Featured The Trinity

Greetings again Darrell C,

One reason why I have not kept pace with you Darrell is that I found it very time consuming simply to respond only in part to your three Posts #50-52, and now when I come online for a short time I have a Post by DHK, another by steaver and four more from you Posts #57-60.

His opponents were not in unity with God. They were not children of God or Abraham, because they opposed Jesus, from whence the unity with God for all others flows. Jesus does ascribe a unity between Himself and the Father and the disciples in John 17. Your comments on John 8:40-45, 14:16-18 are interesting, but there is a strong connection between John 10:30 and John 17 as John 17 clearly explains the language and meaning of John 10:30. Also the real understanding of John 10:30 is found in John 10:30-36 as it is Jesus’ answer to their immediate assessment and accusation.

He does not call Himself God, but continually calls the One God, “His Father”. This makes him the Son of God, not God the Son.

God the Father has given to Jesus the power to resurrect and given him the position of being judge. When we bow the knee to Jesus it will be to the glory of God the Father Philippians 2:11, showing that the Father is greater than the Son of God.

You have not answered this, but used a large number of Trinitarian “proof-texts” which do not prove the Trinity, as they actually teach that Jesus is the Son of God. Using these may give you some satisfaction, but you are ignoring Jesus’ claims and his answer in John 5 to be the Son of God and the Son of man. Both of these titles when properly understood have a unique and the central position in God’s scheme and purpose. Both of these titles negate the Trinity as does Jesus’ answer to his adversaries in John 5. An attempt to show the difference graphically:

God the Father-------------------------------------------------
God the Holy Ghost-------------------------------------------
God the Son ------ ......................-----------------
…………………………|……………….|
…………………………|……………….|
…………………………|---------------|


God the Father-------------------------------------------------
…………………...….....……|………........…|.----------------- Jesus seated at the right hand of God the Father
Holy Spirit descends .. |………..………|
Conception of Jesus… |-----------------| Jesus = God with us, I came from above
Note: Jesus is a man, the Son of God, the Son of Man, but he speaks as if God is speaking: “But I say unto you”. God has spoken to us in a Son Hebrews 1:1-2

No, he is claiming that God has given him these things.

I was rather suggesting that the translators of the KJV and RV do not fully agree. The word in the Hebrew is not the normal word for Judges S#8199, but Elohim S#430, usually translated God, and thus in a sense both KJV and RV are correct, but both obscure what Jesus is saying, as neither explain the Hebrew idiom. Please consider Jesus’ comment that God called the Judges “gods” or Elohim because the word of God came unto them. This fact lies as the basis for Jesus’ response to their false assessment and accusation. Jesus comment opens up the OT concept that Angels, Judges, Moses before Pharaoh were called Elohim because they represented God. Elohim is a plural word and Trinitarians love this as they claim that this is the Trinity. But God used this title because he was going to reveal himself through numerous agents, Angels, Judges, His Son, and also the faithful. Like the Divine Name Yahweh “I will be”, Elohim can also be considered prophetic of God’s purpose. The final outcome is that God will be All, in all, the fulfillment of the Yahweh Elohim Name. Please also consider John10:36 where Jesus says “I said, ‘I am the Son of God’.”

Kind regards
Trevor

 

Trevor your position on this matter makes no sense. God states that He will not give His glory to another. Yet you believe God has given it all to a single man.

I would like to know what you will say to jesus one day when he tells you to worship him as the living God? Will you then? Or will you argue with him?

 

And in your response you deal with issues that shy away from the Scriptural presentations given you.

Your arguments here are not centered on what the actual Scripture's state, which is how we define meaning in any particular text. It is the context, rather than arguing definition of terms.

And the context of the passages presented clearly show that Christ is saying He is, not only God, but the God of the Old Testament.

Could you at least post one Scriptural passage I have given you and address that and the comments?

The one point I would ask you to address is Christ saying "I am Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last."

And I will continue this because most of what follows gets a little off track of my own arguments, and imposes arguments that are not relevant to my posts to you at all.


Continued...

 

I would agree...no-one was in unity with God except for Christ.

You have ignored the clear point I sought to bring out in speaking about the fact that these Jews charged Christ for making Himself God when He stated the same thinig they did. They too declared themselves to be "sons of God," but no-one sought to put them to death.

The reason is because they understood what Christ was saying and the implication of His statement.

You are repeating the same argument I addressed in my post.

Trevor, I didn't say He called Himself God, I said He called Himself the Son of God which is what aroused their anger.

You are denying that the equation of that statement to making Himself God is the perspective of the Jews.

And Christ continues to call Himself the Son of God.

That is how Christ implicitly calls Himself God. He does not say "Oh no...I am not saying that!"

This does make Him the Son of God, I agree, but now let's not just focus on this, but on the other Scriptures which reiterates Christ's Deity.

And I gave a detailed response to this.

What other man has God done this with?

What God has given Christ is unique, and what He was given, as I showed in the other post...demands Deity. Either that or there are now two Gods. You are overlooking the import of what was given to the Son.

No, you tried to show the KJV as being in error, and the RV as correcting that error. It was an attempt to diminish the view that Christ is God by equating Christ (God) with the Judges (not gods, but men).

And the Psalmist is not saying that they are actually gods, but that God calls them "gods." It is actually sarcasm, Trevor, and we see that because these men are being rebuked for their injustice, and despite having power they will die like any other man...

Psalm 82

King James Version (KJV)

82 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.

3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.

4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.

5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.


Christ's question is, "Why do you revile me for saying I am the Son of God when God calls men His children Himself?"


John 10:33-36

King James Version (KJV)

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?


Christ is actually replicating the sarcasm seen in Psalm 82 and calling these men...hypocrites.

Then we add to that that it is okay for them to call themselves the sons of God, but that is not the perspective they attribute to Christ's statement.


33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.


Nowhere in Christ's response does He deny this. He reiterates He is the Son of God.


Continued...

 

The context seems pretty clear.

We don't assume that deity is being attributed to men.

I gave several examples in my response, but I see no direct response to them.

No, Trevor, that is a syllogistic conclusion you have arrived at.

It is not the Word of God which made them unjust judges.

You are trying to equate Christ being said to make Himself God to God criticizing men for injustice, and thinking this cancels out the context of John 10. It is sarcasm on the part of God in both cases. Christ at no time equates His Son-ship with the son-ship of men with God. His question points out their hypocrisy. In other words, why would it be blasphemous for Him to claim being The Son of God when the Fatherhood of God is a basic concept for them.

This is why: He wasn't claiming to be a son of God, but The Son of God.

Big difference, and the Jews recognized what He was saying.

Which I covered in my responses to you already. You are simply reiterating the same argument.

And going to continue there, for some reason the forum begins running slow and I have to open it again to restore it.


Continued...

 

But at no time does it's usage suggest that there are actually other Gods that are either equated to the One True God, or that they have Unity with God.

Demons are called gods, that doesn't make them in unity or equal to God.

And that is precisely what Christ claims, and that is what the Jews perceived, and that is why they wanted to kill Him. They did not view the use of Elohim as blasphemous when used in a context to describe power on a temporal basis.

But they did view it as blasphemy for Christ to make Himself equal to God. And Christ does not deny that He is, but continues to teach the same thing, saying He is The Son, not a son.

I do not employ the argument that Elohim being plural proves the Trinity.

And if you would address what I have said you will see that. Why raise and address something I have not said? Unless it is simply because you cannot address what I have said.

Not trying to be rude, my friend, just pointing this out.

Doesn't change the fact that Elohim is also distinctively used to identify God Himself, and we clarify the difference through the particular contexts it is used in.

You are trying to nullify this fact in your argument, and it is not logical.

Questionable translation.

In the context we see in regards to God's interaction, God is not saying "I will be," that makes little sense.

And this is an irrelevancy to anything I have said. Please address the points I have made, rather than simply throwing out more arguments because you don't want to address what I have provided in defense of the Deity of Christ.

Relevance to what I have said?

Doesn't negate clear affirmations of the Deity of Christ in the New Testament.

John 10:36

King James Version (KJV)

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?


I did, lol, but you did not respond to the points raised.

I pointed out that your claim that Christ denies the charge is erroneous. At no time does Christ back-peddle on the point which brought the charge of Blaphemy, which was to say that He was The, not a...Son of God.

It is not "making one's self God" by claiming Son-ship, they themselves do this.

But, to claim an equality which is borne out precisely by what God has given the Son...does.

Now, all I ask is that you pick one of the previous responses that presents a Scriptural basis for support of Christ's Deity. These new responses have basically forced me to once again respond to the same arguments already addressed.

Just one, Trevor. You deny that Christ is God manifest in the flesh, but, in order for you to do that reasonably, where we can say you are not simply believing what you believe because that's just what you want to believe, then you have to first present a Scriptural Basis, and then also address the objections to your view. Reiterating the same arguments which are addressed and ignoring the presentations supplied to you to support Christ's Deity cannot be very reassuring. I would, if something I believed was addressed, feel uncomfortable in my conclusions if I could not present reasonable Scriptural support for my views.

So just pick one post that presents a Scriptural presentation for the basis of my belief that Christ is God manifest in the flesh, and God Himself (and I again reiterate we do not neglect the ramification of the Incarnation), and let's thresh it out.

While I can understand a complaint that there are too many, or that the posts are too long, at the same time, that doesn't mean we can't focus on a singular issue and thresh it out. I have mentioned this to you in previous conversations, and do so, not because I simply want you to embrace what I believe (because I cannot enlighten you to anything, only the Spirit of God can do that, I can only introduce you the Scripture I believe you need to consider in this/these issue/s.


God bless.

 

I am not sure why this was not in my response. Thinking it is due to the collapsing of the text.

And I am not sure at this point who actually stated this, and being out of time will have to look at it later.

I do like the feature where we can scroll across a portion of the posts and hit reply and just respond to that. Very cool. Just have to figure this particular bug out, as I don't like to leave anything not responded to.

Hope all have a great day.

God bless.

 

Correct. If we were to take Trevor's perspective on this, we all could say we are the Son of God. That would be blasphemy towards God.

 

Greetings again Darrell and steaver,

This is a quick response to the last Post available on the Trinity (Tuesday afternoon 3pm Eastern Australian Time) after logging on and fairly quickly logging off. I have to go and pick the mulberries for dinner. Darrell I have quickly read through all your Posts above and we have not agreed on John 10:30-36 and also Psalm 82 regarding the Judges and how they represented God. I do not believe it is sarcasm. Steaver as a result of one of your Posts, I have updated my profile.

To briefly answer steaver and Darrell, I do not believe the faithful can claim they are the Son of God, because this is a title and position unique to our Lord Jesus Christ. But I do believe that we become sons of God by adoption when we believe into Christ.
1 John 3:1-3 (KJV): 1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. 2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. 3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

I will be starting to spend more time on other projects, and one of these is making thorough notes on Isaiah 1-12, with special focus on Isaiah 6. If any one is interested in discussing especially Isaiah 6 I would be willing to contact them or engage in a discussion via a separate thread. I like the fulfillment of Isaiah 6 in Christ as mentioned and alluded to in the NT. Also I am fascinated by the theme of Cherubim throughout Scripture, and here in Isaiah 6 we have a different aspect, the Seraphim. Does anyone have a suggestion concerning the wings covering the face, the feet and flying. Darrell as you seem to have a quick answer to most things, this should be a challenge.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

I also believe that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and The Holy Spirit are one. There's no superior nor inferior among them. They all share the same power and holiness. People should not be so confused about that since it has already been written a lot of times in the Bible. Anyway, thanks for sharing to us those scriptures.

 

Why is it unique to the Lord Jesus Christ Trevor? Why can't I say I am the Son of God? Why couldn't any Jew say "I am the Son of God"?

 

That is the simple point that stands out in regards to the passage. The Jews do not equate their own view of son-ship with that which Christ speaks of. They recognize He is, as they say, "making Himself God." They see Him claiming relationship as a direct Son, rather than as "children of God" as taught in the

I try not to be "quick," lol. And thorough is a bad word around here, it seems.



Okay, Trevor, I will bow out of this discussion (at least where you are concerned, my friend, until such a time you might wish to take it back up), and just hope you will give it some thought. The singular point concerning the difference between the Jews calling themselves sons of God and their reaction to Christ's statements which establishes He is The Son of God is just a point I would ask you to give some consideration to.

Just as a "quick" comment in response to the question regarding the wings (and I will just post this portion of Isaiah 6):


Isaiah 6

King James Version (KJV)

1 In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.

2 Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.

3 And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.


I can't say I have really given this over-much consideration, but have for some time taken the position that in view is a description of angelic creatures that have a specific role in God's Kingdom. I see this as largely picturesque, though I believe a literal rendering is equally viable, that these creatures do have the appearance described, so despite the imagery presenting description of ministry, I still take a view these creatures look like this.

The first two wings present imagery which is paralleled in men falling down before God (such as John in Revelation). The fear of God being a result of coming into His presence, and in recognition of His glory. It would be in the vein of "no man hath at any time seen God," a general principle I think we see in Scripture, perhaps best presented in the concept of death for men if they actually gazed upon God Himself. Of course that would have primary application of our present frame, which is physical, so the principle has a direct correlation to the contrast between spiritual and physical. Obviously we will one day look upon God Himself, but, even then, the principle remains, for men fall down when that happens.

The second set I will say is a little more difficult, in my view. If I maintain my perspective that the wings speak of a restraint of some sort, then perhaps it might suggest restraint of ministry, as the covering of their faces suggest restraint of openly viewing God. The Seraphim appear to be in a state of inactive duty, so perhaps this is what this means to represent.

The third set would seem to be obvious, but as I sit here pondering this, I imagine that in flight we would see all three sets active, so perhaps the "flying" in view speaks of what is actively being done at this time rather than drawing up an image of Seraphim, when they fly, still have their faces and feet covered. It might represent an image of these Seraphim stationed at God's Throne, hovering, if you will. It presents an image of stationary but prepared.

But I will clarify I do not suggest that I think I understand this completely. I think we need to keep in mind there are peculiarities to the Hebrew language and implemented literary forms that need to be understood, and I don't profess to be a wiz in that area. I have heard that when they repeated something three times as we see here in regards to the holiness of God, that was a means of emphasis which would have a similarity to our own use of the exclamation point. So as I said, this is not something I can do more than simply offer the current position of understanding that I have right now.

It would be a great topic of discussion, though, and possibly one that would edify those involved. I think there are some things we cannot take a dogmatic position on, but we can understand the primary thrust of the passage in relation to man's standing before God, both literally and spiritually speaking.

And have to get going, and just encourage you to give some thought to the points raised in the discussion. And if at some point you would like to pick it up again, I'd be happy to rejoin the discussion.

God bless.

 

AMEN! There is no exact 'formula' to follow or 'incantation' to repeat that imparts immortality!

 

Would love to give this 1,000 likes.

 

It's a pretty simple formula:


Romans 10:9

King James Version (KJV)

9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.


God bless.

 

The Jews took Jesus to be claiming that he was the equal of God!

Thomas called jesus his Lord and his God, and the Father demands all to worship Jesus as Lord, so how can jesus not be God in same way the father is, as ONLY God can demand to be worshipped?

IF our friend keeps on believing in this heresy of jesus not being fully God of God, them he will die in his own sins....

 

So one has no chance of the grace and mercy of God because they are confused on Doctrine?

It's ironic that Trinitarians (and I am one so I can speak about them, lol) often make statements such as "Well I believe in the Trinity, I'm Trinitarian. I can't explain it, and no-one can understand it, but I am one."

And then say someone is going to Hell because they don't understand it either.

Maybe it's just me, but...I find that absolutely hilarious.

My friend, if salvation were a matter of doctrinal flawlessness, then the Gospel has been destroyed.

Salvation has always been by grace through faith for people who, despite direct revelation from God Himself...have made an entire history of not understanding, not obeying, and not having an ability to rectify the dire straits they are in.

That is precisely why God took upon Himself the flesh of man, died in our place, and provided that which we could never have attained through our greatest efforts.

So lighten up, ok?




God bless.

 

Idk brother, Wouldn't it depend on the doctrine? Confusion is one thing, denial is yet another. What if a person says they are trusting in Jesus Christ but they don't believe the part that God raised Him from the dead? I am finding it very difficult to believe a person is saved who denies the very witness that is placed within that comes from being born-again. JW's say Jesus Christ is Lord and Saviour, Mormons say Jesus Christ is Lord and Saviour. Are they saved? Should we treat them as brothers in Christ? Isn't there certain doctrinal truths that accompany biblical conversion? Trevor believes that born-again is the resurrection to come. He has very little understanding of most doctrinal truths.

You made an observation a bit back when you said Trevor was basing his views on "translations" of words while disregarding the context of the subjects. You hit the nail on the head, this is why he cannot grasp the truths. His focus is on finding so called "faults" in translations in order to prop up antichrist positions on Christ. He does not see these as antichrist positions and I have to assume it is because his heart remains in blindness. Why he chooses this path is a mystery to me. I can only pray God removes the scales that he may one day see.

 

Greetings again steaver and Darrell C,

Steaver, I do not share Darrell’s view that by saying that he was the Son of God, that Jesus was claiming equality with God. Darrell’s view would be similar to the first of the pictures I attempted to draw earlier, that Jesus was really claiming that he was God the Son come down from heaven. My view is that Jesus was uniquely the Son of God because God the Father was his father through the power of the Holy Spirit in his conception, while Mary was his mother. But Jesus is also declared to be uniquely the Son of God because of his Holy character, he was full of grace and truth and never sinned, and he has been resurrected, and this is like a new birth, where in the fullest sense he has become uniquely the Son of God.
Luke 1:35 (KJV): And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit 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.
John 1:14 (KJV): 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.
Romans 1:1-4 (KJV): 1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) 3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

I appreciate your thoughts on the Seraphim and the wings. I hold a different perspective in that although these things seemed to be contemporary with Isaiah, they are pictorial representations of things that were future to Isaiah’s time, and the greatest fulfillment was to be in Christ. One strong link is John 12, but I will not detail this except to say that John 12 quotes Isaiah 6 and Isaiah 53 and draws attention to the glory revealed in Christ. One clue that Jesus is depicted by the Cherubim is that Jesus is the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, he is God’s servant - ox, he is the Son of God – eagle, he is the Son of Man – the man in the cherubim. I understand the cherubim and seraphim to be essentially the same, but seraphim are especially depicting burning and judgement.

One outstanding item, amongst the many, was your mention of the Theophany in Genesis 18. We could add another in Genesis 17 and another in Exodus 3. But in each of these I believe that the Theophany was an Angel representing God. I had hoped that if we agreed that the Judges represented God, as to me this is obvious in Exodus 21:6,22:8-9, Deuteronomy 1:17, 2 Chronicles 19:6, that then this concept could clarify Angels representing God. But I do not think we agreed concerning the Judges representing God.

I will only quote this portion and leave the rest. Yes we do have many differences in our understanding of what is Biblical truths. But I believe in being born again. The first part of this process is when we believe the gospel, then we affectionately embrace that gospel and this will motivate us to identify with Christ in his death and resurrection by being buried and raised again through the waters of baptism. This is being born again, or from above. All those who then remain faithful unto the end will be partakers of another birth, the resurrection to life everlasting in the Kingdom of God when Christ returns.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

The Jews claimed that one saying I am the Son of God was making one claiming to be equal with God. Jesus did not deny their claim. Further Jesus worked on the Sabbath declaring He could do so because His Father could (John5) again declaring His equality with the Father, and again the Jews recognized this.