Trinity or no trinity?

[DHK]

Originally posted by 3AngelsMom:
DHK,

That is the BIBLE.

Are you ACTUALLY going to try to assert that my using the WORD OF GOD is using A MAN'S WORK?????????

Lexicons, dictionaries, and encyclopedias, are just as much reference works as are commentaries. Come off your high horse and admit that you resorted to another man's work. You didn't put toghether Strong's Concordance or his Hebrew/Greek lexicon (if that is what you used. Strong did it. Are you taking credit for another man's work and then claiming it for yourself. That is plagiarism. What did those numbers mean before those words? Where did they come from? A scholar or the man in the moon? Or were they 3AM's original? Won't you admit that you used another man's reference material???
DHK

 

[3AngelsMom]

DHK,

Using the Strongs concordance is the same thing as using a dictionary. It is a translation tool. It tells you what a word in the Greek and Hebrew means in English.

It is NOT a commentary, which is the OPINION of someone else about what THEY THINK God 'meant' by what the Scripture states.

BIG difference.

And I don't have a 'high horse'.

I just have a higher standard of study than you do.

God Bless

 

[Don]

Originally posted by 3AngelsMom:
Don,

Where have I ever said that they were?

What exactly is your point here? Do you have a point?

Yep; pay attention and think it through.

DHK likes to use OTHER people's opinions to try to support his own. That DOES NOT show that he has studied it as far as he can, it shows that he leans on someone ELSE who has studied it as far as THEY could.

Nope, that's not it at all. Just like me, DHK has studied at least three or four commentaries that he doesn't agree with. That he uses any commentaries at all means that he's looking at everything that pertains to the subject.

Is it bad to use commentaries? Certainly not. Is it bad to rely on commentaries? Certainly is.

My opinion is no more valuable than anyone elses and I challenge you to prove where I have ever stated otherwise.

Then what's wrong with using commentaries?

Now that I think of it, I believe I may have stated THIS before.

Why do you even care if I don't like commentaries?

DO you write them or something?

Nope; don't intend to start, either. I like to look myself in the mirror each morning and say, "You're not nearly as smart as you'd like to think you are."

And thus, I like to read what others think about the Bible, including you. I just tend to disagree with some of 'em, based on what I read in the Bible.

Now, if you think DHK's relying too much on commentaries, that's what you oughtta say to him. But to indicate that we shouldn't use commentaries at all--well, that shows you believe your opinion is more valid than those of Tertullian, Matthew Henry, and many of the other Christian forefathers.

 

[3AngelsMom]

Don,

This is my 'motto':

Psalm 119: 169. Let my cry come near before thee, O Lord: give me understanding according to thy word.

I would like to say that I live by that, but it would be a little too prideful to say so, but I do try my best to do so.

I do not use commentaries because I want the understanding that I come to, to be untainted by the opinions of others, but WHOLLY led by the Spirit through the Word of God.

DHK's use of commentaries really doesn't concern me, commentaries or no, I do not agree with his interpretation of scripture. His use HERE is for the purpose, as it seems to me, to prove that HIS interpretation should be taken MORE seriously because some 'wise' man from ages past agrees with him.

THAT is why I protest his using them HERE.

If he uses them for personal study that is his problem, and I can't really do much about it, but I do NOT have to accept the opinions of 'learned' men over the Word of God and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

How do ANY of us know that the commentaries that were written by these men are right? I find it hard to believe that people who believe in eternal torment and immediate reward are TRULY led by the Spirit. That may seem harsh to you, and I apologize if that offends you, but the knowledge and understanding that I have, was gained by my submission to the Holy Spirit in HIS guidance of my study, instead of just 'taking someone elses word for it'.

Clinging to false doctrine just because someone else agrees, or used to agree (meaning those who have gone before us) makes someone appear quite obstinant and, quite frankly, rebellious.

I really do lose respect for people when I show them 25 Bible verses to support my position and they post a 5 paragraph commentary written by someone else.

I see it as 'lazy' argument.

God Bless

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by 3AngelsMom:

How do ANY of us know that the commentaries that were written by these men are right? I find it hard to believe that people who believe in eternal torment and immediate reward are TRULY led by the Spirit. That may seem harsh to you, and I apologize if that offends you, but the knowledge and understanding that I have, was gained by my submission to the Holy Spirit in HIS guidance of my study, instead of just 'taking someone elses word for it'.

And this is written by someone who doesn't even believe that Jesus Christ is God!!
DHK

 

[3AngelsMom]

Actually, I don't believe that Jesus is the Most High God.

There is a difference.

Jesus is the Son of the Most High God, and by inheritance has the nature and attributes of the Most High God, but He, Himself, is NOT the Most High God, nor is He completely equal to the Most High God. All attributes that are equal between Jesus and the Most High God are attributes that the Most High God gave to Jesus.

Jesus is not the Most High God.

I said that about 30 times before.

You should know by now that when I say 'God' I am talking about the Father, Yahweh, the Most High God.

Which Jesus is not.

God Bless (the Most High God)

 

[3AngelsMom]

Sorry this took so long to respond to, but as you can see, the topic got derailed there for a little while...

Originally posted by neal4christ:
First off, don't take this the wrong way, but DUH! Subordinate has nothing to do with being equal. I agree that there are ROLES for each. However, both are created in the image of God. Christ died for both. That is Bible, 3AM. So both are equal in that sense. I am extremely conservative and very against the women rights movement. That is the first time I have ever been accused of letting them infiltrate my mind!

I'm glad you clarified that for me, I was starting to get scared that the next thing you would tell us is that you were on your way to a tree huggers meeting.

Please show me why not.

I tell you what, you have the hoitie toitie software so look at it in the original, and see for yourself what it said.

Sorry, good try. If He is not God, these verses encourage idolatry. Remember, we are to have no other Gods besides Yahweh.

AHAH! And if Jesus OR even the Holy Spirit IS God, then you ARE having other God's besides Yahweh! But it is not quite that simple is it? Jesus is the Image of the invisible God. He is the EXPRESS Image. When we bow to Him, we are bowing to the Image of God. He proceeded forth from God, and therefore is ONE with God, and In God, and God In Him. Therefore you are NOT bowing to another God, but are bowing to the ONE TRUE God, through His Son, the FACE of the invisible God.

Sorry, that is not my job.

I am happy to know that you realize that! Good answer btw.

Regarding knowing everything, I addressed it in my last post. I do not know everything, I readily admit it.

Yes, and I too am aware of that, based on your last post. Why are you reiterating this as if I didn't read your post or something?

However, no matter what I would say to you, I would automatically be wrong because you have everything figured out.

Ok, you are the one exibiting illiteracy here! I SPECIFICALLY said that I DO NOT have it all figured out! Did you not see that in my post? Are you trying to SLAM me or something?

You tell me I should keep the sabbath on Saturday.

Actually God tells you that, but if you want to blame me, I'll leave it to you to expain that to God.

You say eternal punishment is annihilation.

Actually, AGAIN, it is the Bible that says that the wicked will be UTTERLY destroyed, CONSUMED, TRAMPLED UNDERFOOT. It is not MY opinion. The Bible says those EXACT words.

You say Jesus is Michael (and you talk about the Trinity having a lack of Biblical support!).

Actually it is the other way around. The name Michael was there first. Michael is the preincarnate form of Jesus. There is actually substancial evidence for this doctrine, and it is not required of one to believe this for salvation, so this really isn't an issue.

You say the lake of fire will go out.

And it will. Just wait. Since, by the time it does, both of us will be in a glorified state and without sin, I am going to, while I have the chance, gloat. "Neener neener neener, I was right and you were wrong!"

You say the Trinity is non-existent.

Like I said before, if you are so certain that it is an undeniable truth, then prove it. Otherwise you don't really have any right to tell me I am wrong.

I am not going to change your mind, and you probably won't change mine.

Well, firstly it isn't you or I who does the changing it is God, and I pray daily that you will be led into all Truth. As do I for all those on this board as well as myself.

One day when I have time, maybe I will sit down and address the whole Trinity issue. Schoolwork and my wife take precedence right now.

Don't worry about it. There are plenty of people here and on the SDA board I post to who have 'explained' it well enough. I'm stickin' with what God has revealed to me in His Word. Jesus is the Son of the Most High God. He is not the Most High God.

However, I do believe in the Trinity and I see it clearly in Scripture. You do not.

If it is so clear, it shouldn't have been that hard for you to point out the Scriptures for me....

There is not much I can do about that. Sorry.

Don't be sorry. It's not your fault that the Trinity is not provable from Scripture.

I could go point by point and address your response, but I am not. Call me a chicken or whatever.

I would never do that. If you don't want to, don't. I would never think any less of you.

I don't have the time or energy. I would see myself as right, and you would explain away anything I give you.

You never know, Neal. Keep in mind that about a month ago I still somewhat believed in the Trinity. It wasn't until I was told that not everyone believes in it, that I started to ask why. YOU may be the one to 'reach me'

And that would be about as far as we would get, so I am not going to use up my time for that right now. Take care.

Isn't that about as far as any of the conversations on this board get? I mean, do you honestly think that the people that we are arguing with are actually here to learn from us????

The arrogance of most of the people on this board is sickening to me, and just about on a daily basis I have to ask God to renew my burden for them because after a while, I get kind of caulused.

I have always respected you and your gracious attitude. I have enjoyed debating you in this forum.

Neal4Christ.....the big bad Seminary student aka Big Brown man.

God Bless

 

[Don]

Jesus is the Son of the Most High God, and by inheritance has the nature and attributes of the Most High God, but He, Himself, is NOT the Most High God, nor is He completely equal to the Most High God. All attributes that are equal between Jesus and the Most High God are attributes that the Most High God gave to Jesus.

If we take ALL of scripture to be the Word of God--and I hope you do, 3AM--then your statement is contradictory to scripture.

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

Jesus Himself said He was God, not that He was equal to God. The Jews were the ones who took this statement to mean that He was elevating Himself to a position equal to God.

 

[AITB]

Originally posted by 3AngelsMom:
You should know by now that when I say 'God' I am talking about the Father, Yahweh, the Most High God.

I agree that Jesus is not God the Father (which sets me apart from Oneness Christians, I think) but I do believe Jesus is God.

When I say 'God' I might mean God the Father or I might mean 'the Triune God' depending on the context. I believe YHWH is the Triune God, not just God the Father. When I say Jesus is God I mean Jesus is the Triune God, not Jesus is God the Father.

I believe Paul also used God to mean both God the Father and the Triune God, depending on the context, so, when he wrote "God and the Lord Jesus Christ" then by imlpication he meant "God the Father". But if he simply said "God" he may well have meant 'the Triune God, YHWH".

God bless (the Triune God )

Helen/AITB

 

[neal4christ]

I'm glad you clarified that for me, I was starting to get scared that the next thing you would tell us is that you were on your way to a tree huggers meeting.

No, I am not there yet!

Neal

 

[neal4christ]

I tell you what, you have the hoitie toitie software so look at it in the original, and see for yourself what it said.

I have many times and feel it speaks of the Messiah's eternality.

AHAH! And if Jesus OR even the Holy Spirit IS God, then you ARE having other God's besides Yahweh!

Not if they are Yahweh.

There is actually substancial evidence for this doctrine, and it is not required of one to believe this for salvation

I want to point out that I don't feel understanding the Trinity is necessary for salvation. However, one must believe Jesus is Lord. Also, there is no way, shape, or form that there is more Biblical evidence for Michael being Jesus than there is for the Trinity.

Jesus is the Son of the Most High God. He is not the Most High God.

So then you don't believe the prophecy in Isaiah 9:6?

God Bless

Right back at you, Sis. I have respect for you as well. I was a little snappy the last time I posted this. Sorry. Good try at saying that it is not 'provable' from Scripture. If you get down to it, there is nothing really 'provable' in Scripture. However, we take things on faith. We have good evidence for many things in Scripture, but I don't think that they are 'proved' in an objective sense. They are rather very well supported and worthy of our consideration. I feel that the Trinity has substantial evidence on its behalf, so I accept it by faith. If the evidence is not enough for you, then that is your perogative.

Neal

[ March 31, 2003, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]

 

[3AngelsMom]

Neal,

Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, the everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Wonderful: self expainitory
Counsellor: it is Christ's ACTUAL Spirit that is the Holy Spirit
Mighty God: DOES NOT say 'Most High God'
Everlasing Father: reference to Christ inheriting His Father's Name.
Prince of Peace: self expainitory

I completely believe this prophecy.

Although, even in the Gospels it says that when Jesus was born they should call His name 'Emmanuel' and they didn't.

So His name(s) do alot for describing His characteristics and attributes, all of which were given to Him by the Most High God, His Father.

God Bless

 

[DHK]

Isa.9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

The mighty God This phrase literally means “God, the mighty man.” It refers to Christ in His humanity as God. As Isaiah referred earlier in 7:14, Immanuel, meaning “God with us.” That is who Christ is, God with us. He always was, always will be.

The everlasting Father Literally the Father of eternity, or as some have put it the author of eternity. It refers to the timelessness of Christ as God. He is the God of all eternity, the God of creation, the Father of us all in the sense that He is the Creator of all. For Him to be described here as eternal should put away once and for all any thought that Christ was either created or proceeded from the Father, or had a beginning of any sort. He always was. He is eternal. He is God.
DHK

 

[3AngelsMom]

Originally posted by DHK:
For Him to be described here as eternal should put away once and for all any thought that Christ was either created or proceeded from the Father, or had a beginning of any sort. He always was. He is eternal. He is God.
DHK

I could buy that, but then I would have to throw this away:

John 8:42. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
43. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

SO, a verse in Isaiah, that doesn't even SAY Jesus, cannot supercede a verse that is a direct quote of Jesus!

Jesus HIMSELF said that He proceeded forth from the Father.

That is undeniable.

It is fact.

God Bless

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by 3AngelsMom:

Jesus HIMSELF said that He proceeded forth from the Father.

That is undeniable.

It is fact.

These verses simply refer to Christ's humanity. He did not come of his own self. He is not a false prophet. He was sent by His Father, humanly speaking. "Prceeding from," simply meaning "sent."
God sent His son into the world because He loved us.
DHK

 

[3AngelsMom]

Originally posted by DHK:
These verses simply refer to Christ's humanity. He did not come of his own self. He is not a false prophet. He was sent by His Father, humanly speaking. "Prceeding from," simply meaning "sent."
God sent His son into the world because He loved us.
DHK

Ok, so what about the other verses that have the same word "exerchomai" in them? There are 230 verses in the NT that have that word, and the most common translation of that word is 'came out'. There is another verse where JESUS said the same word, and they translated it "came out from".

John 17: 8. For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. (Jesus talking to His Father)

Ok, AND you said that the 'proceeding from' simply means 'sent', so then WHY did He say, in BOTH verses 'I [came/proceeded forth] from' AND '[He/You]sent me'? If they both mean 'sent' why did He use TWO different words, "exerchomai" [came/proceeded forth] and "apostello" [sent]?

He said TWO different things in both verses.

He came out from, proceeded forth from, and was sent.

Two different words, with two VERY DIFFERENT meanings.

God Bless

[ April 03, 2003, 10:49 PM: Message edited by: 3AngelsMom ]

 

[DHK]

John 8:42 Therefore Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came out and have come from God. For I haven't come of myself, but he sent me. (World English Bible)

 

[3AngelsMom]

Originally posted by DHK:
John 8:42 Therefore Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came out and have come from God. For I haven't come of myself, but he sent me. (World English Bible)

Ok, so even in that translation, it says 'came out' BEFORE it says 'have come' and 'he sent'.

What was your point in posting that?

It STILL says TWO different words. I am basing my exegesis of the text on the original Greek, not the KJV, or the WEB, or any other translation.

God Bless

 

[DHK]

The word erchomai is used 222 times in the Bible. In the KJV this is how it is translated:

To go out: 60 times
To come: 34 times
To depart: 28 times
To go: 25 times
To go forth: 25 times
To come out: 23 times
To come forth: 9 times
18 times it is translated in a various other ways such as: to go abroad, to go thence, to spread abroad, to get out, to proceed.

The word in no way gives one the impression that God gave birth to Christ. It does not mean “beget,” or coming forth, or proceeding forth, in the sense of birthing, or creating. Christ never had a beginning. He Himself is God. He is eternal. The verse refers to his humanity when God sent “His Son” into this world to be born of a virgin. That “Son” never had a beginning. He was from all eternity God, the second person of the Godhead.
DHK

 

[3AngelsMom]

Originally posted by DHK:
[QB] The word erchomai is used 222 times in the Bible. In the KJV this is how it is translated:

To go out: 60 times
To come: 34 times
To depart: 28 times
To go: 25 times
To go forth: 25 times
To come out: 23 times
To come forth: 9 times
18 times it is translated in a various other ways such as: to go abroad, to go thence, to spread abroad, to get out, to proceed.

Thank you for proving my point! All of those mean the same thing! That something was IN something or somewhere and it went OUT from where it was!

The word in no way gives one the impression that God gave birth to Christ.

I haven't said that, nor implied it.

It does not mean “beget,” or coming forth, or proceeding forth, in the sense of birthing, or creating.

Ok, so in WHAT sense does it 'mean' proceeded forth? In WHAT sense does it mean 'come out from'? I have NEVER tried to imply that God created Jesus. All I have said is that Jesus proceeded forth from God. 'Came out from'.

Christ never had a beginning.

Collosians 1:15. 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.

John 5:26. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

He Himself is God

John 3:16. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

1 John 4:12. No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. (from the Apostle that sat at the feet of Jesus and SAW Him every day)
John 17: 3. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. (Jesus speaking)

He is eternal.

Eternal? You want to *try* to back that up with Scripture? There were about 100 verses about US getting or having eternal life, but no mention of Jesus BEING eternal. Also, here's one that gives God the status of 'eternal' but again no mention of Jesus being eternal.

1 Timothy 1:1. Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, AND Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;....15. This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. 16. Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting. 17. Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Invisible. Jesus IS NOT who Paul is praising here! How do I know that?
Col 1:15. Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

The verse refers to his humanity when God sent “His Son” into this world to be born of a virgin.

Why do you have His Son in quotations? Are you saying that Jesus IS NOT REALLY God's Son? How is it that GOD sent 'His Son' into the world, IF GOD is the Son? He sent Himself? How is it that Jesus was ALREADY the Only Begotten Son of God BEFORE He was incarnated? (if this verse only applies to His 'humanity')

He was from all eternity God, the second person of the Godhead.

WOW. That's so blatantly NOT in the Bible. NO WHERE does it say that. NOT ONCE is Jesus called 'the second person of the Godhead'. NEVER is He called 'God from all eternity'. NOT ONCE.

He is, however, called the 'Son of God' OVER 50 times in the NT!

And NOT once does Jesus claim to be the Most High God, or the 2nd person of the Godhead. He claimed to be the SON of God.

God Bless