The Son of God is God the Son?

Hi DHK,

You said:

Is this plagiarism from the Muslim Koran. It sounds like it. It is the same view they hold, or accuse Christians of holding just like you accuse Christians of holding. Are you a Muslim?

I reply: I have never read the Koran, and I am not a Muslim, but there's one thing I know about Muslims - they don't believe that God had a Son. They don't believe that Jesus Christ was God's Son sent to this world to save mankind. In actuality, your trinitarian teaching agrees with that part of Islam's belief - that God didn't send His only begotten Son to this world to save mankind. The trinitarian belief states that there are three divine beings/deities - all co-eternal and co-equal - three divine colleagues who made an agreement that one of them would leave the heavenly courts and become a human being and die as a sacrifice for sin. This nameless divine being is called by trinitarians as the "second person of the Godhead". This "second person" of the Trinity would become a man and in that sense only would he be the son of God. But Trinitarians believe that this "second person" was part and parcel and actually constituted God - so how could he be the son of himself??? The Trinity doctrine is an unBiblical, convoluted distortion of the identity of God. Trinitarians and Muslims indeed have common ground - both deny that the one and only true God, the Father had an only begotten Son that HE sent into this world, out of HIS matchless love for sinful humanity.

You stated:

I ask because it certainly isn't orthodox Christianity that has been believed on from the time of the Apostles, but just from very recent times.

I reply: Actually, none of the Apostles ever subscribed to the Trinity doctrine. That doctrine wasn't formulated until the fourth century A.D. The apostles, of which Paul was to the Gentiles and who wrote most of the NT, was no way a Trinitarian. He was inspired to write 1 Corinthians 8:6 in which the Father is EXCLUSIVELY identifed as the one God. So, your statement is inaccurate.

And you further state:

That puts it in the realm of the belief of a cult.

I reply: No, those that place the pure Biblical testimony of who God is in that realm are the deceived, arrogant, ecclesiastical elites that Paul warned would be coming around as wolves in sheeps clothing. And those that follow those "men" constitute what is in truth a "cult".

And finally, you stated:

It is also a false accusation that trintitarians believe in three gods) against true Biblical Christianity. That is not what trinitarians believe.

I reply: I wish it were a false accusation. But I've been told and have heard and listened to sermons on the Trinity in which three Gods are identified. They are identified as: 1.)God the Father, 2.)"God the Son", and 3.)"God the Spirit". God the Father is the ONLY Biblical identification of God. You won't find the other two anywhere in Scripture identified as such. Those are three divine beings who are all God in their own right. They are three separate, stand-alone, individual deities or divine beings. That's THREE GODS, brother! There's no amount of spinning or theological wrangling that can change that fact. Oh, I've heard the spin - one God - three persons. Yet all of those three persons are EACH a deity singularly in each's own right.

The O'Reilly Factor wouldn't permit that kind of talk in its "No Spin Zone" So - why would Christians?

God Bless

 

So what do you believe then Ricky? When the Bible clearly teaches that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all divine; if you do not believe in the trinity, then you must of necessity believe that there are three gods. Are you a polytheist? I don’t see any other logical conclusion that one could come to.
You already stated that God the Father is the Biblical identification of God. Let’s consider the other two members of the trinity, and who they are.

God the Son: Jesus Christ. Who is He?

John 10:30-33
30 I and my Father are one.
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
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.

Jesus said, I and my Father are one. This was a claim to deity. What did the Jews believe He was saying? They knew exactly what he meant when in verse 33 they accused him of blasphemy, “and because that thou being a man makest thyself God.”
Mark 2:3-12
3 And they come unto him, bringing one sick of the palsy, which was borne of four.
4 And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay.
5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.
6 But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,
7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
8 And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts?
9 Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?
10 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)
11 I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.
12 And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.

In this story also Jesus proves his deity, and the power that he has to forgive sins. The Jews knew that only God has the power to forgive sins. Jesus claimed that power. That is why in verse 8 they accused him of blasphemy. He was a man claiming to be God. Just as He was doing in John 10, so He was doing here, claiming to be God, and being accused of blasphemy. The Jews accused him both times of blasphemy because they did not believe. Jesus rebuked them and told them that they will die in their sins because of unbelief. Jesus claimed to be God.
So Jesus is divine. He is the Word, and the Word became flesh, and John beheld him, full of grace and truth. Either He is the second person of the trinity or a second god. Which do you believe?

What about the third person of the trinity: the Holy Spirit?

Acts 5:1-11
5:1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it, at the apostles' feet.
3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.
7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.
10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.
11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.

Are you acquainted with the story? Ananias and Sappira are judged for their hypocrisy, in saying that they gave more money to the church than they really did. The Holy Spirit reveals this sin of hypocrisy to Peter, and he says immediately to Annanias: “Why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Spirit?” Note at this point that Peter treats the Holy Spirit as a person. You cannot lie to an influence, to the air, to something intangible. The Holy Spirit is a person. You can lie to a person, not a thing or influence.
Then in verse 4, Peter says to Ananias you have not lied unto men, but unto God. Notice that the lie was to the Holy Spirit who is later addressed as God. He lied to the Holy Spirit. He lied to God, i.e., God the Holy Spirit. Peter made that quite clear, now didn’t he? In verse nine when Sapphira came back, Peter asked her “How is it that you have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? Again the Spirit of the Lord, the Holy Spirit of God can be tempted. We see again the personality of God, the Holy Spirit. Judgement fell upon them both. They died because they dared to lie to God.
Who is the Holy Spirit? He is the third person of the trinity? If He isn’t he must be a third god. Is that what you believe? It is the only logical conclusion. The only trouble is that there is only one God.

Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

There is one God (Jehovah), and one Saviour. He is described here as Jehovah, and in the New Testament He is described as Jesus. The Holy Spirit is also described as divine. We serve a triune Godhead: one God in three persons. I may not be able to fully comprehend it; but the Bible does teach it.

1John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
--And I do think that the Apostles understood and believed in the trinity.
DHK

 

DHK,

Your premise is faulty right from the get-go.

Here's what I mean. You stated:

When the Bible clearly teaches that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all divine;

Now, before we can go any further in this discussion - and if you are a "sola-scriptura", Bible-believing Christian, then the onus is upon you to show where in the Bible - book, chapter, and verse that the Bible "clearly teaches" that there's a "God the Son" and a "God the Holy Spirit" - IN ADDITION, to God the Father. You have clearly referenced THREE GODS. I'll break it down: God number one: God the Father, God number 2: "God the Son", God number 3: "God the Holy Spirit". Now, you're telling me that these three separate, individual, stand-alone deities are NOT three Gods??? But are really one God??? Where in the Bible is such a concept taught??? I want book, chapter, and verse in which this wild claim could be substantiated. In my experience in discussing this issue, not one person has been able to prove a triune god from the Bible. But if you're able to do it, I'll gladly switch back to Trinitarianism right now! So, my brother, its not me who is a polytheist and/or a tritheist. Rather its the Trinitarian who fits that bill. For they worship God the Father, "God the Son", and "God the Spirit". They are worshipping THREE gods. That is the straight-up facts. Anything else is just spin-doctoring. Trinitarians clearly believe that there are three almighty deities in heaven worthy of worship and praise and yet they make the bold claim that these three deities are one God. And what makes it worse is that organized Christianity has the gall to impose this doctrine as a fundamental article of faith and make it the acid test of being an authentic Christian - and without the necessary Biblical wherewithal to substantiate the doctrine. How could something that isn't provable and substantiated and explicitly defined in Scripture ever be made to be an acid test of orthodoxy??? This is just as mysterious as the Trinity that was foisted on Christianity back in the fourth century.

In closing, the references that you provided which prove the divinity of Christ has absolutely NOTHING to do with Him being a part of a triune God. And the reference that you provided in which the Holy Spirit is referenced as God also is NOT an endorsement of a triune God. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God, it is HIS SPIRIT. It belongs to God. Its His possession. Humans also have a spirit. It is our inward being, an integral part of our selves. The same with God's Spirit. God's Spirit is related to God in the same manner that man's spirit is related to man. The Bible says so:

1 Corinthians 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

The Spirit of God is God Himself, its His presence in Spirit. When God's Spirit is grieved, its God that's getting grieved, NOT ANOTHER STAND-ALONE DEITY. If you become grieved in your spirit, I submit to you that its YOU that is grieved, not a different person. So, once we understand what the BIBLE has to say about God's Spirit, we won't see a separate deity, but rather an extention of the person of God Himself.

Anyway, I stand ready to listen to any and all truth that can be explicitly substantiated from the Bible and if you can do this with your references to "God the Son" and "God the Holy Spirit" as being an explicit Biblical teaching, then I'm ready to admit error here. Fair enough?

God Bless

 

I see here two strong arguements that are pulling in two directions.
Both are suggesting that the other is a member of a cult.
What is an unchurched person like myself supposed to think when we
see this happening before our eyes? Young easily influenced persons
would be hard hit to make a decision for Christ based on the teaching we
get from various sources. Add to that, the denominational hub-bub and
divisions that I'm also advocate of and what do we have? Confusion.

If I were expected to wait this deliberation out before I could be "right with God",
I'd never make it to heaven. If my understanding has to be clear on who God is
and who Jesus Christ is (the Trinity issue), before I could be assured that I'm
serving the right God and not being a cultmember, I'm also in a bad way.

We hear here that to be a Trinitarian is to believe in three Gods...Unbiblical.
We also hear that to assume Jesus is not God is to be rejecting the "I am"
scripture and therefore....Unbiblical.

Quite possible that I grew up in a cult; now Trinitarians are being called "Cult"
and also Non-Trinitarians (those who suggest that Jesus was not God) are
being accused of "Cult".

Catholics are "Cult" because they add to the gospel and Trinitarians are "Cult".
SDA is "Cult" and Muslims are "Cult". Protestants are a "Cult" because they have
"departed from the doctrines and teaching of the early believers".
All this is according to determinations voiced on this board.

Does anyone wonder why I remain unchurched and unwilling to offer my
allegiance to any denomination that has taken a stand on this issue and rejected
the opposite views...?

Whatever you may call it, when a person responds to the urges that causes
them to appeal to the power we know as God and accept the theory that Jesus
Christ died in our stead and that our belief in this biblical account is what sets
us apart from those who do not ''believe''..........this constitutes salvation...!!

Whatever scripture we choose to disect in our sharing with each other, we cannot
honestly say that someone is worshipping a wrong Jesus.

 

Singer,

I agree, and that is why I do not like to apply labels to people. I am not in a 'cult'. I attend a church with people who I am not in complete agreement with, as does EVERYONE else on this board. I think that EVERYONE would be hard pressed to prove that every single person in the congregation they attend agrees on every single issue.

It isn't a matter of finding a group that agrees with every single thing you believe, but rather finding a group that agrees with you on the majority of your beliefs, and fellowshipping with them. Fellowship does not require that we agree 100%, but that we hold similar goals, and have faith in Jesus.

I fellowship with Christians from all walks of life and all denominations. It is not my place to judge whether they are 'right'.

It is perhaps one of the greatest 'jobs' we have as Christians, to live in peace with one another without casting judgment.

Some find that hard to achieve.

God Bless,
Kelly

 

You have not really demonstrated where the premise is faulty.
Bob Ryan's post is quite simplified be sure to read it.
I quoted to you 1John 5:7 which mentions all three members of the trinity, and then explicitly says "these three are one." How much clearer can it get?
I demonstrated to you that each member of the trinity was divine. You have not answered my question? You either believe they are divine, as the Scripture says, and one God at the same time, as the Scripture say, or you are the one that believes in three Gods. Which is it?

I leave you with Mat.28:19,20
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

There are your memebers of the trinity stated all in one verse under on name (not the names of, but the name of).
DHK

 

Hi Kelly,

You wrote, "The 'traditions' that were passed to the Church by the Apostles are all written down in the NT."

Show me in Scripture where it says what you assert above.

The traditions that they were being given were given by word of mouth because they did not have the written Word yet.

No, that's untrue. Paul says to adhere to the traditions received whether written by letter or by word of mouth. Evidently, Paul knew that doctrine was being written down and received in that way. He also exhorted the Churches to adhere to the oral tradition. Catholics still uphold this tradition, thus adhering to the Biblical precedent.

 

Hi Ricky,

I asked you, "Show me where in Scripture it says that only Scripture is authoritative.", and you replied with "Any doctrine that goes contrary to God's law or His testimony is not to be accepted by God's children"

I agree with your reply, which does not answer my question. Now, if you would, please show me in Scripture where it says that only Scripture is authoritative.

You wrote, "Number one, you say that the NT speaks of tradition as conveying the Word of God."

Yes, I did, and you have not demonstrated that these passages are somehow nullified for the Christian today and therefore, my point remains valid.

Number two, you pointed me to the Scriptures to substantiate the validity of tradition in an attempt to prove that the Scriptures are NOT the final authority - but in so doing, you proved my point that the Scriptures are the final authority.

Your conclusion is a non sequitur because it presumes that in finding an exhortation for tradition within Scripture to lend credibility to apostolic tradition, I do so with the intention of using Scripture as the final authority.

This is not my intention and neither is it my practice, for in looking up these Scriptural passages, I am looking to men in council as my final authority who canonized the Bible by means of apostolic tradition, for apostolic tradition is what tells us that these epistles were written by apostolic men and are Scripture. Nowhere in Scripture will you find an inspired "table of contents". This very table is formulated from tradition, appealing to men as the final authority.

Scripture cannot serve as the final authority, for without the final authority of the decision wrought by men in council by way of apostolic tradition, you wouldn't know what is New Testament Scripture to begin with.

The final authority will always rest in men, for the Bible does not translate or speak for itself. Neither does it define itself. It will always be read in light of an appeal for apostolic tradition (because its very composition relies upon apostolic tradition), and it will always be interpreted by men who - whether they acknowledge it explicitly or not - deem themselves the final authority in matters of faith and doctrine, irregardless of sincerity.

[ July 11, 2003, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Bob said:

Is Christ God? - "And the Word was With God and the Word WAS God" -- Yes.


3AM: Bob, your question was 'IS' He God, and the Bible said He 'WAS' God.

Those two words mean something COMPLETELY different!

God Bless,
Kelly

 

Viva sola scriptura !!

 

Hi Kelly,

You wrote, "Those two words [i.e., "is" and "was"] mean something COMPLETELY different!"

Really? The last time I checked, "is" and "was" are the same verb ("be") with different tenses.

"Is" is the present 3rd singular of "be".
"was" is the past 1st & 3rd singular of "be".

I didn't realize that the same verb can be so schizophrenic - meaning something completely different than itself while simultaneously meaning itself.

"In the beginning, the Word 'be' God." We use "was" because that is the proper form of "be" when used in the past tense, and I don't think God can stop being God. The eternal Logos was God, is God, and will be God.

I was human yesterday, and I am human today, and I will be human tomorrow.

"God in His deepest mystery is not a solitude but a family, since He has in Himself Fatherhood, Sonship, and the essence of the Family, which is love." (Pope John Paul II)

[ July 11, 2003, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Viva sola scriptura !! </font>[/QUOTE]In the Greek, the reference you refer to is the verb of being in the Greek imperfect tense, which refers to continuous action beginning in time past. The "time past" referred to is eternity, verses 1 and 2 are, therefore, "in the beginning already was and always had been the Word, and the Word already was and always had been face to face (pros ton theon) with God, and the Word already was and always had been God. The same already was and always had been in the beginning face to face with God." This is, or course, contrasted with His coming into flesh, (verse 14) which is the word "egeneto", which means means "became," as most translations have it.

Sola Scriptura indeed.

 

Continuing the above post:

Verse three sets up a series of contrasts between the uncreated Word and the creation.

"All things were made (egeneto, aorist middle--were made at a point in time) by Him and without Him was not anything made (egeneto) that was made (gegonen, come into being)."

The Word is here contrasted with His creation. He always has been, His creation has come into being. In verse 6, "egeneto" refers to John the Baptist, who came into being at a point in time, and as I said in the above post, Christ came into flesh at a point in time. When analyzing the Bible, the English tenses are not much help (except sometimes with the NASB, which is better than most), because the Koine Greek has verb tenses which can only be approximated in English.

 

Greetings DHK,

You wrote:

You have not really demonstrated where the premise is faulty.

I reply: I did, however you have not addressed it. You make the claim that since God the Father is divine and His Son is divine and His Spirit is divine (which I have no qualms about, for its true Biblically) -- bingo, that makes for a Trinity of deities. This is faulty premise number one. I asked you to show me from the Scriptures - the book, chapter, and verse where "God the Son" and "God the Spirit" are identified as such. You haven't addressed this issue, yet you claim it as Biblical fact without one scintilla of Scriptural backing. This is faulty premise number two.

You wrote:

I quoted to you 1John 5:7 which mentions all three members of the trinity, and then explicitly says "these three are one." How much clearer can it get?

I reply: What's very clear about that are two things. 1.) 1 John 5:7 is an interpolation not found in any manuscript prior to the 16th century. In other words, it doesn't belong there. When the Trinity doctrine was formulated back in the fourth century, the religious leaders and scholars of that time didn't have that verse at their disposal to substantiate the Trinitarian doctrine, else for sure it would have been cited as a possible explicit proof text. And I say possible for the following reason, which brings me to number 2.)Even if the verse you cited were authentic, the question is, does it define the one God as a trinity of divine beings/deities? The answer is NO. And here's why. Look at verse 8 which tells us that there are three that bear record on earth, the spirit, the water, and the blood and these three AGREE IN ONE. If you are going to define a trinity of deities in heaven, what will you do with verse 8, define an additional trinity of deities that bear record on earth??? Are the spirit, the water, and the blood all separate, stand-alone deities, an earthly trinity of divine one's counterparting the trinity of heaven??? Do we have in heaven a God the Father, "God the Son" and "God the Spirit" and on earth a "God the Spirit", "God the Water", and "God the Blood"??? And isn't it curious that "God the Spirit" would bear his witness in two venues (heaven and earth) while God the Father and "God the Son" are confined to bearing their witness in heaven??? What's up with that???
The bottom line, my friend: Citing 1 John 5:7 as proof of a Biblical definition of God as a Trinity is flawed beyond words.

You wrote:

I demonstrated to you that each member of the trinity was divine.

I reply: Correction - you did not demonstrate anything about God having membership in a Trinity. You've provided no Bible verse substanting that claim. What you have demonstrated is that God the Father is divine, HIS only begotten Son is divine, and His Spirit is divine. Now, that's what the Bible teaches and with that I am in full accord.

And you closed with:

I leave you with Mat.28:19,20 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

There are your memebers of the trinity stated all in one verse under on name (not the names of, but the name of).

I reply: You are correct in noting that there is ONE NAME - singular. The name of the Father is Jehovah - the existing one. His Son inherits the Father's name (Hebrews 1:3). And His Spirit is the Spirit of God (Jehovah). There is only ONE GOD to whom we are baptized in. That God is the Father who has revealed Himself through His Son and who lives within His children by His Spirit. That is the answer regarding the so-called baptismal formula, which BTW you won't find used by the apostles. The Biblical record has the baptisms done in the name of the Lord Jesus. In any case, citing Matthew 28 is a far cry from a Biblical defining of God as a Trinity.

The Trinity doctrine is not based on solid, harmonious Biblical fact. Rather its based on man's intellectual philosophy - his own surmizings. Example: Since the Father is divine and His Son is divine and His Spirit is divine, they must be three separate, individual, stand-alone deities, all almighty, all co-equal, all co-eternal, all co-eval. This is man's spin, not God's truth.

God Bless

 

Greetings Carson,

You said:

I asked you, "Show me where in Scripture it says that only Scripture is authoritative.", and you replied with "Any doctrine that goes contrary to God's law or His testimony is not to be accepted by God's children"

I reply: Yes, my friend, you did in fact ask me to show you in Scripture where it states that Scripture is authoritative and my reply was Isaiah 8:20 and your quote of mine was just an additional commentary on Isaiah 8:20. "To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." The law is His ten commandments. His testimony is His Word. Furthermore 2 Timothy 3:16-17 assures us that the Scriptures contain all that's needed to perfect the Christian in his/her faith, thus denying the Catholic claim of the need of a supreme magisterium - which is nothing more than men attempting to take the place of God.

You wrote:

Scripture cannot serve as the final authority, for without the final authority of the decision wrought by men in council by way of apostolic tradition, you wouldn't know what is New Testament Scripture to begin with.

I reply: Its men that cannot serve as the final authority - for man is erring and sinful and evil - yes even some of those who sat in Papal chairs who lorded it over God's flock while they mercilessly persecuted those who dared not to submit to their usurped authority. The good ole Dark Ages, the Christian version of Talibanism - a shame to the name of Christ - it was good that the Pope recognized, faced, and recently apologized for those atrocities - but that was the result of departing from the authority of God's Word and trading it in for accepting the authority of sinful, erring mortals. Jesus said that man is to live by "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" - not a man who claims universal supremacy both ecclesiastically and temporally.

You said, in part:

The final authority will always rest in men,

I reply: And as long as humanity continues down that path, the spirit of intollerance and persecution will remain with us with often the better grade of society suffering mistreatment from these self-styled, self-proclaimed vicars of God - and I'm not singling out the Catholic Church by any means. This goes for ANY GROUP who thinks themselves to be the rulers of anyone's conscience. It appears that Protestantism is in danger of venturing down the same path of uniting church and state that the Papacy did long ago as there are some factions of Protestantism that would like to make America some kind of a theocratic government in which the church has enough political clout to manipulate the state to further their ends. I believe that there are a multitude of great Christians in the Catholic Church - who really and sincerely love the Lord and do wonderful works of charity. However, the institution itself places its tradition over the Word of God or at least on an equality with it and that doesn't sit well for those of us who embrace the concept of sola scriptura. Incidently, its the RCC that was responsible for formulating the doctrine of the Trinity in the fourth century A.D. Its also interesting to note that Protestantism which claims to accept the Trinity, in many cases are in reality not embracing the orthodox version of the Trinity as per the RCC. Much of Protestantism accepts the tri-theistic flavor for which they like to term "Trinity".

God Bless

 

In your view how many "others" besides those you list above "are ALSO divine beings"??

Hi - I'll answer your question with a question: Does the Bible disclose any "others" besides that which was from my "list"?

Bob: Is Christ to be worshipped (Heb 1) because He is "not God" and it is ok to worship non-God beings?

Ricky: The Bible tells us that Christ is to be worshipped because He is God - by inheritance (Hebrews 1:3) - by virtue of being God's SON. Furthermore, because of that fact, God commands that His Son be honoured and worshipped. I don't think you should worship "non-God beings" - that's unBiblical!

Bob: Or is He worshipped because He too is "divine" and any "divine being" is God and can be "Worshipped"?

Ricky: I answered that already regarding Christ. But I have one for you regarding the Holy Spirit. Is the Holy Spirit a separate, stand-alone deity to be given worship along with the Father and the Son? If you say yes, show me the Biblical prescedent. If you say no, then you deny a Trinity of deities - which is a good thing!

God Bless