Trinity

[The Biblicist]

Greetings again The Biblicist and steaver.
I appreciate the clarification of the LXX of Exodus 3:14. I am a little confused as to what you are saying though, as I understand the KJV is an attempt to translate Exodus 3:14 from the Hebrew.

I did not mean the KJV translator's translated from the LXX. I meant only they were astute enough scholars to understand the LXX usage of terms. Like all Jews, the Septuigent scholars were especially careful how they treated and translated terms that related to God's Person, especially names. The LXX was commonly used during the days of Christ as most Jews spoke Aramaic.

In John 8 some of your brethren translate the present tense "ego eime" by a past tense verb "I was" or "I have been" which is totally incorrect as the Greek has the imperfect or aorist forms if that was what Christ meodant. Obviously, the future tense would make no sense "Before Abraham I SHALL be" in the context. So they try to take the present and make it fit the past tense condition of Abraham "I was" or "I have been."

However, his audiance understood the present tense perfectly and saw it as a claim to be God. This can only be due to the common knowledge of the Septuigent reading and understanding of Exodus 3:14. So your attempt to explain this text away, explain Exodus 3:14 away is futile and irrational due to the historic contextual response of his audiance. Moreover, The Vulgate translates EGO SUM QUI SUM, I am who am. The Septuagint, εγω ειμι ο ων, I am he who exists. The Arabic paraphrases them, The Eternal, who passes not away; which is the same interpretation given by Abul Farajius, who also preserves the original words, and gives the above as their interpretation. The audiance of Christ's day understood that these words were designed to convey something about the eternity of God and their response makes this obvious.

I hold to the view that ehyeh is a future tense, as translated correctly for example in the immediate context Exodus 3:12 and in the RV and RSV margins

As I previously said, the Septuigent Greek provides the only reasonable backgroud for not only the usage by Jesus in John 8 but the obvious reaction by his audiance to the words "ego eimi." The Hebrew text uses the imperfect tense whereas the only text available during the days of Christ that used "ego eimi" is the Septuigent which was well read and understood. If your understanding were correct (the future tense) then the Septuigent "ego eimi" should not have been the words Jesus chose to use in this context, and the Jews would not have had any reason to respond the way they did if they too did not recognize the Septuigent reading. You have the weaker position that depends upon explaining away the obvious solely to defend a dogma.

To confirm this, mention has been made of John 10:30 and Jesus’ explanation and answer to those who accused him. In addition to my response in earlier Posts, please consider the following:
John 10:36 (KJV): 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
Jesus has been sanctified and has been sent. The following shows that it is the Father that sanctified Jesus and Jesus shares this status with the faithful, his brethren. His brethren share his humanity.
Hebrews 2:11 (KJV): For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,


In Isaiah and the NT the Messiah or Christ is set forth as God’s Servant. As a servant Jesus has been sent, and as such the Father is greater than His Servant.
Isaiah 42:1 (KJV): Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.
John 13:16 (KJV): Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.

You falter and fall into the same trap as the JW's in your use of scripture and reasoning. A person with two natures (divine and human) as God incarnated in human nature would naturally demonstrate full humanity in his relationship with God the Father. So like the JW's you pit scripture that expresses full humanity against scripture that undeniably asserts his full deity when both are equally true. Again, another proof of the weakness of your position as you are forced to explain away one type of text to defend the other when both are equally true. Like the JW, your dogma blinds you to the truth and so you are forced to pit one kind of text against the other. Only God is able to open your blinded eyes.

I have discussed John 1:1-14 at length and believe that “The Word” in John 1:1 is either a metaphor, or a personification similar to the woman “Wisdom” in Proverbs 8.

Another evidence of your weaker position that must explain away the obvious. The preexistence of an actual Person is made clear in John 1:14, 18 and many other texts. You just as well as embrace that the term "Son of God" is a mere metaphor and personification of divine attributes also. So the TERMS "Word" and "wisdom" may be metaphorical (representative of a Person) but to reduce it to a mere personification of divine qualities is absurd and irrational. However, that is the absurdity that a weaker position must flee unto in order to escape and to explain away the obvious.

Are you referring to Matthew 28:19? I believe the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all part of the One Name, Yahweh. I have also discussed the word “Elohim” of the OT, especially Genesis 1:26, Psalm 8 and Hebrews 2:7, Post #45 Page 4, Post #119 Page 12, and have come to a different conclusion. The angels were active in the creation, but God the Father, Yahweh, is the Creator.

Yes, and I have thoroughly repudiated and exposed your explainations previously as completely false. Men were not made in the image of angels (Heb. 1-2) and there were no other counselors with God or who gave counsel to God when he created the world (Isa. 40). The "plural of majesties" concept is post-Babylonian in origin.

I do not see the need to alter any of the following verses, and in my opinion what is taught here is contrary to the Trinity.
Acts 2:22 (KJV): 22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
Acts 2:32-36 (KJV): 32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. 33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. 34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Again, the weaker position must pit one kind of scriptures against another kind of scripture. A weaker position must deny one truth to support another truth. This text teaches both equally. He was the "Lord" of David seated in heaven not as a "personification" or "metaphor" but as His acknolwedged "Lord" and yet he came down and became a complete man but sinless through the incarnation - both are equally true. However, the weaker position must pit one against the other and accept one and deny the other.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

And this thread resurrection comes just in time for Easter :thumbs:

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

And this thread resurrection comes just in time for Easter :thumbs:

Why not? Looks like it died on Good Friday last year, then was resurrected on Resurrection Sunday! :laugh:

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again The Biblicist,

I did not mean the KJV translator's translated from the LXX. I meant only they were astute enough scholars to understand the LXX usage of terms. Like all Jews, the Septuigent scholars were especially careful how they treated and translated terms that related to God's Person, especially names. The LXX was commonly used during the days of Christ as most Jews spoke Aramaic.

I do not know the connection between Aramaic and Greek. Did the Jews that spoke Aramaic also know and understand Greek? The Grecian speaking Jews or the Jews that were under Grecian influence seemed to be a separate group in their midst. Although most Jews may not have spoken Hebrew on a day to day basis, Paul spoke in Hebrew to the crowd at his arrest and they kept silence and it is inferred they understood what he said. I also imagine that many synagogues used Hebrew scrolls for their Scripture reading. I consider that Jesus read from a Hebrew Isaiah scroll in the synagogue. Have they discovered Aramaic scrolls amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls?

In John 8 some of your brethren translate the present tense "ego eime" by a past tense verb "I was" or "I have been" which is totally incorrect as the Greek has the imperfect or aorist forms if that was what Christ meodant. Obviously, the future tense would make no sense "Before Abraham I SHALL be" in the context. So they try to take the present and make it fit the past tense condition of Abraham "I was" or "I have been."

I have never heard this explanation before, and I suggest that he was both misinformed and wrong. I have read a lot of our literature and listened to many talks. If you have a reference I would be interested. I am our meeting’s librarian, but I have a much larger personal collection of resources. I do not think Jesus is alluding to Exodus 3:14. I believe that Jesus is saying “I am he”, that is, he is the Christ, and the KJV translators seem to infer or allow this for the same expression in the immediate context, where they add “he”.
John 8:28 (KJV): Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
Note that Jesus here does not proclaim Himself as the all-powerful, pre-existing being that you seem to infer from John 8:58, but speaks of his weakness in crucifixion, and his total dependence on His Father for all things. I reject your idea that he swaps expressions from being “fully man” and then “fully God”. He was one being, a man, one mind, one character. His duality is an invention.

However, his audiance understood the present tense perfectly and saw it as a claim to be God. This can only be due to the common knowledge of the Septuigent reading and understanding of Exodus 3:14. So your attempt to explain this text away, explain Exodus 3:14 away is futile and irrational due to the historic contextual response of his audiance. Moreover, The Vulgate translates EGO SUM QUI SUM, I am who am. The Septuagint, εγω ειμι ο ων, I am he who exists. The Arabic paraphrases them, The Eternal, who passes not away; which is the same interpretation given by Abul Farajius, who also preserves the original words, and gives the above as their interpretation. The audiance of Christ's day understood that these words were designed to convey something about the eternity of God and their response makes this obvious.

I prefer and accept “I will be” as the correct translation of Exodus 3:14, despite your citation of other resources. If you go to an old-fashioned Englishman’s and Exodus 3:14 ehyeh or hah-yah is placed under KAL – Future, and the other citations of this word are future. The “I AM” looks completely out of place.

As I previously said, the Septuigent Greek provides the only reasonable backgroud for not only the usage by Jesus in John 8 but the obvious reaction by his audiance to the words "ego eimi." The Hebrew text uses the imperfect tense whereas the only text available during the days of Christ that used "ego eimi" is the Septuigent which was well read and understood. If your understanding were correct (the future tense) then the Septuigent "ego eimi" should not have been the words Jesus chose to use in this context, and the Jews would not have had any reason to respond the way they did if they too did not recognize the Septuigent reading. You have the weaker position that depends upon explaining away the obvious solely to defend a dogma.

I prefer the context of John 8:28. Jesus was not referring to Exodus 3:14. They were objecting to his claim that he preceded Abraham in the purpose of God.

You falter and fall into the same trap as the JW's in your use of scripture and reasoning. A person with two natures (divine and human) as God incarnated in human nature would naturally demonstrate full humanity in his relationship with God the Father. So like the JW's you pit scripture that expresses full humanity against scripture that undeniably asserts his full deity when both are equally true. Again, another proof of the weakness of your position as you are forced to explain away one type of text to defend the other when both are equally true. Like the JW, your dogma blinds you to the truth and so you are forced to pit one kind of text against the other. Only God is able to open your blinded eyes.

I do not believe that Jesus had two natures. He was God’s Servant and he was sent. He was a man, a unique man specially prepared by God, and he was The Son of God by birth, character and now in immortal glory.

Another evidence of your weaker position that must explain away the obvious. The preexistence of an actual Person is made clear in John 1:14, 18 and many other texts. You just as well as embrace that the term "Son of God" is a mere metaphor and personification of divine attributes also. So the TERMS "Word" and "wisdom" may be metaphorical (representative of a Person) but to reduce it to a mere personification of divine qualities is absurd and irrational. However, that is the absurdity that a weaker position must flee unto in order to escape and to explain away the obvious.

The actual person only appears when he is conceived and born John 1:14, and John and others beheld his glory of character during his ministry.

Yes, and I have thoroughly repudiated and exposed your explainations previously as completely false. Men were not made in the image of angels (Heb. 1-2) and there were no other counselors with God or who gave counsel to God when he created the world (Isa. 40). The "plural of majesties" concept is post-Babylonian in origin.

But Psalm 8 and Hebrews 2 state that Jesus and man were made lower than the angels. I am content with my explanation of Genesis 1:26, Psalm 8 and Hebrews 2. Yes, God is the Creator, and the angels did not teach God Isaiah 40. The angels spoke and acted on behalf of God and there are examples where they had delegated authority. The judges also had delegated authority, but sometimes they were unfaithful and failed. The angels were faithful and fulfilled God’s will.

Again, the weaker position must pit one kind of scriptures against another kind of scripture. A weaker position must deny one truth to support another truth. This text teaches both equally. He was the "Lord" of David seated in heaven not as a "personification" or "metaphor" but as His acknolwedged "Lord" and yet he came down and became a complete man but sinless through the incarnation - both are equally true. However, the weaker position must pit one against the other and accept one and deny the other.

The Trinity is not taught in Acts 2 and the verses quoted speak clearly against the Trinity concept. Do you believe that these Jews, steeped as they were in the One God, Yahweh of the OT Deuteronomy 6:4, started to believe the Trinity as the result of Peter’s speech in Acts 2? I believe that David spoke in Psalm 110:1 of his Lord in the future, even though what is sometimes termed “the prophetic past” is used. This was not fulfilled until Jesus was raised from the dead and sat down at the right hand of His Father. Another example is “thou hast put all things under his feet” Psalm 8:6, but this is not yet fully accomplished and was future when David stated this.

I asked someone who has researched this, and he has informed me that for John 1:1-3:

The following Bibles have 'it' instead of 'him':
* Tyndale's (1526)
* Rogers' (1537)
* Great Bible (1539)
* Geneva Bible (1560)
* Bishop's Bible (1568)
Wycliffe's (1380) has 'him', as does Coverdale's (1535) and the Douey-Rheims (1582).

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[The Biblicist]

I prefer and accept.... I prefer... I am content with my explanation.....

It is a complete waste of time to respond to someone with your kind of mindset. Absolutely void of any objective capability and full of bias and dogma. It is quite obvious you could are less about sound exegesis but would "prefer" whatever anyone gives you to support your bias. The evidence against your position is overwhelming to any reasonable and objective person. You seem like a nice fella but it completely astounds me why an absolute heretic is allowed to post on this forum?????

 

[prophet]

We've come full circle, now.

The word "Trinity" isn't found in Scripture, so why use it?
Servetus died for saying that.

Where once the protestation of the "trinity doctrine" was over the teaching that Jesus set aside His godhood, and became fully man, now it's detractors are claiming the very same thing.

Jesus was crucified for exposing His godhood:

Jn 5:18
18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

Jn 10:30-33
30 I and my Father are one.
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I 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.

Jn 8:58-59
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
59 Then took they up stones to cast at him:but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It is a complete waste of time to respond to someone with your kind of mindset. Absolutely void of any objective capability and full of bias and dogma. It is quite obvious you could are less about sound exegesis but would "prefer" whatever anyone gives you to support your bias. The evidence against your position is overwhelming to any reasonable and objective person. You seem like a nice fella but it completely astounds me why an absolute heretic is allowed to post on this forum?????

Hi Mark....think this through for a minute. The answer perhaps is to view dissent,even conflict as necessary stimulators to eventual consensus. Bouncing everyone off the forum that we perceive as a heretic accomplishes little to both the thinking process and individual spiritual growrh.

 

[prophet]

Hi Mark....think this through for a minute. The answer perhaps is to view dissent,even conflict as necessary stimulators to eventual consensus. Bouncing everyone off the forum that we perceive as a heretic accomplishes little to both the thinking process and individual spiritual growrh.

Earnestly contend.

 

[The Biblicist]

Hi Mark....think this through for a minute. The answer perhaps is to view dissent,even conflict as necessary stimulators to eventual consensus. Bouncing everyone off the forum that we perceive as a heretic accomplishes little to both the thinking process and individual spiritual growrh.

Rules are rules. As I understand the rules of this forum is that those who deny the fundementals of the faith are not allowed on the forum. I am kicked off for grey line disagreement. Mormons are not allowed on, JW's are not allowed on and many Catholics are not allowed on. Yet Trevor's error belongs in the same camp and area of those not allowed on.

In addition, Trevor clearly refuses to be objective. He has made his case irregardless of the facts and is content with his own answers even though they have been thoroughly exposed. Instead, he just says "I prefer...I am content with...... There can be no dialogue with that kind of mindset.

 

[Yeshua1]

Greetings steaver,


I conclude that the Scriptures do not teach the Trinity, but teach that there is One God the Father and that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Could you tell me when the word “Trinity” was first used? I understand that the word did not appear until the 3rd Century or even later.

Kind regards
Trevor[/QUOTE

]unless you believe that jesus was and is God, just as much God as the father was/is, then you have faith in a false jesus, who offers false salvation!


Do agree with the bible that Jesus was and is fully God, just as much as the father is?

And the word itself is not the important thing here, rather, does the Bible describe 3 persons who are all equally God?

 

[steaver]

I prefer to rely upon the Word of God than this claim of Mainstream Christianity having the Spirit.

Kind regards
Trevor

JW's and Mormons say the same, yet they are lost, stuck on religion, missing the Spirit relationship.

Ro8:9 - "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

1) Spirit of God and Spirit of Christ one in the same.

2) Only God is omnipresent, the Spirit of Christ is in all of His children all over the world.

3) If you Trevor do not have the Spirit of God/Christ you are none of His/Christ/God.

Ro8:16 - "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:"

As you can see, the Word of God confirms my relationship I have with Jesus Christ living in me, and the Holy Spirit of God teaching me Jesus is indeed God.

If you are relying on your own understanding of words printed on a page, and you must go to Greek and Hebrew otherwise your beliefs fall apart, then you are gravely mistaken if you believe the bible saves you. You are missing the application. Your Greek and Hebrew will not save you, Ye must be born-again.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again The Biblicist, prophet, Yeshua1, steaver and others,

It is a complete waste of time to respond to someone with your kind of mindset. Absolutely void of any objective capability and full of bias and dogma. It is quite obvious you could are less about sound exegesis but would "prefer" whatever anyone gives you to support your bias. The evidence against your position is overwhelming to any reasonable and objective person. You seem like a nice fella but it completely astounds me why an absolute heretic is allowed to post on this forum?????

I was disappointed in your response because I felt that you were in many respects better qualified with your language skills and other knowledge to answer some of my Posts. I learn and adjust by such discussion, but as you point out I am stubborn and reticent to concede a contrary view. I was not aware that I am “Absolutely void of any objective capability and full of bias and dogma.” I appreciate the tolerance shown so far to my different views.

I was encouraged by the title of this part of the Baptist Forum “Other Christian Denominations” and felt that if I posted different views not held by mainstream Baptists, then there would be some discussion. I attempted wherever possible to discuss Scripture, and if Scripture did not directly support any view I advanced, then it was not worth stating. If I have been misreading these Scriptures I would welcome a clear explanation of these Scriptures.

In line with this policy of discussing Scripture, you claimed that Elohim in the OT or Genesis 1 at least relates to Jesus. I ask the question: Have you considered carefully the use of the word “Elohim” when it appears to be speaking of an angel or angels? There are many examples and I believe that one key to understand this OT idiom is to accept the words of Jesus in John 10:35 concerning why the Judges in Israel were called “Elohim”. They acted and spoke on behalf of God.
John 10:35 (KJV): If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

One example is when Moses was at the burning bush:
Exodus 3:2-4 (KJV): 2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. 3 And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt. 4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God (Elohim) called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.

Manoah encountered an angel announcing the birth of Samson:
Judges 13:21-22 (KJV): 21 But the angel of the LORD did no more appear to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was an angel of the LORD. 22 And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God (Elohim).

Jesus was crucified for exposing His godhood:
Jn 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

I have considered John 10:30-33 and John 8:58-59 in other Posts. Have you considered Jesus’ answer to their wrong accusation?
John 5:19 (KJV): Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
If “The Son can do nothing of himself” is this equality with God, the Father. In claiming that God was His Father, he was claiming that He was The Son of God, not God the Son and this was the accusation at his trial.
Matthew 26:63-65 (KJV): 63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. 64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. 65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.

unless you believe that jesus was and is God, just as much God as the father was/is, then you have faith in a false jesus, who offers false salvation!
Do agree with the bible that Jesus was and is fully God, just as much as the father is?
And the word itself is not the important thing here, rather, does the Bible describe 3 persons who are all equally God?

Could you make a short list of Scriptures that support what you claim above? Or do you want to quote the Athanasian Creed? I believe that there is One God the Father, and that our Lord Jesus Christ is The Son of God.

If you are relying on your own understanding of words printed on a page, and you must go to Greek and Hebrew otherwise your beliefs fall apart, then you are gravely mistaken if you believe the bible saves you. You are missing the application. Your Greek and Hebrew will not save you, Ye must be born-again.

I believe I have the Spirit of Christ and have been born again, but not in the way that you claim. Yes God has given us the ability to read and understand the Word of God. God has spoken, we are expected to hear and understand. Some reference books, including Greek and Hebrew resources, are helpful to properly understand what God has spoken.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[prophet]

The Pharisees knew he was the Messiah, and they rejected Him.

Mat 2:4-6
4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.
5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea:for thus it is written by the prophet,
6 And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda:for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.

The leaders of Jewry of the day were infatuated with Rome, living secret lives of excess in Herod's puppet quarter. They knew where, and when He would be born, but they weren't there worshipping Him.

Later on they cried:
"Away with him, away with him, crucify him".
Pilate saith unto them,
"Shall I crucify your King?"
The chief priests answered,
"We have no king but Caesar".

 

[The Biblicist]

In line with this policy of discussing Scripture, you claimed that Elohim in the OT or Genesis 1 at least relates to Jesus. I ask the question: Have you considered carefully the use of the word “Elohim” when it appears to be speaking of an angel or angels?

Your begging the question. Genesis 1-2 has no reference to angels. Isaiah 40 makes it clear that when God created the heavens and earth he did not seek sought or work in counsel with angels or anyone else. Hebrews 1-2 makes it clear that man is not made in the image of angels. Hence, your whole argumentation concerning "elohim" in Genesis 1 is completely flawed.

Second, Someone (not some thing) indwelt, took upon himself a human nature (John 1:14; Philipl 2:6) and thus preexisted his humanity and that someone claims to be God and is called God not merely in John 1:1-2; Mt. 1:23; Isa. 9:6 and the"great God" by Isaiah. He is the "angel" or "messenger" of the Covenant or the one sent into the world as the representative of the Godhead to establish the covenant of redemption as the one mediator between God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) and men. As God He is omnipresent and thus while taking up residence in human form and nature on earth he was still existing in heaven (Jn. 1:13).

Third, you are confusing John 8 with John 10. I referenced John 8 not John 10. In John 8 they understood "ego eimi" directly from the Septuigent due to the very context of His claim with Abraham.

Fourth in the response of Jesus in John 10 is an argument from lesser to greater. If God could call wicked judges "elohim" how much more One who created all men and who is the existing one prior to Abraham, the Son of God.

Fifth, the "angel" or "messenger" at the burning bush was the preincarnate God the Son. God the Son is the messenger of the covenant and the mediator between God and man.

Your line of arguments are exactly the same as JW's and Mormon's who simply are incapable or unwilling to accept that someone with two natures will have texts describing him from both aspects. He "took upon himself" demands two different natures.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Rules are rules. As I understand the rules of this forum is that those who deny the fundementals of the faith are not allowed on the forum. I am kicked off for grey line disagreement. Mormons are not allowed on, JW's are not allowed on and many Catholics are not allowed on. Yet Trevor's error belongs in the same camp and area of those not allowed on.

:laugh: Yea, but you are not that rigid. You can kick them all off and have a sterile environment on this forum, but then there is no opportunity to correct & teach. Personally there are others, ya know but....ah, I will just get myself in trouble for exposing it publicly. I will just say this Mark, ....there once was a time that the Lord was our enemy, but through the grace & mercy of the HS .....and the patience of some very solid Christians, that we came to a truer understanding. Do we want to take up the "RULES ARE RULES" stance & perhaps miss the opportunity to persuade someone of their error. Think about it.....I dont need an answer.

 

[The Biblicist]

:laugh: Yea, but you are not that rigid. You can kick them all off and have a sterile environment on this forum, but then there is no opportunity to correct & teach. Personally there are others, ya know but....ah, I will just get myself in trouble for exposing it publicly. I will just say this Mark, ....there once was a time that the Lord was our enemy, but through the grace & mercy of the HS .....and the patience of some very solid Christians, that we came to a truer understanding. Do we want to take up the "RULES ARE RULES" stance & perhaps miss the opportunity to persuade someone of their error. Think about it.....I dont need an answer.

I understand your reasoning and agree with it overall. However, debate requires willingness on both sides to at least try to be objective rather than simply repeat disproven arguments over and over. When that is the response no further discussion is reasonable or possible.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I understand your reasoning and agree with it overall. However, debate requires willingness on both sides to at least try to be objective rather than simply repeat disproven arguments over and over. When that is the response no further discussion is reasonable or possible.

Thats true....and honestly, I wasnt really following his posts that closely because I was repulsed by some of his postings & lost interest.....but I have total confidence in your discernment regarding the debate & so I will shut up now.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Why not? Looks like it died on Good Friday last year, then was resurrected on Resurrection Sunday! :laugh:

Ha, Ha--good point :applause:

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Greetings steaver,


I conclude that the Scriptures do not teach the Trinity, but teach that there is One God the Father and that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Could you tell me when the word “Trinity” was first used? I understand that the word did not appear until the 3rd Century or even later.

Kind regards
Trevor

Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.


Who's blood?

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again The Biblicist and Jordan Kurecki,

To avoid a possible repetition of some aspects of the discussion I will briefly answer a few things. I am happy in the others that you reassert your position.

Your begging the question. Genesis 1-2 has no reference to angels. Isaiah 40 makes it clear that when God created the heavens and earth he did not seek sought or work in counsel with angels or anyone else. Hebrews 1-2 makes it clear that man is not made in the image of angels. Hence, your whole argumentation concerning "elohim" in Genesis 1 is completely flawed.

Please note that “Elohim” in Psalm 8:5 is translated angels, and this Psalm is David’s summary of the creation and the formation of man. Paul in Hebrews 2 bases his argument in Hebrews 2 on this translation of “Elohim” as angels. If the angel in the garden was the pre-existent Jesus, was he then in human form, or simply as angel? If he was revealed as God, how do you understand that it is not possible for fallen man to look upon God? What do you make of the KJV plural “gods” as the translation of Genesis 3:5 and who is the “us” of Genesis 3:22. Is the “us” of Genesis 3:22 the same “us” as Genesis 1:26?
Genesis 3:5 (KJV): For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods (Elohim), knowing good and evil.
Genesis 3:22 (KJV):And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Genesis 1:26 (KJV): And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Fifth, the "angel" or "messenger" at the burning bush was the preincarnate God the Son. God the Son is the messenger of the covenant and the mediator between God and man.

Have you considered the possibility that some of the important “Theophanies” by angels in the OT are actually Michael and / or Gabriel or some other prominent angel? These two are specifically named in Daniel, and the angel in Zechariah 3 appears to be Michael if Jude’s reference is considered as quoting the angel’s words.

Your line of arguments are exactly the same as JW's and Mormon's who simply are incapable or unwilling to accept that someone with two natures will have texts describing him from both aspects. He "took upon himself" demands two different natures.

I would like to distance myself from the JWs and Mormons. They both accept some sort of preexistence of Jesus. I cannot comprehend that Jesus during his ministry was mortal and immortal, all-knowing but limited in knowledge, all powerful but limited in power. If you are alluding to Philippians 2, I understand this to refer to his humility of mind during his ministry. He was the Son of God by birth, but he did not use this prestige or position, but rather consciously humbled himself to minister, even to the death on the cross.

Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Who's blood?

My answer to this on another thread was: “This shows the intimate bond between Father and Son, in the death and resurrection of Christ. They are separate persons, and there is only One God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” After posting this I was interested in some of the commentaries and the following is interesting:

Among other things they were responsible to shepherd the church of God. The importance of such a charge is seen in the words which follow: which He purchased with His own blood. This latter expression has been the cause of considerable discussion and disagreement among Bible scholars. The difficulty is that God is here pictured as shedding His blood, whereas God is Spirit. It was the Lord Jesus who shed His blood, and although Jesus is God, yet nowhere else does the Bible speak of God bleeding or dying.
The majority of manuscripts read “the church of the Lord and God which He purchased with His own blood,” apparently suggesting that Person of the Godhead (the Lord) who actually shed His blood.
Perhaps J. N. Darby comes closest to the correct sense of the passage in his New Translation: “The assembly of God, which He has purchased with the blood of His own.” Here God is the One who purchased the church, but He did it with the blood of His own Son, the blessed Lord Jesus. Believer’s Bible Commentary

I do not agree with his "although Jesus is God", but the rest is interesting.

Kind regards
Trevor