Trinity

[DHK]

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

Darby was wrong.
The Believer's Bible did note:
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.
--This is the truth.
Other than Darby the only translation that I know that attributes the shedding of blood to Christ (in this verse) is the corrupted translation of the J.W. New World Translation. They deliberately add the words: the blood "of His own son." Those words are not in the Greek; not in any Greek MSS.

The Greek scholar A.T. Robertson states:

With his own blood (dia tou haimatos tou idiou). Through the agency of (dia) his own blood. Whose blood? If tou theou (Aleph B Vulg.) is correct, as it is, then Jesus is here called "God" who shed his own blood for the flock. It will not do to say that Paul did not call Jesus God, for we have Ro 9:5; Col 2:9; Tit 2:13 where he does that very thing, besides Col 1:15-20; Php 2:5-11.

It is evident that Christ is God. The truth of this verse cannot be denied.

Acts 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.

Some other information:

1. Verses showing Jesus is divine
   1. He is God in flesh (John 1:1,14; 8:58 with Exodus 3:14; Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:5-8; Heb. 1:8).
   2. John 1:1,14 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us...."
      1. This shows that Jesus is God in flesh.
      2. If you say that John 1:1 should be "a" god, then...
      3. If Jesus is "a" god, then isn't that polytheism?
      4. If Jesus is "a" god, then how many gods are there in JW theology?
      5. If Jesus is "a" god, then is he a true God or false god since the Bible says there is only one God (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8)?
      6. If Jesus is "a" god, then why does he tell people to come to him and not the Father (Matt. 11:28)?
   3. John 8:58, "Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.'" With Exodus 3:14 "God said to Moses, I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: I AM has sent me to you."
      1. Jesus uses the same title for Himself that God uses of Himself.
      2. If you say that the verse is really "I have been," then why did the Jews want to kill him -- especially when in John 10:30-33 they say they want to kill Him because He claimed to be God? Where and what did Jesus say to cause them to think that?
   4. John 10:30-33, "'I and the Father are one.' 31 The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, 'I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?' 33 The Jews answered Him, 'For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.'"
      1. Re: John 10:30-33, What was Jesus saying that caused the Jews to accuse Jesus of claiming to be God? If you can't say, then you don't know the text or the culture well enough to address the issue of Christ's deity.
   5. John 20:28
      1. In John 20:28, Thomas called Jesus God by saying to Jesus, "My Lord and My God." If Jesus is not God, then why did Jesus not correct Thomas? Three verses later it says that this is written so you might believe that Jesus is the son of God (John 20:31). Therefore, we can see that the term Son of God is saying that Jesus is God.
   6. Col. 2:9, "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form."
   7. Phil. 2:5-7, "Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness."
   8. Heb. 1:8, "But of the Son He [The Father] says, "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever...."
      1. If Jesus is not God, why does God Himself call Jesus God in Heb. 1:8?
      2. This is a quote from Psalm 45:6 which has the best translation of "Thy Throne O God..."
2. Other Verses
   1. John 10:30-33, "'I and the Father are one.' 31 The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, 'I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?' 33 The Jews answered Him, 'For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.'"
      1. Notice the Jews said, "You being a man, make yourself out to be God." What did Jesus say that caused the Pharisees to say that Jesus was claiming to be God in John 10:30-33? If you don't know, then you don't understand.
      2. Regarding John 10:30-33, if you deny that Jesus is God in flesh, then you are agreeing with the Jews who killed Christ because they did not accept who He really was.
   2. Col. 1:15-16, "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him."
      1. Firstborn is a transferrable title and does not necessitate being first created. Proof of this can be seen where Manasseh is the first born (Gen. 41:51-52) and then his brother Ephraim is called the firstborn (Jer. 31:9).
         1. Gen. 41:51-52, "And Joseph called the name of the first-born Manasseh: For, said he, God hath made me forget all my toil, and all my fathers house. And the name of the second called he Ephraim: For God hath made me fruitful in the land of my affliction."
         2. Jer. 31:9, "...for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is My firstborn."
   3. 1 Cor. 1:2, "To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ their Lord and ours."
      1. Why is the phrase "Call upon the name of the LORD" (Hebrew, YHWH, i.e., Psalm 116:4) used only of God in the OT, and translated into the Greek in the LXX as "Call upon the name of the LORD (Greek, KURIOS)" applied to Jesus in the NT (1 Cor. 1:2) if Jesus is not God in flesh?
         1. The LXX is the Septuagint which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament done by Jews around 200 B.C.
         2. Psalm 116:4, "Then I called upon the name of the Lord [YHWH]: "O Lord [YHWH], I beseech Thee, save my life!"
         3. The literal translation of 1 Cor. 1:2 is "...call upon the name of the Lord of us Jesus Christ."
         4. For more information, please see http://www.carm.org/jw/nameofLord.htm.

 

[steaver]

I believe I have the Spirit of Christ and have been born again, but not in the way that you claim. .

Kind regards
Trevor

Really? Then you should have no qualms about giving us your testimony of when and how you became born-again.

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

One can use Greek and Hebrew to help fully understand the translations, and then there are those who use the Greek and Hebrew to attack the translations.

Let me ask you a question, what do you see the advantage is in your position that Jesus is not God over mainstream Christianity's position in that Jesus is God? What do you believe are the eternal consequences to believing one way or the other?

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

Please note that Psalms 8:5 has "elohim" as the object of creation rather than assisting, counseling or acting as Creator. Isaiah 40 still denies that the Creator took counsel or had any counselors in creating this world:

Isa 40:12 ¶ Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance?
13 Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him?
14 With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding?

Paul in Hebrews 2 bases his argument in Hebrews 2 on this translation of “Elohim” as angels.

Please note that Paul did not translate "elohim" in Psalm 8:5 by "theoi" (gods) which would have been consistent with your argument but by "angeloi" (angels). I never denied that "elohim" is used for those who represent God or who try to usurp God (Gen. 3:2).

If the angel in the garden

What angel in the garden? What text are you basing your idea that there was an angel in the garden???

If he was revealed as God, how do you understand that it is not possible for fallen man to look upon God?

That is the point. In the theophanies those who did look upon him feared they would die because they did see God. No such fear was entertained about angels. In theophanies what was seen was not the glorified essence of God but a theophany or visible expression of God and thus they did not actually look upon the unveiled essence of Deity.

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.

I am surprised you use this text? Don't you understand the nature of the fall and the use of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil??? By partaking of the tree they were in essence usurping God and His position as Law giver, thus declaring themselves to be "elohim." Hence, Genesis 3:5 is about usurpation of God.

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.

Daniel and Zechariah never express they have SEEN God in any of these accounts but always describe what they saw as angels. However, such is not the case in the theophanies. They explicitly state they had seen God and feared for their life due to that very reason.

I would like to distance myself from the JWs and Mormons. They both accept some sort of preexistence of Jesus.

You may like to do so, but the fact is you belong in the very same camp in regard to theology proper. You join them in using the very same arguments and logic.

I cannot comprehend that Jesus during his ministry was mortal and immortal, all-knowing but limited in knowledge, all powerful but limited in power.

Then, you are not being honest with yourself or scripture. He stood before Nicodemus as a man and yet claimed he was in heaven at the same moment:

And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. - Jn. 3:13

Note also he claims prior existence to being on earth. "HE that CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN"

He tired as a man and yet walked on water, raised the dead, healed the sick, and commanded the atmospheric elements.

There is super abundance of evidence that He was man, but not merely a man and one must intentionally blind themselves to the overwhelming evidence or else explain such evidence away.

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 Qot use this prestige or position, but rather consciously humbled himself to minister, even to the death on the cross.

. However, Phillipians 2 is but one of many more scriptures that demand He existed prior to the incarnation. He repeats over and over again that He "came down from heaven" where prior to his incarnation he shared the glory of the Father:

Joh 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Did he later literally ascend up to heaven??? Yes or no? If so, then he also "came down from heaven" and as he was speaking was at the very same time "in heaven."

Joh 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

Joh 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

He shared the glory of the Father "before the world was" and thus "I had WITH thee" before the world was

Joh 6:42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

Joh 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.


Philip. 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Note the contrast of previously "being in the form of God" with "but...took upon him the form....likeness of men." You attempt to claim this is merely a mindset but the langauge denies your interpretation completely. The mindset is that one who is existing (present tense) in the "form" (Gr. morphe) of God could set aside such visible glory and conceal that glory by the fleshly nature.

If Paul wanted to speak of a mindset then the Greek term "phronema" would be the word to use. However, he chose the word "morphe" when used with "homoioma" refers to the essential nature of something in contrast to external appearnce. Being in essential nature God, he "took upon" the essential nature of man or which gave him the outward "likeness" (Gr. homoioma) or similtude of a man. Note the NIV translation of this verse:

Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.

In John 1:14 the word "tabernacled" refers to the human body which something previous in existence (Jn. 1:1) took up as residence. These scriptures are so clear and so self-evident that one must intentionally explain them away and any position that has to explain away so many scriptures is a weaker position.

 

[The Biblicist]

repeat and so erased

 

[The Biblicist]

John 5:19 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.

The doctrine of the Trinity states clearly that the Persons of the Godhead are not equal in position but only in Person and power. Note that the Son claims he is able to do "what things SOEVER" the Father doeth. This is a claim of omnipotence, an attribute that makes God to be God.


Jn. 5:21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.

Again the Son claims EQUAL power to raise the dead with the Father.

Jn. 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

Just Judgement requires omiscience, another attribute that makes God to be God.

Jn. 5:23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

No angel or created being could ever share EQUAL honor with the Father. The Bible calls such an act idolatry when men give something other than God EQUAL honor as God.

Again, the Son is not equal in position/authority with the Father but is equal in Person or Power because all attributes that make God to be God are shared equally by the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit:

 

[Yeshua1]

John 5:19 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.

The doctrine of the Trinity states clearly that the Persons of the Godhead are not equal in position but only in Person and power. Note that the Son claims he is able to do "what things SOEVER" the Father doeth. This is a claim of omnipotence, an attribute that makes God to be God.


Jn. 5:21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.

Again the Son claims EQUAL power to raise the dead with the Father.

Jn. 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

Just Judgement requires omiscience, another attribute that makes God to be God.

Jn. 5:23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

No angel or created being could ever share EQUAL honor with the Father. The Bible calls such an act idolatry when men give something other than God EQUAL honor as God.

Again, the Son is not equal in position/authority with the Father but is equal in Person or Power because all attributes that make God to be God are shared equally by the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit:

The writer of Hebrews had the Father address His Son as being God, LORD...

Paul called Him the One in whom ALL the fullness of Deity dwelled in bodily form, and John called Him the logos, One always with the father, who was always God...

IF Jesus was not God, His death did NOT atone for sinners, so ALL of us are still lost in our sins!

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again DHK, steaver, The Biblicist and Yeshua1,

Darby was wrong.

I appreciate your comments on Acts 20:28 and other verses that are considered to support the Trinity. Most of these verses I have considered earlier in this thread.

Really? Then you should have no qualms about giving us your testimony of when and how you became born-again.

I consider a birth to be the end result of conception, quickening or growth and then birth. Baptism by water is the end result of a belief of the gospel of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ Acts 5:8,12. This involves the preaching of the gospel, an affectionate belief of the gospel, and a desire to be baptised and submission to baptism by immersion in water, thus identifying with the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Christ. Unless a believer has responded to a true understanding of the gospel, then his immersion is not a “Spirit” birth. I was baptised in water at the age of 21 years, 49 years ago after a confession of my beliefs in front of witnesses, friends and family. There is another process, Baptism or Birth of the Spirit in its fullest sense, and this also has three stages, an initial conception when the word of God takes hold of the heart and mind, then there is a long period of quickening and growth, and the complete Birth of the Spirit is when the believer is changed from mortality to immortality at the Resurrection.

One can use Greek and Hebrew to help fully understand the translations, and then there are those who use the Greek and Hebrew to attack the translations.

Yes, I agree. We should be careful that we do not use our bias to prefer a wrong or marginal translation.

Let me ask you a question, what do you see the advantage is in your position that Jesus is not God over mainstream Christianity's position in that Jesus is God? What do you believe are the eternal consequences to believing one way or the other?

All the Bible teachings have consequences, and it is better to seek what God has revealed. God alone will determine the outcome and the level of our responsibility. We need to individually grow and this requires being teachable with humility, qualities that are not usually found in man.

Please note that Psalms 8:5 has "elohim" as the object of creation rather than assisting, counseling or acting as Creator. Isaiah 40 still denies that the Creator took counsel or had any counselors in creating this world:

But Elohim in Psalm 8:5 is the same word as used in Genesis 1. In Psalm 8:5 the subject is “Yahweh” Psalm 8:1, and He is the “Thou” of Psalm 8:5. Yahweh, God the Father is here distinguished from “Elohim” “Thou hast made him a little lower than Elohim”, that is the angels.

Did the manna in the wilderness literally come down from heaven, from the throne of God in heaven? It was the Holy Spirit, God’s Power that caused the conception of Jesus. But Jesus is the continuation of The Word, the fulness of the character and ways of God.

Note the NIV translation of this verse:
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.

To accept “very nature” as an acceptable translation of “morphe” is shown to be wrong by the fact that they are forced to translate “morphe” as “very nature” of a servant in the same context. Does a servant have a special or different nature to a free man?

In John 1:14 the word "tabernacled" refers to the human body which something previous in existence (Jn. 1:1) took up as residence. These scriptures are so clear and so self-evident that one must intentionally explain them away and any position that has to explain away so many scriptures is a weaker position.

I believe that Jesus is the antitype of the tabernacle in the wilderness. A careful consideration of the lessons concerning the tabernacle and all its service and offerings speaks of the dwelling of God amongst his people, not the incarnation of God the Son into a babe at Nazareth.

Again, the Son is not equal in position/authority with the Father …

Jesus as the Son of God is able to exercise the Power of Authority of God, because God the Father has given him this power and authority.

IF Jesus was not God, His death did NOT atone for sinners, so ALL of us are still lost in our sins!

God through Jesus, the Son of God did atone for our sins.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[DHK]

I appreciate your comments on Acts 20:28 and other verses that are considered to support the Trinity. Most of these verses I have considered earlier in this thread.

(DRB) Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Douay-Reims)

(EMTV) Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit placed you as overseers, to shepherd the church of the Lord, and of God, which He purchased with His own blood.

(ESV) Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.

(Geneva) Take heede therefore vnto your selues, and to all the flocke, whereof the holy Ghost hath made you Ouerseers, to feede the Church of God, which hee hath purchased with that his owne blood.

(ISV) Pay attention to yourselves and to the entire flock over which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers to be shepherds of God's church, which he acquired with his own blood.

(LITV) Then take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit placed you as overseers, to shepherd the assembly of God which He purchased through His own blood.

(MKJV) Therefore take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to feed the church of God which He has purchased with His own blood.

(WNT) "Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock among which the Holy Spirit has placed you to take the oversight for Him and act as shepherds to the Church of God, which He has bought with His own blood. (Weymouth)

(YLT) `Take heed, therefore, to yourselves, and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit made you overseers, to feed the assembly of God that He acquired through His own blood,

(KJV) 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.

It is evident that Darby is in the minority, and on this verse is clearly wrong. Virtually every other translation gives the same reading: "God, which he has purchased with his own blood." There is only one God--The Lord Jesus Christ, as this verse clearly attests.
The fact that you can find one or two translations (out of dozens), or one or two commentaries (contrasted to dozens of others) does not negate the truth of this verse--the deity of Christ: Christ is God.

God through Jesus, the Son of God did atone for our sins.

Atonement for sin can only be made by the one making the atonement.
If God is making the atonement through Jesus Christ then Jesus Christ must be God. Otherwise there can be no atonement. Blood was shed. Christ was the sacrifice, once shed for all.

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
It was Christ that suffered and died.
He was the just suffering for us, the unjust. The reason--to bring us to God.
He was the one that was put to death, made alive through the Spirit, that is resurrected from the dead.
The only way that full atonement could be made is if Christ was fully man and fully God at the same time. Fully man so that he could die for the sins of man; full God so that He could die for all the sins of all man of all generations. Christ is God, immortal, eternal and thus fully qualified to make that atonement for us.
Without belief in such a Savior as our Lord Jesus Christ and his substitutionary atonement it is impossible to be saved. No person can enter into heaven with receiving this gift of salvation being offered by Him. It is His gift accomplished His way.

To say that any other man played a part in His salvation is pure blasphemy and arrogance. And yet that is what man does when he says that one must be baptized in order to be saved. Or, that salvation is not complete without baptism. Baptism is a work. It is something man does, and man receives. God doesn't baptize anyone. Water cannot save; it only gets you wet. It is great superstition to think that any drop of water can save a person.

Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. There are no works involved (like baptism.)

 

[steaver]

Atonement for sin can only be made by the one making the atonement.
If God is making the atonement through Jesus Christ then Jesus Christ must be God. Otherwise there can be no atonement. Blood was shed. Christ was the sacrifice, once shed for all.

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
It was Christ that suffered and died.
He was the just suffering for us, the unjust. The reason--to bring us to God.
He was the one that was put to death, made alive through the Spirit, that is resurrected from the dead.
The only way that full atonement could be made is if Christ was fully man and fully God at the same time. Fully man so that he could die for the sins of man; full God so that He could die for all the sins of all man of all generations. Christ is God, immortal, eternal and thus fully qualified to make that atonement for us.
Without belief in such a Savior as our Lord Jesus Christ and his substitutionary atonement it is impossible to be saved. No person can enter into heaven with receiving this gift of salvation being offered by Him. It is His gift accomplished His way.

To say that any other man played a part in His salvation is pure blasphemy and arrogance. And yet that is what man does when he says that one must be baptized in order to be saved. Or, that salvation is not complete without baptism. Baptism is a work. It is something man does, and man receives. God doesn't baptize anyone. Water cannot save; it only gets you wet. It is great superstition to think that any drop of water can save a person.

Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. There are no works involved (like baptism.)

Amen! For centuries God selected from His Creation for blood sacrifices as temporary atonements for the sins of His people. The blood of created beings simply would not suffice to properly atone for sin, the sacrifice must needs be God Himself, nothing and no one else would do.

"Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:" (Heb10) An indication of the preexistence of God the eternal Son, the Christ.

 

[steaver]

I consider a birth to be the end result of conception, quickening or growth and then birth. Baptism by water is the end result of a belief of the gospel of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ Acts 5:8,12. This involves the preaching of the gospel, an affectionate belief of the gospel, and a desire to be baptised and submission to baptism by immersion in water, thus identifying with the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Christ. Unless a believer has responded to a true understanding of the gospel, then his immersion is not a “Spirit” birth. I was baptised in water at the age of 21 years, 49 years ago after a confession of my beliefs in front of witnesses, friends and family. There is another process, Baptism or Birth of the Spirit in its fullest sense, and this also has three stages, an initial conception when the word of God takes hold of the heart and mind, then there is a long period of quickening and growth, and the complete Birth of the Spirit is when the believer is changed from mortality to immortality at the Resurrection.

Kind regards
Trevor

It appears to me that your personal assurance that you will be saved is resting in what you have done step by step??? Say a person leaves out water baptism in their step by step program - do you believe that person will be saved?

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again DHK and steaver,

It is evident that Darby is in the minority, and on this verse is clearly wrong. Virtually every other translation gives the same reading: "God, which he has purchased with his own blood." There is only one God--The Lord Jesus Christ, as this verse clearly attests.
The fact that you can find one or two translations (out of dozens), or one or two commentaries (contrasted to dozens of others) does not negate the truth of this verse--the deity of Christ: Christ is God.

I appreciate the list of translations. I am happy to read the verse either way and leave the textual discussions to others. If the majority is correct then I read this as meaning “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.”

The example of Abraham in the sacrifice of Isaac is a pattern of the intimate bond between God the Father and the sacrifice of His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Genesis 22:2 (KJV): And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
Genesis 22:6 (KJV): And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together.
Genesis 22:8 (KJV): And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.
Genesis 22:14 (KJV): And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen.
The anti-type is that it was God the Father’s burnt offering, it was God the Father’s house upon whose lintel the blood of the Passover Lamb was to be placed so that all within his house would find deliverance from sin and death. It is God the Father that has purchased the Ecclesia of God with his own blood.

Without belief in such a Savior as our Lord Jesus Christ and his substitutionary atonement it is impossible to be saved.

I am not sure of what view of the atonement you hold out of the range of the “substitutionary atonement” views, but I cannot accept that God was angry with Jesus and thus made him pay the penalty of our sins. God gave his only begotten Son out of love for the world, and Jesus was His beloved Son. I believe in the representative view of the atonement, and we need to be united with him in his death and resurrection in order to obtain forgiveness Romans 6:1-14. He is “the captain of our salvation” Hebrews 2:10.
Galatians 2:20 (KJV): I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

No person can enter into heaven with receiving this gift of salvation being offered by Him. It is His gift accomplished His way.

It is certainly a gift as Jesus “gave himself for me”. I do not look to going to heaven, but with Abraham behold the Land of Promise when Jesus will establish the Kingdom of God upon the earth, when Abraham and the faithful will be raised to inherit the land.
Genesis 13:14-15 (KJV): 14 And the LORD said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward: 15 For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.
Galatians 3:16 (KJV): Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Galatians 3:26-29 (KJV): 26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

To say that any other man played a part in His salvation is pure blasphemy and arrogance. And yet that is what man does when he says that one must be baptized in order to be saved. Or, that salvation is not complete without baptism. Baptism is a work. It is something man does, and man receives. God doesn't baptize anyone. Water cannot save; it only gets you wet. It is great superstition to think that any drop of water can save a person.

I find it remarkable that believers who call themselves “Baptists” denigrate the appointed means of identification with the death and resurrection of Christ as “it only gets you wet”.

It appears to me that your personal assurance that you will be saved is resting in what you have done step by step??? Say a person leaves out water baptism in their step by step program - do you believe that person will be saved?

It is God that decides these things according to a person’s knowledge and responsibility. If a believer came to our fellowship we would instruct him in the need of baptism as the means of identification with the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Christ.

Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. There are no works involved (like baptism.)

Concerning the expression “faith alone” I consider that Luther and others have confused “works of the law” with the works of faith. Abraham is set before us as an example of faith:
Galatians 3:6-9 (KJV): 6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. 7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

Abraham’s faith is revealed in three stages, that of Genesis 15:6 when he was justified by faith for believing the promise concerning the seed. He is commended as being strong in faith near the time of the conception and birth of Isaac:
Romans 4:17-22 (KJV): 17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. 18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. 19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara’s womb: 20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; 21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. 22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.

And he was given the assurance of being blessed when he was intent on offering up Isaac, believing that God would raise him from the dead:
Genesis 22:15-18 (KJV): 15 And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, 16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: 17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; 18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.
James 2:21-24 (KJV): 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. 24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[The Biblicist]

But Elohim in Psalm 8:5 is the same word as used in Genesis 1. In Psalm 8:5 the subject is “Yahweh” Psalm 8:1, and He is the “Thou” of Psalm 8:5. Yahweh, God the Father is here distinguished from “Elohim” “Thou hast made him a little lower than Elohim”, that is the angels.

I never denied that the term "elohim" is used to describe those who either represent God or attempt to usurp God. So you are beating a dead horse by arguing in this manner.

Second, you still ignore the facts I placed before you. The facts are that the use of "elohim" in Psalm 8:5 is not applied to anyone who acted as Creator or a counselor in the act of creation. Isaiah 40 still denies that God consulted counselors or acted in counsel with anyone in the act of creation.

Did the manna in the wilderness literally come down from heaven, from the throne of God in heaven?

The manna did literally come down from the literal heavens. Other scriptures call it "angel's" food and angels do come from the throne room of God in heaven. It was sent from the throne room of heaven to earth by God's creative command.

Moreover, you are completely ignorning several texts that I provided that do claim The Son of God preexisted the incarnation and shared the glory of the Father previous to creation. You simply ignored those texts in a pick and choose type response. Deal with all the evidence not simply pick and choose what you can weasel around.

To accept “very nature” as an acceptable translation of “morphe” is shown to be wrong by the fact that they are forced to translate “morphe” as “very nature” of a servant in the same context.

The translation is correct. You are missing the primary point of the text. To "God" belongs the apparent glory that visibly expresses his "nature" as God. However, the Son of God did not choose to take upon himself a "nature" that conveyed that kind of apparent visible glory but "emptied" himself of that APPARENT VISIBLE EXPRESSION of that nature and concealed it by taking upon an APPARENT VISIBLE EXPRESSION that belongs to the nature of a man - "servant" visible expression.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again The Biblicist,

I never denied that the term "elohim" is used to describe those who either represent God or attempt to usurp God. So you are beating a dead horse by arguing in this manner.

Second, you still ignore the facts I placed before you. The facts are that the use of "elohim" in Psalm 8:5 is not applied to anyone who acted as Creator or a counselor in the act of creation. Isaiah 40 still denies that God consulted counselors or acted in counsel with anyone in the act of creation.

You read “Elohim” in Genesis 1 as the pre-incarnate Jesus, or God the Son as Creator. I read “Elohim” in Genesis 1 as the One God, the Father as the Creator, working in and through his agents the Angels to create man. This is my explanation of the plurality in the expression “Let us” of Genesis 1:26. This is God the Father speaking to the angels to cooperate in the formation of man. Psalm 8:5 is then a fitting summary of this, because if man was made in the image and after the likeness of God and the angels “our image and after our likeness”, then man is made lower than the angels. Where else does David get the concept of angels as Elohim in Psalm 8:5 when speaking of Yahweh creating man? Isaiah 40 does not exclude the angels. Isaiah 40 is in contrast to false gods and idol worship.

The manna did literally come down from the literal heavens. Other scriptures call it "angel's" food and angels do come from the throne room of God in heaven. It was sent from the throne room of heaven to earth by God's creative command.

The command may have come from God’s throne, but the product would have been manufactured by God’s power, in the same way as Jesus multiplied the loaves and fishes. It was the Holy Spirit that came down from God the Father in the conception of Jesus, not the shrinking of God the Son into a babe.

Moreover, you are completely ignorning several texts that I provided that do claim The Son of God preexisted the incarnation and shared the glory of the Father previous to creation. You simply ignored those texts in a pick and choose type response. Deal with all the evidence not simply pick and choose what you can weasel around.

It is not my intention to explain every verse that is sometimes used to support the Trinity, though throughout this thread I have covered many of these. To be honest and open, your understanding of these verses does not fit in with my overall view of this subject, but to give an easy, clear response that would answer your view adequately, or perhaps to your satisfaction, is possibly outside my personal ability. If you reject what I consider foundation verses and concepts, then it is difficult to be convincing on marginal or what I may consider to some extent “difficult” verses.

The translation is correct. You are missing the primary point of the text. To "God" belongs the apparent glory that visibly expresses his "nature" as God. However, the Son of God did not choose to take upon himself a "nature" that conveyed that kind of apparent visible glory but "emptied" himself of that APPARENT VISIBLE EXPRESSION of that nature and concealed it by taking upon an APPARENT VISIBLE EXPRESSION that belongs to the nature of a man - "servant" visible expression.

I understand this to refer to his conscious choice when he was a man. He was in the image of God, as God was His Father at birth and throughout his development up until the start of his ministry. His conscious decision was to serve, rather than reveal himself as the Son of God. The translation “very nature” attempts to force the Trinitarian view into this verse, and is an obvious biased translation of this word, as “very nature of a servant” does not make sense. The word servant is speaking and alluding to the Servant prophecies of Isaiah 40-53, and speak of his disposition of mind and his ministry, “let this mind be in you” Philippians 2:5. The fact that the glory goes to “God the Father” agrees with my understanding, and I cannot be convinced that this in any way is consistent with the Trinity.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[steaver]

I understand this to refer to his conscious choice when he was a man. He was in the image of God, as God was His Father at birth and throughout his development up until the start of his ministry. His conscious decision was to serve, rather than reveal himself as the Son of God. The translation “very nature” attempts to force the Trinitarian view into this verse, and is an obvious biased translation of this word, as “very nature of a servant” does not make sense. The word servant is speaking and alluding to the Servant prophecies of Isaiah 40-53, and speak of his disposition of mind and his ministry, “let this mind be in you” Philippians 2:5. The fact that the glory goes to “God the Father” agrees with my understanding, and I cannot be convinced that this in any way is consistent with the Trinity.

Kind regards
Trevor

I learned early on when debating the scriptures that those who oppose mainstream Christian doctrine always claim mistranslation or inadequate translating. The reason Mohammad hated Christians was because they called Jesus the Son of God and worshipped Him as God. This is why Mohammad wrote in his Koran that Jesus was not the Son of God. Even Mohammad understood that calling Jesus the Son of God was making Jesus Divine and in very essence God. Both Jew and Muslim today understand "Son of God" means Jesus and the Father are both God and this they cannot grasp for they cling to a One singular God and cannot grasp a plural Trinity God.

 

[The Biblicist]

Greetings again The Biblicist,

Psalm 8:5 is then a fitting summary of this, because if man was made in the image and after the likeness of God and the angels “our image and after our likeness”, then man is made lower than the angels. Where else does David get the concept of angels as Elohim in Psalm 8:5 when speaking of Yahweh creating man? Isaiah 40 does not exclude the angels. Isaiah 40 is in contrast to false gods and idol worship.

Your reasoning is irrational. Hebrews 2 denies that Jesus took on the nature of angels but took on the nature of man [" For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. - Heb. 2:16]. Men and angels do not share a common nature or image. The contrast in Hebrews 2:16 is between angels and the "seed" of Abraham. He is making a contrast.

Psalm 8:5 nowhere ascribes the act of creation to "elohim" in view or any counsel with such is in view - this is your pure imagination! No scripture anywhere in the bible says angels were made in the "image" of God.

Isaiah does not specify "false gods" or "idols" as you wrongly claim but uses the all inclusive "who...with whom" as a UNIVERSAL disclaimer that anything/anyone counseled Him or that he worked in counsel with ANYONE or ANYTHING. David recognizes Jesus nearly 1000 years prior to the incarnation as "my Lord" by direct address. Micah clearly states that his "going forth" is from "everlasting." Jesus said "BEFORE Abraham I am." John says that "without him" not one thing was created that was created and yet you call John a liar and say Christ never preexisted the incarnation, much less existed prior to creation. Solomon states that "wisdom" was with God "in the beginning of his ways" as God cannot exist apart from wisdom just as the Sun cannot exist apart from a trinune nature of energy, heat and light. All creation is a Trinity. In Genesis 1:1 we have a trinity expressed in creation "In the beginning [time] God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter). Each of these are trinitarian in nature (time = past, present, future; Space = length, depth and width; Matter = engery, motion and phenomena). Thus the creation declares His "godhead." These scriptures are clear and obvious that you are forced to EXPLAIN AWAY the plain sense.

You take literary liscence to change and repudiate the Word of God merely to suit your own lusts (fleshly desires) and false doctrine is a work of the flesh and its lust.

The command may have come from God’s throne,

No, the actual product literally and actually came down from the heavens just as Jesus literaly and actually came down from the heavens to INDWELL a baby.

Your idea that "shinking" God to fit inside a human body is absurd. You claim the Holy Spirit indwells you don't you??? Was he shrunk to do so??????!!!!??? The Preincarnate Jesus, the Son of God, is "spirit" and there is no need for "shinking" Him to indwell a human body. You are confusing matter with spirit when you make the irrational claim that "shrinking" God is necessary for a "spirit" to indwell a human body.

Jesus repeatedly states that he "came down from heaven" and such language is never used of ANY MAN prior to or after Christ showing that you cannot spiritualize it to mean "conception" as all men enter this world by "conception" and thus you make the langauge meaningless as such language is NEVER USED OF CONCEPTION of any other human being and yet conception is true of all humans. All birth is a supernatural work of God as God gives life and thus life comes from God as many couples cannot have a baby even though they try.

So your idea that coming down means "conception" is false and obviously false. Now what are you going to do with the abundance of texts that claim He came down from heaven and shared the glory of the Father BEFORE the world was?????????? What now? What new theory are you going to invent now to explain away this language? How are you going to explain away John 3:12-13 where coming down from heaven is in contrast to "ascending into heaven"? Are you going to say "ascending into heaven" is reverse conception???? This is the kind of absolute nonsense you are forced to embrace when you are forced to EXPLAIN AWAY clear and explicit langauge.

Joh 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Jn. 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Here Jesus literaly and specificly states "he.....came down from heaven" in contrast to "ascended up to heaven" and thus you cannot spiritualize this to mean mere "conception."
In John 3:12-13 Did he later literally ascend up to heaven??? Yes or no? If so, then he also literally "came down from heaven. " Moreover as he was speaking he clearly and explicitly states he PRESENTLY was "in heaven." That is a direct claim to be omnipresent = the attribute belonging only to God. You cannot deal with this explicit langauge. The text will not allow you to spiritualize it away.

Joh 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

Joh 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

He shared the glory of the Father "before the world was" and thus "I had WITH thee" before the world was, but you call him a liar as you claim he had no existence "before the world" and indeed had no existence after the world was created until the virgin birth.

It is not my intention to explain every verse that is sometimes used to support the Trinity,

No, it is your intention to pervert and abuse the word of God in order to make it fit your false doctrine. You have absolutely no scripture that states Christ did not preexist his virgin birth. You have absolutley no scripture that states that Christ was created. Not only have you NOTHING to draw your doctrine from but your own imagination but you have to EXPLAIN AWAY multitudes of clear and explicit scriptures that flatly contradict your doctrine.

His conscious decision was to serve, rather than reveal himself as the Son of God.

That is your invention but the text says nothing about revealing himself as "the son of God" but text says the "form OF GOD" and "EQUAL" to "GOD." You think you have the literary liscience to read into the text, change the text and interpret the text any way you like regardless of what it actually says.

The translation “very nature” attempts to force the Trinitarian view into this verse, and is an obvious biased translation of this word, as “very nature of a servant” does not make sense.

It makes perfect sense when you realize it is intentionally placed in contrast to the term "God" as all other creatures by their very nature are in a position of "servant" in relationship to "God." However, in this context "servant" modifies "man." Your problem is that prior to taking upon himself the nature of a "servant" He was NOT A SERVANT, nor was he in the "LIKENESS OF A MAN" thus not a "man" or else there would be no reason to "take upon himself" that form and becoming "LIKE" a man. Prior to taking upon himself the LIKENESS of "man" he existed in the "form of God" and was "EQUAL" with God. This is the natural flow of the text which you must deny, twist, pervert and explain away.

John 5:19 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.

The doctrine of the Trinity states clearly that the Persons of the Godhead are not equal in position but only in Person and power. Note that the Son claims he is able to do "what things SOEVER" the Father doeth. This is a claim of omnipotence, equality in power, an attribute that makes God to be God.


Jn. 5:21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.

Again the Son claims EQUAL power to raise the dead with the Father.

Jn. 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

Just Judgement requires omiscience, another attribute that makes God to be God.

Jn. 5:23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

No angel or created being could ever share EQUAL honor with the Father. The Bible calls such an act idolatry when men give the glory/honor of God to something other than God. That is the essence of idolatry. Only if the Son was God in nature could he equally share the honor given to God.

You cannot and will not deal with all the scriptures that expose your view to be false but Trinitarians can deal with every one of your texts and arguments. Why is that? That is a common denominator that characterizes all false doctrine as false doctrine by its very nature cannot harmoize all scriptures and must pick and choose and ignore Biblical evidences.

 

[OldRegular]

I learned early on when debating the scriptures that those who oppose mainstream Christian doctrine always claim mistranslation or inadequate translating. The reason Mohammad hated Christians was because they called Jesus the Son of God and worshipped Him as God. This is why Mohammad wrote in his Koran that Jesus was not the Son of God. Even Mohammad understood that calling Jesus the Son of God was making Jesus Divine and in very essence God. Both Jew and Muslim today understand "Son of God" means Jesus and the Father are both God and this they cannot grasp for they cling to a One singular God and cannot grasp a plural Trinity God.

One thing is certain. Anyone who denies the Deity of Jesus Christ is a heretic!

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again steaver, OldRegular and The Biblicist,

I learned early on when debating the scriptures that those who oppose mainstream Christian doctrine always claim mistranslation or inadequate translating.

As stated elsewhere we use the KJV almost exclusively, and this is sufficient to teach the main tenets of our belief, including the Bible doctrine that there is One God the Father, and that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Would you like a list of 20 or more verses from the KJV that teach this?

Both Jew and Muslim today understand "Son of God" means Jesus and the Father are both God and this they cannot grasp for they cling to a One singular God and cannot grasp a plural Trinity God.

I cannot answer for others, but perhaps our community’s understanding of the phrase “the Son of God” is relatively unique. We believe he is The Son of God by birth, by moral character and now by resurrection, and combining all of these he is in fullness “The Son of God”, having also been given all the Divine attributes, but he is still subject now and in the future to God the Father.

One thing is certain. Anyone who denies the Deity of Jesus Christ is a heretic!

If someone confesses that our Lord Jesus Christ is The Son of God, is he a heretic?

There is another aspect of things that were raised by you, steaver and others that has come to my attention only in the last week or so. You emphasise how you have the Spirit and this helps confirm your belief. For example from an earlier Post:

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.

What I have recently read is that some believe that we cannot even understand any portion of the Word of God at all unless we have first received the Spirit. I noticed in this and another thread suggesting the need that God open my eyes and ears, and this is possibly a quotation from the words of Jesus regarding the Parable of the Sower, or many other occurrences of this phrase. What I now read is that some equate “opening eyes and ears” with receiving the Spirit so that we can understand the Word. All those who do not receive the Spirit will not understand the Word, and as you express it, it will be only “words printed on a page”. I would be interested if this is your view of this, and is this the normal Baptist view?

I will state my view in anticipation. In contrast, I believe that The Words of God, today available in black and white on the printed page, are able to be understood. Undeniably we do ask God’s help and guidance, but we do not expect a direct Spirit infusion. An example of straight forward understanding is the Parable of the Sower, where on the first level we now have the explanation by Jesus of this parable and this explanation can be understood if we are simply humble and teachable. On the next level the “Gospel of the Kingdom and Name” is represented by the sowing of the seed taken to heart and meditated upon, and sought after, then we can become those who receive the word with gladness and bring forth fruit. There is no need for a direct intervention of the Spirit, as the word of God is living and powerful, and the gospel is the power of God unto salvation.

Concerning your latest Post, The Biblicist, I decided that I would not respond to all the detail. One reason is to avoid repetition even though I recognise that my explanations are not very clear on some aspects.

What new theory are you going to invent now to explain away this language? How are you going to explain away John 3:12-13 where coming down from heaven is in contrast to "ascending into heaven"? Are you going to say "ascending into heaven" is reverse conception???? This is the kind of absolute nonsense you are forced to embrace when you are forced to EXPLAIN AWAY clear and explicit langauge.

If you want a new view that you may label “theory” have you considered Psalm 68 that speaks of Yahweh ascending:
Psalm 68:18 (KJV): Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the LORD God might dwell among them. Psalm 77:20 (KJV): Thou leddest thy people like a flock by the hand of Moses and Aaron.
This seems to refer in the first instance to Yahweh’s deliverance of Israel out of Egypt, but Paul also applies this to salvation in Jesus.
Ephesians 4:8-10 (KJV): 8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. 9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
Looking at these, God led Israel out of Egypt, but it was by the hand of Moses and Aaron. God ascended after he accomplished this mission, but in what way did God descend first in the times of Moses? Did God the Father descend or an Angel? Or do you believe that in both events it was God the Son as you suggested with Exodus 3?

You cannot and will not deal with all the scriptures that expose your view to be false but Trinitarians can deal with every one of your texts and arguments. Why is that? That is a common denominator that characterizes all false doctrine as false doctrine by its very nature cannot harmoize all scriptures and must pick and choose and ignore Biblical evidences.

I thought I had better include this as a summary of your position to show that I have not altogether dismissed the rest of your Post. I have not had in my estimation a convincing response to many of the Scriptures that I have given throughout this thread. You may claim that all have been answered or could be answered. Many of these scriptures are foundations to my beliefs on this subject and in my mind these foundations simply make it inconceivable to interpret many of the passages that you cite in a Trinitarian manner. I am reasonably content with the discussion that we have all shared on this subject. I have grown in understanding by many aspects of this discussion.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[steaver]

As stated elsewhere we use the KJV almost exclusively, and this is sufficient to teach the main tenets of our belief, including the Bible doctrine that there is One God the Father, and that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Would you like a list of 20 or more verses from the KJV that teach this?

The JWs and Mormons declare the same for their religions. What you and they have in common is that you all have a relationship with a book. Inside, in your spirit, you have no relationship with the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, the Comforter - the Holy Spirit. I provided scripture which even declares you must have this Spirit and those who do KNOW it - Romans8. You are as Nicodemus, no understanding of "born-again".

Think about your relationship with God, examine yourself, know ye not how that Jesus Christ is in you? Except ye be reprobates. Do some more research, ask Messianic Jews and Muslims, they understand Jesus is God, they understand this by the Spirit they receive when they are truly converted to following Jesus Christ, and they worship Him as God! Those Jews and Muslim which do not follow Jesus Christ will flat out tell you that to call Jesus the "Son of God" is to call Jesus God, and this is a huge stumbling block for them.

 

[steaver]

What I have recently read is that some believe that we cannot even understand any portion of the Word of God at all unless we have first received the Spirit.

"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (Matt7)

What happen with these people Trevor? The scripture says they did wonderful works, it says they did not understand why they were being rejected. They were acknowledging Jesus as God's Son were they not? But what does Jesus tell them? I never KNEW you! Again - your relationship is in religion Trevor, in a book, you are missing the message.

 

[The Biblicist]

Concerning your latest Post, The Biblicist, I decided that I would not respond to all the detail. One reason is to avoid repetition even though I recognise that my explanations are not very clear on some aspects.

You can't honestly respond to the details of my post and we all know that. My post exposes your false doctrine thoroughly and completely and that is self-evident.

If you want a new view that you may label “theory” have you considered Psalm 68 that speaks of Yahweh ascending:
Psalm 68:18 (KJV): Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the LORD God might dwell among them. Psalm 77:20 (KJV): Thou leddest thy people like a flock by the hand of Moses and Aaron.
This seems to refer in the first instance to Yahweh’s deliverance of Israel out of Egypt, but Paul also applies this to salvation in Jesus.

No, he applies it to a literal ascension into heaven by Christ just as John 3:12-13 contrasts it with his literal descension from heaven. John 3:12-13 completely anihilates all your vain reasonings. You cannot deal with the language because the immediate context denies any attempt to spiritualize
"descended from heaven" to mean "conception" or any other spiritualized perverted interpetation you may suggest. The present tense "which is in heaven" further repudiates your whole theory.

Jehovah is said to have come down from heaven to Mount Sinai and He did so in a visible form that Moses could actually see the "back" side while being sheilded in a rock. He did give Moses gifted men to fashion the tabernacle and furniture. His visible manifestion did return to heaven

I have not had in my estimation a convincing response to many of the Scriptures that I have given throughout this thread.

I have never met a heretic that could be convinced by any amount of explicit clear and abundant evidence and that is precisely why you cannot respond to the details of my posts - you have no response and everyone on this forum that has read the discussion knows it. The only thing you have grown in is your resistance to truth.