the same person makes appearance in more than one name. What you need is to have evidence that can't be read more than one way. Simply something that fuels your chosen preconception isn't going to persuade anyone who has the rest of the testimony and revelation.

Simple question, who said they were going to destroy Sodom and who destroyed Sodom? Did the two men lie when they said they were the ones who were going to destroy the city?

The two angels spoke with "we" in that case because they were part of the team. Specifically, the on the ground scouts, whom Jehovah had sent on foot into the city.

The reason why I'm asking about the identity of the three men because it explains whether writers of the bible make represenatives of someone speak as the person themselves. I orginally stated to Lon that Jesus was not the God of the OT since God only spoke through starting in the time period of the NT according to Hebrews 1:1,2. You made the point that God had in past times made himself manifest in the flesh previously. I denied this, claiming that God spoke by means of representives, that is what I'm currently trying to prove at present.

I'm afraid that the plains of Mamre doesn't prove your point. In one sense it can show how others can speak on behalf of another (to Lot inside Sodom) but I doubt you needed to prove to anyone that one person can speak on behalf of another. What you didn't do was prove that this was the exclusive rule - in fact, the plains of Mamre would contradict such an inflexible rule.

Besides, Hebrews doesn't say that God ONLY spoke through his prophets. It seems that you are imagining the word "only" or "exclusively" was there instead.

Hebrews 1:1-3 KJV
(1) God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
(2) Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
(3) Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;


It's missing that word "only" that you would need. Yet God spoke to Adam, God spoke to Noah, God spoke to Moses who even descended from the mountain with a shining face to show for it.

Exodus 33:11 KJV
(11) And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.


That's not by means of a representative. Therefore, Hebrews 1:1 isn't missing the word "only" - it didn't belong in the text in the first place.

 

[Rosenritter]

You're either playing dumb or being dishonest. Read the account again please, do so in a modern translation, try the NIV.

Just for clarification, are you confirming that "Jesus is not God" is not evidenced within the traditional King James translation, and that for this evidence one must rely on a translation like the NIV or NWT?

Then it makes no sense for Paul to use Greek Greek word dia with an intermediatery (through) meaning, when doing so he uses passive word forms in Col 1:16, such as ektisqh, showing that Christ did not create, but that things were created through (greek word: dia) him by another.

It makes perfect sense, because technically the Son of God doesn't have application when there is no earth to step upon, but in the other sense the entire creation was built around the plan of God stepping into his creation to offer redemption. If you know where to look you can see the clues with hindsight, even if someone didn't want to talk Paul's word on it.

I do not deny that all things were made through Jesus, but these things made through Jesus were made by the Father. Hebrews 1:1,2 and 1 Cor 8:6 plainly state this. I don't get your issue with this? The fact that things were created through Jesus by the Father is undeniable based on grammar and the context of other verses such as the ones I've highlighted.

Same God, different terms of reference.

Again, to be part firstborn of a group you must be part of that group. I'm not suggesting Paul needs to speak as my family speaks but rather, as the Bible speaks. Please address the implications I made regarding firstborn and being part of the group your firstborn of.

Is it not written, that Jesus was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death? He became as one of us so that we could understand him, so that we would believe that He understood us. God entered this group willingly. He tasted of death once, but was not bound by it.

Show me a single example in the bible, or in life for that matter, where someone is firstborn of a group, and they themselves are not part of that group?

Not exactly, but proving the principle: 2 Chronicles 22:1, the brothers of Ahaziah were slain, and he is called the youngest son even though he was physically many years older than them, almost the same age of the king. Ahaziah was his legal son by virtue of his mother. Inheritance goes to the firstborn, but Ahaziah was grafted into that scheme through Omri.

Ahaziah wasn't part of the group before, marriage of his mother moved him into that group. He wasn't the "firstborn" but rather the last in line, which is why the Arabians just "happened" to kill everyone else. He moved from last to to the position of first when there was no one left to contend for the throne.

"Firstborn" is a term that also can relate to inheritance, Jesus is the "firstborn" in that everything that is God's is His by Right. The "firstborn" also represents the sacrifice for our sins, the Lamb that is sacrificed for our sins. Jesus was the "firstborn" from the dead, he was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Genesis 22:8 KJV
(8) And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.


Revelation 13:8 KJV
(8) And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.


Firstborn is symbolic. He is our sacrifice, and he also took first in conquering death. It has nothing to do with being literally born.

Please answer me this also, if Jesus did NOT die, could it be said he is "firstborn from/of the dead", please explain your reasons.

No, he couldn't be. Because then "from the dead" wouldn't be applicable.

Can a puppy be called the firstborn in a litter of kittens? If not then why not?

If the Puppy is adopted into the kittens and is the next successor to the King of the Kittens, then yes, he is the Prince of Kittens and the new firstborn. I also remember that in the unabridged version of 101 Dalmatians, the last dalmatian was Cruella's Persian Cat. It was adopted into the family of dalmatians.

Here you go again linking scripture by the use of single word. I know you think you're making sense, but you are not.

Yes, single words. In the beginning, GOD. It's a powerful word.

It’ not evasion friend. The only accounts I know where Jesus calls himself the first and last are Rev 2:8 and Rev 1:17, both of which refer to Jesus being the first and last in relation to him dying and coming to life again. I don't find any scripture where the identity is that of Jesus who calls himself the first and last with no God beside him. If you would care to show me such a scripture I'd be more than happy review my understanding.

Then you must have chosen to believe that there is more than one "first and the last?" It's the title of God alone. Isaiah is very clear about that, and defines the name in no uncertain terms.

Isaiah 44:6 KJV
(6) Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Now multiply that by the four instances that Jesus uses the title for Himself in Revelation.

Isaiah 48:11-13 KJV
(11) For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another.
(12) Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.
(13) Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.

So if more than one person is using this name and title, that glory is being given to another. The first and the last is he who created all things, just as we are told in the New Testament that the Word, Jesus, created all things.

It seems that your entire premise is that God is sharing his glory with Jesus, and allowing his name to be polluted, giving his names to another.

Ok, can you then please state it again for all to see that you believe that God, who is from everlasting to everlasting, with no beginning or end, the infinite God was at some point without wisdom. :doh:

Perhaps if you would care to define wisdom as you mean it, I can answer in that context. I gave my definition of wisdom, which was the gathering of experience and the application of knowledge.

Surely you aren't suggesting that God had already experienced what had not yet happened? Assuming that God can experience, then wisdom is not so much static as increasing. Thus, it is not an "eternal thing" in the sense that you were attempting to metaphysically construct via philosophy.

Colossians 2:8-9 KJV
(8) Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
(9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Proverbs 8:22 states that God possessed/formed/made wisdom, since to an average Christian, not you of course, God has always had wisdom, the personified wisdom in Proverbs must be in regards to something else other than Gods own wisdom. Since Jesus is the "wisdom of God", and the context of Proverbs 8 parallels Jesus a lot (which I can show if need be), then it makes perfect sense that Jesus is the one whom is being personified as wisdom here.

I think you're trying way to hard to take a personified psalm about wisdom and somehow recruit it to your doctrine. Personification allows artistic license. It's not supposed to be a secret Gnostic revelation. Here, process this the same way:

Isa 44:23 Sing, O ye heavens; for the LORD hath done it: shout, ye lower parts of the earth: break forth into singing, ye mountains, O forest, and every tree therein: for the LORD hath redeemed Jacob, and glorified himself in Israel.

What is the forest, who are the trees? Is there secret meaning in "the lower parts of the earth?" I would also interpret this as personification.

 

[Rosenritter]

As stated we worship the Father, not Jesus, by worshipping through Jesus. Thus we have Phil 2:10,11 that shows the Father Jehovah is the one who receive ultimate worship. We can clearly see Jesus words in John 14:6 being applied by every knee bending to Jesus, but that praise and glory doesn't go to Jesus, but rather through him and to the Father.

"we worship the Father, not Jesus, ..."

Whom are you speaking for? For yourself, or for a group? Anyone who speaks to represent a group is suspect of repeating Groupthink. I know that I'm addressing you but that cuts both ways for anyone here. You don't have authority to change the group's mind, so if you're just the front of a group then this isn't an intellectually fair exchange that has a chance to persuade on scripture, but just a soapbox lobbying stand.

And a question for you NWL, in terms of character, personality, wisdom, judgment, or pretty much anything about him that makes him Him, as a person, how would you tell (differentiate) "God" apart from "Jesus?"

 

[Rosenritter]

You asked me exegete 80 verses splitting them into 11 different paragraphs. I stated I was willing to do your unreasonable demand, all I asked for was for you to give me a line for each one of the 11 paragraphs, which I think is reasonable, and you can't even give me that! You can't even answer the plain and basic questions I pose to you, you act as If I didn't even ask you.

PLEASE do not attempt to exegete 80 verses in those 11 paragraphs. The board will break under the stress. No, I mean I think it would literally break the post because the length would exceed the allocated limit. That was an unreasonable request. A better request would have been to have given one, or two, or three, assigning a short statement to precede each one.

And yet I haven't made as single reference from the Watch Tower and Bible tract society but have simply been using scriptures in our discussions, so how this is the case I don't know.

You did say you used the New World Translation, which is Jehovah's Witness trademark. You also rejected King James and wanted pretty much anything but that translation, and in one place you spoke of "we" indicating that you were thinking as a member of a group, rather than as an individual.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

You forgot to answer the questions I asked you. Remember you ask, I answer, as I have been doing, I ask you answer. Here they are again, you're not chickening out are you?

If there can be ONLY saviour how is it possible that Othniel (Judges 3:9) and Ehud (Judges 3:15) are referred to as saviour using exactly the Hebrew term as applied to God in Isaiah 43:11 that you mentioned? According to Judges 3:9,15 does scripture allow for their to be more than one Savior?

When God the Father subjected "all things" or gave "all authority" to Jesus, was God the Father himself included? Whether a yes or no please give an explanation, even if it's brief, so I can better understand your position.

If the classical trinitarian teaching is that Jehovah is one, who is three persons, and also that Jehovah is one according to Deut 6:4, why is it you claimed I'm telling lies when stating this? Am I incorrect, if so how?

Also you failed to mention anything in regards to what I said about Isaiah 45:23 and Phil 2:10,11. I can only take your silence as your inability to refute what I said since what I said makes sense.

:cigar:

I postured and gave you some sincere brain food. You see doctrine where only verses belong. You are willingly brainwashed to exegete scripture in sole support of JW doctrine...

I have enormous trouble respecting you at this point and I'm stepping back to get my bearings.

Your Romans 10:13 blunder tells me that you don't think for yourself in theological terms... thus... I'm actually arguing with a brain washing doctrine of men. Give me time to mellow and decide if you are worth discussing scripture with... as in... are you capable of going beyond your cookie cutter Kingdom Hall scripture studies... or are you hopelessly a self elected prisoner and slave of "the man"?

 

[NWL]

As part of my pledge to be attempt more brevity, please forgive if any detail is too small and feel free to ask for clarification or citation. That said,

Thank you.

1) I will ask another time, please stop attempting to assign "Trinity" doctrine to me. It's a straw man argument. There's a poll above asking "Is the Trinity Biblical" and "is the Trinity taught in the Bible." I answered "no" and was even blocked by one of the die-hard Calvinist Trinitarians here because of that (though in all honesty, for anyone who would be that block-headed it's no big loss.)

Besides, attempting to debate "Trinity" is an effort doomed to fail because it's an undefined moving target. Some people like James White and Bright Raven have a three-God model, and it ranges all the way to people who could easily be classified as "Oneness" and "Jesus Only." It's about impossible to get an agreed upon definition when more than a few people enter the discussion (and the scripture doesn't give a definition either, thus my aforementioned negative vote) and as such you can't hit a moving target.

If you cannot defend something you are unable to explain, how then can you allow such a statement of faith define who you understand God is and who to worship. Seems a bit risky to me.

So don't ask me "what person of the Trinity talked to Abraham?" Ask someone who wants to be dogmatic about Trinity doctrine. I said that Hebrews is about the Son of God being none other than our Creator, the One God.

Of course, the reason why I asked for you to give your thoughts on who the speaker was, was to better understand your stance so that I could show you how none of the persons in the trinity directly appeared to Abraham. Hebrews show that Jesus didn't speak to Abraham, since again, Hebrews 1:1 shows the Father didn't use Jesus to speak until the 1CE, remember the expression "God, Now at the end of these days he has spoken to us by means of a Son" in hebrews 1:1,2 implying when God spoke to the forefather in Hebrews 1:1 that it wasn't done by means of Jesus. Scripture also shows that the Father didn't speak to Abraham since "no one has seen the Father" (John 6:46). So unless you think it was Gods HS that spoke to Abraham you're stuck.

Hebrews is not going to prove a Trinity nor disprove a Trinity, if for no other reason that there is no fixed definition or interpretation of Trinity. Per Sun Tzu, being without form is a perfect defense. Does Hebrews 1 disprove that Jesus is God? No, but I imagine that if you are willing to exclude major portions of the Bible, you might be able to construct an interpretation of a few verses that would seem to support "Jesus is not God."

That's a matter of opinion and interpretation. I claim it does and have given credible evidence to suggest so. If you can't define the trinity then of course you can't defend it, but I'm going of the classic stance of the understanding of the trinity which can be refuted. Whats the point in even trying to express your thought in regards to who God is since you can't even tell me how Jesus is God and yet God=Father/Son/HS since you have no real definition of the trinity. Its like a get out clause to any credible argument against the trinity.

None particularly, as your question is foreign to me. Psalms speaks to "God" and Paul also interprets this passage as relating to Christ. Your insertion of "a man" seems to be attempting to assume the very thing you are trying to prove. The scripture itself uses "God" in both places.

Then let me show it plainly to you. Psalms 45 is in regards a human Israelite King, this is not me inserting anything but letting the scripture speak for itself. The fact that the scripture is in relation to an actual Israelite King is not disputed by lots of secular source, the scriptures are clear. Psalms 45 even explains that this king has daughters suggesting even more he was in fact a literal king. You'll find some people claim that the King is ONLY in reference to Jesus, this though is putting the cart before the horse, many statements in the old testament referred to literal Israelite Kings but had a secondary application the Jesus. This Psalms 45:6 is just another one of them. Let's look at the verse.

(Psalm 45:1,5,6-7,9) "..My heart is stirred by something good. I say: “My song is about a king.” May my tongue be the stylus of a skilled copyist... God is your throne forever and ever; The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness. 7 You loved righteousness, and you hated wickedness. That is why God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your companions...The daughters of kings are among your ladies of honor. The royal consort has taken her stand at your right hand, adorned in gold of Oʹphir.


In the text it calls the Israelite King God, this of course is NOT in the ultimate sense, but in a secondary sense, as Psalms 82:1; 8:5 and John 10:34 calls being Gods and 1 Cor 8:5 says there are other Gods beside the One Almighty God. If Jesus is parrelled to this Human king who is called God in the secondary sense then the application of God in Psalms 45:6 must be carried over to Jesus. If Psalms 45;6 doesn't make that Israelite King God, then it doesn't make Jesus God.

1 Timothy 3:16 KJV
(16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

The KJV adds in the word God here when it shouldn't according to older manuscript evidence. If you choose to support one of the only bible translations that render God for he/who in 1 Tim 3:16, having literally zero manuscript evidence prior to the 8CE, with evidence suggest it was added it into some later manuscripts after the 8CE, to support that Jesus is God then you go right ahead buddy.

I'll say this, based on manuscript evidence, that far out weigh the Textus Receptus or the majority text, no scripture says "God was manifest in the flesh", not even 1 Tim 3:16.

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 Jesushave 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.

I am pretty sure that scripture just stated that "God was manifest in the flesh" and that "Jesus" is the "Alpha and Omega."

If you are using the Jehovah's Witness New World Translation, it's very likely that's one of the many places they have edited out.

The NWT reads the same way as most bibles do in 1 Tim 3:16, the KJV is the odd one out here.

In regards to Jesus being the Alpha and Omega (from now on A&O) we can see that he is not the A&O by a simple examination of Revelation 1.

Firstly let's briefly look at the account:

"..Look! He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, and those who pierced him; and all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in grief because of him. Yes, Amen. 8 “I am the Alʹpha and the O•meʹga,” says Jehovah God, “the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.” 9 I John, your brother and a sharer with you in the tribulation and kingdom and endurance in association with Jesus, was on the island called Patʹmos for speaking about God and bearing witness concerning Jesus.." (Rev 1:7-9)

v7 is talking about Jesus, because of this most people think what is said is in v8, the A&O statement, is also regarding Jesus. It simply is not. Throughout the book of revelation the writer jumps between from one speaker to another, lots of times without warning or indication. The speakers in Revelation, according to Rev 1:1-2 are God, Jesus, an Angel and John. Because the bible was written without punctuation its down to the translator or reader to determine who the speakers are. We can see that v7 is an end of a sentence by the word "Amen", this is reason enough to suggest the what is said next in v8 doesn't have to be from the same speaker.

Sometimes when John, the writer of Revelation, wanted to introduce a NEW speaker he would do so by writing "I" and then the new speakers name, for example, "I, John" or "I, Jesus", this is clearly evident throughout Revelation. For example in Revelation 1:9, as shown above, we have the statements of the A&O in v8 and then in v9 John starts of by introducing himself as a new speaker, "...“I am the Alʹpha and the O•meʹga,” says Jehovah God, “the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.” 9 I John...". We can see the same thing again in Rev 22:7,8 between the Angel speaking in v7 and John starting to speak in v8 along with some other examples.

Now in Revelation 1:8 we can see the A&O is the same person as the "one who is, who was, and who is coming".(Revelation 1:8) “I am the Alʹpha and the O·meʹga,” says the Lord God, the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.". When we look at Rev 1:4,5 we find that Jesus is completely separate from the "one who is, who was, and who is coming".

(Revelation 1:4, 5) "..John to the seven congregations that are in the province of Asia: May you have undeserved kindness and peace from “the One who is and who was and who is coming,” and from the seven spirits that are before his throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ.."

I'll ask you this, according to Rev 1:4,5 is Jesus separate from the "the One who is and who was and who is coming" who is the A&O of v8?

When Justin Matryr spoke to the Jews in the 2nd century, and this passage came up in discussion, it didn't seem that there was any disagreement that Joshua was the Angel spoken of in Exodus 23:20. This is not a cloud or a pillar of fire, this Angel has a voice, and if they obey that voice, God will protect them. This Angel of which God speaks, he says "my name is in him."

Didn't the successor of Moses used to be named Oshea, the son of Nun in Numbers 13:8-16? Moses changed his name, and it is with this new name that God later prophesies to Israel, "my name is in him." How do you pronounce Joshua in Greek? Hebrews 4:8 KJV, "For if Jesus had given them rest" (Jesus is the Greek version of Joshua.) Why do you suppose Moses changed Oshua to Jesus?

The angel having Gods name in him is the angel being the representative of Jehovah. The Angel was being instructed by Jehovah and acting in behalf of him.

Read the below accounts, its clear when the scriptures speak of someone going ahead its in reference to literal angels, humans.

(Exodus 23:20) “..I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you on the way and to bring you into the place that I have prepared.."

(Exodus 14:19) “..Then the angel of the true God who was going ahead of the camp of Israel departed and went to their rear, and the pillar of cloud that was in front of them moved to the rear and stood behind them.."

(Numbers 20:16) “..Finally we cried out to Jehovah, and he heard us and sent an angel and brought us out of Egypt, and here we are in Kaʹdesh, a city on the border of your territory.."

(Exodus 33:2) “..I will send an angel ahead of you and drive out the Caʹnaan·ites, the Amʹor·ites, the Hitʹtites, the Perʹiz·zites, the Hiʹvites, and the Jebʹu·sites.."

I have a seven-month old daughter which does take some of my time and it is had to navigate through these posts at the best of times. When your context is more relevant I do try to respond to it. It seems to me that you are persisting in attempting to cram God into the same confines as that of a physical father-son relationship. A confine which does not apply in this case.

I wouldn't say physical, since God isn't physical but a spirit, I would say its a more symbolic literal father son relationship. Why else would God use terms which carry along baggage with the definitions. Why wouldn't God compare himself to Jesus as his twin or brother.

Your "implications" are moot because they depend upon first assuming what it is that you seek to prove. Back to the ten-year old analogy - it doesn't confuse anyone in that realm when the same person makes appearance in more than one name. What you need is to have evidence that can't be read more than one way. Simply something that fuels your chosen preconception isn't going to persuade anyone who has the rest of the testimony and revelation.

You use the term "same person" in regards to Jesus being melchizedek in the past. What you keep failing to see and address is that melchizedek never stopped being priest, according to you since you take the KJV as litreal, thefore it makes no sense why the scripture states Jesus became "ANOTHER" priest. If Jesus was the High priest melchizedek then why does the scripture state he became another High priest like Melchizedek. These are point you're are failing to address.

The two angels spoke with "we" in that case because they were part of the team. Specifically, the on the ground scouts, whom Jehovah had sent on foot into the city.

For clarifications sake, are you saying that the "Jehovah who rained down fire from heaven from Jehovah" was in reference to the two Angels in Sodom?

I'm afraid that the plains of Mamre doesn't prove your point. In one sense it can show how others can speak on behalf of another (to Lot inside Sodom) but I doubt you needed to prove to anyone that one person can speak on behalf of another. What you didn't do was prove that this was the exclusive rule - in fact, the plains of Mamre would contradict such an inflexible rule.

All I need to show, in our case, is that the two an angels who were represenatives were spoken of as Jehovah, if I can, then there is no reason why the third person who appeared to Abraham can't also be viewed as a representive. My understanding is that all three persons were representtives of Jehovah, but only one person at any given time spoke as if they were Jehovah. This could change from person to person when necessary.

Besides, Hebrews doesn't say that God ONLY spoke through his prophets. It seems that you are imagining the word "only" or "exclusively" was there instead.

I don't need to word only in the text, since Hebrew 1:1,2 directly defines what I'm suggesting. In place of the word "only" I have the word "now". Remember Hebrews 1:1,2 says "Long ago God spoke to our forefathers by means of the prophets on many occasions and in many ways. 2 Now at the end of these days he has spoken to us by means of his Son.."

If we are to take scripture for what it says then God began speaking by means of Jesus in the 1Ce. The term "now" in Hebrews 1:1,2 was used in present tense, meaning the action that was being inferred by the usage of now hadn't taken place prior to the action taking place. Or in other words, when it says God now (1CE)is speaking by means of his son, that it hadn't taken place prior to that time.

You are not arguing against my reasoning when you object to this, but rather, what is so plainly stated in Hebrews 1:1,2. This is a point you have failed to properly address in our discussions. To be honest, I don't know how or why you can object to such a plain truth in the first place.

 

[NWL]

"we worship the Father, not Jesus, ..."

Whom are you speaking for? For yourself, or for a group? Anyone who speaks to represent a group is suspect of repeating Groupthink. I know that I'm addressing you but that cuts both ways for anyone here. You don't have authority to change the group's mind, so if you're just the front of a group then this isn't an intellectually fair exchange that has a chance to persuade on scripture, but just a soapbox lobbying stand.

I am speaking on behalf of anyone who is truly a Christian, using Jesus words in doing so. Jesus professed that true worshippers would worship, not him, not the HS, but rather the Father.

"..You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, because salvation begins with the Jews. 23 Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for indeed, the Father is looking for ones like these to worship him.." (John 4:22-24)

And a question for you NWL, in terms of character, personality, wisdom, judgment, or pretty much anything about him that makes him Him, as a person, how would you tell (differentiate) "God" apart from "Jesus?"

Nice question. Hebrews 1:3 states in regards to Jesus that he is the charaktēr of Gods very being. The Greek word charaktēr is literally the equivalent of a wax stamp, when you stamp a bit of wax with a signet ring the impression left behind is the charaktēr of the signet ring, it is a "copy" or "represenation". In Jesus case according to Hebrews 1:3 Jesus is the exact copy of Gods very being. Hence why Jesus is referred to as the image of God (col 1:15) because he is litreally a copy of what God is.

Since Jesus is an exact copy of God the only difference between the two are the things which are not transferred over when making a "copy" of something, be it age, authority and knowledge. So to answer your question Jesus and God the Father are identical expect when it comes to age, authority and knowledge and it is on that basis I would tell the difference.

 

[NWL]

PLEASE do not attempt to exegete 80 verses in those 11 paragraphs. The board will break under the stress. No, I mean I think it would literally break the post because the length would exceed the allocated limit. That was an unreasonable request. A better request would have been to have given one, or two, or three, assigning a short statement to precede each one.

:chuckle: Don't worry, I had no real intention of answering Evil.Eye's request, it was merely me calling his bluff. I asked him to give an explanation for each of the 11 paragraphs of the 80 verses he gave knowing that my reasonable request for him to do so would be too much to handle. If he did follow through with my request I would've simply PM him instead.

You did say you used the New World Translation, which is Jehovah's Witness trademark. You also rejected King James and wanted pretty much anything but that translation, and in one place you spoke of "we" indicating that you were thinking as a member of a group, rather than as an individual.

I don't reject the KJV, it just does read as English is understood today, regardless or not if it defined English today, Hence why I recommended you compare scripture not just with the KJV but many other bibles translation as much basic context is lost in the KJV old English.

 

[Truster]

I am speaking on behalf of anyone who is truly a Christian using Jesus words in doing so. Jesus professed that true worshippers would worship, not him, not the HS, but rather the Father.

"..You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, because salvation begins with the Jews. 23 Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for indeed, the Father is looking for ones like these to worship him.." (John 4:22-24)



Nice question. Hebrews 1:3 states in regards to Jesus that he is the charaktēr of Gods very being. The Greek word charaktēr is literally the equivalent of a wax stamp, when you stamp a bit of wax with a signet ring the impression left behind is the charaktēr of the signet ring, it is a "copy" or "represenation". In Jesus case according to Hebrews 1:3 Jesus is the exact copy of Gods very being. Hence why Jesus is referred to as the image of God (col 1:15) because he is litreally a copy of what God is.

Since Jesus is an exact copy of God the only difference between the two are the things which are not transferred over when making a "copy" of something, be it age, authority and knowledge. So to answer your question Jesus and God the Father are identical expect when it comes to age, authority and knowledge and it is on that basis I would tell the difference.

You said: "I am speaking on behalf of anyone who is truly a Christian sing Jesus words in doing so. Jesus professed that true worshippers would worship, not him, not the HS, but rather the Father."




Do you think that "worship" is restricted to singing?

 

[NWL]

I postured and gave you some sincere brain food. You see doctrine where only verses belong. You are willingly brainwashed to exegete scripture in sole support of JW doctrine...

No Evil.Eye you gave me food so rotten you could even bear to handle it yourself by defending it.

I have enormous trouble respecting you at this point and I'm stepping back to get my bearings.

You have trouble respecting me!? That's rich. I'm glad you're taking my advice by trying to sort yourself out.

Your Romans 10:13 blunder tells me that you don't think for yourself in theological terms... thus... I'm actually arguing with a brain washing doctrine of men. Give me time to mellow and decide if you are worth discussing scripture with... as in... are you capable of going beyond your cookie cutter Kingdom Hall scripture studies... or are you hopelessly a self elected prisoner and slave of "the man"?

Another assertion with no proof, this is getting boring. Either accuse me of something and specifically detail your accusation or stop accusing me of things. You don't here me asserting things regarding you or your beliefs without me giving you good clear reasoning as to why those assertions, to me, seem true.

When you've composed yourself please answer the questions you missed thus far.

If there can be ONLY saviour how is it possible that Othniel (Judges 3:9) and Ehud (Judges 3:15) are referred to as saviours using exactly the Hebrew term as applied to God in Isaiah 43:11 that you mentioned? According to Judges 3:9,15 does scripture allow for their to be more than one Savior?

When God the Father subjected "all things" or gave "all authority" to Jesus, was God the Father himself included? Whether a yes or no please give an explanation, even if it's brief, so I can better understand your position.

If the classical trinitarian teaching is that Jehovah is one, who is three persons, and also that Jehovah is one according to Deut 6:4, why is it you claimed I'm telling lies when stating this? Am I incorrect in my understanding of the trinity doctrine, if so how? (for any readers, I do not believe in the trinity doctrine)

Also you failed to mention anything in regards to what I said about Isaiah 45:23 and Phil 2:10,11. I can only take your silence as your inability to refute what I said since what I said makes sense.

And one question from this discussion to clear up your assertions that I blundered with Romans 10:13. When Romans 10:11 compares Jesus as the cornerstone saying "No one who rests his faith on him will be disappointed", which is a quote from Isaiah 28:16 that states Jehovah laid that corner stone, is Jesus Jehovah who laid the cornerstone or is Jesus the cornerstone that Jehovah laid?

 

[NWL]

You said: "I am speaking on behalf of anyone who is truly a Christian sing Jesus words in doing so. Jesus professed that true worshippers would worship, not him, not the HS, but rather the Father."




Do you think that "worship" is restricted to singing?

It was a typo, I was meant to spell the word "using" but forgot to use the "u". This has been corrected in my original post.

 

[Truster]

It was a typo, I was meant to spell the word "using" but forgot to use the "u". This has been corrected in my original post.

Are you part of a denomination?

 

[NWL]

I'm one of Jehovahs witnesses.

Sent from my SM-G935F using TOL mobile app

 

[God's Truth]

I'm one of Jehovahs witnesses.

Sent from my SM-G935F using TOL mobile app

Jehovah witnesses have some serious error.

They do not believe that Jesus is God the Father come in the flesh as a Man, and they do not believe in the life of the spirit after the death of the body.

 

[Truster]

Jehovah witnesses have some serious error.

They do not believe that Jesus is God the Father come in the flesh as a Man, and they do not believe in the life of the spirit after the death of the body.

Here we have a fake $50 bill accusing a £50 note of being fake. :rotfl:

 

[God's Truth]

Here we have a fake $50 bill accusing a £50 note of being fake. :rotfl:

No that is your smelly words from the pit by your father the accuser, the devil.

 

[NWL]

Jehovah witnesses have some serious error.

They do not believe that Jesus is God the Father come in the flesh as a Man, and they do not believe in the life of the spirit after the death of the body.

I have to apologise GT, you answered my question as I failed to reply as I never saw your post.

I have some issues with some of your answers.

I asked you how it was possible that Jesus, when in heaven, is able to hand back things to the Father (1 Cor 15:24) when he himself is the Father according to you.

You answered: Jesus is the name, the one who came in the flesh, and he died for us. That name and person is God the one and only who is the Father. We must go through what God the Father did for us when He gave Himself up for us. When all is done, we will no longer have to go through what Jesus did for us, for we shall be like Jesus, and there will be no more enemies.

How does this explain that Jesus, when in heaven, is able to hand things to the Father if he is the Father, did I miss something?

Jesus is God the Father on earth in a physical flesh body, and there is still God the Father who is invisible and lives in unapproachable light.

Are you claiming there was Jesus who was on earth who was the Father, and a invisible spirit Father in heaven?

God the Father really came as a Man, He did not pretend to come as a Man.
Men have to be taught, and Jesus was taught...the difference between Jesus and us is that Jesus is God. God the Father spoke to Himself as a Son in the flesh, and we do not get spoken to all the time in quite the same way.

You've said the term "Jesus was taught" many times in response to me when I ask why Jesus didn't know things. I don't think this is a credible response to what I'm asking since it contradicts scripture. Please define what you mean when you say "Jesus was taught", for example who was he taught by, are you simply saying he was taught the same as any other human raised on earth, if so why did he say the father told him what to say if he was learn'd like any other Jew at the time?

When you say "God the Father spoke to Himself as a Son in the flesh" are you referring to the "God the Father who is invisible and lives in unapproachable light" speaking to "the Father Jesus in the flesh"?

What was the purpose of Jesus talking to himself as you claim?

I asked you how it's possible that Jesus sat at the right hand of the Father in Heaven if Jesus is the Father who right hand Jesus sits at, you answered "God the Father came as a Man in the flesh, and this Man did right and finished God the Father's work. We must go through Jesus, we must go through what Jesus tells says.".

How does this explain how Jesus was able to sit at his own right hand if he is the Father?

 

[God's Truth]

I have to apologise GT, you answered my question as I failed to reply as I never saw your post.

That has happened many times to me where I have not seen a post.

I have some issues with some of your answers.

I asked you how it was possible that Jesus, when in heaven, is able to hand back things to the Father (1 Cor 15:24) when he himself is the Father according to you.

You answered: Jesus is the name, the one who came in the flesh, and he died for us. That name and person is God the one and only who is the Father. We must go through what God the Father did for us when He gave Himself up for us. When all is done, we will no longer have to go through what Jesus did for us, for we shall be like Jesus, and there will be no more enemies.

How does this explain that Jesus, when in heaven, is able to hand things to the Father if he is the Father, did I miss something?


Are you claiming there was Jesus who was on earth who was the Father, and a invisible spirit Father in heaven?

That is right. Spirits are invisible, however, some people have seen spirits.

We all have our own spirit living inside us. It looks like us yet it is see through, it has no flesh and bones.

Jesus' Spirit is the Spirit of God.

You've said the term "Jesus was taught" many times in response to me when I ask why Jesus didn't know things. I don't think this is a credible response to what I'm asking since it contradicts scripture. Please define what you mean when you say "Jesus was taught", for example who was he taught by, are you simply saying he was taught the same as any other human raised on earth, if so why did he say the father told him what to say if he was learn'd like any other Jew at the time?

Obviously Jesus was taught like humans are taught, but Jesus was also taught by God the Father.

John 5:19 Jesus gave them this answer: "Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.

John 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but to do the will of Him who sent Me.

John 8:28 So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing on My own, but speak exactly what the Father has taught Me.

John 12:49 I have not spoken on My own, but the Father who sent Me has commanded Me what to say and how to say it.

John 12:50 And I know that His command leads to eternal life. So I speak exactly what the Father has told Me to say."

John 14:10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words I say to you, I do not speak on My own. Instead, it is the Father dwelling in Me, carrying out His work.

When you say "God the Father spoke to Himself as a Son in the flesh" are you referring to the "God the Father who is invisible and lives in unapproachable light" speaking to "the Father Jesus in the flesh"?

That is right.

What was the purpose of Jesus talking to himself as you claim?

He was speaking to the Father in heaven. He was as a Man on earth. To whom should a man speak to when praying?

I asked you how it's possible that Jesus sat at the right hand of the Father in Heaven if Jesus is the Father who right hand Jesus sits at, you answered "God the Father came as a Man in the flesh, and this Man did right and finished God the Father's work. We must go through Jesus, we must go through what Jesus tells says.".

How does this explain how Jesus was able to sit at his own right hand if he is the Father?

There are three.

There is God the Father who is Spirit, invisible, and lives in unapproachable light.
There is God the Father who is Spirit and has a physical body that is Jesus Christ.
There is God the Father's Spirit whom He can and does send forth.