Trinity

[steaver]

Greetings again steaver,


I will simply state my belief, but do not want to discuss this subject at length. I believe that the Holy Spirit is the power of God that He uses for specific purposes. The parallelism in the following passage gives some indication of this.
Luke 1:35 (KJV): And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.


Kind regards
Trevor

Of course the Holy Spirit is the power of God, and you know why you believe this? Because it is what the scripture says about the Holy Spirit. Yet, you reject any scripture that states the Holy Spirit is a person, a person with God power. You also have rejected many scriptures which state the Spirit of CHrist is the Spirit of God.

My reasons for not wanting to further pursue the subject of the Holy Spirit is the following:
1. In my earlier Posts I have attempted to carefully establish that there is One God the Father and that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

And I have carefully established through scripture that Jesus is God, and the title Son of God is known by Jews and Muslims alike to equate Jesus with God.

2. What I presented was carefully chosen and the result of my consideration of this subject over many years. Although I have adopted many ideas from my spiritual environment, what I wrote was not a parrot version of what I have been taught. These things have become my own thoughts and reasoning on this important subject.

I have asked you this before and you have not answered, why is this an important subject for you? Does it matter if a person worships Jesus as God in your view? Can a person worship Jesus as God and be forgiven and saved?

3. The selection of material was deliberate, focussing on only a portion of the whole subject, but sufficient in my estimation to establish and confirm my belief.

The Apostle Paul was totally convinced in his owm mind that Jesus was not the Son of God, which for Paul, being a Hebrew, understood full well that this title meant Diety. The only way one can understand the Spirit of God is to have the Spirit of God indwellement.

4. The selection was also designed to negate the teaching on the Trinity, even using some of the best known verses that are usually selected to support the Trinity.

And without the power of God behind the teaching it is easily revealed to those who know the truth to be false. The Godhead is revealed from Genesis through Revelation.

5. In contrast I have not carefully considered the subject of the Holy Spirit, except in a general, and overall sense.
6. I do not believe Jesus Christ is part of the Trinity, and the Scriptures used to attempt to teach that the Holy Spirit is the 3rd member of the Trinity seem to me obscure at the best.
7. Concerning the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the same applies as to my lack of preparation and thoughts on this subject.

To be quite honest with you I am a specialist in certain areas, and have only a general appreciation of other areas. I will leave this area to you and anyone else that would like to discuss this aspect with you. I appreciate the time and effort that you have put into responding to my various posts.

You should study the indwellement of the Holy Spirit, for this is of the utmost importance! Because unless one has the Spirit of God in them, they are not of God.

This is a life and death issue! One of us is preaching the Jesus Paul preached and one of us is preaching another Jesus. Paul is clear, if anyone preach another Jesus than the one he preached, he is cursed of God.

I would carefully reconsider what you believe you have discovered on your own studies. The scripture states that God has given us preachers and teachers, what preachers and teachers do you know who preach this Jesus you preach? I know the JW's preach this Jesus you preach. Can you name a Christian denomination which does?

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again steaver,

Despite my decision to disengage, I almost succumbed to answering all of your latest Post but decided that we have covered much of what you stated. I decided to reinforce what I have said before in response to this portion:

I would carefully reconsider what you believe you have discovered on your own studies. The scripture states that God has given us preachers and teachers, what preachers and teachers do you know who preach this Jesus you preach? I know the JW's preach this Jesus you preach. Can you name a Christian denomination which does?

Firstly in our fellowship we encourage individual study based on the Bible, and discuss and help each other in this. I am not a JW and my impression they produce mainly clones. I disagree with their understanding of this subject.

I stated in my previous post that I am a specialist in certain areas, and have only a general appreciation of other areas. Soon after reading your Post, I was given access to an article on the subject we have discussed. It was a summary of an extensive written discussion between a Trinitarian and an Australian brother in our fellowship. The original participant and another brother, who used to be in my meeting but now resides in the UK, wrote the summary itself. The participant is a specialist in most aspects of discussing the subject of the One God the Father and comparing this with the Trinity. As we do not produce clones, he may or may not agree with all that I have written in this thread, and various Posts.

One of my responsibilities and interests in our meeting is as the Librarian. I enjoy collecting books and resource material for our meeting and myself. I thought you may be interested in some portions of the following summary, and I have briefly edited some parts. The following is then part of a summary of my brother’s discussion. It does not give the Trinitarian portion. I have a copy of the full original documents of their discussion. You may give some thought to how you would respond to some of this, but I will not be defending this. In other words I am acting the part of a librarian, and giving you a document to consider. This summary uses the term “Unitarian” not in a common usage, but to define a believer in One God, the Father and that Jesus is the Son of God in contrast to a Trinitarian.

In focusing on Biblical revelation about God and the Lord Jesus Christ, the New Testament does not reveal anything fundamentally different about God’s nature that had not already been revealed in the Jewish Old Testament. The Unitarian is able to read the Shema without needing to add Christological spin. We would require good reason to depart from Jewish monotheism, and no such strong reason is supplied by the New Testament. On the contrary, the New Testament presents God and Jesus as distinct beings (1 Cor 8:6 being one of many examples).

Turning to what was revealed about Jesus: he was the promised Jewish Messiah but he never claimed to be God nor ‘God the Son’, nor did any such accusation arise at his trial. This is critical, considering the Jews had previously attempted to stone him for statements such as ‘Before Abraham was, I am’ and ‘I and the Father are one.’ Whatever the Jewish rulers understood by these statements, they could not be presented as evidence of a claim to deity.

The records of Mary’s pregnancy in Matthew and Luke, Jesus’ humble birth, his childhood, the fact that he got hungry (Matt 4: 2), weary (John 4: 6), thirsty (John 19: 28), he bled and died all suggest that the inspired Biblical writers conveyed Jesus as human, not deity. In notable contrast, God is presented throughout the Bible as independently self-existent, omniscient and omnipresent.

Trinitarians attempt to resolve this by claiming Jesus possessed both human and divine nature united in one body (a concept called the ‘hypostatic union’) and that he is variously described as acting or speaking ‘from his humanity’ or ‘from his deity’ depending on the context. This, like so many other concepts surrounding Trinitarianism, is merely an ad hoc work-around which Trinitarians are forced to use as scaffolding to uphold their doctrine.

As to the small number of verses in John’s Gospel suggesting a profound connection between God and a pre-existent Jesus, these texts — which must be interpreted within the socio-historic context of Second Temple Judaism and 1st Century Christianity — do not provide the weight of Scriptural evidence required for the radical reconceptualization of God as a triune being. John’s stated purpose both at the beginning and end of his Gospel was to proclaim Jesus’ identity, but not as Trinitarianism requires:
In the first chapter Jesus is described as ‘Jesus of Nazareth the son of Joseph’ (v45), and twice called the ‘Son of God’ (v34, v49)
At the end of John’s Gospel: ‘these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God’ (John 20:31)

The Unitarian understands that John’s Gospel describes a purposeful oneness between God and Jesus to which disciples can only aspire imperfectly (John 17). It is a huge leap to use these verses to construct a doctrine that God and Jesus (and also the Holy Spirit) are all the same being. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof; this just isn’t it.

Bible readers must avoid hasty conclusions on the basis of personifying language in passages such as John 14:16-17. This is merely a useful linguistic device. For the main part — including Pentecost — the Holy Spirit is spoken of as God’s inanimate power, a view consistent with the portrayal of God’s Spirit in the Old Testament, and in pre-Christian rabbinic literature. Mainstream theologians — even Trinitarian ones — agree this is the correct lens through which to read the NT.

Neither in the Gospels, nor in the preaching of the apostles in Acts, nor the apostolic epistles nor the first century writings of Clement, Polycarp or the Didache, nor even in most of the Christian writers up to the 4th Century do we read a clear explication of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit as a Trinity.

Instead we have increasing confusion as Christian philosophy — redolent with pre-Christian neo-Platonic concepts — blurred the identity and nature of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The resulting political schism gave birth to the Nicene and Athanasian creeds. This strange, convoluted, and occasionally violent path does not reflect the calm theological maturity of the early church, guided into all wisdom by the Holy Spirit.

Conclusion:
God is undoubtedly more profound than our mortal minds can grasp, but the Trinity is at best an illogical and flawed theory, unfortunately held by the majority of Christians who have neither critically examined their Bibles nor the dogma inherited from their creeds.

The Bible reveals a consistent doctrinal arc from Genesis to Malachi which unequivocally supports the Unitarian understanding of God. We can demonstrate that Jesus and the apostles drew upon this material as the basis of their own theology. There was no new revelation of God’s nature and identity in the NT.

Christianity began as a Jewish religion, and that Jewish foundation is critical to our interpretation of Scripture. The first Christians were Jews; they interpreted Scripture from a Jewish perspective; they described God and Jesus using OT language and Messianic typology. They were able to express every aspect of their faith by the use of Scripture alone, as we still do today. They affirmed a belief in the God of Israel and His human Son, the Jewish Messiah.

If God is three persons, Christianity loses its necessary connection with God’s people — the Jews — and an essential aspect of the atonement: Jesus’ humanity. Scripture says it was essential for Jesus to be made like us in every way so that he could relate to us and act as our mediator to God.

He genuinely understands our pain and sympathises with our temptations because he is truly human, and experienced the very sufferings we endure — and more! If he was never truly one of us, he cannot understand us in the way Scripture describes and could not have died for our sins. To believe in Jesus and his atoning work we must accept he is not God.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[steaver]

Greetings again steaver,

Despite my decision to disengage, I almost succumbed to answering all of your latest Post but decided that we have covered much of what you stated. I decided to reinforce what I have said before in response to this portion:
Firstly in our fellowship we encourage individual study based on the Bible, and discuss and help each other in this. I am not a JW and my impression they produce mainly clones. I disagree with their understanding of this subject.

Kind regards
Trevor

I'm not sure why you say you disagree with the JW's understanding of the Trinity. It is exactly as yours.

I stated in my previous post that I am a specialist in certain areas, and have only a general appreciation of other areas.

A "specialist" ? You say you are a specialist when it comes to Jesus Christ the Son of God, but you don't know too much about the Holy Spirit of God. Let me tell you, if you want to be a specialist then you must consider the full counsel of God's Word before coming to a conclusion on the person of Jesus Christ, so if you want to really be a specialist you must harmonize the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of God because the scripture uses these terms interchangeably. Until you study both together, allowing the scripture to interpret the scripture, you cannot be a specialist on the issue of the Deity, or lack thereof, of Jesus Christ.

The participant is a specialist in most aspects of discussing the subject of the One God the Father and comparing this with the Trinity. As we do not produce clones, he may or may not agree with all that I have written in this thread, and various Posts.

When I hear you speak of someone being a "specialist" the first thought that enters my mind is the JW's. They are indeed specialist in defending their doctrine with a list of memorized scriptures.

Let me ask you a question Trevor, do you think there is any chance you might be deceived?

I will read the article and get back with you.

 

[steaver]

Conclusion:
God is undoubtedly more profound than our mortal minds can grasp, but the Trinity is at best an illogical and flawed theory, unfortunately held by the majority of Christians who have neither critically examined their Bibles nor the dogma inherited from their creeds.

This statement reveals either a spirit of hatred for Christians, or a lack of education on this subject. To say that hundreds of thousands of Christian scholars who see the Trinity all through the bible have not "critically examined their bibles" is absurd!

The Bible reveals a consistent doctrinal arc from Genesis to Malachi which unequivocally supports the Unitarian understanding of God. We can demonstrate that Jesus and the apostles drew upon this material as the basis of their own theology. There was no new revelation of God’s nature and identity in the NT.

Christianity began as a Jewish religion, and that Jewish foundation is critical to our interpretation of Scripture. The first Christians were Jews; they interpreted Scripture from a Jewish perspective; they described God and Jesus using OT language and Messianic typology. They were able to express every aspect of their faith by the use of Scripture alone, as we still do today. They affirmed a belief in the God of Israel and His human Son, the Jewish Messiah.

If God is three persons, Christianity loses its necessary connection with God’s people — the Jews — and an essential aspect of the atonement: Jesus’ humanity. Scripture says it was essential for Jesus to be made like us in every way so that he could relate to us and act as our mediator to God.

Here again, a revealing lack of education concerning the Jews. We have today tens of thousands of Jewish Christians who have converted out of Judaism. They have a Jewish foundation and they now worship God as the Trinity. Our church supports a small Jewish congregation here in Pa. They fully understand the Trinity and they are fully Jewish.

He genuinely understands our pain and sympathises with our temptations because he is truly human, and experienced the very sufferings we endure — and more! If he was never truly one of us, he cannot understand us in the way Scripture describes and could not have died for our sins.

Yes, he was truly human, this part he gets right

To believe in Jesus and his atoning work we must accept he is not God

And here is the core of the onion. I ask you a few times why this subject is important to you and I don't think you answered. According to this man, if one believes Jesus is God, one does not truly believe in Jesus' atoning work.

Really Trevor, there are thousands of Jewish and Muslim Christians who would understand the religion they have abandoned. Do you seriously think they don't understand their roots in Unitarianism? And they now worship the Trinity.

Can you explain for me the tens of thousands of Jews we have today, as a witness, who once worshipped in Judaism but have converted to Christianity and now worship Jesus as God? Can you explain this?

 

[steaver]

Trevor, ye must be born-again! You do not understand what this means, pray to God for wisdom.

The article you posted for my reading is written from ignorance of the Jewish nation and how they view and interpret the scriptures. The Jew and the Muslim both reject Jesus as The Son of God because this title to them is Deity, making Jesus Christ God. Your friend is dead wrong concerning the Jewish nations interpretations of scripture.

You say you like books. Read a few concerning Jewish and Muslim converts to Jesus Christ. Tass Saada has a book called "Once an Arafat Man". It is his life journey form a killer in the Fatah resistence to a lover of the Jews through regeneration (born-again) , having received the Holy Spirit through Jesus Christ our God and Saviour.

Do not allow an education to harden your heart against the spiritual things of God.

Here is a short summary of a Muslim (Tass Saada) and a Jew (Moran Rosenblit) who found Jesus Christ and were born-again. Both men confess that Jesus Christ is God.

http://www.christiananswers.net/evangelism/stories/israeli-plo.html

Pary you give consideration.

 

[steaver]

Just a note on edit here to my last post; It's not the experience that I want you to see, for every person's experience is different and experiences such as Tass' and like the Apostle Paul even are not the norm, God works as He sees the need, but what I want you to see is that each man instantly knew Jesus is God. They did not need a theological class afterward to figure this out, it was and is part of the born of God regeneration knowledge given by God. As Thomas declared to Jesus, "my Lord and my God".

These men rejected the Christian Trinity with a passion, they considered it blasphemy! Yet they were converted and instantly praised Jesus Christ as God!

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again steaver,

The main reason why I returned to this thread was to give a possible brief explanation of the “I am” portion of John 8:58. I thought it would be polite to acknowledge and respond in part to your four posts before posting this initial consideration of John 8:58.

I'm not sure why you say you disagree with the JW's understanding of the Trinity. It is exactly as yours.

Yes they reject the Trinity, and they teach that there is One God the Father and that Jesus is the Son of God, but there are major differences between their belief and what I believe. One major item is their insistence on the name Jehovah. I believe God’s name is Yahweh and I have explained how I understand the future meaning of this Name, fulfilled in Jesus. They believe in the pre-existence of Jesus, and use an unusual or wrong interpretation of John 1:1-2 as seen in the NWT. I believe in the pre-existence of the Word, not Jesus. I could go into other detail.

A "specialist" ? You say you are a specialist when it comes to Jesus Christ the Son of God, but you don't know too much about the Holy Spirit of God. ….

Perhaps “specialist” is the wrong word. I have strong views on all aspects of this subject, but I have not prepared adequate answers on some of these aspects.

When I hear you speak of someone being a "specialist" the first thought that enters my mind is the JW's. They are indeed specialist in defending their doctrine with a list of memorized scriptures.

The JWs could have a prepared list – I do not know. Trintarians have a number of passages that they regularly use, and perhaps a typical list is Genesis 1:26, Isaiah 9:6, John 1, John 8:58, John 10:30, (1 John 5:7 KJV), Philippians 2 etc. At the bottom of the list is an imaginary note, “Please try to avoid 1 Corinthians 8:6 and John 17:3 where Jesus and the Apostle appear to teach that the One God is the Father, contrary to the Trinity”. I am not sure if 1 John 5:7 KJV is on your list so I have placed this in brackets.

Really Trevor, there are thousands of Jewish and Muslim Christians who would understand the religion they have abandoned. Do you seriously think they don't understand their roots in Unitarianism? And they now worship the Trinity.

Can you explain for me the tens of thousands of Jews we have today, as a witness, who once worshipped in Judaism but have converted to Christianity and now worship Jesus as God? Can you explain this?

Just a note on edit here to my last post; It's not the experience that I want you to see, for every person's experience is different and experiences such as Tass' and like the Apostle Paul even are not the norm, God works as He sees the need, but what I want you to see is that each man instantly knew Jesus is God. They did not need a theological class afterward to figure this out, it was and is part of the born of God regeneration knowledge given by God.

So are you saying that people are instantly instructed on some aspects of the gospel by their born-again experience? The sequence of Acts 8:5,12 is preach the gospel, detailed as the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, then belief, then baptism.

We have a number of former Muslims by religion and Jews by birth and religion who now accept our beliefs and they definitely do not accept the Trinity. They see Jesus as the Son of God as a fulfillment of much of the OT and they have a belief in the One God the Father, which is consistent with OT monotheism.

Concerning the conflict between Arabs and Jews, perhaps the peace between your two examples is a token of what could be achieved, but I do not think you have solved the problems in the Middle East. The spoken and written words of Jesus to his disciples are not to kill, and we are to love our enemies. Baptists appear to reject these words and yet claim to have the Spirit of Christ within. The Baptists have been active on both sides of the American Civil War, WW1 and WW2, not only killing their enemies, but also killing their fellow brethren of the same faith. Why did they reject the words and teaching of Christ? Despite your two examples, has the policy of the Baptists toward war now changed? Christ is the Prince of Peace to those who submit to his teaching.

I would welcome your comments on this next post.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Thomas Helwys,

I thought I would briefly revisit your question concerning John 8:58 from Post #117 and my brief response in Post #120 Page 12. I would like to state that the following is a work in progress. It is taking up the various places in John’s Gospel where the phrase “I am” occurs and testing the Trinitarian claim. I am not sure if I have found every relevant occurrence. We need to determine if Jesus and John are connecting all or some of these with Exodus 3:14. Principally we need to determine if the “I am” of John 8:58 is directly connected with Exodus 3:14 or has some other meaning.

John 1:20-23 (KJV): 20 And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am (S# 1510) not the Christ. 21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am (S# 1510) not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. 22 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? 23 He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.
John 3:28 (KJV): Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him.
The Apostle John records these words of John the Baptist when the representatives of the Jews questioned him. This was not just an idle inquiry, but part of their role to examine if a prophet spoke with Divine authority. They also felt challenged because here was a new prophet who seemed to be working independently of the Scribes and Pharisees and the Sanhedrin Council. Please note the phrases “I am not the Christ” and “I am not” (Elijah). In my opinion, neither of these are connected with Exodus 3:14, but is possibly the start of a theme that John draws attention to by recording various “I am” passages. In other words it is the question of who a person actually is, and it is usually the authorities who want to determine their status.

John 4:25-26 (KJV): 25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. 26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am (S# 1510) he.
Here is Jesus confession that He is the Christ, but note this is similar to the language that John the Baptist used. The translators of the KJV have added he in italics to connect Jesus’ answer to say that Jesus is here claiming to be the Christ. They are suggesting by this that Jesus is not claiming to be the “I am” of Exodus 3:14, even though the “I am” of John 4:26 is identical to John 8:58 in the original Greek. In other words the phrase “I am” is a simple expression in this context, but seems a bit awkward in English, requiring the addition of he.

John 6:20 (KJV): But he saith unto them, It is (S# 1510) I; be not afraid.
This is in a different order and I am not familiar enough with Greek to comment except to say that I do not think Jesus is appealing to Exodus 3:14 here. He was comforting them by his words and the familiar tone of his voice.

“I am” occurs in John 6:20, 35, 41, 48, 51, :7:28, 29, 33, 34, 36, 8:12, 16, 18, 23, 24, 28, and each of these describe in one way or another who Jesus is, but it is the last two of these, John 8:24,28 that may be connected to John 8:58, as they are in the same context and spoken at the same time.

John 8:23-28 (KJV): 23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. 25 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning. 26 I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him. 27 They understood not that he spake to them of the Father. 28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
Now again the KJV translators have added the he in both occurrences, and this gives the impression that they did not believe that Jesus was claiming here a connection with Exodus 3:14. It speaks in the first of his claim to a Divine origin as the Son of God v23, and in the second that he was the Son of Man v28. Rather than having some claim to independent Deity, he rather states his absolute dependence upon God His Father, “I do nothing of myself”.

John 8:58 (KJV): Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Despite the context and usage of the phrase in John 8:28, the translators here with exactly the same original words have translated this as “I am” and not “I am he. They thus leave wide open the suggestion that this connects with Exodus 3:14. In my opinion the same phrase occurring in John 8: v24 and v28 qualifies how we should understand John 8:58, spoken at the same time to the same audience. My conclusion is that when Jesus says “I am” in John 8:58, he is claiming to be the Son of God and the Son of Man.

John 9:9 (KJV): Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he.
This is the blind man speaking and again the translators have added the he to give the proper sense in the English. This particular usage here for the blind man again demystifies the expression in the Greek “I am” to show that it is not automatically a reference to what at first may seem to be the obscure words of Exodus 3:14.

In addition to this it is my belief that Exodus 3:14 should be translated with the future tense “I will be”. Therefore I have serious doubts that Exodus 3:14 is in any real way connected with John 8:58, unless it can be shown that “I am” of John 8:58 is a fulfillment of “I will be” of Exodus 3:14. This would not make Jesus God the Son, but the Son of God.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[steaver]

Greetings again Thomas Helwys,

I thought I would briefly revisit your question concerning John 8:58 from Post #117 and my brief response in Post #120 Page 12. I would like to state that the following is a work in progress. It is taking up the various places in John’s Gospel where the phrase “I am” occurs and testing the Trinitarian claim. I am not sure if I have found every relevant occurrence. We need to determine if Jesus and John are connecting all or some of these with Exodus 3:14. Principally we need to determine if the “I am” of John 8:58 is directly connected with Exodus 3:14 or has some other meaning.

John 1:20-23 (KJV): 20 And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am (S# 1510) not the Christ. 21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am (S# 1510) not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. 22 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? 23 He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.
John 3:28 (KJV): Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him.
The Apostle John records these words of John the Baptist when the representatives of the Jews questioned him. This was not just an idle inquiry, but part of their role to examine if a prophet spoke with Divine authority. They also felt challenged because here was a new prophet who seemed to be working independently of the Scribes and Pharisees and the Sanhedrin Council. Please note the phrases “I am not the Christ” and “I am not” (Elijah). In my opinion, neither of these are connected with Exodus 3:14, but is possibly the start of a theme that John draws attention to by recording various “I am” passages. In other words it is the question of who a person actually is, and it is usually the authorities who want to determine their status.

John 4:25-26 (KJV): 25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. 26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am (S# 1510) he.
Here is Jesus confession that He is the Christ, but note this is similar to the language that John the Baptist used. The translators of the KJV have added he in italics to connect Jesus’ answer to say that Jesus is here claiming to be the Christ. They are suggesting by this that Jesus is not claiming to be the “I am” of Exodus 3:14, even though the “I am” of John 4:26 is identical to John 8:58 in the original Greek. In other words the phrase “I am” is a simple expression in this context, but seems a bit awkward in English, requiring the addition of he.

John 6:20 (KJV): But he saith unto them, It is (S# 1510) I; be not afraid.
This is in a different order and I am not familiar enough with Greek to comment except to say that I do not think Jesus is appealing to Exodus 3:14 here. He was comforting them by his words and the familiar tone of his voice.

“I am” occurs in John 6:20, 35, 41, 48, 51, :7:28, 29, 33, 34, 36, 8:12, 16, 18, 23, 24, 28, and each of these describe in one way or another who Jesus is, but it is the last two of these, John 8:24,28 that may be connected to John 8:58, as they are in the same context and spoken at the same time.

John 8:23-28 (KJV): 23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. 25 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning. 26 I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him. 27 They understood not that he spake to them of the Father. 28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
Now again the KJV translators have added the he in both occurrences, and this gives the impression that they did not believe that Jesus was claiming here a connection with Exodus 3:14. It speaks in the first of his claim to a Divine origin as the Son of God v23, and in the second that he was the Son of Man v28. Rather than having some claim to independent Deity, he rather states his absolute dependence upon God His Father, “I do nothing of myself”.

John 8:58 (KJV): Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Despite the context and usage of the phrase in John 8:28, the translators here with exactly the same original words have translated this as “I am” and not “I am he. They thus leave wide open the suggestion that this connects with Exodus 3:14. In my opinion the same phrase occurring in John 8: v24 and v28 qualifies how we should understand John 8:58, spoken at the same time to the same audience. My conclusion is that when Jesus says “I am” in John 8:58, he is claiming to be the Son of God and the Son of Man.

John 9:9 (KJV): Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he.
This is the blind man speaking and again the translators have added the he to give the proper sense in the English. This particular usage here for the blind man again demystifies the expression in the Greek “I am” to show that it is not automatically a reference to what at first may seem to be the obscure words of Exodus 3:14.

In addition to this it is my belief that Exodus 3:14 should be translated with the future tense “I will be”. Therefore I have serious doubts that Exodus 3:14 is in any real way connected with John 8:58, unless it can be shown that “I am” of John 8:58 is a fulfillment of “I will be” of Exodus 3:14. This would not make Jesus God the Son, but the Son of God.

Kind regards
Trevor

Alot of wasted effort Trevor. You, and others, have gone out of your way to strip Jesus of His rightful place in God. One day you will know the truth, I pray it is not too late when you do.

You can retranslate until your blue in the face and it will not change the simple truth that is written for us, even translated for us into plain English from thousands of reputable Hebrew and Greek scholars.

The only way you can defend this antichrist gospel is to claim a higher education of Hebrew and Greek translating than thousands who have gone before you. Now you and a few others cling to this perversion of scripture as if your life depended on it. Well, with it, your life is as a dead man walking. Unless you are born again, you will not enter into heaven.

I have done my part, I have tried to persuade you to receive Jesus Christ as your Lord and God. Only God can show you mercy and reveal to you the truth. He may already done this and you have rejected it and instituted your own religion for reasons only known to you and God. I asked you many times why? And you never gave answer. There is only one true gospel, all others are cursed. Either you and your few friends are the ones who will be saved, or the hundreds of millions who have worshipped Jesus as God for the past 2000 years will be saved. I pray you have considered the cost if you are wrong.

 

[steaver]

Greetings again steaver,

So are you saying that people are instantly instructed on some aspects of the gospel by their born-again experience? The sequence of Acts 8:5,12 is preach the gospel, detailed as the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, then belief, then baptism.

We have a number of former Muslims by religion and Jews by birth and religion who now accept our beliefs and they definitely do not accept the Trinity. They see Jesus as the Son of God as a fulfillment of much of the OT and they have a belief in the One God the Father, which is consistent with OT monotheism.


Kind regards
Trevor

The purpose of the article was to give you an example of a Jew and a Muslim who received Jesus Christ and their example shows a Jew and a Muslim who received Jesus Christ believing Jesus is God. This is contrary to the article you posted in which the author made claim that the Jews would not have ever viewed Jesus Christ as God from the scriptures. Millions of Muslims and Jews have accepted Jesus Christ as their God!

You say you have a few who believe your gospel? Well, so do the JW's, and the Mormons have millions that follow their gospel as well. I could start a religion declaring that I can prove from the scriptures Jesus Christ is actually a Gennie from a Ladden's Lamp and I guarantee you I would get followers. There is nothing new under the sun. Paul warned us that false teachers would creep in and undermine the gospel and preach "another gospel" which he calls accursed.

Here is the facts Trevor, the ONLY way you have of supporting your gospel is to claim that all Christian bible translations, English or otherwise, are so riddled with poor translating that one would have to learn Greek and Hebrew to even come close to understanding who God is and God's plan of salvation. AND, after one learned the Greek and Hebrew, one would have to accept the minority version (yours) of God over the Majority's version of God.

Does this honestly make any sense to you?? You have been deceived. I pray the Holy Spirit penatrates your soul, I mean that sincerely.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again steaver,

I appreciate the sincerity and enthusiasm of your two replies, but we will have to leave the fate of those who did not believe in the Trinity in God’s hands to accept or reject.

Alot of wasted effort Trevor. You, and others, have gone out of your way to strip Jesus of His rightful place in God. One day you will know the truth, I pray it is not too late when you do.

You can retranslate until your blue in the face and it will not change the simple truth that is written for us, even translated for us into plain English from thousands of reputable Hebrew and Greek scholars.

The only way you can defend this antichrist gospel is to claim a higher education of Hebrew and Greek translating than thousands who have gone before you. Now you and a few others cling to this perversion of scripture as if your life depended on it. Well, with it, your life is as a dead man walking. Unless you are born again, you will not enter into heaven.

I was surprised at this comment on my attempted analysis of the “I am” passages of John’s Gospel. We were taught in our teenage years to use Strong’s Concordance as a help to understand some Bible words. Do you or any of your Baptist mates use Strong’s as a useful resource? I did less than that as I used Strong’s Concordance to identify the word, and then created a list in an electronic version of Englishman’s Concordance. I only used these resources to save time. Apart from these two resources the rest was by considering each usage in its own context and then comparing Scripture with Scripture. I suppose you were disappointed that I did not simply use the well warn syllogism: Exodus 3:14 God the Father says he is the “I am”, John 8:58 Jesus says “I am”, therefore Jesus is God. “We Trintarians have always used this passage this way to justify our belief”.

Daniel prophesied of a persecuting, religious power in Daniel 7, and I believe that this was the Roman Catholic Church. The early Christians had been persecuted by the pagan Romans, and when Constantine came to power there was relief for a short time, but then the Roman Catholic Church started to persecute those that did not accept all their wrong teachings. To me your claim that the majority has believed the Trinity is probably true, but I would rather be numbered amongst the persecuted believing, faithful minority than amongst the erroneous, persecuting majority.
Daniel 7:21 (KJV): I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;

At school I was better at Physics and Mathematics than English and History. I have worked on the technical side of things all my life and greatly admired such men as Sir Isaac Newton. I only discovered recently that he wrote more on religion than on science. In his book on Daniel, Sir Isaac Newton correctly identified the persecuting little horn of the fourth beast as the Roman Catholic Church. I suppose by your estimate Isaac Newton will be rejected if he did not radically change his view in his last few days as he also did not believe in the Trinity. Perhaps I will get a consolation prize and be in the same place as Isaac Newton after the resurrection. I do not want to go to heaven as the Baptists believe but look forward to Christ’s Kingdom upon the earth.

The following is from a web-site detailing some of Sir Isaac Newton’s beliefs:

Sometime in the 1670s Newton began an extensive study of biblical doctrine. This study led him to conclude that the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity — a doctrine held by Anglicans and Catholics of his day — was a corruption of the original biblical teaching of the Oneness of God. Newton believed that both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament taught that God is one person and that this one person is the Father. But Newton was also firmly committed to the belief that Christ is the Son of God, not God himself nor merely a man, but the literal Son of God, having no human father.

These theological ideas show affinities to Judaic monotheism and the position of the fourth-century Arians, a Christian sect long deemed heretical by the orthodox Church. This means that had Newton’s contemporaries known of his beliefs, he would have been considered a heretic. But Newton saw things the other way around. He adhered to the pre-Trinitarian theology of the primitive Christians, and thus was orthodox in the original sense; it was the so-called orthodox Christians of his own day who were the true heretics, as they had departed from the biblical faith. The twelve statements on God and Christ shown on this folio exemplify the central aspects of Newton’s early theology.

Five examples are given below:
1. The [word] God is no where in the scriptures used to signify more then one of the three persons at once.
2. The word God put absolutely without particular restriction to the Son or Holy Ghost doth always signify the Father from one end of the scriptures to the other.
3. When ever it is said in the scriptures that there is but one God, it is meant of the Father.
10. It is a proper epithet of the Father to be called almighty. For by God almighty we always understand the Father. Yet this is not to limit the power of the Son, For he doth whatsoever he seeth the Father do; but to acknowledge that all power is originally in the Father and that the son hath no power in him but what he derives from the Father for he professes that of himself he can do nothing.
12. The union between him and the Father he interprets to be like that of the saints one with another. That is in agreement of will and counsel.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again steaver,

The purpose of the article was to give you an example of a Jew and a Muslim who received Jesus Christ and their example shows a Jew and a Muslim who received Jesus Christ believing Jesus is God. This is contrary to the article you posted in which the author made claim that the Jews would not have ever viewed Jesus Christ as God from the scriptures. Millions of Muslims and Jews have accepted Jesus Christ as their God!

I have on my desk a small book where the author seeks to expound the OT and NT subject of the manifestation of the invisible eternal God in human nature. The book is a summary of what he had delivered in two lectures at New York. The author was invited by two Trinitarian Jews to address a meeting of mainly Jews who were proving stubborn in accepting the teaching of these two new converts to Trinitarianism. Instead of supporting these two, the author spoke on the consistency of the OT and NT teaching on this subject, showing that there is One God the Father, and that Jesus is the Son of God. The two Trinitarians who had arranged the first meeting rejected the author, but he invited the audience to a second address.

Before giving the second address the author was given a letter by one of the prominent Jews who had been in the audience. From this letter it is evident that most Trinitarian Jews would have to forsake the general perspective of how a normal Jew would consider this subject from the OT. I will quote only a few portions:

The moment a Jew is told that there are three persons, three essences, three somethings or anythings in the Godhead; and that three distinct units or Unities constitute only one unit or One Unity – that that Tri-Unity is the God of Israel, the Jehovah of the Old Testament – the moment, I say, a Jew is told of this, he shrinks back, and stands sternly aloof. The devout Jew points to the declaration on Horeb, “I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” And again, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.”

The Jewish world deny that any Jewish writer could have believed in the doctrine of the Trinity, and if this doctrine be found in the New Testament, it has either been foistered in there, or the writers were not Jews.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[steaver]

Greetings again steaver,

I appreciate the sincerity and enthusiasm of your two replies, but we will have to leave the fate of those who did not believe in the Trinity in God’s hands to accept or reject.


Kind regards
Trevor

Believing in the Trinity is the byproduct of being born of God. And yes, having no born-again, God indwellement, Spirit of Christ indwellement means no entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven/God.

"If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His". (Ro 8)

I was surprised at this comment on my attempted analysis of the “I am” passages of John’s Gospel. We were taught in our teenage years to use Strong’s Concordance as a help to understand some Bible words. Do you or any of your Baptist mates use Strong’s as a useful resource?

Yes, taught to use the Hebrew and Greek for our deeper understanding of sound doctrine which was once delivered unto the saints. NOT for twisting and rewriting of sound established Christian doctrines and making new ones.

Daniel prophesied of a persecuting, religious power in Daniel 7, and I believe that this was the Roman Catholic Church. The early Christians had been persecuted by the pagan Romans, and when Constantine came to power there was relief for a short time, but then the Roman Catholic Church started to persecute those that did not accept all their wrong teachings. To me your claim that the majority has believed the Trinity is probably true, but I would rather be numbered amongst the persecuted believing, faithful minority than amongst the erroneous, persecuting majority.
Daniel 7:21 (KJV): I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;

Daniel 7:21 has not come to pass as of yet. This will be during the Great Tribulation. So all of your points based on this are void.

In his book on Daniel, Sir Isaac Newton correctly identified the persecuting little horn of the fourth beast as the Roman Catholic Church. I suppose by your estimate Isaac Newton will be rejected if he did not radically change his view in his last few days as he also did not believe in the Trinity. Perhaps I will get a consolation prize and be in the same place as Isaac Newton after the resurrection.

He was wrong about the little horn and he was wrong about the Trinity. What happened to these heretics is what is known as "being educated beyond one's intellegnce". Many heretics and cult leaders study and believe in their minds that they have come up with some great undiscovered truth. They write books and commentaries to glorify themselves and say 'look how smart I am'. They believe they have found a mystery in the scriptures and they ALONE, without any guidance from the Holy Spirit of God mind you, have figured it all out. Not once will you see any of these men who attack Jesus Christ ever say anything about the Holy Spirit of God guiding them into all Truth. They don't because they don'y believe He exist, but that IT is just words on paper. They are stuffed full of head knowledge, but the heart is dead to understanding..."Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." (2Ti3:5) ...To these, the Holy Spirit is nothing more than words on a paper, having no power, only words to be analyzed, disected and tweeked for their own personal glorification.

I pray you are not at the same ressurrection as Sir Isaac Newton if he had not ever received the Spirit of Christ, for he will face the second death.

I do not want to go to heaven as the Baptists believe but look forward to Christ’s Kingdom upon the earth.

And you will not partake of that kingdom unless you have received the Spirit of Christ. Your choice, you have been warned by many who know Jesus Christ personally. I know I am right on this Trevor, and I only know I am right because I have the Spirit of Christ IN me confirming the Truth of this matter. I have this understanding through Christ, and not in the wisdom of men or of myself.

Let me put it in the words of Jesus for you...

"Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." (John 3:7-8)

"And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." (Like 17:20-21)

Trevor, you are either in the Kingdom of God NOW through the Spirit of Christ living in you, or you will not be there when He establishes His phyisical Kingdom here on earth after the ressurrection of those IN Christ. DO NOT MISS THE FIRST RESSURRECTION!!!!

"Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." (Rev 20:6)

You would do yourself well to pray to God the Father and sincerely ask Him for the Holy Spirit. Will He give you a stone instead?? But ye must believe that the Holy Spirit exist, not as words on a paper, but as a Person with power!

"If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall [your] heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?" (Luke11:13)

Question for you Trevor, have you ever asked the Father for the Holy Spirit?

 

[steaver]

Greetings again steaver,

Before giving the second address the author was given a letter by one of the prominent Jews who had been in the audience. From this letter it is evident that most Trinitarian Jews would have to forsake the general perspective of how a normal Jew would consider this subject from the OT. I will quote only a few portions:

"The moment a Jew is told that there are three persons, three essences, three somethings or anythings in the Godhead; and that three distinct units or Unities constitute only one unit or One Unity – that that Tri-Unity is the God of Israel, the Jehovah of the Old Testament – the moment, I say, a Jew is told of this, he shrinks back, and stands sternly aloof. The devout Jew points to the declaration on Horeb, “I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” And again, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.”

Kind regards
Trevor

Correct, this is how both the unregenerated Jew and Muslim react to Jesus being God or the Trinity of God. This is how Yass Saada reacted when he was told "Jesus is more than a prophet, He is the Son of God, He is God". Yass yelled "blasphemy!" . And then afterwards, at just the reading of one small portion of scripture, the first sentence of John chapter one, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God", Tass was engulfed with the love of Christ and became born-again. He now proclaims Jesus is God! As does Moran, the Jewish man in the article who received Jesus Christ as His Lord and God.

The Jewish world deny that any Jewish writer could have believed in the doctrine of the Trinity, and if this doctrine be found in the New Testament, it has either been foistered in there, or the writers were not Jews."

Of course it does, it does not know Jesus Christ, why would they believe otherwise? Millions of Jews and Muslims worldwide are worshipping Jesus Christ as God. The lost cannot understand this.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again steaver,

I appreciate your thorough responses. We have stated our differences without much resolution. The following is a response to only a few items. Some of these are not really the subject of the thread, but I am interested in making a comment on these.

Believing in the Trinity is the byproduct of being born of God.

I am still surprised at this type of comment. It seems in part contrary to:
Romans 10:17 (KJV): So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Yes, taught to use the Hebrew and Greek for our deeper understanding of sound doctrine which was once delivered unto the saints. NOT for twisting and rewriting of sound established Christian doctrines and making new ones.

I feel happy about this now, as I was a bit worried that you completely disclaimed most of my comments because I used Strong’s and a little bit of examination of a few Hebrew words. At least you can check some of this. I did not want to appear scholarly, when I have limited understanding of Greek and Hebrew. But principally I attempted to expound the subject from the Scripture as found in the KJV, and even here you seemed to simply reject on the basis of your knowledge, based upon normal Trinitarian tradition, and your claim to your born again experience and having the Spirit of Christ within.

Daniel 7:21 has not come to pass as of yet. This will be during the Great Tribulation. So all of your points based on this are void.

Is this view of Daniel 7:21 your personal opinion or the accepted position of most Baptists? My impression in the past is that there are a wide range of views of the Second Coming and the Kingdom amongst the Baptists. Many in the past have rejected the future conversion of the Jews, and some rejected that they would return to their land, and others say that now that they have partially returned it has no real significance whatsoever. I have heard a few people suggest that many prophecies, say much of the Book of Revelation will be fulfilled in this period of the Great Tribulation. I think some of this has been made popular as a result of Hal Lindsay’s various books. My other thought is that you may claim that your belief on Daniel 7:21 is also a byproduct of being born of God. Do five different born again Baptists have five different views on the Kingdom, and is the Spirit of Christ lacking in this regard?

He was wrong about the little horn and he was wrong about the Trinity.

I have respect for many early Biblical students who were willing to read the Bible and allow the Bible to speak, rather than blindly accepting what was prevalent at the time. I do not know the full range of Sir Isaac Newton’s beliefs, but I see him as representative of this type of inquiring mind. From a brief examination of the Waldenses, they gradually changed their beliefs as a result of their reading and understanding of the Word of God. Also the Swiss Brethren, who were commonly called the Anabaptists, came to an understanding of Adult Baptism instead of Infant Sprinkling as a result of reading the Word of God. Again I do not know the full range of the beliefs of these two groups, but I commend and respect their willingness to allow the Word of God to teach. Again from the rest of your comments, I feel that possibly Bible Study has been replaced to some extent by the conviction that you are Spirit-guided in all your beliefs.

Millions of Jews and Muslims worldwide are worshipping Jesus Christ as God. The lost cannot understand this.

If you separate the Jews from the Muslims, how many Jews do you believe now worship the Trinity? I believe that most Jews will remain blind to the fact that Jesus is the Messiah until Jesus returns and converts a significant remnant.
Romans 11:25-28 (KJV): 25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. 26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: 27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. 28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[steaver]

Greetings again steaver,

"
Believing in the Trinity is the byproduct of being born of God."

I am still surprised at this type of comment. It seems in part contrary to:
Romans 10:17 (KJV): So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Kind regards
Trevor

Not at all. Romans 10:14-17 is declaring if one never hears the gospel of Jesus Christ, faith cannot come to that person.

But principally I attempted to expound the subject from the Scripture as found in the KJV, and even here you seemed to simply reject on the basis of your knowledge, based upon normal Trinitarian tradition, and your claim to your born again experience and having the Spirit of Christ within

What else can I tell you Trevor? I know Jesus Christ is in me. I know Jesus Christ is God because the Holy Spirit whom is in me also testifies Jesus Christ is God. Examine yourself, know ye not that Jesus Christ is in you? If any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of His. The Spirit testifies with our spirit that we are the children of God.

Is this view of Daniel 7:21 your personal opinion or the accepted position of most Baptists?

I'm not sure I can speak for most Baptist, however, many Baptist commentaries that I have read understand the "little horn" is the Antichrist, not the RCC.

My other thought is that you may claim that your belief on Daniel 7:21 is also a byproduct of being born of God.

Not at all, the born of God are exhorted to "study to show thyself approved" and "build upon the foundation of Jesus Christ gold, silver and precious stones". When one receives Jesus Christ, having the Spirit of Christ indwell them, two becoming one, they cannot help but know it.

I have respect for many early Biblical students who were willing to read the Bible and allow the Bible to speak, rather than blindly accepting what was prevalent at the time.

Amen, but at the same time the scripture declares that God has given us preachers and teachers by whom we are to learn from also.

"But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour; ..... Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers." (Titus)

"But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned [them]; " (2Tim3)

May I ask you a question Trevor? Have you asked the Father for the gift of the Holy Spirit?

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again steaver,

Not at all. Romans 10:14-17 is declaring if one never hears the gospel of Jesus Christ, faith cannot come to that person.

Yes, but the sequence to my understanding is that the gospel of the Kingdom and name are first preached, then belief of this gospel, then baptism by immersion. You seem to suggest that major elements of the gospel can be lacking, eg the Trinity and a correct understanding of the kingdom before another experience happens, where a person is born again. I believe the born of water and spirit is part of the process that I have alluded to, eg Acts 3, 8:5,12.

I'm not sure I can speak for most Baptist, however, many Baptist commentaries that I have read understand the "little horn" is the Antichrist, not the RCC.

I believe the antichrist system started to develop in the times of the Apostles, for example 2 Thess 2, 2 Tim 4, 1 John and anticipated in Acts 20. John specifically uses the term antichrist and speaks of the separation of some from the early believers. The amalgamation of Jewish and Greek philosophies and Jewish ritual developed into the RCC, and this became the antichrist system. Jesus will specifically be confronted at his return by an antichrist, but I believe this is the Papacy. My belief that some of the Baptists may unite in this opposition to Christ at his return.

Not at all, the born of God are exhorted to "study to show thyself approved" and "build upon the foundation of Jesus Christ gold, silver and precious stones". When one receives Jesus Christ, having the Spirit of Christ indwell them, two becoming one, they cannot help but know it.

Amen, but at the same time the scripture declares that God has given us preachers and teachers by whom we are to learn from also.

If I was to disagree with your conclusion on Daniel 7:21 together with those you consider your preachers and teaches would that prove to you that you and they have the Spirit and I do not have the Spirit of Christ? For my part I am encouraged to test the spirits to see if they are of God, and this plus other teachings cause me to question many of your claims.

May I ask you a question Trevor? Have you asked the Father for the gift of the Holy Spirit?

As you may have noticed previously, I have avoided this question. The reason is because the Holy Spirit gifts were given to the 1st Century believers, but I do not see any of these Gifts available today. You most probably view this differently from what you have previously stated. I believe the true application of having the Spirit of Christ is having a mind and heart that has responded to the gospel and allowing that power of the gospel within to motivate unto godliness.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[steaver]

Greetings again steaver,

I believe the true application of having the Spirit of Christ is having a mind and heart that has responded to the gospel and allowing that power of the gospel within to motivate unto godliness

Your are absolutely correct!

"Spirit of Christ" = "power of the gospel within"

"Spirit of Christ" = "Spirit of God" (Romans8:9-16)

Can you sincerely read Romans 8 and deny that the Spirit of Christ is the Spirit of God?

You concede that the Spirit of Christ is IN your heart. You concede that the Spirit of Christ is that power of the gospel within.

The puzzling part is why you reject Romans 8:9-16 which clearly declares Christ is God? Do you have any good explanation to offer for this denial?

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again steaver,

Your are absolutely correct!

"Spirit of Christ" = "power of the gospel

 

[Thomas Helwys]

This subject is one in which it should be acknowledged that "Trinity" is not found in the Bible, but there are verses which imply it. Non-trinitarianism was found in the early churches, and the trinitarian view was not firmly established until Constantine forced its acceptance, and even then there was dissent.

However, I think, as I and others have shown, that there is Biblical evidence for the Trinitarian position.