-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Trinity or no trinity?
- Thread starter 3AngelsMom
- Start date
3AngelsMom
<img src =/3mom.jpg>
Could you please tell me what others?</font>[/QUOTE]I'm sorry, that's not the word I meant. I meant "Kurios". I got them mixed up. It is applied to both God, and Jesus, and also to ordinary people. It means "Lord". There are instances of Kurio(s/n) next to Theo(s/n) in which case it would be Lord God, but when Kurion is placed next to Jesus, it doesn't mean it is calling Him 'Lord God'. Kurios is Lord, Theos is God, Theos is used in reference to God, but Kurion is used in reference to Lordship as in the case of Jesus, and also 'other' lords. (Magistrates) There are 5 instances of the word 'theos' being used that are in reference to magestrates rather than God, but I have yet to find them. There are over a thousand uses of Theos in the NT! If I find them, I will let you know. But none the less, it was Kurios that I was talking about before, not Theos.
Actually, I adhere to THIS formula, which does not make me have 2 God's:
1 Cor 8: 6. But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
One God, and One Lord. That is what is simple to me. I am not making it complicated. I am just reading it.
Ok then, if Jesus is NOT created, then how is He the 'firstborn' of all creation? If He is NOT created? Would you say that it would be possible for someone to be the firstborn son of a man and woman, but not be human? Is that possible? Why would God, use human terms to describe HOW Jesus came into existence, if there WAS NOT a time when He did? I mean, why didn't He just SAY, that He was NEVER begotten, He is NOT the first BORN of all creation, and He is NOT my Son? It would have made things a little more simple if He had just SAID all those things instead of confusing us with all this 'firstborn of all creation', 'only begotten Son', 'THIS DAY have I begotten you' jargon! Sheesh, what was He thinking????
And why do you think that? Where does it say that the title 'Lord' is only afforded to God? I do not believe that Jesus was just a vessel in which God dwelt in on earth. That is a Oneness doctrine. I believe that Jesus is as much a different person from His Father as I am from my mother. I proceeded forth (so to speak) from her, but I am not her!
I totally agree. I am not asserting that Jesus is His Father. I see them as two different people. He was praying to HIS God, and HIS Father.
John 20: 17. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
I appreciate you taking the time to show me that.
God Bless
[ April 08, 2003, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: 3AngelsMom ]
neal4christ
New Member
After reading your responses I gather you would agree that Jesus is not God, correct? If He is created, He definitely is not. Just to note, "only begotton Son" is not the best translation, it should be along the lines of unique, not generated.
Would you agree that Jesus is just a special man? That is what I gather from you explanations. And what of Isaiah 9:6, Micah 5:2, and John 1:1 among others? What was God talking about when He asserted that the Messiah was everlasting? Sheesh! (to use your terms,
)
I am mainly responding to you because I don't have the restraint not to . Of all the views, the Trinitarian seems to best describe and best fit all of the evidence. Others seem to leave out parts and stress points at the sacrifice of equally valid evidence.
Neal
Would you agree that Jesus is just a special man? That is what I gather from you explanations. And what of Isaiah 9:6, Micah 5:2, and John 1:1 among others? What was God talking about when He asserted that the Messiah was everlasting? Sheesh! (to use your terms,
I am mainly responding to you because I don't have the restraint not to
. Of all the views, the Trinitarian seems to best describe and best fit all of the evidence. Others seem to leave out parts and stress points at the sacrifice of equally valid evidence.Neal
3AngelsMom
<img src =/3mom.jpg>
Actually, Neal, I have never asserted that Jesus is simply a created being. I have said that He proceeded forth from God. If that equates to 'created' and if 'firstborn of creation' equates to 'created' then it is not me saying it, it is HIM. (the Word)
Are you serious? THAT is what you gather from my statements? That He is JUST a special MAN? Give me a break. I don't think that I have even CALLED Him a man, let alone implied that He was merely special! He is Lord! He is MY Lord. Read my statement on my profile. Regardless of my change in view of the Godhead, He was then, and will remain MY Lord.
I think I already explained to you how I view the Is9:6 verse. "everlasting Father" is who He 'shall be called'. That implies that He will 'come in His Father's NAME'.And what of Isaiah 9:6, Micah 5:2, and John 1:1 among others? What was God talking about when He asserted that the Messiah was everlasting? Sheesh! (to use your terms,)
Mic5:2 (the part in question) "who's goings forth are from old, from everlasting"
|4163| and His comings forth [(mowtsa'ah) a family descent]
|6924| {have been} from of old [(qedem) time (antiquity); often used adverbially (before, anciently, eastward)]
|3117| from the days of [(yowm) day(s)]
|5769| eternity. [(`owlam)properly, concealed, i.e. the vanishing point; generally, time out of mind (past or future), i.e. (practically) eternity; frequentatively, adverbial (especially with prepositional prefix) always: ]
SO, the verse that I suggested N
NE would want to know the meaning of, is what you question. SO here goes. "His family decent, (or lineage), is from the Everlasting Ancient of Days"
Who is that?
We see a prophecy fulfilled from Daniel in these words of Jesus:
Matt 28: 18. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Which is the fulfilment of THIS:
Daniel 7: 13. I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
14. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
Jesus' family decent is from the Eternal Ancient of Days.
THAT is why I hesitated to tell you. Would you have believed me?
Well, I think that can be said more of the trinity, than the view that I have. I have yet to encounter a passage that tells me anything other than what God has revealed to me in His Word.I am mainly responding to you because I don't have the restraint not to
Jesus is the Son of God.
He proceeded forth FROM God.
He was given all power FROM God.
He is the express image OF God.
All that He has, is, will be, is FROM God.
God Bless
I'm not sure what you mean by 'pluralistic'.
I see it as the name of God, the God who is God the Father and who is God the Son and who is God the Holy Spirit.
But the Son is not the Father or the Spirit and the Spirit is not the Son or the Father.
But each one is God and God's name is YHWH.
Is that pluralistic?
That's the only word in a plural form, to my knowledge, since it literally is the plural of 'god', meaning 'gods'.
Why do you think it is plural, by the way?
I'm not sure I think I do feel it is 'pluralistic'. It's more that I don't equate it to God the Father only, thereby excluding Jesus. I think you've said Jesus was given the name YHWH by God [the Father] but I think it's not just that he inherited the name. I believe John 1:1 says that Jesus is God which to me means Jesus is YHWH since God's name is YHWH.
I don't think there's any way of understanding the Trinitarian nature of God in simple math; it is not that there are three Gods but yet the Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God. But the Son is not the Father nor is the Son the Spirit.
There is a unity and oneness about the Father, Son and Spirit that makes it right to refer to each one as God and which in my opinion is impossible for us as humans to fully understand; just as a blind person cannot fully understand what it is to see colors, etc.
It doesn't bother me that I can't understand fully the Trinitarian nature of God because I can't even understand myself
Helen/AITB
neal4christ
New Member
Okay, 3AM. Have at it. I could dispute your definitions you are using because I don't agree with some and I really don't agree with your paraphrase of Micah 5:2. You fuss about Rom. 9:5 in the NKJV, but you do the same thing here to fit your thinking. Also, that is just one of the verses I presented. You still have Isaiah 9:6 and John 1:1 and I could find others. But you will explain them away. It is funny when I showed you the literal reading of the passage in 2 Peter (? I think) about those who are reserved being punished now you deny it. Alas, I feel there will be no fruit from this discussion, much like others.
I don't think Jesus is created or merely a special man. I believe that He is God, the Most High, Son of the Father, part of the triune Godhead. Say what you want, but if Christ is not God and yet He is your Lord you have created a problem. You are not keeping the first commandment according to your thinking. You can't sit there and say that Christ is God and yet He is not the Most High. You have just created more than one God. Either He is the Most High God or not, period. Your explanation just doesn't fly with the rest of Scripture. It makes no sense that a jealous God would allow every knee to bow and every tounge confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. There is only one who is worthy of our worship and obedience, the Most High God.
Neal
I don't think Jesus is created or merely a special man. I believe that He is God, the Most High, Son of the Father, part of the triune Godhead. Say what you want, but if Christ is not God and yet He is your Lord you have created a problem. You are not keeping the first commandment according to your thinking. You can't sit there and say that Christ is God and yet He is not the Most High. You have just created more than one God. Either He is the Most High God or not, period. Your explanation just doesn't fly with the rest of Scripture. It makes no sense that a jealous God would allow every knee to bow and every tounge confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. There is only one who is worthy of our worship and obedience, the Most High God.
Neal
3AngelsMom
<img src =/3mom.jpg>
I didn't ask you to agree, I just answered what you asked!
Actually, I didn't do ANYTHING to fit my thinking. I looked up the verse in the original, looked up the original Greek words, from the Strongs numbers, and said what it meant. That is called TRANSLATING, not PARAPHRASING. Paraphrasing is what the KJV 'translators' did here. They ADDED words to make it say something 'for clarity' as they call it. Think what you want. I merely offered you what God has shown me. What the NKJV writers did to Romans 9:5 is something that they will have to stand before God someday, and explain. I have looked at it, in 4 different 'versions', in the original, in a literal translation, and NONE of them say what the NKJV MAKES that verse say!
Um, look at my last post, and the one before that, I have already told you my take on those passages. Pay attention.
Kinda like you explain away all the Sabbath, soul sleep, and annihilation verses?
I didn't explain away anything, they are as much a part of what I believe as the 400 plus verses that OUT RIGHT support my summation. Now I deny what? I still think you are wacky on that verse. There are NO people being punished ALREADY. N
NE has received their reward. There is JUDGMENT before reward. Jesus is coming back and His REWARD is WITH HIM. Don't get this one started again. (unless you are planning on learning something)Well, that's just from your position. My taking part in this discussion has yeilded much fruit in my life. It has prompted me to dive deep into the waters of truth, and relentlessly seeking out the Face Of God. I found Him in the Image of Jesus Christ.
And now I KNOW that you don't read my posts. Why are you going back to this? Did I not make it ABUNDANTLY clear that I do NOT think He is just a special man? Or created for that matter!???
Actually, you are the one with 2 Gods. Not me. Actually, with the trinity, you have 3!
Well, you aren't keeping the fourth, so I guess we're even.
Actually, I have stated on more than one post that I do not believe that Jesus is 'God'. I do not afford someone the title of God, unless the Bible does it first. I take the same position Jesus did, "I can do nothing unless I see my Father do it first". The Father, Jesus' and my Father, NEVER called HIS SON, 'God'. No matter how much you twist the Word, to your liking, and the liking of other trinitarians, there are NONE. Jesus is called the SON OF GOD no less than 200 times, and there are 400+ verses that show a separation between the two. The Father is God, and Jesus is Lord. I don't have a problem, I have ONE God, and ONE Lord. I AM NOT breaking the first Commandment.
Not.
HA! That's funny considering that the majority of Scripture TOTALLY SUPPORTS my summation, and you have like 3! DHK 'thinks' that he has about 10, but they to are just gross mistranslations or verses taken out of context. Nothing has been proven in support of a trinity since this thread was started. And yet you mock me for my stance on the Bible and the Bible alone.
Well, I suppose THAT would NOT be a problem considering that HE TOLD US TO!!!!! I would think that your logic there would expand beyond the bounds of your traditional trinitarian thought process and TELL YOU that if GOD told us to BOW DOWN before the KING of kings and LORD of lords, then He COULD NOT be God, because THEN God would be TELLING US to SIN! Think outside of the box!
Hmmm. And that would be????
All three? Or just one of them?
It is the trinity that makes NO sense!
YHVH is ONE God, He has a Son, who came in His Name, because He was sent by His Father. He is the ONE Lord, because His Father MADE Him the One Lord. They USED TO BE the same person, but then THE WORD proceeded forth FROM God. NOW there is 2 people. The Father, and the Son. NOT two Gods, but ONE God, and His Son Jesus Christ, the ONE Lord.
If we deny the Father, we deny the Son, if we deny the Son, He will deny us before His Father.
1 John 2: 18. Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
19. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
20. But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
21. I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
22. Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
23. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
24. Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.
25. And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.
God Bless
3AngelsMom
<img src =/3mom.jpg>
It sounds pretty plural to me. If you are applying the 'trinity' God to the name YHVH then it doesn't really work with the actual meaning. It means 'The One who exists'.
There is evidence, based on the 'let us' and 'they' in the book of Genesis. I have read elsewhere that it is plural, and then in other places that it isn't. But I am leaning towards a plural word because of the Creation account having more than one person present.
And THAT is what makes NO SENSE to me!
If God is YHVH and Jesus is His Son, and by inheritance was given the same name, then you either must conclude that there are TWO YHVH's or that the name YHVH does not equate to 'God' in translation, but is merely the NAME of The Most High God. Ok, 'theos' in the Greek actually MEANS God. But YHVH does not 'mean' God. It is His Name. And Jesus was given the Name above ALL names. And it wasn't 'Jesus' that was the Name! It was His Father's Name.
I agree with your first point, there is no way to understand it! It still baffles me just trying to discuss it! If there are 3 distinct persons the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and neither of then are each other, and neither are greater than the other, then you have a group of equal dieties, and that is NOT One God. I am not trying to be offensive, but this is what I cannot except about the trinity, is that the Name 'God' is given to 3 distinct individuals. That makes 3 God's.
I see it as that The Father is God and Jesus is His Son, and is Lord, and that they both share in the same Spirit which is not a separate being, but the actual Spirit of God, the Father, and by inheritance Jesus Christ.
Well, just as long as you aren't 'taking someone else's word for it', I can see your contentment to just 'believe', but make sure that you know WHY you believe it, before you get content to believe it!It doesn't bother me that I can't understand fully the Trinitarian nature of God because I can't even understand myself
God Bless
Actually, as I understand it, the meaning of YHWH is not entirely clear. And I was taught by a Christian who was raised Orthodox Jew, that literally YHWH says "I am (male); I am (female)" so there is actually a repetition in there which is intriguing.
Anyway, I realize that apart from that possible hint, no, the word itself is not 'plural' and certainly not in the way Elohim is plural.
It's not that the Trinity is literally in the word YHWH. It's that elsewhere the Bible implies Jesus is YHWH, as I understand it.
So whose name is YHWH? It's not just God the Father's name; it's also Jesus name; but I believe it's Jesus' name and identity as fundamentally as it is God the Father's.
Could you say who you believe those people are, who were present at creation? Are you referring to God the Father and Jesus?
Ok, but in the Bible a name is more than a name. It connotes the identity, power and authority of the one whose name it is. You can see this in how carefully names were chosen, in the Bible. And in the angels saying that Jesus' name would be Emmanuel i.e. God with us.And THAT is what makes NO SENSE to me!
And I don't really see how your understanding solves the problem of there being two Gods - in fact I think it more indicates two Gods than the belief of Trinitarians like me because your belief has Jesus having all the power and authority of God (or at least, a lot of it) yet being an entirely separate person from God; and I still don't see how you can believe that and not end up with two Gods. I know you've tried to explain it before and I don't want to frustrate you by pushing you to repeat things. I just want you to know that I don't get how you can have two Supreme Beings, God and Jesus, that are separate and yet not have two Gods.
Well, they aren't distinct in the way 3 humans are distinct. They have a unity that makes them One God. As I said, I don't think that's fully explainable or understandable in human terms. I do think it's what the Bible says because the Bible most definitely doesn't teach there are three Gods, of course.If there are 3 distinct persons the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and neither of then are each other, and neither are greater than the other, then you have a group of equal dieties, and that is NOT One God. I am not trying to be offensive, but this is what I cannot except about the trinity, is that the Name 'God' is given to 3 distinct individuals. That makes 3 God's.
Anyway, you have Jesus and God both having the same name too so how is that not two Gods?
I understand that, but you have Jesus given enough - power, authority, whatever, that you have two separate Beings both with God's attributes and to me that makes two Gods.
I mean, if Jesus is the exact representation of God the Father but is separate and distinct, that makes two Gods. Because if you have two identical anythings, that is two, not one.
Well, just as long as you aren't 'taking someone else's word for it', I can see your contentment to just 'believe', but make sure that you know WHY you believe it, before you get content to believe it!
I've studied the issue quite thoroughly and as best I can tell, the Trinitarian understanding of God is the closest to Scripture that I've heard.
So, while I may find it not fully understandable, I do think it fits Scripture better than the alternatives so, in my opinion, it's closest to what the Bible reveals to us about the nature of God.
Thanks for the response, 3AM
Helen/AITB
Israel was chosen to be God's wife. At no time do we find where God revealed himself to Israel as a three person Trinity. Israel would say Hear O Israel the Lord our God is One God.
When God revealed his glory to Moses he never revealed himself as a three person Godhead. If God was a Trinity why would not he have revealed himself as such to the man who saw him face to face. The Bible does not say Moses saw THEM face to face.
Why did not Isaiah say he saw the Three high and lifted up but he saw the One. Why does the Book of Revelation talk about only one on the Throne?
No one on any thread has been able to explain why it took Almighty God nearly 4,000 years to reveal himself as a Trinity. This my friends does not make sense.
I have heard person after person speak of the Trinity as a great mystery but this does not agree with scripture. Paul himself said there is no mystery to the Godhead. Are you calling the Apostle Paul a liar?
Jesus said the FAther is spirit. This flies in the face of the doctrine of the Trinity which claims the Father is a person. Also the title Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit also does not make sense because a person is not a ghost or a spirit.
Also no one on these posts can explain why the majority of the post-Apostolic Fathers did not believe in the Trinity. Even the couple of scriptures which people allude to teaching the Trinity are erroneous. Matthew 28:19 says we are to baptize in a singular name of the Father, Son and Holy GHost. What is that singular name? Why do Trinitarians not obey what this scripture says. The scripture does not say to say over the Baptismal candidate "I baptize you in the name of the FAther, Son, and Holy Ghost." It says we are to use that name and Acts tells us the name but these scriptures are ignored so Protestants can hold on to Catholicism.
It has been repeatedly proven that 1 John 3 was not in the original manuscript but added by the Roman Catholic Church. Most new translations do not include it for that reason. Has anyone stopped to think why they would have added this scripture if not to prove a non existent doctrine.
Whatever proceedeth from God would be deity.
This is exactly what 3 angels mom is trying to say. The Early Apostolic Fathers did not have a problem believing this nor were they called heretic for believing this. Nor were they called Blasphemers for teaching this except by the Jews.
As 3 AM has stated. Why did the Bible call Jesus Firstborn? Why was the term "BORN" even used when speaking of Jesus before he was made man.
Also no one has ever addressed the fact that Jesus speaking of the Other Comforter said that the comforter had been with them but would now be in them. Who had been with them if not Jesus.
Jesus said that he was going to come to them in spirit form. It is there in black and white yet Trinitarians ignore this. Why is that?
Why did Jesus speak of himself as being subordinate to the Father even in the Book of Revelation when the doctrine of the Trinity says he is coequal with the Father. The Bible does not teach this. It teaches Jesus is subordinate to the Father.
When God revealed his glory to Moses he never revealed himself as a three person Godhead. If God was a Trinity why would not he have revealed himself as such to the man who saw him face to face. The Bible does not say Moses saw THEM face to face.
Why did not Isaiah say he saw the Three high and lifted up but he saw the One. Why does the Book of Revelation talk about only one on the Throne?
No one on any thread has been able to explain why it took Almighty God nearly 4,000 years to reveal himself as a Trinity. This my friends does not make sense.
I have heard person after person speak of the Trinity as a great mystery but this does not agree with scripture. Paul himself said there is no mystery to the Godhead. Are you calling the Apostle Paul a liar?
Jesus said the FAther is spirit. This flies in the face of the doctrine of the Trinity which claims the Father is a person. Also the title Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit also does not make sense because a person is not a ghost or a spirit.
Also no one on these posts can explain why the majority of the post-Apostolic Fathers did not believe in the Trinity. Even the couple of scriptures which people allude to teaching the Trinity are erroneous. Matthew 28:19 says we are to baptize in a singular name of the Father, Son and Holy GHost. What is that singular name? Why do Trinitarians not obey what this scripture says. The scripture does not say to say over the Baptismal candidate "I baptize you in the name of the FAther, Son, and Holy Ghost." It says we are to use that name and Acts tells us the name but these scriptures are ignored so Protestants can hold on to Catholicism.
It has been repeatedly proven that 1 John 3 was not in the original manuscript but added by the Roman Catholic Church. Most new translations do not include it for that reason. Has anyone stopped to think why they would have added this scripture if not to prove a non existent doctrine.
Whatever proceedeth from God would be deity.
This is exactly what 3 angels mom is trying to say. The Early Apostolic Fathers did not have a problem believing this nor were they called heretic for believing this. Nor were they called Blasphemers for teaching this except by the Jews.
As 3 AM has stated. Why did the Bible call Jesus Firstborn? Why was the term "BORN" even used when speaking of Jesus before he was made man.
Also no one has ever addressed the fact that Jesus speaking of the Other Comforter said that the comforter had been with them but would now be in them. Who had been with them if not Jesus.
Jesus said that he was going to come to them in spirit form. It is there in black and white yet Trinitarians ignore this. Why is that?
Why did Jesus speak of himself as being subordinate to the Father even in the Book of Revelation when the doctrine of the Trinity says he is coequal with the Father. The Bible does not teach this. It teaches Jesus is subordinate to the Father.
neal4christ
New Member
What are you talking about? Are you reading the same Micah 5:2? I don't see any added words. Actually, the NASB is the most accurate at this verse. It still doesn't match your 'literal' translation.
Actually, right off the bat, I know the ESV, NIV, and HCSB all agree with the NKJV. So it is not alone. I have been looking at the literal words myself and the context of the passage and tend to agree with their renderings.
Ha, ha! No, I just look at ALL the verses and take them together, not separately. I don't ignore ETERNAL punishment and that there is ETERNAL fire as well as there are some BEING held under punishment now. As for your OUT RIGHT support, I am looking at the support for Christ being God right now. It is much more than three verses. When I am through with my own study I will post them so you will have much more to go through. But for now, CHILL OUT. I can read lowercase letters as well as uppercase.
Again, you put words in my mouth. I don't care if you think I am wacky, I gave you what the Bible literally says. I can't help it if you don't like it because it doesn't fit what you believe.I still think you are wacky on that verse. There are NO people being punished ALREADY. N
Oh, I read your posts. I am just stating the only logical option you have. You want to have your cake and eat it too. Sorry, you can't. There is no middle ground. Either Christ is God Most High or He is created. Take your choice.
Better rethink your position. I have already shown you my ontological and economical view of God. Quite simple, actually.
So who is He? A mere special man? What are you other options if He is not God?
Give me a break. I don't deny the verses you post. The Father and Son have different roles, but are the same being or essence. There are many more than three, you really haven't studied trinitarian doctrine if you think that is all there is. I will get back to you on this when I finish my own study. But what if there were only three? Those are pretty clear. Do you just ignore it, pretend God didn't inspire those as well?
Because your stance is not on the Bible alone. You ignore Scriptures to the contrary of what you believe and don't take it as a whole. Just like with annihilation, punishment, sabbath, etc.
Huh? Only God Most High is King of kings and Lord of lords. Think of what you just said. Can someone other than God be the ultimate ruler? Does that make any sense whatsoever? If God is not King of kings and Lord of lords, He is not God. Just by being God He has to be the ultimate ruler. There can be no other, and He can't make anyone else to be because that would be against His nature, and you know God can't do something against His nature, don't you? So what are we left with? Christ is King of kings and Lord of lords. So guess what. Christ has to be the Most High God! That is the only thing that could explain this! Think about the ramifications of your assertions!
Do you not read my posts???? Sheesh! I assert there is one God and one God only. I have already explained my view from an ontological and economical standpoint. You are the one who has denied that Christ is God and yet say we should bow to Him and worship Him. I assert that Christ is the One Most High God.
Ah, that clears it all up.
If they were the same, why is Christ not God? Also, there is only one Lord, in the ultimate sense. God Most High! He can't make anyone other than Himself Lord over all because then He would not be it, and that is contrary to His nature!Okay. And your point? I am not denying either. Are you?
Neal
[ April 09, 2003, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]
Sounds good to me - I'll sign you up. You can be the second member!!!Originally posted by Singer:
Oh Helen !!
In case you're starting a church, I want to join.
Your following statement can be our motto.
"It doesn't bother me that I can't understand fully the Trinitarian
nature of God because I can't even understand myself "
Singer
(But that doesn't mean you're inferior to me - I believe in equality
)This is my smilie for "I can't understand myself":
Helen
neal4christ
New Member
Okay, here is the literal translation of that verse:
"From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity." Micah 5:2, NASB
Please note that "goings forth" is plural, so it can't merely mean an individual origin, such as a creation.
Neal
1Tim.3:16 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.
--God manifest in the flesh. God from all eternity was manifest in the flesh. Christ is God.
3AM, If it was God, i.e., the Most High God (for there is only one God) that was manifest in the flesh, who was He? He was not just a manifestation in the sens that Oneness believes. The word means declared, revealed, or made known. God was made known to mankind through the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ, the eternal God, became man. And as John says, "we beheld his glory full of grace and truth." Who did he behold? Who did he see? God--full of grace and truth! The only one that has the fullness of grace and truth is God. No one else has the fullness of truth. Romans 3:4 declares that all men are liars. Only God is true. Therefore Christ is God, not a lesser God, but the Most High God. There is only one God. How do you explain these things?
DHK
--God manifest in the flesh. God from all eternity was manifest in the flesh. Christ is God.
3AM, If it was God, i.e., the Most High God (for there is only one God) that was manifest in the flesh, who was He? He was not just a manifestation in the sens that Oneness believes. The word means declared, revealed, or made known. God was made known to mankind through the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ, the eternal God, became man. And as John says, "we beheld his glory full of grace and truth." Who did he behold? Who did he see? God--full of grace and truth! The only one that has the fullness of grace and truth is God. No one else has the fullness of truth. Romans 3:4 declares that all men are liars. Only God is true. Therefore Christ is God, not a lesser God, but the Most High God. There is only one God. How do you explain these things?
DHK