Trinity

[Yeshua1]

theangels worshipped chrsit the lord, paul said God bestowed upon Jesus name of the LORD, Thomas called him His LORD and GOD...

Do you believe the testimony of scriptures or not?

 

[steaver]

Most probably not in the same sense as you would claim.
Kind regards
Trevor

There is no "sense" about it, Paul said it very plainly, "know ye not how that Jesus Christ is IN you?" This is Paul's question spoken by the Holy Spirit of God and you disregard it as not "subtantive".

Please refer to my earlier post concerning something substantive. .

See above

Although you are very sincere, you are repeating the same material and questions.

Well, I tend to do this alot when one never gives an answer. And I am sincere because this is a heaven or hell question Paul asks and I would like to see you enter into the kingdom of God (born again, Christ in you)

I'd hate to have you in charge of the Spanish Inquisition. Torture next, or in USA a lynch mob, or modern days high power attack rifle. Baptists have been known to take up arms, for example the American Civil War. Unlike the Anabaptists for whom I have some respect in this regard

Well Trevor, as you can see, DHK has answered all of your objections with Scripture and has clearly shown the angels had nothing to do with creation. But will you listen? No, nothing is going to change your mind with the exception of you meeting Jesus face to face and falling then down on your knees crying "my Lord and my God". Blessed was Thomas because he seen and believed, blessed are they which do not see Jesus in the flesh and believe!

Let me try again, Do you know Jesus Christ is in you?

 

[steaver]

There was a woman who came to our church about fifteen years ago after a friend witnessed to her Jesus Christ, that is, the real Jesus Christ. She had been in the JW cult for twenty years, when God lifted that veil and opened her heart, showing her the true Jesus Christ, she broke and called upon Jesus and received Him as Lord God and Saviour. She gave her testimony at a prayer meeting one evening, she said it was so hard for her to believe Jesus was God because the JW's spend hours upon hours pounding it into their people that the Trinity is of the devil and those who believe in the Trinity are hell bound. Isn't that just like satan, to take the truth and twist is all around. Satan is called the Deceiver for a reason.

I was talking with a JW about six months ago, she was very pleasant, as they all are, they are taught very well to be very nice and not get all fired up with anyone. Anytime I get a chance to talk with one of them I always lead them to the topic of Jesus Christ and who He is. She started in with the paradise on earth lie and I cut in and said, "I'm going to be in heaven and then return with Jesus to earth!" I said to her, do you believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God? She said, oh yes, and I said, well so do I, so we are both saved! And she said, well no, you must worship Jehovah alone. I said, I do worship Jehovah, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost! She said, no, God is only One God and you must worship God alone, a person can be deceived. I said, ok, well maybe you are deceived. And she said, oh no, i'm not deceived. And I said, well if you were deceived how would you know you are not deceived? And she said, well I'm not deceived. And we went back and forth on this for about 5 minutes. Her trying to convince me that a person can be deceived, but this excluded herself, and the rest of the JWs I guess. It was quite comical. She was very nice though, even though I know I was getting her confused with her own rhetoric. She politely departed. Hasn't been back.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again DHK,

He is simply understood here for those who are willing:

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
--These three separate persons are one God.

I am surprised that you quote the KJV of 1 John 5:7. It is recognised by most as spurious. Do you have other evidence of it being original?
1 John 5:7-8 (KJV): 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
1 John 5:7-8 (NIV): 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
1 John 5:7-8 (NASB95): 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
1 John 5:7-8 (RSV): 7 And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 8 There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree.
1 John 5:7-8 (ASV): 7And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 8For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one.

A brief response to some other aspects of your two posts: I have a lot of respect for Adam Clarke and his Commentary, but I do not agree with him on the Trinity. I believe that Yahweh was the Creator but he used the angels as ministers. When Christ was exalted after his resurrection he sat down at the right hand of God, and thus he was exalted above the angels. The angels continued to stand in God’s presence and minister. I read Genesis 1:26 as God’s invitation to the angels to participate in the creation of man. We differ on Isaiah 6. I believe the Lord is speaking, and he then says “us” to include the seraphim, who were standing around the throne. Unlike the throne of God the Father with Jesus now seated on his right hand, the throne of the Lord in Isaiah’s vision only had one person seated.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again steaver,

There is no "sense" about it, Paul said it very plainly, "know ye not how that Jesus Christ is IN you?" This is Paul's question spoken by the Holy Spirit of God and you disregard it as not "subtantive".

Well, I tend to do this alot when one never gives an answer. And I am sincere because this is a heaven or hell question Paul asks and I would like to see you enter into the kingdom of God (born again, Christ in you)

Let me try again, Do you know Jesus Christ is in you?

One theme that captivated my attention a few years ago was taken from Isaiah 6:9-10, 49:5-6, 53:1, John 12:20ff. This suggests that most of Israel would reject their Messiah, and yet somehow the Messiah would become a light to the Gentiles, and there is a hint of this when the Greeks come to visit Jesus. Now as Jesus did not widely preach to the Gentiles, how would this be accomplished? Well in the outcome it was Paul who was commissioned to accomplish this work:
Galatians 1:15-16 (KJV): 15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, 16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; …

I listened to an old tape from 1948 of a visiting speaker to the USA and you may find his comment interesting on this verse:

We can quite understand such a zealous man not without some impetuosity that marked Paul, that at once he thought it was his job to begin and preach Christ, he even thought that because he'd been a persecutor and then had changed, there was in that very fact something that might appeal in his testimony to the Jews and that they might receive him. But the Lord told him his work lay among the Gentiles. But he was quite a number of years away in Syria, and in Cilicia, and he was there preaching. All that they heard in Judea, was that he who was a persecutor, now preached the faith that he had destroyed. But it was all like the trying of his wings. He went away into Arabia first of all to whatever part, we do not know, but we can understand that the man must have done some rethinking of his faith. It pleased God to reveal His Son in, in him, and that revelation of His Son in Paul could not have been done without some entire re-orientation of the thought of the apostle. The old habits of his thought had to be broken down and new habits of thought established. It is true there was revelation but that revelation through Paul and the visions that he saw, which he tells us about in his letter to the Corinthians, had all to be re-thought into the very fabric of his own mind, so that the message given through Paul became Paul's own faith, and Paul's own guiding light.

I am not sure if you can accept this sense of Christ being in us. The quiet moral transformation of character until the character of Christ is formed within us, and then can be partially revealed to others.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[DHK]

Greetings again DHK, I am surprised that you quote the KJV of 1 John 5:7. It is recognised by most as spurious. Do you have other evidence of it being original?
1 John 5:7-8 (KJV): 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
1 John 5:7-8 (NIV): 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
1 John 5:7-8 (NASB95): 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
1 John 5:7-8 (RSV): 7 And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 8 There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree.
1 John 5:7-8 (ASV): 7And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 8For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one.

Attacking the Word of God isn't in your best interests for trying to win a debate. In spite of your views on versions, 1John 5:7 gives a very succinct definition of the trinity. And no, I don't believe it is "spurious."
But the J.W.'s do. They use the NWT. It is a translation that demeans the deity of Christ.

A brief response to some other aspects of your two posts: I have a lot of respect for Adam Clarke and his Commentary, but I do not agree with him on the Trinity.

Of course. You don't believe in the trinity. That is a given.

I believe that Yahweh was the Creator but he used the angels as ministers.

That has as much truth in it as aliens living on Pluto creating us.

When Christ was exalted after his resurrection he sat down at the right hand of God, and thus he was exalted above the angels.

Christ created the angels. The Word of God says he did. (John 1:3,4; Col.1:15-17; Rev.4:11). Christ is our Creator; the creator of all things including the angels who worship Him as such.

The angels continued to stand in God’s presence and minister. I read Genesis 1:26 as God’s invitation to the angels to participate in the creation of man.

You are making that up. It does not say that at all. That is a perversion of Scripture. "Let us make man in our image and likeness" That speaks to the triune Godhead. There are no angels in that verse at all. There are as many angels in that verse as there are RCC babies being baptized. You are reading into Scripture just what you want to believe when it isn't there.

We differ on Isaiah 6. I believe the Lord is speaking, and he then says “us” to include the seraphim,

It is the same expression as in Genesis one. "Let us"--the triune Godhead.

who were standing around the throne.

That would have been blasphemous. Over and over again, God does not share his glory with another. That was the whole point of that scene. They were giving glory to God; giving praise to Him. To accept praise from others would be blasphemous. It is God that was in command saying "Let us"...

Unlike the throne of God the Father with Jesus now seated on his right hand, the throne of the Lord in Isaiah’s vision only had one person seated.

Yes, the triune Godhead. God is spirit; they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). But now that Christ has arisen from the dead he has kept his glorified body. He sits by that throne because he has a physical body, as every believer will have someday. Those believers who have already died are in heaven but without a body. Someday they too will have a glorified body, but the resurrection has not yet taken place.

 

[steaver]

You are making that up. It does not say that at all. That is a perversion of Scripture. "Let us make man in our image and likeness" That speaks to the triune Godhead. There are no angels in that verse at all.

Trevor, are you going to declare that man is made in the image of angels? This absolutely destroys your argument, but will you accept something "substantive" as you insist? Let's see........

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again DHK,

Attacking the Word of God isn't in your best interests for trying to win a debate. In spite of your views on versions, 1John 5:7 gives a very succinct definition of the trinity. And no, I don't believe it is "spurious."
But the J.W.'s do. They use the NWT. It is a translation that demeans the deity of Christ.

I do not accept the NWT as being a good translation and I do not accept JW teachings. I had a quick browse of a few Commentaries on 1 John 5:7 and they all rejected the KJV of 1 John 5:7, even Adam Clarke who you commended on his treatment of Genesis 1:2 and 1:26. He is a Trinitarian, and yet he would not accept what appears to be a spurious addition to 1 John 5:7.

KJV Bible commentary: The rest of verse 7 and the first nine words of verse 8 are not original, and are not to be considered as a part of the Word of God (refer to the marginal notes in any reference Bible).

Believer’s Bible commentary: It always disturbs some devout Christians to learn that parts of verses 7, 8, as found in the KJV and NKJV, are actually found in only a handful of Greek manuscripts of the NT. But this does not at all affect the truth of the inspiration of the Scriptures. Some people think it is important to retain the words because they mention the three Persons of the Trinity.
Erasmus added these words to later editions of his Greek NT under pressure from the pope (they occur in the official Roman Catholic Latin Bible, the Vulgate). Only four very late Greek mss. have these words, so it is unsafe to use them.

Word Biblical commentary: The earliest of these Gr. witnesses, all of which depend on an earlier Latin tradition, can be dated to the twelfth century. The Old Latin is the only ancient version to include the words, and then with variations between the MSS; but, although the evidence is not entirely clear, the passage seems to be unknown in these texts before the eighth century. It does not appear in Jerome’s definitive edition of the Vg (circa A.D. 404), even if some other MSS of the Vg contain the addition. The earliest extrabiblical writer to show knowledge of the section is the Spanish heretic Priscillian (who died circa A.D. 385), when quoting from this part of John in his Latin “Book of Apology” (Liber Apologeticus). None of the Greek Fathers quotes the words. Despite this slight MSS attestation the inclusion remained in the Vg and also survived in the AV In most modern translations the words have disappeared from the text altogether.
The section, which in any case interrupts the thought of the passage, is clearly an interpolation. Presumably it represents an attempt on the part of those who, in the third and fourth centuries, were preoccupied with understanding the doctrine of the Trinity, to explain this text in a trinitarian manner. What may have begun life as a marginal gloss in a Latin MSS then became incorporated in the text, and was eventually translated back into Gr. in some Gr. MSS

Adam Clarke’s commentary: But it is likely this verse is not genuine. It is wanting in every MS. of this epistle written before the invention of printing, one excepted, the Codex Montfortii, in Trinity College, Dublin: the others which omit this verse amount to one hundred and twelve.
It is wanting in both the Syriac, all the Arabic, Ethiopic, the Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, Slavonian, etc., in a word, in all the ancient versions but the Vulgate; and even of this version many of the most ancient and correct MSS. have it not. It is wanting also in all the ancient Greek fathers; and in most even of the Latin.

Barnes’ Notes on the NT: There is no passage of the New Testament which has given rise to so much discussion in regard to its genuineness as this. The supposed importance of the verse in its bearing on the doctrine of the Trinity has contributed to this, and has given to the discussion a degree of consequence which has pertained to the examination of the genuineness of no other passage of the New Testament. On the one hand, the clear testimony which it seems to bear to the doctrine of the Trinity, has made that portion of the Christian church which holds the doctrine reluctant in the highest degree to abandon it; and on the other hand, the same clearness of the testimony to that doctrine, has made those who deny it not less reluctant to admit the genuineness of the passage.
It is not consistent with the design of these notes to go into a full investigation of a question of this sort. And all that can be done is to state, in a brief way, the “results” which have been reached, in an examination of the question. Those who are disposed to pursue the investigation further, can find all that is to be said in the works referred to at the bottom of the page. The portion of the passage, in 1 John 5:7-8, whose genuineness is disputed, is included in brackets in the following quotation, as it stands in the common editions of the New Testament:
“For there are three that bear record (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth,) the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one.” If the disputed passage, therefore, be omitted as spurious, the whole passage will read, “For there are three that bear record, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one.” The reasons which seem to me to prove that the passage included in brackets is spurious, and should not be regarded as a part of the inspired writings, are briefly the following:
[Barnes then lists extensive reasons for rejecting what he considers to be a spurious portion. I will not add this to this Post, but his explanations are the most thorough of all the above commentaries].

I have not answered the rest of your Post as there does not seem to be much for me to add.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again steaver,

Trevor, are you going to declare that man is made in the image of angels? This absolutely destroys your argument, but will you accept something "substantive" as you insist? Let's see........

I believe that man was made in the image and likeness of God and the Angels as per Genesis 1:26-27. I believe that is also David’s conclusion when he says in Psalm 8 that man was made lower than the angels. Please note, steaver and DHK, that the word translated “Angels” in the KJV of Psalm 8 is “Elohim”. Could you please give an explanation of where David derives such an idea, if it is not from Genesis 1:26-27. David did not believe in the Trinity for Genesis 1:26-27. Paul in Hebrews 2 takes this up showing that one aspect of man’s inferiority to the Angels is that he is mortal, subject to death. In the resurrection the faithful will be made equal to the Angels. Jesus on the other hand, although made lower than the Angels, has now been exalted above the Angels.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[DHK]

Greetings again DHK, I do not accept the NWT as being a good translation and I do not accept JW teachings. I had a quick browse of a few Commentaries on 1 John 5:7 and they all rejected the KJV of 1 John 5:7, even Adam Clarke who you commended on his treatment of Genesis 1:2 and 1:26. He is a Trinitarian, and yet he would not accept what appears to be a spurious addition to 1 John 5:7.
I have not answered the rest of your Post as there does not seem to be much for me to add.

Kind regards
Trevor

This is what I had said:

Attacking the Word of God isn't in your best interests for trying to win a debate. In spite of your views on versions, 1John 5:7 gives a very succinct definition of the trinity. And no, I don't believe it is "spurious."
But the J.W.'s do. They use the NWT. It is a translation that demeans the deity of Christ.

It was one point out of eight. Even then I said "In spite of your views on versions, 1John 5:7 gives a very succinct definition of the trinity."
You didn't even answer that part of the post.
And ignored the other 7 points as well. You are not doing too well are you?

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again DHK,

This is what I had said:

Attacking the Word of God isn't in your best interests for trying to win a debate. In spite of your views on versions, 1John 5:7 gives a very succinct definition of the trinity. And no, I don't believe it is "spurious."
But the J.W.'s do. They use the NWT. It is a translation that demeans the deity of Christ.

It was one point out of eight. Even then I said "In spite of your views on versions, 1John 5:7 gives a very succinct definition of the trinity."
You didn't even answer that part of the post.
And ignored the other 7 points as well. You are not doing too well are you?

Let us clear up this part of your replies first. I must say, and I am repeating, I am surprised that you quote the KJV of 1 John 5:7.:

I am surprised that you quote the KJV of 1 John 5:7. It is recognised by most as spurious. Do you have other evidence of it being original?

Your answer in the above is that I am attacking the Word of God, and I presume from this comment that you are claiming that I am attacking 1 John 5:7, partly because at the end of your comments you state: “And no, I don't believe it is "spurious."” My answer to this is that I have quoted from the following: NIV, NASB95, RSV, ASV and all of these simply omit the section of 1 John 5:7 that you heavily rely upon.

The following translations could also be added to the list: NEB, ESV, Jerusalem Bible (Catholic), New Jerusalem Bible (Catholic), Rotherham. I also quoted popular commentaries who explain why they think this portion is spurious. Now are all these scholars and translators attacking the Word of God?

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again steaver,

In Post #105 I quoted from an address given by a speaker who was visiting the USA in 1948. He was commenting on the conversion of Paul and how the events he experienced on the road to Damascus had an impact on him, and how he needed to gradually adjust his whole way of thinking to his new found circumstances. I asked the question that was more like a comment:

I am not sure if you can accept this sense of Christ being in us. The quiet moral transformation of character until the character of Christ is formed within us, and then can be partially revealed to others.

You did not respond to this question / comment. I would like to briefly expand on this concept, because with Paul the character of Christ was in a very significant way formed within him, and Galatians 1:16 seems to indicate that if we listened to Paul and saw his way of life, then it was like looking at Christ and his way of life – Christ was revealed in Paul.

But not only did Paul teach the same as Christ, and live the same manner of life and was thus an example to the believers, he also revealed the death and resurrection of Christ in his own life, and Christ crucified and raised and Christ’s love revealed in this became the central motivating force in his life:
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.
Galatians 3:1 (KJV): O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

Paul also speaks of his earnest seeking to be identified with the life and death of Jesus and the power of his resurrection in the following:
Philippians 3:8-14 (KJV): 8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, 9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: 10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; 11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. 12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. 13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, 14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

Paul was apprehended by Christ on the road to Damascus. Paul started to reveal a new way of life, but this was not immediate and full at his conversion. In effect he was born again and gradually grew into a new man, a man developed and governed by Christ. When he was ready to be sent to the Gentiles as Christ’s Apostle, Christ was in him in such a full and complete way that he could say that Christ was revealed in him.

Paul uses the concept of the new man in the following:
Ephesians 4:22-24 (KJV): 22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; 23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; 24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.
Paul then gives some examples of this process, and perhaps one will suffice:
Ephesians 4:28 (KJV): Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.
This is almost like modern replacement therapy, but Paul taught this 2000 years ago.

Being born again comprehends all of the above. We need to look at the Lord Jesus Christ in his life, teachings, sufferings, crucifixion, death, burial, resurrection and exaltation to God’s right hand. We are encouraged to look at the example of Paul. We are given individual advice by Paul here in Ephesians 4.

We could also look at other examples. Nicodemus is given as an example in the way he developed until he identified fully with Jesus at his crucifixion. We could look at Abraham in his development, from an initial belief in God’s promises, his response in seeking the promised land, his faith in the promised seed and God’s declaration of his righteousness by faith, his strong faith when Isaac was promised and he and Sarah were past age, and finally his belief in the resurrection when he offered up Isaac and foresaw the day of Jesus. This is a brief answer to what is meant by being born again, and what is meant by Christ being in us. For us it starts when we believe the gospel Acts 8:5,12, and this will motivate us to be baptised, that is being born of water. This is a birth initiated by the gospel which is the product of the Spirit. This is being born again of water and spirit. After baptism faith in the gospel will continue to motivate us to live the Christ life until Christ is fully formed in us, and in the end God will change us to immortality. Only on the resurrection morn then finally and completely we will be born of the Spirit.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again DHK,

It was one point out of eight. Even then I said "In spite of your views on versions, 1John 5:7 gives a very succinct definition of the trinity."
You didn't even answer that part of the post.
And ignored the other 7 points as well. You are not doing too well are you?

You seem to be asking me to answer each of the eight parts of your reply. I am not sure if you overlooked my response to steaver on Genesis 1:26, but I did include you in my answer, even though I did not address you at the top of my reply. He quoted part of your reply, one of the outstanding eight points:

You are making that up. It does not say that at all. That is a perversion of Scripture. "Let us make man in our image and likeness" That speaks to the triune Godhead. There are no angels in that verse at all.

Trevor, are you going to declare that man is made in the image of angels? This absolutely destroys your argument, but will you accept something "substantive" as you insist? Let's see........

My answer to steaver was:

I believe that man was made in the image and likeness of God and the Angels as per Genesis 1:26-27. I believe that is also David’s conclusion when he says in Psalm 8 that man was made lower than the angels. Please note, steaver and DHK, that the word translated “Angels” in the KJV of Psalm 8 is “Elohim”. Could you please give an explanation of where David derives such an idea, if it is not from Genesis 1:26-27. David did not believe in the Trinity for Genesis 1:26-27. Paul in Hebrews 2 takes this up showing that one aspect of man’s inferiority to the Angels is that he is mortal, subject to death. In the resurrection the faithful will be made equal to the Angels. Jesus on the other hand, although made lower than the Angels, has now been exalted above the Angels.

I thought that this was the most important part of your reply, and the part I was prepared to answer first. If you would like to answer this from the Scriptures I would be interested. I could also answer on the seraphim, but I felt that there was some misunderstanding on your part of what I was attempting to say. I do not see the seraphim being praised in Isaiah 6 in any way. Also your response on the "us" in Isaiah 6 seemed to depend on Genesis 1:26, so if we resolve Genesis 1:26 first we may clarify Isaiah 6 together.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[DHK]

Greetings again DHK, Let us clear up this part of your replies first. I must say, and I am repeating, I am surprised that you quote the KJV of 1 John 5:7.:

Your answer in the above is that I am attacking the Word of God, and I presume from this comment that you are claiming that I am attacking 1 John 5:7, partly because at the end of your comments you state: “And no, I don't believe it is "spurious."” My answer to this is that I have quoted from the following: NIV, NASB95, RSV, ASV and all of these simply omit the section of 1 John 5:7 that you heavily rely upon.

The following translations could also be added to the list: NEB, ESV, Jerusalem Bible (Catholic), New Jerusalem Bible (Catholic), Rotherham. I also quoted popular commentaries who explain why they think this portion is spurious. Now are all these scholars and translators attacking the Word of God?

Kind regards
Trevor

You still don't get it do you. This is not the versions forum.
This is not a forum to discuss versions of the Bible. What your opinion on versions is, is a moot point. Whether or not you believe the verse is inspired or not is a moot point.
The verse is still a very succinct definition of the trinity.
Even if you believe it was added in, who do you think added it?
Was it Satan? An evil Islamic devil? A Hindu scholar?
Come on now! Just how many conspiracy theories do you have?
If you believe that it was added in as some people do, it was not by any evil person. It was by an honest diligent well-meaning zealous Christian.
It still gives a succinct definition of the trinity, versions not withstanding.

 

[DHK]

Originally Posted by TrevorL
I believe that man was made in the image and likeness of God and the Angels as per Genesis 1:26-27.

You can read the mythical unicorn into that verse too, but it isn't there. That is eisigesis. You can put into that verse whatever you want to. That doesn't make it right. You can add baby baptisms too. Why not?
Or take the natural reading of the verse.
The singular noun used in the plural indicates one God, a Godhead having more than one person. If you study other religions you will find similar concepts. That is because Satan is a great imitator. You cannot put angels in that verse when there are none.

I believe that is also David’s conclusion when he says in Psalm 8 that man was made lower than the angels. Please note, steaver and DHK, that the word translated “Angels” in the KJV of Psalm 8 is “Elohim”. Could you please give an explanation of where David derives such an idea, if it is not from Genesis 1:26-27. David did not believe in the Trinity for Genesis 1:26-27.

Perhaps David didn't have that idea at all. David didn't read English; he read Hebrew,
Look at what the ASV says:

(ASV) For thou hast made him but little lower than God, And crownest him with glory and honor.

(Geneva) For thou hast made him a little lower then God, and crowned him with glory and worship.

(YLT) And causest him to lack a little of Godhead, And with honour and majesty compassest him.

Adam Clarke says this about Psalm 8:5,

Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels - The original is certainly very emphatic: ותחסרחו מעט מאלהים vattechasserchu meat meelohim, Thou hast lessened him for a little time from God. Or, Thou hast made him less than God for a little time. See these passages explained at large in the notes on Heb 2:6 (note), etc., which I need not repeat here.

Paul in Hebrews 2 takes this up showing that one aspect of man’s inferiority to the Angels is that he is mortal, subject to death. In the resurrection the faithful will be made equal to the Angels. Jesus on the other hand, although made lower than the Angels, has now been exalted above the Angels.

Man also will be exalted above the angels. Even now the angels have been created to serve man. See Heb.1:14
The basic difference now is this. Both man and angels are spirit beings.
However, man, though a spirit being, has an earthly tabernacle for a temporary period of time. At the resurrection he will shed that earthly tabernacle and gain a celestial body. Before that time he will go to be with the Lord when he dies and leaves this earthly body behind.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again DHK,

It was one point out of eight. Even then I said "In spite of your views on versions, 1John 5:7 gives a very succinct definition of the trinity."
You didn't even answer that part of the post.
And ignored the other 7 points as well. You are not doing too well are you?

I hope you are satisfied that I have briefly responded to Items 1 and 5, but from the above you seem to ask me to answer the other 6 of 8 Items.

Of course. You don't believe in the trinity. That is a given.

This is Item 2: You are making a comment. No further answer is required.

That has as much truth in it as aliens living on Pluto creating us.

This is Item 3: You are making a comment. No further answer is required.

Christ created the angels. The Word of God says he did. (John 1:3,4; Col.1:15-17; Rev.4:11). Christ is our Creator; the creator of all things including the angels who worship Him as such.

This is Item 4: I believe that God created the Angels. I have explained John 1:3-4 as The Word, not Jesus Post #44, given an exposition (Post #69 - not my own) of Colossians 1:15-17, claiming that this is speaking of the spiritual or new creation. I believe that Revelation 4:11 is also speaking of the spiritual or new creation.

You are making that up. It does not say that at all. That is a perversion of Scripture. "Let us make man in our image and likeness" That speaks to the triune Godhead. There are no angels in that verse at all. There are as many angels in that verse as there are RCC babies being baptized. You are reading into Scripture just what you want to believe when it isn't there.

This is Item 5: Part of this was quoted by steaver which I answered to steaver and repeated to you. I do not think the rest of this item needs much comment as my answer covers the additional part of this. The additional part could be responded to by saying that you claim that Genesis 1:26 is speaking of the triune Godhead, but you have not proved this. I tried to explain Genesis 1:26 by using scripture in my more recent Post. See also Post #45.

It is the same expression as in Genesis one. "Let us"--the triune Godhead.

This is Item 6: The picture presented is One Lord and many seraphim. There is no hint in Isaiah 6 that the One Lord is plural. In other words this does not prove or disprove your assertion.

That would have been blasphemous. Over and over again, God does not share his glory with another. That was the whole point of that scene. They were giving glory to God; giving praise to Him. To accept praise from others would be blasphemous. It is God that was in command saying "Let us"...

This is Item 7: You misread Isaiah 6. It does not say "Let us". Nor do the seraphim accept praise. Yes they were praising the Lord on the throne.

Yes, the triune Godhead. God is spirit; they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). But now that Christ has arisen from the dead he has kept his glorified body. He sits by that throne because he has a physical body, as every believer will have someday. Those believers who have already died are in heaven but without a body. Someday they too will have a glorified body, but the resurrection has not yet taken place.

This is Item 8: This is a interesting comment of how you view the throne of God in Isaiah 6 and how you view the throne of God now with Christ exalted. I timidly disagree but feel that you have not proved this assessment. I certainly agree that Jesus is now seated at the right hand of God.

You still don't get it do you. This is not the versions forum.
This is not a forum to discuss versions of the Bible. What your opinion on versions is, is a moot point. Whether or not you believe the verse is inspired or not is a moot point.
The verse is still a very succinct definition of the trinity.
Even if you believe it was added in, who do you think added it?
Was it Satan? An evil Islamic devil? A Hindu scholar?
Come on now! Just how many conspiracy theories do you have?
If you believe that it was added in as some people do, it was not by any evil person. It was by an honest diligent well-meaning zealous Christian.
It still gives a succinct definition of the trinity, versions not withstanding.

Simply stated I do not personally believe that this portion of 1 John 5:7 was written by the Apostle John. If you believe otherwise, or simply that it is a good addition and a good definition you are welcome to this opinion. There is a verse that says that people should not add or take away from the Scriptures. In my estimation it is not a very reliable proof to give to a person who does not believe the Trinity.

I will consider your latest Post #115.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Greetings again DHK, I hope you are satisfied that I have briefly responded to Items 1 and 5, but from the above you seem to ask me to answer the other 6 of 8 Items. This is Item 2: You are making a comment. No further answer is required.
This is Item 3: You are making a comment. No further answer is required.
This is Item 4: I believe that God created the Angels. I have explained John 1:3-4 as The Word, not Jesus Post #44, given an exposition (Post #69 - not my own) of Colossians 1:15-17, claiming that this is speaking of the spiritual or new creation. I believe that Revelation 4:11 is also speaking of the spiritual or new creation.
This is Item 5: Part of this was quoted by steaver which I answered to steaver and repeated to you. I do not think the rest of this item needs much comment as my answer covers the additional part of this. The additional part could be responded to by saying that you claim that Genesis 1:26 is speaking of the triune Godhead, but you have not proved this. I tried to explain Genesis 1:26 by using scripture in my more recent Post. See also Post #45.
This is Item 6: The picture presented is One Lord and many seraphim. There is no hint in Isaiah 6 that the One Lord is plural. In other words this does not prove or disprove your assertion.
This is Item 7: You misread Isaiah 6. It does not say "Let us". Nor do the seraphim accept praise. Yes they were praising the Lord on the throne.
This is Item 8: This is a interesting comment of how you view the throne of God in Isaiah 6 and how you view the throne of God now with Christ exalted. I timidly disagree but feel that you have not proved this assessment. I certainly agree that Jesus is now seated at the right hand of God.

Simply stated I do not personally believe that this portion of 1 John 5:7 was written by the Apostle John. If you believe otherwise, or simply that it is a good addition and a good definition you are welcome to this opinion. There is a verse that says that people should not add or take away from the Scriptures. In my estimation it is not a very reliable proof to give to a person who does not believe the Trinity.

I will consider your latest Post #115.

Kind regards
Trevor

Admittedly, I have not read this entire thread. So, I'll ask, what is your view on the deity of Jesus Christ? If you do not believe in His deity, how would you interpret John 8:58, which to me is the clearest evidence and statement in the entire NT establishing His deity? If it does prove His deity, does it not also provide support for the Trinity? If you think not, then would you hold the position that God the Father and Jesus are simply names for the same person, the one God?

As I said, I have not read the whole thread, so forgive me if you have already answered these or similar questions elsewhere.

 

[Yeshua1]

Bottom line on this is that jesus called His father God, the Apostolic witnesses called both Jesus and the Spirit God, so either they all lied and were deceived, or else you are, so which is it?

meant for trevor!

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again DHK,

You can read the mythical unicorn into that verse too, but it isn't there. That is eisigesis. You can put into that verse whatever you want to. That doesn't make it right. You can add baby baptisms too. Why not?
Or take the natural reading of the verse.
The singular noun used in the plural indicates one God, a Godhead having more than one person. If you study other religions you will find similar concepts. That is because Satan is a great imitator. You cannot put angels in that verse when there are none.

Perhaps David didn't have that idea at all. David didn't read English; he read Hebrew,
Look at what the ASV says:
(ASV) For thou hast made him but little lower than God, And crownest him with glory and honor.
(Geneva) For thou hast made him a little lower then God, and crowned him with glory and worship.
(YLT) And causest him to lack a little of Godhead, And with honour and majesty compassest him.

Yes David read Hebrew and the Hebrew word here “Elohim” can also be used for the Angels in their special role of representing Yahweh and acting on his behalf as ministers and messengers. This is similar to the reason why the Judges were called Elohim. Perhaps we could call this a Hebrew idiom, but it is more than this. It is a special Divine choice of words in the Hebrew language to convey an important concept. Jesus explains this: God called the judges Gods or Elohim unto whom the word of God came. The judges represented God and spoke and acted on God’s behalf, refer Post #40. Yahweh also called the Angels Elohim because they also represented God and spoke and acted on God’s behalf. There are numerous examples of this in the OT and I mentioned Genesis 17:1,22 and Exodus 3:2-6 in Post #51 as two examples.

As far as David’s thoughts on the matter, please consider that David is addressing Yahweh:
Psalm 8:1 (KJV): O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens.
Psalm 8:5 (KJV): For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
Psalm 8:5 (ASV): For thou hast made him but little lower than God, And crownest him with glory and honor.
It does not seem correct to say “Thou hast made him a little lower than God” when David is addressing Yahweh who is God. If David wanted to say this it should read “Thou hast made him a little lower than Thyself.” The Elohim here are separate beings from Yahweh.

Given the choice between the two possible translations, perhaps we should also consider why Paul in Hebrews 2 under Divine inspiration gives the following:
Hebrews 2:7 (KJV): Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
Hebrews 2:7 (ASV): Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; Thou crownedst him with glory and honor, And didst set him over the works of thy hands:
Hebrews 2:7 (YLT): Thou didst make him some little less than messengers, with glory and honour Thou didst crown him, and didst set him over the works of Thy hands,
Hebrews 2:7 (RSV): Thou didst make him for a little while lower than the angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and honor,

Paul not only quotes Psalm 8 and translates the word Elohim as angels, but the whole of this section depends upon this rendition.
Hebrews 2:9 (KJV): But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
The Epistle is addressed to the Hebrews, who like David did not speak English, but they spoke or understood Hebrew. These Hebrews would simply have said to Paul: “You’ve got it all wrong, don’t you understand Hebrew? David never had the Angels in mind in Psalm 8, the word is Elohim, representing God.”

My assessment of all this is that God deliberately used Paul to translate the Psalm 8 usage of Elohim with the word Angels in Hebrews 2 to safeguard against the imposition of the teaching of the Trinity on Genesis 1:26-27. Using the word Angels in Psalm 8 is NOT a literal translation, but most modern translations fail to convey the full meaning, the full range of this word Elohim in this particular context. The KJV translators understood Paul’s treatment of this Hebrew idiom, or rather this special Divine usage of the Hebrew language to convey the concept of representation. Angels is the best translation of the word Elohim in this particular context.

David succinctly, beautifully and with understanding summarises Genesis 1:26-27 in one phrase. He speaks of man being made lower than God and the angels. Man was created in the image and after the likeness of both God and the angels. But man was created neither mortal nor immortal, but under probation. Man would be given immortality if faithful, or would be sentenced to die, that is made mortal if he sinned. The angels in contrast are already immortal. Man was created with the potential to attain unto Divine wisdom and character, but the angels already possess and manifest this wisdom and character. All this is comprehended in David’s summary, that Yahweh made man a little lower than Elohim, that is, man was made a little lower than the angels. Elohim in the context of Psalm 8:5 is a Hebrew word used by God in a unique way. Thus Genesis 1:26-27 describes the participation of the angels, acting on God’s behalf and using God’s power and wisdom in the creation of man.

A larger and more significant subject is that in Psalm 8 David uses the language of the creation and the fall in Genesis 1-3, and his own victory over Goliath. But he uses these ideas and language to speak of the new creation in and through another man created by direct Divine intervention. Jesus when born in the manger was the firstborn of this new creation, the Son of God. This new man or second Adam when created through the womb of Mary was made a little lower than the angels. Through his victory over sin in all its causes and effects, Jesus has now been exalted to the position of Lord of the new and old creation. Psalm 8 is one of the most quoted passages in the NT.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings Thomas Helwys,

Admittedly, I have not read this entire thread. So, I'll ask, what is your view on the deity of Jesus Christ? If you do not believe in His deity, how would you interpret John 8:58, which to me is the clearest evidence and statement in the entire NT establishing His deity? If it does prove His deity, does it not also provide support for the Trinity? If you think not, then would you hold the position that God the Father and Jesus are simply names for the same person, the one God?

As I said, I have not read the whole thread, so forgive me if you have already answered these or similar questions elsewhere.

I appreciate the question. I believe that there is One God the Father and that Jesus is the Son of God. Concerning John 8:58 could I refer you to my earlier Posts where I suggested and tried to expound the KJV “I am that I am” as “I will be that I will be”, and the significance of this theme throughout the OT and NT culminating in Jesus who is “Yah’s Salvation” refer Posts #37 and #41. I have yet to my own satisfaction written a response to John 8:58 with my altered perspective that the Yahweh Name is future, not in the present tense. I believe that Trinitarians have distorted the correct translation of Exodus 3:14 to try to equate this with John 8:58.

My opinion is still divided on two possibilities. The first is whether, because Jesus is now the fulfillment of what was future in Exodus 3:14, and can therefore say “I am”. The second is taking stock of the many “I am” occurrences in John and recognising that they simply mean “I am he” as per the blind man in John 9. Jesus’ statement would simply state that he was the one in the plan and purpose of God before Abraham existed. As I believe that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Yahweh Name, to me this still equates that Jesus is the Son of God. If that Name is “I am” then this is true of Jesus also because he is a continuation and expansion of God’s name and now salvation is offered in the name of Jesus.

Kind regards
Trevor