Trinity or no trinity?

[3AngelsMom]

What do you believe about the Godhead?

 

[Haruo]

Intriguing. So far only 33% for the Trinity. And nobody for "Jesus Only".

I voted "Other — Please Explain", so here goes: I believe that the doctrine or dogma of the Trinity as it has been orthodoxly defined since the early 300s, and as it is risibly restated in the Athanasian Creed, is a valiant and useful attempt to express the perception and conception of God, but it is a human attempt at this, not divine in origin. It invites misinterpretation, à la Muhammad, as closet polytheism. It seeks to limit God's freedom of expression (an attempt at once unbiblical and unconstitutional!). It was a litmus test in the period when the amalgamation of Church and State that was so much of pre-Renaissance was being hammered out, used often enough simply to force people to choose between affirming something they did not actually believe (or at least did not comprehend) and being cast out as heretics. I have no problem with referring to God (either third- or second-person) in Trinitarian terms, but also no problem with other conceptualizations of the Godhead, and a big problem with any effort to force folks to assent to it before one'll let 'em into one's notion of eternal life. I agree with the general thrust of Larry Bernier's sacred ballad, "Our God Is Like an Eagle":

Our God is not a woman, our God is not a man:
Our God is both, and neither; our God is I Who Am.

But I wouldn't want to get dogmatic or exclusionary over that, either.

Haruo

 

[AITB]

Is view #3 your view, 3AM? If so then I thought you said Jesus also had the name Jehovah. So why write Jehovah AND Jesus?

And I'm still waiting for you to explain how Jesus can be an exact replica of God and yet there aren't two Gods. I mean, how can you have one be an exact replica of another and that doesn't make two?

I respect you for studying diligently to see whether the Trinity is really taught in the Bible. I mean that in all seriousness. But don't you see that your current beliefs as they stand imply two Gods? You need a way to get from two to one, which is what the doctrine of the Trinity achieves - in a way that I believe is entirely Biblical, I should add.

Anyway, I voted "Trinity". I doubt anyone is surprised by that

Helen/AITB

 

[Ben W]

I have become aware recently that there are a number of disgruntled members of the SDA church in America who are keen to drop the doctrine of the trinity in their belief that it was not a part of the church when it was founded. I think that this is simply a movement inspired by satin, to break up the fastest growing church in overseas missions. No I am not SDA, but SDB.

People in the SDA seem to be o.k with the idea that Michael the Archangel a created being is in fact Jesus. I can not reconcile that idea. In the doctrine of the trinity it is impossible for a created being to be a part of it.

Satan lashes out at the Trinity Doctrine to be sure. Ever wondered what the common link is in most Cults? No Trinity. Bizarre that, theat one teaching should be a common thread. A Warning though to the discerning Christian.

Look in the Churches history, generations of Protestants have reconciled the Trinity with intense study, then because it is not popular anymore, or too hard to accept, people just put it away. Look at Phillip in John 14, How long had he been with Jesus, and still yet did not know who He was - Jn 14:9-10 "Why then do you say show us the Father? Do younot believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me?

People today still stuggle to believe this very thing.

 

[3AngelsMom]

Helen,

Jesus Christ MEANS Jehovah's Salvation.

Well translated through like 3 different languages but that's what it means!

It is NOT hard to reconcile that Jehovah is the ONE God, and that His Son, Jesus Christ IS NOT that One God. He is NOT another God.

Trinitarians worships THREE GODS who they believe are all of the SAME age. They believe in THREE ALMIGHTY Gods - "God the Father", "God the Son", and "God the Spirit". They say that these three Gods add up, to make up, the One God.

Now to directly answer your question. No, God the Father and His Son do NOT make TWO Gods. There's only one God, the Father (1 Corinthians 8:6) Jesus Himself said of His Father that His Father is the "only true God" (John 17:3). God's Son proceeded forth from the Father before all ages in eternity past, before the creation. Although God's Son is begotten in the "express image", an exact reproduction of God the Father - this does NOT constitute TWO Almighty Gods. Why? Because God's Son inherits (Hebrews 1:4) all of the attributes of God, His Father. The Father never had a beginning. His Son did. They are equal in their divine nature, and their holy character. But they are not equal in age. The Father existed before His Son. The Father is unbegotten. He's the Eternal Deity. God's Son is begotten by the Father. He is Deity due to His relation to His Father. But He isn't as old as His Father. Jesus said "My Father is greater than I." (John 14:28) Interesting here that the Greek word for "greater" also means "elder". God the Father is "self-existent", and like I stated above, unbegotten. His Son, has the same quality of life that the Father has - because the Father GAVE it to Him. He has the Father's "self existent", "underived", "life in Himself" quality of life. (John 5:26).

So, there is but one God, the Father, who is the Source of All things (1 Corinthians 8:6). And He begot a Son in "His express image" (Hebrews 1:3), inheriting God's name and attributes (Hebrews 1:4). He has an omnipresent Holy Spirit which represents the personal presence of God the Father and His Son.

God Bless

[ March 26, 2003, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: 3AngelsMom ]

 

[AITB]

Can you post the verses for me about Jesus having a beginning?

When I put together "Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever" and "in the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God" then from that I conclude that Jesus is also eternal.

I'm not sure you understood my point about two Gods. It's as much about attributes as the name. God is defined by God's attributes. If Jesus is separate yet has all the same attributes then I still think that results in two beings with God's attributes; and it's the attributes of GOd which make God God; so - two Gods. It's a problem I don't see a way to resolve if God the Father and Jesus are thought of as two entirely distinct and separate beings.

Helen

 

[3AngelsMom]

Originally posted by AITB:
[QB] Can you post the verses for me about Jesus having a beginning?

2 Cor 4: 3. But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4. In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
5. For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.
6. For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
7. But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.

Collosians 1:12. Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13. Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14. In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15. Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16. For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17. And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
19. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
20. And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

1 Thess 5:5. Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.

James 1:17. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
18. Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

2 Peter 1:16. For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
19. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

1 John 1: 1. That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
2. (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us
3. That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
4. And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.
5. This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
6. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
7. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
8. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

There are some things said about Jesus in those passages that I believe should be summed up.


-Image of the invisible God
-Firstborn of every CREATURE
-BY and FOR Him were all things created
-He is BEFORE all things
-BY Him all things CONSIST
-He is the Head of the Body, the Church
-The Firstborn of the dead
-In all things HE is the beginning
-He has preeminence over all things
-In Him all the fulness dwells

When I put together "Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever" and "in the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God" then from that I conclude that Jesus is also eternal.

Firstly, I am the SAME yesterday, today and forever. That doesn't make me God. I will ALWAYS be me. I was me yesterday, I am me today, and I will still be me tomorrow. What does 'eternal' mean to you? That someone ALWAYS existed? How is it then, that we who have a hope in eternal life can even receive it? If we can receive eternal life, then it is not possible that it means 'always has existed'. In the beginning the Word was still completely IN God. When God SPOKE for the first time the 'Word' proceeded forth from God, and His Son was begotten. It is a spiritual 'birth' not physical. Begotten of the Father from BEFORE the worlds were formed DOES NOT mean 'always has been'. Begotten ACTUALLY denotes a beginning. And as you see from the verses provided, Jesus is the BEGINNING of all Creation.

I'm not sure you understood my point about two Gods. It's as much about attributes as the name. God is defined by God's attributes. If Jesus is separate yet has all the same attributes then I still think that results in two beings with God's attributes; and it's the attributes of GOd which make God God; so - two Gods. It's a problem I don't see a way to resolve if God the Father and Jesus are thought of as two entirely distinct and separate beings.

My children have the same nose, eyes, lips, hair color and eye color as their dad. They all look JUST like him. They have the same body type, long torso, short legs, broad shoulders. They are 'little' Kris's! Are they Kris though? NO. They are the partial replica of him. (part of them is their mother). Jesus is the EXACT replica of His Father. (because He did not come from a union of two like my kids did) Is He the Father though? NO! He is a separate being. The 'Oneness' that they share is because of the GOD GIVEN attributes that Jesus has. There is NOTHING that Jesus is or has that His Father did not give Him. Including LIFE. John 5

How do you reconcile that The Father is NOT an entirely distinct and separate being from Jesus? Do you have any idea how many verses there are in the O&NT that separate the two? Almost 400.

You have said that one MUST acknowledge that Jesus is God with the Father to believe in Him unto Salvation. That it is impossible for Jesus to save us UNLESS He is God.

Who did JESUS Himself say He was?

Matt 16:16. And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

He said MY Father. HIS Father revealed it to him!! Not flesh and blood but the Father HIMSELF revealed to Peter that Jesus was the SON of God.

That is just ONE out of nearly 400 passages that not only separates the Father from the Son, but CALLS the Father 'God' and DOES NOT call Jesus 'God'.

God Bless

[ March 26, 2003, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: 3AngelsMom ]

 

[hrhema]

3AM. What you believe is exactly what I believe also and I am not SDA.

This is exactly what the post apostolic father taught. This is what later became known as Arianism.

The doctrine of the Trinity was created by the Roman CAtholic Church. Even the Athanasius Creed, Nicene Creed and Apostles Creed are all documents of Roman Catholic origination. Each of these documents declares that who that believes these creeds believe in the Holy Roman Catholic Church. All trinitarians give allegiance to the Catholic Church by believing this doctrine.

I have studied this for 33 years and cannot for the life of me believe this doctrine.

 

[3AngelsMom]

hrhema,

Unfourtunately most SDA's no longer agree with this truth.

Sadly, the SDA church was infiltrated by Trinity teachings just shortly after the death of Ellen White. And after the last of the original pioneers were dead, they officiated this doctrine into the statement of required beliefs.

For the sake of being called 'orthodox'.

Sad.

I'm glad to see that we agree on something.

You came across as really harsh at first. Now I see that you have fervency, just like me. I respect that.

33 years huh? I'm not even that old! That's awesome.

It is strange to me that people can study for as long as some have, and still stay in the same place, with the same beliefs, and the same doctrines, when they aren't provable from Scripture.

When I ponder their sad state, I can but think of one thing. Eyes to see and ears to hear. Jesus said Himself, they do not see me because of their own blindness, and they do not hear because of their own deafness. They HAVE ears and eyes, but they are wearing self made blinders and earplugs. (paraphrase)

"Who do you say that I am?"

YOU are the SON of the living GOD.

"Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but MY FATHER in Heaven has revealed this to you"

That is how the conversation went.

It is TRUTH.

Why do people turn aside to fables? Because they have not received a LOVE for the TRUTH.

I love the TRUTH. With all that is in me.

God Bless

 

[3AngelsMom]

Ben,

I can't help but point out how wrong you are. The SDA church was founded by people who DID NOT believe in the trinity. I have even posted the original statement of faith not only here but also at COG7. Did you see it? They were NOT trinitarian to begin with.

I find it interesting that your 'mark' of a cult being that it is NOT trinitarian, is also the 'mark' of what the CATHOLIC CHURCH decided was what makes a church 'orthodox' or not. Interesting STILL, that ALL the churches who BELIEVE in the trinity are NOT being fully separated from the CC, and ARE not truly protestant AT ALL! The Trinity doctrine was NOT believed by the Apostles. They saw Jesus as the SON OF GOD. They saw The Father as the ONE True, Almighty, MOST HIGH God. They saw the Holy Spirit as the ACTUAL prescence of God with them.

Have you never noticed that when Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to the Apostles that He said "I will send the promise OF MY FATHER upon you"?

There is only ONE God. Jesus is His Son. God dwells in man through His OWN Spirit. The Spirit of God, is not a separate being apart from God. The Spirit of God is the omnipresence of God. He is in all and ALL in ALL.

The doctrine of the devil is one that DENIES the Father and the Son.

The Trinity.

It denies the ACTUAL, LITERAL, Fatherhood, and Sonship of God and Jesus.

There is ONE God, the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ, Jehovah's Salvation. The Lamb of God.

God Bless

 

[AITB]

Originally posted by 3AngelsMom:
In the beginning the Word was still completely IN God. When God SPOKE for the first time the 'Word' proceeded forth from God, and His Son was begotten. It is a spiritual 'birth' not physical. Begotten of the Father from BEFORE the worlds were formed DOES NOT mean 'always has been'. Begotten ACTUALLY denotes a beginning. And as you see from the verses provided, Jesus is the BEGINNING of all Creation.

Jesus being the firstborn of all creation uses a Greek word that also means 'pre-eminent' and that is how Trinitarians understand that verse. I think some translations show this by having 'firstborn over all creation'.

"Begotten of the Father from BEFORE the worlds were formed" is actually from the Nicene Creed, not the Bible, right? Have you looked up 'begotten' in the Bible? I'm curious what you found out, if you have. It seems to me that it doesn't occur much and the Greek word for it in John's gospel doesn't give much indication as to what it specifically means, which is why the NIV uses "one and only" instead of only begotten. In fact the NIV translates John 1:18 in a boldly Trinitarian way, as

No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

I'll read the rest of what you wrote later. It seems that you didn't quote much about Jesus having a beginning, that what you quoted was father a collection which highlighted various of his attributes. I already addressed the verse which speaks of him being the firstborn.

Helen/AITB

 

[BobRyan]

Ben -
I have become aware recently that there are a number of disgruntled members of the SDA church in America who are keen to drop the doctrine of the trinity in their belief that it was not a part of the church when it was founded. I think that this is simply a movement inspired by satin, to break up the fastest growing church in overseas missions. No I am not SDA, but SDB.

Actually it is more like -- this group had a much larger percentage of Adventists in the second half of the 1800's, but today you can hardly find an SDA that does not accept the Trinity, and the 27 Fundamental Beliefs of the Adventist church comes out strongly in favor of it today.

I for one - have never actually met an SDA in person that does not accept the Trinity doctrine, but counting 3AM I have meet 3 on the internet over the past 8 years. (Not that there aren't more than 3 - I just have not encountered more than that).

Prior to that - I didn't even know that there were any SDAs that did not accept the Trinity. In fact I thought we always accepted it - and still argue that based on the statements of Ellen White in the 1800's about the "Three Great Powers of heaven" and the Holy Spirit being "the Third Person of the Godhead" - there were Trinitarian SDAs in the 1800's.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Ben W]

3Angelsmom,

Going on your reasoning, anyone who belives God exists is wrong because it is something shared in common with the Catholic Church. Look for yourself at the number of Cults that are practising, and take not of the number that do not accept the Trinity, Mormon, Jehovahs Witness, Christadelphian etc etc. All claiming they are the only correct church.

Study it, Rejecting the Trinity is a factual parallel between most Cults. Jesus said to Phillip that he had seen Him, thus he had Seen the Father.

Interesting that you note that Ellen G White was alive when the Trinity began to be accepted in the church. Why didnt she condemn it? She is believed to be a Prophet, yet no rejection of the Trinity in her work.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by 3AngelsMom:

When I put together "Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever" and "in the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God" then from that I conclude that Jesus is also eternal.

[QB]

Firstly, I am the SAME yesterday, today and forever. That doesn't make me God.

Yes it does! And thus it is blasphemous. You are being naive on purpose, or purposely blasphemous; one or the other. "Jesus Christ: the same, yesterday, today, and forever," speaks of two attributes of Christ that can only apply to God--his immutability, and his eternality. To the first, i.e., God is immutable, you definitely are not! Your moods, feelings, attitudes, thoughts, ideas, emotions, as well as some of your physical characteristics change every day. Christ never changes. He is the same, "yesterday, today, and forever," From eternity to eternity He is changeless. You are not. Do not attribute to yourself attributes that can only be attributed to God. That is blasphemy.
Secondly, the verse refers to the eternality of God, i.e., that God is eternal. Jesus Christ, God incarnate, is from everlasting to everlasting (Micah 5:2). He is "the everlasting Father" (Isa.9:6). He had no beginning. He is the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end, the first anad the last. Those idiomatic expressions were used by the Jews to indicate one who had no beginning and no end. Christ did not simply proceed from the Father at some point in time. He was not simply begotten by the Father is some point in time. He always was God from all eternity, co-equal with the Father, and co-equal with the Son.

I will ALWAYS be me. I was me yesterday, I am me today, and I will still be me tomorrow.

You can only hope. What assurance do you have? By the theology that you have presented on this board you believe in a different Jesus than I do. It would be entirely possible that should you have a heart attack and die within the week, (your views having not changed) then you will suffer in Hell awaiting your resurrection body at the Great White Throne Judgement, and then suffer in that body in the Lake of Fire forever and ever. "You will not be 'me' tomorrow, and forever, will you? Is this a chance you would want to take by believing the theology that you believe? If Christ is not God, the one and only God, then you have the wrong Christ, and He cannot save you.

What does 'eternal' mean to you? That someone ALWAYS existed? How is it then, that we who have a hope in eternal life can even receive it? If we can receive eternal life, then it is not possible that it means 'always has existed'. In the beginning the Word was still completely IN God. When God SPOKE for the first time the 'Word' proceeded forth from God, and His Son was begotten. It is a spiritual 'birth' not physical. Begotten of the Father from BEFORE the worlds were formed DOES NOT mean 'always has been'. Begotten ACTUALLY denotes a beginning. And as you see from the verses provided, Jesus is the BEGINNING of all Creation.

One receives eternal life from the point in time that they are saved. Obviously the creatures that God created had a beginning point. God never had a beginning. Christ never had a beginning. To say that He did is blasphemous, or indicates a complete misunderstanding of who Christ really is. When God spoke for the first time, It was "Christ" that was speaking.
The word "begotten" refers to Christ's humanity. Christ existed before the virgin birth took place.
You sound like a J.W. The "beginning" of all creation, cannot be the "creator" of all creation. Yet that is exactly how the Bible describes Christ in John 1 and in Col.2:15-17.

Is Jesus Christ God?

Just give a yes or no answer. Do not give a conditional answer.

Either He is God, as He claimed to be (John 10:30-33), or He is the biggest liar, deceiver, and fraud that ever walked the face of this earth. Which is He. Is Jesus Christ God?
DHK

 

[AITB]

Originally posted by 3AngelsMom:
Firstly, I am the SAME yesterday, today and forever. That doesn't make me God. I will ALWAYS be me. I was me yesterday, I am me today, and I will still be me tomorrow.

Well, of course you aren't going to change into someone else...but if that's all that Hebrews verse about Jesus means then there would have been no point in saying it because that's true of everyone. In fact if what the verse said is true of every human there would have been no point in saying it specifically about Jesus as if it were a particular attribute of his.

Anyway, you weren't always the same because you had a beginning.

Before you began there was no you.

As far as I'm concerned the verse saying "Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever" is a statement about him not having a beginning.

What does 'eternal' mean to you? That someone ALWAYS existed? How is it then, that we who have a hope in eternal life can even receive it? If we can receive eternal life, then it is not possible that it means 'always has existed'.

In our case, we had a beginning.

In Jesus' case, he had no beginning.

In the beginning the Word was still completely IN God. When God SPOKE for the first time the 'Word' proceeded forth from God, and His Son was begotten. </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

Is this your interpretation of John 1:1?

If so then you have entirely changed the meaning. John 1:1 says
In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God
- not -
In the beginning the Word was still in God and hadn't been begotten yet so there was no 'Jesus'.

It is a spiritual 'birth' not physical. Begotten of the Father from BEFORE the worlds were formed DOES NOT mean 'always has been'. Begotten ACTUALLY denotes a beginning. And as you see from the verses provided, Jesus is the BEGINNING of all Creation.

As I already said that phrase about begotten is from the Nicene Creed, not the Bible. Please use Bible verses to support your beliefs and show me how begotten denotes a beginning.

I also already said that the 'firstborn' is saying Jesus was preeminent over all creation.

I'm not sure you understood my point about two Gods. It's as much about attributes as the name. God is defined by God's attributes. If Jesus is separate yet has all the same attributes then I still think that results in two beings with God's attributes; and it's the attributes of GOd which make God God; so - two Gods. It's a problem I don't see a way to resolve if God the Father and Jesus are thought of as two entirely distinct and separate beings.

My children have the same nose, eyes, lips, hair color and eye color as their dad. They all look JUST like him. They have the same body type, long torso, short legs, broad shoulders. They are 'little' Kris's! Are they Kris though? NO. They are the partial replica of him. (part of them is their mother). Jesus is the EXACT replica of His Father. (because He did not come from a union of two like my kids did) Is He the Father though? NO! He is a separate being. The 'Oneness' that they share is because of the GOD GIVEN attributes that Jesus has. There is NOTHING that Jesus is or has that His Father did not give Him. Including LIFE. John 5</font>

Yes, but no-one ever says that your child IS your husband. The Bible says the Word was God.

How do you reconcile that The Father is NOT an entirely distinct and separate being from Jesus?

The Bible says the Word was God. I don't have to 'reconcile' anything. It is you who has to explain your way of interpreting that statement.

Do you have any idea how many verses there are in the O&NT that separate the two? Almost 400.

God in three persons. God wouldn't be 'in three persons' if you couldn't name two of them. But the Bible also says "the Word was God".

[qb]You have said that one MUST acknowledge that Jesus is God with the Father to believe in Him unto Salvation. That it is impossible for Jesus to save us UNLESS He is God.

Actually those are two different things you just said.

I do believe that Jesus couldn't have saved us unless he is God.

I don't recall asserting what one has to believe for salvation. Oh, unless you mean where I quoted the Bible saying that if you believe Jesus is Lord you are saved, from Romans 10. And I said Lord is the same word as Jehovah. Yes, I did say that.

I don't see how you can believe that "Jesus has God's name" and "Jesus is God" mean anything close to the same thing.

Who did JESUS Himself say He was?

Matt 16:16. And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

He said MY Father. HIS Father revealed it to him!! Not flesh and blood but the Father HIMSELF revealed to Peter that Jesus was the SON of God.

I've never said Jesus IS God the Father so I have no problem with this passage. That's a Oneness belief, I think.

That is just ONE out of nearly 400 passages that not only separates the Father from the Son, but CALLS the Father 'God' and DOES NOT call Jesus 'God'.God Bless

In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God.

And I still maintain that if Jesus is an exact replica of God and Jesus is entirely separate and distinct from God then you have two Gods. You can call them different names but you still have two distinct omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, beings. Two Gods.

Helen/AITB

 

[hrhema]

First of all no where in the New TEstament do you read where Jesus said he was God. He said I am my Father are one. Man and wife are one but that does not make them equal, The man is the head of the woman and she is the weaker sex.

The scripture that says Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today and forever does not prove Jesus existed from the Fathers eternity.

Everything Jesus said while on Earth made him subordinate to the Father. Not only that in the Book of Revelation it states that he will turn everything back over to the Father. If he is equal to the Father why does the scriptures state this?

No one and I mean no one has addressed the fact that a Son is created. If Jesus was the second person of a coequal trinity he would not be called God the Son. Yes, since he did come to earth in a body and dwelt with man he called himself Son of God or Son of Man but in Heaven he would not be a Son but an equal. A piece of the Godhead in himself.

The Bible states that Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Ghost and impregnated by the Holy Ghost so by the Bibles own admittance Jehovah the Father is not the Father of the child JEsus but the third person of the Trinity in the light of Trinitarian theology but in the truth of the Godhead the Holy Ghost is the poured out and emanated spirit of the father. THis is why the Father is the Father.

A third person would not be called the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit. He would have a name just like the other two. The Father is Jehovah and the Son Jesus. It does not make sense to call a person a Ghost or spirit.

When Jesus was speaking of the other comforter he said "THE WORLD AT LARGE CANNOT RECEIVE HIM, BECAUSE IT ISN'T LOOKING FOR HIM, AND DOESN'T RECOGNIZE HIM. BUT YOU DO BECAUSE HE LIVES WITH YOU NOW AND LATER WILL BE IN YOU."

Who was living with them. Jesus. Who was going to be with them later. Jesus. The spirit of Jesus would dwell within them. It would not be his body but his spirit.

"It is written in your own law that God said to certain leaders of the people, "I say you are gods! And you know that the scriptures cannot be altered. So if those people who received God's message were called gods, why do you call it blasphemy when the Holy One who was sent into the world by the Father say, I am the Son of God."
John 10:34-36.

No one wants to deal with this scripture. Here Jesus said that the Father called certain leaders of Israel gods. Now God did this. They believed the message and were called gods. Jesus did not say I am God at the end but again called himself the Son of God showing a submission to God. As these leaders being man were in submission. He was making a point that there is no equality with the FAther.

The Roman Catholic Church had to start murdering other Christians and making them martyrs because they did not want to accept this doctrine. If this doctrine was really from God then why did not the majority of Christians at first accept and believe this doctrine? It was because they knew it was not the truth. Why would any so called body of believers murder other believers over doctrine if it came from God. Does God not say thou shalt not murder or kill? People need to really stop and ask themselves about this. If something is true why would someone kill for it.
When Jesus said turn the other cheek. When Peter cut off the ear of Malchus trying to protect Jesus he put the ear back on. Why would anyone think they were justified to slaughter people over a doctrine?

 

[3AngelsMom]

Originally posted by Ben W:
3Angelsmom,
Going on your reasoning, anyone who belives God exists is wrong because it is something shared in common with the Catholic Church.

Going on MY reasoning? You aren't serious! How would 'my' reasoning lead someone to think that they can no longer believe in God just because an apostate church does? My point has obviously eluded you! The point is that the doctrine of the Trinity is NOT a straight exegesis of text, it is a DEVELOPED doctrine that 'has a few' verses to support it. Strange that one of the 'few' that support it is highly questioned and debated as an addition (Johanine comma). My reasoning tells ME to look to the BIBLE as my first, middle, and last rule when studying. My point is, that the CC is using a doctrine that is NOT solidly foundational in Scripture as a 'mark' of an orthodox church. NOW, if they were using something like 'ackowledge that Jesus is the Son of God' as their 'mark' then I WOULD TOTALLY ACCEPT THAT. But the trinity doctrine is NOT solid enough to use as a judgment on ALL people as to whether or not they should be 'cut off from Christ'.

Look for yourself at the number of Cults that are practising, and take not of the number that do not accept the Trinity, Mormon, Jehovahs Witness, Christadelphian etc etc. All claiming they are the only correct church.

And YOU look at the Catholic Church and tell me what TRUTH there is in it. For real. You think that because the Mormons are wrong on some points that EVERYTHING that they believe is wrong? What about our friends at the COG7? Are THEY a cult too? This is a BAD rule to go by. Who came up with these rules? hmmmm

Study it, Rejecting the Trinity is a factual parallel between most Cults. Jesus said to Phillip that he had seen Him, thus he had Seen the Father.

And that is TOTALLY true! But the trinity is not, and neither does that statement PROVE a trinity. That statement does more for MY beliefs than for a trinity. Jesus is the EXPRESS IMAGE of the invisible God (His Father), so by saying that seeing Jesus was seeing the Father makes COMPLETE sense! Does that mean to you that Jesus IS the Father?

Interesting that you note that Ellen G White was alive when the Trinity began to be accepted in the church.

That was Bob. And may I add that he provided no documentation to the claims he made.

Why didnt she condemn it? She is believed to be a Prophet, yet no rejection of the Trinity in her work.

Are you sure about that? Have you been studying EGW Ben?

That statement of Faith that I provided in the COG7 and here, was WRITTEN by EGW and the other Pioneers of the SDA church. It is DECIDEDLY anti trinitarian. It supports the ONE God of the Bible, and His SON, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit as NOT a separate person, but as the Spirit that is both of God and Jesus.

God Bless

 

[3AngelsMom]

Originally posted by DHK:
Yes it does! And thus it is blasphemous. You are being naive on purpose, or purposely blasphemous; one or the other. "Jesus Christ: the same, yesterday, today, and forever," speaks of two attributes of Christ that can only apply to God--his immutability, and his eternality. To the first, i.e., God is immutable, you definitely are not! Your moods, feelings, attitudes, thoughts, ideas, emotions, as well as some of your physical characteristics change every day. Christ never changes. He is the same, "yesterday, today, and forever," From eternity to eternity He is changeless. You are not. Do not attribute to yourself attributes that can only be attributed to God. That is blasphemy.
Secondly, the verse refers to the eternality of God, i.e., that God is eternal. Jesus Christ, God incarnate, is from everlasting to everlasting (Micah 5:2). He is "the everlasting Father" (Isa.9:6). He had no beginning. He is the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end, the first anad the last. Those idiomatic expressions were used by the Jews to indicate one who had no beginning and no end. Christ did not simply proceed from the Father at some point in time. He was not simply begotten by the Father is some point in time. He always was God from all eternity, co-equal with the Father, and co-equal with the Son.

So you think that from one day to the next Jesus' mood doesn't change? So from the first century to now, He hasn't had a single emotion? That makes SOOOO MUCH SENSE!!!! Sheesh. Let's just SEE how blasphemous I am....

Phil 2: 5. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6. Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

Seems to me that I am SUPPOSED to have the SAME MIND as Christ. Who DIDN'T think that it was BLASPHEMOUS to be equal with God.

Also, could you please show WHERE all of what you said is in the Bible? You posted 2 verses in that whole paragraph and then a bunch of your own personal judgment. What I would be greatly interested in, is seeing WHERE in the Bible you get your ideas.

You can only hope. What assurance do you have? By the theology that you have presented on this board you believe in a different Jesus than I do. It would be entirely possible that should you have a heart attack and die within the week, (your views having not changed) then you will suffer in Hell awaiting your resurrection body at the Great White Throne Judgement, and then suffer in that body in the Lake of Fire forever and ever. "You will not be 'me' tomorrow, and forever, will you? Is this a chance you would want to take by believing the theology that you believe? If Christ is not God, the one and only God, then you have the wrong Christ, and He cannot save you.

Again, you just rattled off about 5 different doctrines that ARE NOT IN THE BIBLE!!!! Could you go point by point and PROVE from the Bible all of what you just said? Do you HONESTLY think that by my believing that Jesus is the SON of God, (uh, you know like what that pesky Bible says) that I have LOST my salvation?????

One receives eternal life from the point in time that they are saved.

You are totally right, and unless you would care to show otherwise, no one will BE saved and receive eternal life until JESUS comes back and awakes all the dead saints and changes all the living ones.

Obviously the creatures that God created had a beginning point.

Obviously.

God never had a beginning.

Right you are!

Christ never had a beginning.

Prove it.

To say that He did is blasphemous

Prove that too.

or indicates a complete misunderstanding of who Christ really is.

Who is Christ? Really? My bible says He is the SON of God. Begotten of God. Proceeded forth FROM God. That is a BEGINNING.

When God spoke for the first time, It was "Christ" that was speaking.

Now if you had stopped there we could have remained in agreement. But alas, you could not.

The word "begotten" refers to Christ's humanity.

So explain John 3:16. HOW could God send His ONLY Begotten Son into the world, if He wasn't begotten UNTIL He sent Him into the world?

Christ existed before the virgin birth took place.

Duh.

You sound like a J.W. The "beginning" of all creation, cannot be the "creator" of all creation.

I never said that. And why do you find it necessary to tell people they sound JW or Mormon or CC or SDA or any other denomination? What is the purpose of that exactly?

Yet that is exactly how the Bible describes Christ in John 1 and in Col.2:15-17.

Of course it does. I never said that Christ was NOT the Creator. He was just as much a part of the Creation of the world as God was. God Created the worlds BY and FOR Jesus. (I said that).

Is Jesus Christ God?
Just give a yes or no answer. Do not give a conditional answer.

How could I give a conditional answer?
I have answered this already. Jesus is the SON of God. The Image of the Invisible God. The EXPRESS Image of God. The Son of the Most High God. So yes or no? NO. Jesus Christ is NOT God. You disagree? Show me just ONE verse where Jesus SAID 'I am God'. Just one.

Either He is God, as He claimed to be (John 10:30-33), or He is the biggest liar, deceiver, and fraud that ever walked the face of this earth. Which is He. Is Jesus Christ God?
DHK

Actually, that passage doesn't say that at all! He didn't claim to be God in that passage. Let's see what He DID claim to be:
Also, let's get some context here!!

24. Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
25. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
26. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
27. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28. And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than ALL; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
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 shewed 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.
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?
37. If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
38. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
39. Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,
40. And went away again beyond Jordan into the place where John at first baptized; and there he abode.
41. And many resorted unto him, and said, John did no miracle: but all things that John spake of this man were true.
42. And many believed on him there.

SON of God is what He claimed. The JEWS said that He was saying that He was God. NOT HIM.

Try again.

God Bless

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by 3AngelsMom:

32. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed 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.

SON of God is what He claimed. The JEWS said that He was saying that He was God. NOT HIM.

Try again.

God Bless

You're understanding of this passage is not correct. The Jews understood what Jesus meant: "I and my Father are one." That is why they took up stones to stone him. He had committed blasphemy. He claimed to be God. That was the very reason that they were going to kill him, not that He claimed to be the Son of God, but God Himself, and they knew it.
His claim was: I and my Father are one, i.e., one in essence, the same being. He claimed to be God.
DHK

 

[3AngelsMom]

Originally posted by AITB:
As far as I'm concerned the verse saying "Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever" is a statement about him not having a beginning.

Well then, that is just your opinion that you are imposing on that text because it doesn't say that, it says the same YESTERDAY. I WAS the same yesterday, as I am today, and will be tomorrow (God willing). Jesus is the same yesterday, as He was on that day, and He will be forever. Tomorrow doesn't really exist. When the next day gets here it is now 'today' so in all actuality and relitivity, tomorrow is a 'metaphor' for 'forever'. That verse does not say that He didn't have a beginning. It says that He has not, and will not change.

In our case, we had a beginning.

In Jesus' case, he had no beginning.

Prove it.

Is this your interpretation of John 1:1?

No, it is more than just John 1:1.

If so then you have entirely changed the meaning. John 1:1 says
In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God
- not -
In the beginning the Word was still in God and hadn't been begotten yet so there was no 'Jesus'.

I agree. Just like the Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today and forever does not say that Jesus had no beginning. My statement is an opinion based on many texts not just John 1:1.

As I already said that phrase about begotten is from the Nicene Creed, not the Bible. Please use Bible verses to support your beliefs and show me how begotten denotes a beginning.

Are you stating that begotten doesn't mean begotten when it pertains to Christ? As far as I can see, that is eisigesis, and not a valid statement. The Bible makes no statement that when Jesus is called begotten that it means anything other than 'begotten'. Just like all the so and so begat so and so in the Lineage books. Do you really want me to show you all the places in there that state that 'begotten' denotes the beginning of ALL those people?

I also already said that the 'firstborn' is saying Jesus was preeminent over all creation.

Actually, the Bible SAYS that He has preimminence over all creation, and that was one of the points I made. The statement of Him being firstborn of all creation is one of the attributes that give Him the preimminence. (Coll 1:15-19)

Yes, but no-one ever says that your child IS your husband. The Bible says the Word was God.

And THAT is exactly MY point. The Word WAS God. After CAREFUL study and exegesis (because I was not looking to learn this when I was studying, I was trying to PROVE the trinity in my study) I came to the conclusion that the Word was IN God, and HAD NOT proceeded forth from Him, until God SPOKE (the Word).

The Bible says the Word was God. I don't have to 'reconcile' anything. It is you who has to explain your way of interpreting that statement.

Ok, YOU said, "It's a problem I don't see a way to resolve if God the Father and Jesus are thought of as two entirely distinct and separate beings." WHY do you think that I shouldn't believe that?

Do you have any idea how many verses there are in the O&NT that separate the two? Almost 400.
God in three persons. God wouldn't be 'in three persons' if you couldn't name two of them. But the Bible also says "the Word was God".

Ok, so then what do you do with all the verses that state that God and Jesus are separate and distinct? You didn't answer the question. "God in 3 persons", where is THAT in the Bible? Isn't that from a CREED?????

You have said that one MUST acknowledge that Jesus is God with the Father to believe in Him unto Salvation. That it is impossible for Jesus to save us UNLESS He is God.
Actually those are two different things you just said.
I do believe that Jesus couldn't have saved us unless he is God.
I don't recall asserting what one has to believe for salvation. Oh, unless you mean where I quoted the Bible saying that if you believe Jesus is Lord you are saved, from Romans 10. And I said Lord is the same word as Jehovah. Yes, I did say that.
I don't see how you can believe that "Jesus has God's name" and "Jesus is God" mean anything close to the same thing.

Ok, again, you didn't answer the question. IS IT TRUE, that you MUST believe that Jesus IS God to be saved? Is it TRUE that you MUST believe it?

I've never said Jesus IS God the Father so I have no problem with this passage. That's a Oneness belief, I think.

The Father is the Most High God. Jesus is NOT the Most High God. He is the SON of the Most High God. The point of that verse is that AGAIN Jesus calls HIMSELF the SON of God. NOT GOD.

That is just ONE out of nearly 400 passages that not only separates the Father from the Son, but CALLS the Father 'God' and DOES NOT call Jesus 'God'.God Bless
In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God.

Were you here when the 'One verse wonders' thread was going on? Is that all you got?

And I still maintain that if Jesus is an exact replica of God and Jesus is entirely separate and distinct from God then you have two Gods. You can call them different names but you still have two distinct omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, beings. Two Gods.

NOPE. Jesus is not omniscient. He doesn't know when He is coming back.
Jesus is not 'God'. Therefore, there is no problem with There being ONE God, and ONE Son of God. They are not 'both' God(s).
It is the Trinity that makes 3 Gods. GOD the Father (that's ONE) GOD the Son (that's TWO) and GOD the Holy Spirit (that's THREE). That is trithiesm, a form of polythiesm.

NOT One God.

God Bless