Christians..."Trinity"?

[captainbryce]

From my own personal experience of being saved by Jesus Christ I believe this is an accurate stance to take, although prior to that time I did not think so. I thought of myself as a Christian who did not accept the doctrine of the trinity.

So you are indeed saying that someone who rejects the doctrine of trinity is NOT a Christian?

 

[Shiranui117]

We've been over this plenty of times. Paul was most likely a Henotheist, and the idea of them being "Monotheists" is a more recent concept. Even Josephus acknowledged other beings called "gods". Angels are called "gods" throughout the OT. Thus, there's nothing new or heretical about Jesus being called "a god". Or "a divine being". The very notion that the word "god" only applied to THE god is what's a recent invention. In addition, otherwise there's NO POINT in the articulated form of "THE god". There's nothing wrong with being a Monolatrous Polytheist, it's pretty much what the Ancient Israelites believed.

What evidence do you have that Paul was a henotheist? I've been over this with you before. What scholars say this? There is no evidence from the Scriptures that he was. Any reference to any other "gods" is either prefaced with the "so-called" label, and the one or two references to "gods" that aren't prefaced as such are clearly indications of people taking something as a god, not that it's an actual "god." The point of emphasizing "THE God" is to show that God is the only god, and that there is none besides Him. The Israelites learned this lesson the hard way vis-a-vis the Babylonian Exile.

Also, if other gods exist, then shouldn't I, as a Gentile, be alright worshipping other gods, since I'm not Jewish, and under no covenant with God by your standards? After all, God's only the God of Israel, right? He only sent Jesus down to be the Jewish Messiah, and it doesn't really matter about us Gentiles, because even if we wanted to be REAL Christians, we'd have to become Jews first, and we all know that Judaism is extremely reluctant to accept converts.

The very idea of the Trinity, with the ambiguous concept of "3 persons" is very much Polytheistic though. To say that Christians are "Monotheistic" while believing in the Trinity is another example of circular reasoning to explain a blatant contradiction.

It isn't at all polytheistic, I assure you. If it were, it would have been rejected and universally condemned by the entire Church. But it wasn't. This tells us that the Trinity is not polytheistic, and has strong Scriptural support. If it could have been debunked and dismantled, then the Trinitarian position would have ceased to exist 1700 years ago, and it would have just been Sabellians and Arians going at it at that point. The Arians had control of vast portions of the more populous Eastern Church, and numerous Emperors were Arians. If the Arians were able to discredit and disprove the Trinitarians, then they would have had the resources to destroy us entirely. But that wasn't the case, either.

I will look into 2 Co 5:19 but hopefully you can also admit that it CAN and often does mean "a god" such as in Acts 12 and is far from ruled out and in many cases even staunch Trinitarians admit this such as with John 1:1. Besides, there is no such thing as "Form of God". There is only "form of a god". "God" is not a form. "A god" is a form. And like I said, it fully matches Jesus's response in 10:34, but otherwise has him dishonestly changing the subject, regarding 10:33.

In the case of the Greek polytheists? Admittedly, yes. But with a perfectly good and monotheistic Jew? No.

BTW, as a side-note, you're the first person I've ever, ever met of an Abrahamic faith who believes that there are other gods besides God. Not saying that it's good or bad. Just noting that you're the first, is all.

 

[Shiranui117]

ITT: There are some mad long posts.

Oh man, this isn't even as bad as some other debates I've had in the past. I've had times where I was going back and forth with a guy, each of us putting up four posts at a time!

 

[Shiranui117]

Very easily. Tell me, what is the definition of the word "divinity". Take a moment to look it up! When you find the definition, I want you to show me how my belief that Jesus was the son of God is in conflict with this definition.

Point taken.

That doesn't even make any logical sense because it's a paradox. You're saying that they acted as they did because they tell us what his words meant, and because THEY tell us what his words meant, that is why they acted as they did?

More to the point, they (the crowds) were also being mislead by the corrupt leaders who were LYING to them. Yes, they intentionally LIED (framed him if you will) just to find an excuse to execute him. Their lies don't suddenly become "true" just because an ignorant crowd believes them.

Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant by "tell." I'll try to clear this up.

The Jews who wanted to stone Jesus (this is in John 10, well before the trials, just so we're clear) saw His words as claiming divinity, which was utter blasphemy to them. With Jesus claiming the power to forgive sins (which is something that only God can do), the Jews understood Jesus to be claiming equality with God. In John 10, there was none of the leaders trying to lie to the Jews. The masses simply hear what Jesus said, and try to stone Him right then and there.

Yes, and they would have been correct on that point. He was the Son of God in more than the ordinary sense. Unlike the rest of us, he was not born to a human father. His birth was through God's divine will, therefore he is literally the Son of God.

What is your understanding of Jesus? Are you like Shermana, who believes that Jesus was "a god," or something more along the lines of Islamic teaching, i.e. Jesus is a human spoken into existence by God?

Uh no, you're using circular logic here. That is just an explanation for why a trinity doctrine must be invented in order to reconcile the obvious defiance of scripture. That does not explain WHY Jesus cannot be God and still be divine at the same time.

Okay, well then show me the biblical scripture that discusses "trinity", the "triune God" and/or "three in one". Book, chapter and verse please!

So you say. But you can't demonstrate this with any scriptural proof support, nor can you justify this in any logical manner. All things being equal, the simplest explanation is correct. If there is no scripture that says God exists as a three in one "trinity", and there is no way to make that case logically, then it's not true. There is no trinity because there is no scripture that says there is, and there is no logical reason (or explanation) for why God would need to have "go to all that trouble".

Scripture is not the only source of Christian doctrine or tradition. And, quite simply, God went to all that trouble because He wanted to.

Because the bible says so! Humans are mortal, God is not. God can never die, therefore he can never be mortal.

Habakkuk 1:12
12 Lord, are you not from everlasting? My God, my Holy One, you will never die. - case closed!

Really? I have a bunch of other translations that say "WE" will never die. Are you so sure the NIV's right? It does screw up a lot of other things... Both the Septuagint (what the first Christians used, and what the NT quotes for the OT) and the Masoretic text (the Hebrew text used by all Jews today) say "we will never die" instead of "You will never die."

Not necessary. I already know what Sheol/Hades is. I also know that this has nothing to do with the John 11:1-46 which describes the resurrection of Lazarus of Bethany (which was not a parable but a miracle).

Oh, I had in mind Luke 17. Sorry for the confusion.

No he didn't. The literal definition of Sheol is "grave", nothing more, nothing less. It does not imply any "conscious" state, nor has it ever. You are thinking of the figurative "Gehenna" which is completely different!

Did you even take a sideways glance at the link I sent you?

 

[Shermana]

The literal definition of Sheol is "grave"

That is incorrect, it is a totally modern concept to associate "Sheol" without its afterlife properties other than the Sadducees who were a minority view. The idea of the mentions associated with it being purely poetic has little if any historic precedent other than the Sadducees. There is absolutely no reason to say it only means "The grave", and there are other words that define "The grave" more literally. There's a reason the Septuagint translated it as "Hades".

Ecclesiastes as well was contested and was only accepted as canon by very shoddy reasoning among the Hillelists.

 

[Shermana]

What evidence do you have that Paul was a henotheist? I've been over this with you before.

"Indeed there are many gods and many lords." Translations dishonestly add "so-called" for a reason, they realize the language suggests he was being literal. The evidence is pretty plain, its those who adopt Theologies like the translators who resort to adding "So-called" who need to distort that evidence.

What scholars say this?

What non-Trinitarian scholars agree with the Trinity?

There is no evidence from the Scriptures that he was.

A smoking gun is not evidence to someone who doesn't want to view it as evidence. Paul is quite clear that there are other gods.

Any reference to any other "gods" is either prefaced with the "so-called" label, and the one or two references to "gods" that aren't prefaced as such are clearly indications of people taking something as a god, not that it's an actual "god."

Exactly as I expected, you think the "So-called" actually is in the text. Again, there's a reason the translators resort to adding that in. What is an actual god? Are Angels not actual "Elohim"?

The point of emphasizing "THE God" is to show that God is the only god, and that there is none besides Him. The Israelites learned this lesson the hard way vis-a-vis the Babylonian Exile.

Wrong, it's to show that he is "The god of the gods". The Israelites learned not to worship the other gods who weren't in the Divine chain of command.

Also, if other gods exist, then shouldn't I, as a Gentile, be alright worshipping other gods, since I'm not Jewish, and under no covenant with God by your standards?

First off, define "worship".

According to the Septuagint of Deuteronomy 32:8, you as a gentile have a various "son of god" set over you, only we Israelites are directly ruled by THE god, however you are nonetheless other His authority via proxy.

After all, God's only the God of Israel, right? He only sent Jesus down to be the Jewish Messiah,

"I have only come for the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel"

and it doesn't really matter about us Gentiles, because even if we wanted to be REAL Christians, we'd have to become Jews first, and we all know that Judaism is extremely reluctant to accept converts.

Rabbinical Jews have made unnecessary hoops for conversion, that is true.

It isn't at all polytheistic, I assure you.

Your assurance means little. It's Polytheistic, I assure you.

If it were, it would have been rejected and universally condemned by the entire Church. But it wasn't.

That's like me saying if Jesus was the True Messiah he would have been accepted by the Jews. The Church simply redefined what "Monotheism"means.
Besides, they had no concept of "Polytheism" back then. They just took what they had and worked it in. It wasn't a case of "Oh it's Polytheistic, let's reject it". Such labels came much later.

This tells us that the Trinity is not polytheistic, and has strong Scriptural support.

So your argument is "They said it's not Polytheistic, therefore it's not". Right.

If it could have been debunked and dismantled, then the Trinitarian position would have ceased to exist 1700 years ago,

It has been debunked and dismantled, but it's a matter of accepting this debunking and dismantling. One can weasel out of any logical debunking. Try explaining to Protestants that the orthodox church is right, you will see quite handily how this "debunking" works and acceptance of such by those who have a vested interest.

and it would have just been Sabellians and Arians going at it at that point. The Arians had control of vast portions of the more populous Eastern Church, and numerous Emperors were Arians. If the Arians were able to discredit and disprove the Trinitarians, then they would have had the resources to destroy us entirely. But that wasn't the case, either.

So it's a matter of who had the greater resources? The Arians had numbers among the Goths and Vandals but political double dealing led to their downfall. Your philosophy boils down to "might makes right". I do like the fact that the Arian emperors tried their best to fight against Trinitarian influence, like Constantine's historic slapping down of that Heresiarch Athanasius.

In the case of the Greek polytheists? Admittedly, yes. But with a perfectly good and monotheistic Jew? No.

Huh? What are you responding to exactly? That Jesus would have been dishonestly changing the subject according to the mainstream translation of John 10:33 or that there's no such thing as "Form of God"? What does "Form of God" mean?

BTW, as a side-note, you're the first person I've ever, ever met of an Abrahamic faith who believes that there are other gods besides God. Not saying that it's good or bad. Just noting that you're the first, is all.

Those who understand the actual history of the Henotheism among Israel's past and accept the Septuagint over the Masoretic (cough Deuteronomy 32:8), like those who authentically accept Jesus while rejecting Paul, are very rare indeed. I've met a few though. There are vested interests in maintaining the "Monotheistic" approach just like there are vested interests in promoting the idea that the Trinity is not Polytheistic.

I'll bet you I'm also the first who will tell you that Angels are called "Elohim" in the OT?

 

[John Martin]

I am a Christian, but I reject the trinity doctrine. I have been told on more than one occasion by other so-called Christians that I can NOT be a Christian unless I accept the doctrine of trinity. Do you believe this is an accurate/fair stance to take?

Christianity, as I understnad, is not a matter of what you belive about God but what you believe about yourself. Jesus said, 'the Father and I are one'. He did not just believe in God but realized that in the deepest level( not in his physical and pyschological levles) he was one with God. He also said: I am the light of the world and also you are the light of the world. jesus declared his good newss with one statmement: the kingdom of God is at hand , repent. It means God is everyywhere and everyone and everthing is in God. Repentence is to realize this truth, to become aware of this truth or to discover this truth or to experience this truth.
I would say a Christian is one who believes that God is everywehre and everyone and everthing is in God. A Christian is one who believes that in the deepest level he or she is one with God. A Christian is one who believes that he or she,in the deepest level, is the light of the world( giving meaning to the world and not receiving menaing from the world). But it is not enough to believe this but to realize it. This, I see, as the purpose of all our spiritual practices.

 

[John Martin]

So you are indeed saying that someone who rejects the doctrine of trinity is NOT a Christian?

The doctrine of Trinity is not something to believe but to experience. Until a person realizes the significance of Trinity in one's life, one should not believe in it blindly and one should not reject it outright. One should be humble to say that in this particular moment of my life the concept of Trinity does not make any sense. I find difficulty to believe in it. But who knows after few years?
There was a time when I felt difficulty in believing Trinity but today I see its significance in my daily life. Ideas will not change. It is wise not to reject it and not to believe it blindly. one has to be honest what one feels about one's beliefs.

 

[Shiranui117]

What non-Trinitarian scholars agree with the Trinity?

I'm afraid that doesn't answer my question in the least.

"Indeed there are many gods and many lords." Translations dishonestly add "so-called" for a reason, they realize the language suggests he was being literal. The evidence is pretty plain, its those who adopt Theologies like the translators who resort to adding "So-called" who need to distort that evidence.

Exactly as I expected, you think the "So-called" actually is in the text.

Actually it is, in a lot of cases. I've shown you this before, I know I have. For a refresher course...

1 Corinthians 8:5 καὶ γὰρ εἴπερ εἰσὶν λεγόμενοι θεοὶ εἴτε ἐν οὐρανῷ εἴτε ἐπὶ γῆς, ὥσπερ εἰσὶν θεοὶ πολλοὶ καὶ κύριοι πολλοί,

See that bolded word, legomenoi? That's the "so-called" that we're looking for.

What is an actual god?

God is the Almighty, all-knowing, Ruler and Creator of all created things, Who is uncreated, One, and eternal.

Are Angels not actual "Elohim"?

I'd say that they're "Elohim" in a different sense that God is Elohim.

Wrong, it's to show that he is "The god of the gods". The Israelites learned not to worship the other gods who weren't in the Divine chain of command.

Where do you draw this from?

First off, define "worship".

Greek "latrea." To serve, to honor as sovereign, even supreme, over all things.

According to the Septuagint of Deuteronomy 32:8, you as a gentile have a various "son of god" set over you,

AKA angel, right? Doesn't Israel have one appointed over it, too?

only we Israelites are directly ruled by THE god, however you are nonetheless other His authority via proxy.

So by this argument, paganism's still a no-no?

"I have only come for the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel"

Good, you caught my drift.

Rabbinical Jews have made unnecessary hoops for conversion, that is true.

Alright then, in your view, what does it take for one to become Jewish?

Your assurance means little. It's Polytheistic, I assure you.

Your assurance against my assurance doesn't do much to assure me.

Huh? What are you responding to exactly? That Jesus would have been dishonestly changing the subject according to the mainstream translation of John 10:33 or that there's no such thing as "Form of God"? What does "Form of God" mean?

I'm sorry for being unclear. What I was getting at was, the Greeks would have used "a god" all the time. But Paul, a monotheistic Jew, would have been more likely to use the Anarthrous to refer to God. Do let me know when you've done some research into that Corinthians bit I gave you.

I'll bet you I'm also the first who will tell you that Angels are called "Elohim" in the OT?

That too. But I've also seen "Elohim" reinterpreted by both Jews and Christians to simply mean "powers" in the case where the angels are involved, so God would simply be "God of the powers" or "Power of powers." Gets away nicely from hints of polytheism or henotheism. I've also seen it asserted that the scholars who translated the Septuagint translated "Elohim" as "angels" because the concept of there being other gods besides God mentioned in the Bible was shocking and embarrassing to them.

 

[Shermana]

I'm afraid that doesn't answer my question in the least.

That doesn't either. Looks like we have an impasse on our appeal to authority don't we.

Actually it is, in a lot of cases. I've shown you this before, I know I have. For a refresher course...

1 Corinthians 8:5 καὶ γὰρ εἴπερ εἰσὶν λεγόμενοι θεοὶ εἴτε ἐν οὐρανῷ εἴτε ἐπὶ γῆς, ὥσπερ εἰσὶν θεοὶ πολλοὶ καὶ κύριοι πολλοί,

See that bolded word, legomenoi? That's the "so-called" that we're looking for.

Do you see that it's not where you want it to be? Do you also know that "called" does not mean "So-called"?

Here's a literal translation.

for even if there are those called gods, whether in heaven, whether upon earth -- as there are gods many and lords many --


See, it's not on that second part. Indeed there are gods many and lords many. Whether they are "called" gods or not.

God is the Almighty, all-knowing, Ruler and Creator of all created things, Who is uncreated, One, and eternal.

That in no way answers my question. Try again. What is a god? I see you say it translates as "power". That is correct. Why does it mean something different than "power" for THE god? What is the meaning there? What you did was explain characteristics of that particular "power".

I'd say that they're "Elohim" in a different sense that God is Elohim.

Says who?

Where do you draw this from?

From the reason why it's articulated. Where do you draw that it's articulated to show that all non-articulated gods are false? Do you realize how flat that falls as soon as you see that angels are called gods?

Greek "latrea." To serve, to honor as sovereign, even supreme, over all things.

Wrong. It's from Shawkah and Proskuneo. It means to physically bow down to. Like how King David and Saul were "worshiped".

AKA angel, right? Doesn't Israel have one appointed over it, too?

Israel has guardian angels but isn't directly ruled by them, for they are His direct portion.

So by this argument, paganism's still a no-no?

Still a no-no.

Good, you caught my drift.

Only in that it's hard to become a Rabbinical Jew. You shouldn't have to jump through those hoops to become a Torah obedient "Righteous Gentile" and adopt yourself as a grafted branch to the Tree.

Alright then, in your view, what does it take for one to become Jewish?

Obey the Torah. Sacrifice your Friday nights and stop eating bacon and shrimp for a starter.

Your assurance against my assurance doesn't do much to assure me.

Then you caught my drift.

I'm sorry for being unclear. What I was getting at was, the Greeks would have used "a god" all the time. But Paul, a monotheistic Jew, would have been more likely to use the Anarthrous to refer to God. Do let me know when you've done some research into that Corinthians bit I gave you.

It's very possible that he did mean "A god was in Christ" in fact, and the NWT even gets it wrong.

That too.

Like I said, those who understand the actual pre-Rabbinical interpretations are very few.

But I've also seen "Elohim" reinterpreted by both Jews and Christians to simply mean "powers" in the case where the angels are involved, so God would simply be "God of the powers" or "Power of powers."

Which is why I say that the word "power" is what "The God" simply is as a being. "THE power". The word "god" is utterly meaningless altogether, which is part of why you seem to explain his characteristics rather than define what "a god" means. Unless you want to try again with what you think "a god" means.

Gets away nicely from hints of polytheism or henotheism.

How is that? It only authenticates that the term "Polytheism" applies to "powers" and not this murky Semantic concept of "gods".

I've also seen it asserted that the scholars who translated the Septuagint translated "Elohim" as "angels" because the concept of there being other gods besides God mentioned in the Bible was shocking and embarrassing to them.

This may very well be the case and only proves my point all the more, but they must have not been so embarassed about "Sons of god" being angelic heavenly beings who were otherwise "gods" as well. But apparently they accidentally forgot to translate Psalm 136:2 as "god of the angels". Unless they mean he's god over non-existent beings which doesn't make sense in the context of the psalm.

 

[Shiranui117]

That doesn't either. Looks like we have an impasse on our appeal to authority don't we.

Rather quite.

Do you see that it's not where you want it to be? Do you also know that "called" does not mean "So-called"?

It does mean "so-called." It's just that the word "so-called" has taken on a more negative connotation than "called", even though they can be used the exact same way.

That in no way answers my question. Try again. What is a god? I see you say it translates as "power". That is correct. Why does it mean something different than "power" for THE god? What is the meaning there? What you did was explain characteristics of that particular "power".

Wrong. It's from Shawkah and Proskuneo. It means to physically bow down to. Like how King David and Saul were "worshiped".

I think we've been over this one before, but I forget the exchange. So you're saying that David and Saul were worshipped in the same way that God was?

Only in that it's hard to become a Rabbinical Jew. You shouldn't have to jump through those hoops to become a Torah obedient "Righteous Gentile" and adopt yourself as a grafted branch to the Tree.

Fair enough.

Obey the Torah. Sacrifice your Friday nights and stop eating bacon and shrimp for a starter.

How about learning Hebrew, wearing a kippah, the tzitzit, having a mezzuzah on the door, observing the Jewish Passover instead of Christian Pascha, Jewish Pentecost instead of Christian Pentecost, Rosh Hashanah, Sukkot, Shavuot, and all that?

It's very possible that he did mean "A god was in Christ" in fact, and the NWT even gets it wrong.

How would it be "A god was in Christ"? Nestorianism, question mark?

Which is why I say that the word "power" is what "The God" simply is as a being. "THE power". The word "god" is utterly meaningless altogether, which is part of why you seem to explain his characteristics rather than define what "a god" means. Unless you want to try again with what you think "a god" means.

In my Christian mind, His characteristics are part of His definition. Frankly, I'm used to the concept of there only being one god, and that god is God.

Putting my mind in (what's probably a poor imitation of) a pagan worldview, a "god" is any supernatural deity with some role in orchestrating the workings of the world, like ruling over/supervising a particular aspect of creation.

How is that? It only authenticates that the term "Polytheism" applies to "powers" and not this murky Semantic concept of "gods".

I'mma get back to you on that one. You give me a lot of arguments I don't typically see, which always makes our discussions that much more interesting.

This may very well be the case and only proves my point all the more, but they must have not been so embarassed about "Sons of god" being angelic heavenly beings who were otherwise "gods" as well. But apparently they accidentally forgot to translate Psalm 136:2 as "god of the angels". Unless they mean he's god over non-existent beings which doesn't make sense in the context of the psalm.

God over all the things which people call gods, like idols, stars, the sun, the moon, ocean, fire, wind, storms, death, fertility...

 

[Debater Slayer]

***Staff Advisory***

Thread closed for staff review.
​

 

[tumbleweed41]

MOD POST

Several posts have been removed from this thread by RF Staff consensus.
Please keep Rules 1, 3 and 11 in mind when posting to prevent possible violations of Forum Rules and ToS.

Thread reopened.
​

 

[captainbryce]

The Jews who wanted to stone Jesus (this is in John 10, well before the trials, just so we're clear) saw His words as claiming divinity, which was utter blasphemy to them. With Jesus claiming the power to forgive sins (which is something that only God can do), the Jews understood Jesus to be claiming equality with God. In John 10, there was none of the leaders trying to lie to the Jews. The masses simply hear what Jesus said, and try to stone Him right then and there.

I think you're missing my overarching point. The masses WERE WRONG about that, just like they were wrong for rejecting him. I don't understand the logic of using people who were so wrong that they rejected the messiah, as a demonstration of what was "correct" about their belief? That doesn't make any sense! It's like saying that Jodi Arias "believed" that Travis Alexander abused her. Why take that claim seriously? Even IF she believed that, nobody else does because there's no evidence to support that and she ended up slaughtering him. Just like Christians shouldn't believe the claims of people who conspired to have Jesus slaughtered when there is no evidence to back it up. If Jesus was God, he would have said so directly. He could have done that in any number of ways: "I am God in human flesh"; "I am equal to my father"; "There are no other God's before me"; God is triune; etc. INSTEAD he choose to say things the directly contradict those statements.

What is your understanding of Jesus? Are you like Shermana, who believes that Jesus was "a god," or something more along the lines of Islamic teaching, i.e. Jesus is a human spoken into existence by God?

No. I don't not agree with anything taught by Islam or the Koran! I believe that Jesus was a great teacher of God's word, that he performed many miracles and healed people, that he was the Son of God (born of a virgin), that he was sent to us to be our salvation, that he died for our sins and was resurrected, that he alone judges of all of our sins, and that he sits at the right hand of God. All of these are "divine" qualities. I do not believe that he is literally "God" in the flesh, nor do I believe that this is a belief required for personal salvation.

Scripture is not the only source of Christian doctrine or tradition.

For me, it's the only thing that counts. According to Jesus' own teachings, God's word, prayer and the Holy Spirit are the only tools I require to know what to believe. Sure, there is are other sources of doctrine or tradition (what I typically like to refer to as "man's word"), but I don't follow those because Jesus specifically spoke out AGAINST these things.

Mark 7:6-9
He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

“‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’

8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.” 9 And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!

And, quite simply, God went to all that trouble because He wanted to.

Again, that is not a reason. That doesn't actually explain anything. It's okay to just say you don't know! I won't hold that against you. My only point is, the fact that there is no "reason" given for why God would go through all the trouble to accomplish something that he could easily accomplish without all of that suggests that it isn't true.

Really? I have a bunch of other translations that say "WE" will never die. Are you so sure the NIV's right?

It doesn't matter which translation you use in this case because within the context of the passage Habakkuk is clearly referring to GOD. You're right the NIV and other newer translations are not word-for-word, and therefore technically not "correct" in terms of literal accuracy. But this is often intentional since literal accuracy often obscures the meaning of something that was translated from a different language. Using the word "we" to refer to one being is illogical in English but makes sense in Hebrew. Are we clear? And by "we" I obviously mean YOU (because that was an expression).

Every English translation of the bible is flawed (in different ways). I generally use the New Living Translation (modern English, thought for thought) along with the King James Version (old English, word for word). There are errors in both and whenever I find what appears to be a nebulous or seemingly contradictory passage, I divert to an interlinear bible for clarification.

The point I'm making is that in this case, the translation doesn't change the meaning of the passage. At the end of the day, it is still saying that God doesn't die. There are also many other scriptures that say God is everlasting, eternal, unchaining, etc. It's clear that God cannot die! Do you disagree?

Oh, I had in mind Luke 17. Sorry for the confusion.

No worries. I'm starting to like you even though we clearly disagree on this issue. :blowkiss:

Did you even take a sideways glance at the link I sent you?

I didn't notice a link you sent me (nor can I find it now). Please post it again!

 

[InChrist]

So you are indeed saying that someone who rejects the doctrine of trinity is NOT a Christian?

I believe salvation occurs at the point one acknowledges Jesus as God and Savior, trusting Him for forgiveness and eternal life. Until this happens and regeneration takes place or one is born-again as Jesus said then one is not a Christian. For me, after this occurred the understanding of the trinity, which I formerly rejected, became so obvious. Every born again believer I have known over the years from whatever background, non-denomination or denominational believes in the triune nature of God... Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So from my perspective when someone rejects the trinity it causes me to wonder whether they are actually a born-again Christian or someone who thinks of themselves religiously, intellectually, or culturally as a Christian as I once did... but I did not know Jesus Christ, nor had I ever submitted my life to Him for salvation.

 

[captainbryce]

I believe salvation occurs at the point one acknowledges Jesus as God and Savior,

Fair enough. But I don't believe that (because that's not what the bible says). So, I guess now I have to qualify my question for people who actually base their beliefs on "scripture".

Until this happens and regeneration takes place or one is born-again as Jesus said then one is not a Christian.

Well, I agree with the "born-again" part (since that is something Jesus specifically said). As for the rest, I see no scriptural basis for it.

For me, after this occurred the understanding of the trinity, which I formerly rejected, became so obvious. Every born again believer I have known over the years from whatever background, non-denomination or denominational believes in the triune nature of God...

So based solely on your anecdotal experiences (since we've established that scripture isn't a factor), you've come to the conclusion that it is not possible to be born again WITHOUT accepting trinity?

I wonder, what if a Mormon came up to you and said: "Everyone I know back in Utah is a Mormon, and we all believe that we are Christians. Therefore I don't see how anyone can be a Christian without being Mormon." Would you consider that a rational statement with any real merit? Because that's really no different than what you've just said.

So from my perspective when someone rejects the trinity it causes me to wonder whether they are actually a born-again Christian or someone who thinks of themselves religiously, intellectually, or culturally as a Christian as I once did... but I did not know Jesus Christ, nor had I ever submitted my life to Him for salvation.

I guess that answers my previous question then. Thanks for at least being honest about. I just find it really sad that this is the measure by which Christians judge other Christians.

 

[Shiranui117]

I think you're missing my overarching point. The masses WERE WRONG about that, just like they were wrong for rejecting him. I don't understand the logic of using people who were so wrong that they rejected the messiah, as a demonstration of what was "correct" about their belief? That doesn't make any sense! It's like saying that Jodi Arias "believed" that Travis Alexander abused her. Why take that claim seriously? Even IF she believed that, nobody else does because there's no evidence to support that and she ended up slaughtering him. Just like Christians shouldn't believe the claims of people who conspired to have Jesus slaughtered when there is no evidence to back it up. If Jesus was God, he would have said so directly. He could have done that in any number of ways: "I am God in human flesh"; "I am equal to my father"; "There are no other God's before me"; God is triune; etc.

Now I see what you're getting at, and fair enough.

INSTEAD he choose to say things the directly contradict those statements.

Obviously I feel differently

No. I don't not agree with anything taught by Islam or the Koran! I believe that Jesus was a great teacher of God's word, that he performed many miracles and healed people, that he was the Son of God (born of a virgin), that he was sent to us to be our salvation, that he died for our sins and was resurrected, that he alone judges of all of our sins, and that he sits at the right hand of God. All of these are "divine" qualities. I do not believe that he is literally "God" in the flesh, nor do I believe that this is a belief required for personal salvation.

Allright, thanks, I understand what you wrote in the above. So what makes Jesus "divine" in your understanding? How is He divine?

For me, it's the only thing that counts. According to Jesus' own teachings, God's word, prayer and the Holy Spirit are the only tools I require to know what to believe. Sure, there is are other sources of doctrine or tradition (what I typically like to refer to as "man's word"), but I don't follow those because Jesus specifically spoke out AGAINST these things.

Mark 7:6-9
He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

“‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’

8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.” 9 And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!

I would say that those refer to human traditions which contradict the divine traditions, not human traditions which are the divine traditions handed down from Jesus, to the Apostles, to their students, to their students . . . to us.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

Also, note that, even in the times of the New Testament, there was the notion that one could not interpret Scripture on one's own. See Acts 8:

Then the Spirit said to Philip, “Go near and overtake this chariot.” 30 So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?”
31 And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he asked Philip to come up and sit with him.


The eunuch did not ask Philip to give him the Holy Spirit so that he could understand Scripture all by himself. Instead, he asked Philip to teach him how to interpret the Scriptures. Even within the Bible we see Sola Scriptura--and the idea that one can interpret Scripture without aid--with doubt cast upon it!

Again, that is not a reason. That doesn't actually explain anything. It's okay to just say you don't know! I won't hold that against you. My only point is, the fact that there is no "reason" given for why God would go through all the trouble to accomplish something that he could easily accomplish without all of that suggests that it isn't true.

Love is the reason.

Heck, sending Jesus alone is going to a lot of trouble to accomplish something that He could accomplish without all of that. If He wanted to forgive us of our sins and reconcile us to God and break the bond of death and sin over us, God could have simply snapped His fingers, and it would have been done. But even you would have to agree that God chose a more complicated route.

God the Son coming down as Jesus to do all of the above isn't too terribly more complicated, nor is it much more trouble, than what is already happening in your view.

It doesn't matter which translation you use in this case because within the context of the passage Habakkuk is clearly referring to GOD. You're right the NIV and other newer translations are not word-for-word, and therefore technically not "correct" in terms of literal accuracy. But this is often intentional since literal accuracy often obscures the meaning of something that was translated from a different language. Using the word "we" to refer to one being is illogical in English but makes sense in Hebrew.

Are we clear? And by "we" I obviously mean YOU (because that was an expression).

Oh really? What source do you have for this? I've seen "We" used to refer to "I" in ancient texts (the royal plural), and I've seen a plural form of "You" when used in formally addressing another person (such as German Sie or Russian Вы) but never have I seen it said that "We" was used for "You"... If you have a source for this, I'd be much obliged.

And even if the modern English manuscripts get it wrong, how about the Greek Septuagint, translated and composed by about 70 Jewish scholars in Alexandria in the last couple centuries B.C.? That's the Bible that was being used by Jesus and the Apostles, and that also says "we" and not "you." Again, a source on "we" being used as a euphemism for "you" would be much appreciated.

Looking at the context, Habakkuk is in disbelief about God judging Israel, using the Babylonians as His tool.

Even the New Living Translation says this for Habakkuk 1:12 --O Lord my God, my Holy One, you who are eternal—
surely you do not plan to wipe us out?
O Lord, our Rock, you have sent these Babylonians to correct us,
to punish us for our many sins.

New King James:
Are You not from everlasting,
O Lord my God, my Holy One?
We shall not die.

King James:
we shall not die.

My preferred German translation (Schlachter 2000) also has it as "We."
Bist du, o Herr, nicht von Urzeiten her mein Gott, mein Heiliger? Wir werden nicht sterben! Herr, zum Gericht hast du ihn eingesetzt, und zur Züchtigung hast du, o Fels, ihn bestimmt.

The Russian translations also say "We will not die."

As you can see, it's not just a couple English translations that say this. It's the ancient manuscripts like the Hebrew Masoretic Text and Koine Greek Septuagint, and Bible translations around the world.

Every English translation of the bible is flawed (in different ways). I generally use the New Living Translation (modern English, thought for thought) along with the King James Version (old English, word for word). There are errors in both and whenever I find what appears to be a nebulous or seemingly contradictory passage, I divert to an interlinear bible for clarification.

That's a good practice. I tend to avoid the NLT, just because it's a paraphrase rather than a translation. I do consult a number of Bible translations on occasion however. My favorite ones are the NKJV, NASB, ESV, and occasionally Schlachter's 2000 edition.

The point I'm making is that in this case, the translation doesn't change the meaning of the passage. At the end of the day, it is still saying that God doesn't die. There are also many other scriptures that say God is everlasting, eternal, unchaining, etc. It's clear that God cannot die! Do you disagree?

If by "die" then you mean "cease to exist," then yes, I would agree. Jesus dying in the flesh in no way impacted His being everlasting or eternal. He was still out and about, even though He had died on the Cross; one of the liturgical prayers said during Proskomedia (the service of preparing the bread and wine to become Jesus' Body and Blood) in the Orthodox Church goes along the lines of " In the grave bodily, but in hades with Thy soul as God; in paradise with the thief, and on the throne with the Father and the Spirit wast Thou Who fillest all things, O Christ the inexpressible."

Point being, death was not a cessation of Jesus' existence. He was still very much alive, and very much active, even if dead in the flesh.

No worries. I'm starting to like you even though we clearly disagree on this issue. :blowkiss:

Good! Even if we don't agree on doctrine, agreeing to be friends is also very good

I didn't notice a link you sent me (nor can I find it now). Please post it again!

Ahh, my apologies; I embedded it in a word. I'm going to also throw in an article about how Hades (the Greek word used for "Sheol" in the Septuagint) is viewed in Christianity and in the Bible.

Sheol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christian views on Hades - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[InChrist]

Fair enough. But I don't believe that (because that's not what the bible says). So, I guess now I have to qualify my question for people who actually base their beliefs on "scripture".

Well, I agree with the "born-again" part (since that is something Jesus specifically said). As for the rest, I see no scriptural basis for it.

There is, I believe, immense scriptural basis for believing Jesus is God and Savior and for the triune nature of God, but on a personal level I know that until I realized my personal need to trust Jesus to save me ...I was spiritually blind to the scriptures.

So based solely on your anecdotal experiences (since we've established that scripture isn't a factor), you've come to the conclusion that it is not possible to be born again WITHOUT accepting trinity?

First I believe scripture is a huge factor and my experience is only valid because it lines up with the scriptures. I did not mean to sound as if I was saying a person had to accept the trinity first to be born-again. I am saying that I was saved by Christ and born-again...then the trinity became understandable and clear. I do think it is possible for someone to be saved and born-again without necessarily understanding or believing in the trinity...but then I believe the Holy Spirit will make the truth of the triune nature of God clear to the Christian.

I wonder, what if a Mormon came up to you and said: "Everyone I know back in Utah is a Mormon, and we all believe that we are Christians. Therefore I don't see how anyone can be a Christian without being Mormon." Would you consider that a rational statement with any real merit? Because that's really no different than what you've just said.

[FONT=&quot]I understand what you are saying and agree that something is not true simply because everyone believes it, but when all who are born-again Christians believe the Father, Son, Holy Spirit are God as the scriptures reveal then I think it is a practical demonstration of the truthfulness concerning the triune nature of God as revealed in the scriptures.
[/FONT]
In my own case, while for the first time ever visiting a Bible church one Sunday one of the hymns they sang was Holy, Holy, Holy ...blessed Trinity. I went out of there and said to my husband... “Well, the people were friendly and the pastor’s message was interesting...but how can anyone sing that song and really believe in something as ridiculous as the trinity?” He said something like.. ”Yeah, I don’t know”. We didn’t go back the next week. It was within two weeks that both he and I were saved by Jesus Christ on the same day, at home alone. We felt like our whole perspective had been altered and all that we had thought before was so off-base. We realized how spiritually blind we had been and God had opened our eyes. From then on we both knew without question or doubt that Jesus was God and the Trinity was true.

I guess that answers my previous question then. Thanks for at least being honest about. I just find it really sad that this is the measure by which Christians judge other Christians.

[/quote]

Well, I don’t consider it judging others as much as judging truth from error which the scriptures demand that a believer must do.

 

[captainbryce]

Now I see what you're getting at, and fair enough.

Obviously I feel differently

No worries. I think you are being civilized enough that we can agree to disagree at this point. :yes:

Allright, thanks, I understand what you wrote in the above. So what makes Jesus "divine" in your understanding? How is He divine?

Divine -adj
a: of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god
b: being a deity <the divine Savior>
c: directed to a deity <divine worship>

Divine - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I would say that Jesus being 1) born of God's will, 2) sent by God to be our salvation, 3) given authority to judge mankind directly by his father, and 4) being raised from the dead to sit at the right hand of God, means that he qualifies as "divine" under definition (A) according to the merriam-webster dictionary. What say you?

I would say that those refer to human traditions which contradict the divine traditions, not human traditions which are the divine traditions handed down from Jesus, to the Apostles, to their students, to their students . . . to us.

True. Where we differ is in which category of human tradition does "trinity" fall under. And since the concept of it (in my opinion) contradicts much of what Jesus himself said.....well, you get where I'm going with this.

Also, note that, even in the times of the New Testament, there was the notion that one could not interpret Scripture on one's own. See Acts 8:

The eunuch did not ask Philip to give him the Holy Spirit so that he could understand Scripture all by himself. Instead, he asked Philip to teach him how to interpret the Scriptures. Even within the Bible we see Sola Scriptura--and the idea that one can interpret Scripture without aid--with doubt cast upon it!

You are correct on both counts. But the conclusion you are drawing from these facts is based on an incomplete picture.

The eunuch did not know about the Holy Spirit yet because he had not been baptized, nor did anyone tell him about it yet. Phillip stays with him to teach him how to properly interpret the book of Isaiah, then tells him about Jesus, and presumably all of his teachings (including the Holy Spirit). After that, the eunuch is baptized and the Lord whisks Phillip away instantly. This tells us that the eunuch needs no help from any man to interpret scripture after receiving the Holy Spirit. And this is consistent with the teachings of Jesus and the Apostle John.

John 14:26
But when the Father sends the Advocate as my representative—that is, the Holy Spirit—he will teach you everything and will remind you of everything I have told you.

1 John 2:27
But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don't need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you everything you need to know, and what he teaches is true--it is not a lie. So just as he has taught you, remain in fellowship with Christ.

The Holy Spirit doesn't teach a trinity, God never taught a trinity in the OT, nor does Jesus teach a trinity in the NT. If Trinity was supposed to be a tenet of Christianity, why wouldn't God, Jesus, or any of the disciples talk about it in their ministries? That seems like a pretty big thing to leave out (especially if it might have some bearing on our salvation). They are quite vocal and plain about everything else that seems relevant to salvation. Why is trinity so cryptic? Why does trinity need to be extrapolated by scholars so that a doctrine can be crafted around it?

Heck, sending Jesus alone is going to a lot of trouble to accomplish something that He could accomplish without all of that. If He wanted to forgive us of our sins and reconcile us to God and break the bond of death and sin over us, God could have simply snapped His fingers, and it would have been done. But even you would have to agree that God chose a more complicated route.

Again, all true! But the differences are:

A) If God decided to just snap his fingers and absolve all sins, then there is no penalty for sin. God is consistent in his word and if he decides that for some people the penalty for sin is death, and for other people it isn't, then he is not a righteous God. But the bible says that God judges in righteousness and that he does not change. He also cannot lie! The bible is very clear that the penalty for sin is always death, and that death is the price by which sin is paid. As soon as Adam ate of the tree (thereby sinning against God) he was condemned to death.

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord.

If God just decided to snap his fingers and forgive all sin without any penalty, then there is no consequence for sin, and he has lied to us by going against his Holy word.

B) The bible actually TELLS US all of this! It explains why Jesus' sacrifice was necessary for our salvation plainly and directly. It is not some hidden, cryptic message that must be extrapolated by gurus. But there is no such explanation given for why God would need to manifest himself as a "trinity" in order for any of this to happen, and there is no direct scripture that even supports that notion.

As you can see, it's not just a couple English translations that say this. It's the ancient manuscripts like the Hebrew Masoretic Text and Koine Greek Septuagint, and Bible translations around the world.

Let's just cut to the chase here (since I'm running out of space to write), would you agree that Habakkuk 1:12 (in ANY translation of your choice) does in fact say that God is "eternal" or "everlasting"?

That's a good practice. I tend to avoid the NLT, just because it's a paraphrase rather than a translation. I do consult a number of Bible translations on occasion however. My favorite ones are the NKJV, NASB, ESV, and occasionally Schlachter's 2000 edition.

The NJKV is basically just a slightly updated version of the KJV. The NASB is a derivative of the ASV, which is a derivative of the RV, which is a derivative of the KJV. The ESV is derived from the RSV, which is derived from the ASV. So really, three of the bibles you are using are all written in the same literalist manner and ultimately all based off the same source material. The only differences between them is "style" (which seems kind of pointless to me). I think that of the three of them, the NASB is probably the best one to use and as close as you are going to come to a modern day English version of a word-for-word translation based off the KJV source material. This version is the most "updated" (language wise) one since it was most recently published. The only reason I use a KJV at all is because someone gave it to me, and I don't have an NASB. But really, the NKJV and ESV are pointless if you have an NASB.

I'm not familiar with the Schlachter's 2000 edition, so I can't comment on that. With regard to the NLT, there are certain advantages to using a though-for-thought translation. It provides for quicker, easier reading without trying to figure out "what they meant by this". For example: the word for word translation of the expression "what up mofo?" would change the entire meaning of the phrase from a friendly greeting in English to an offensive insult in Russian. In the case of colloquialisms, allegory, and metaphors, a thought-for-thought rendering conveys the meaning much more accurately than a word-for-word translation (which might obscure the intent of the author). Instead of saying exactly what I just said in Russian, you would use an equivalent expression that would be understood in the same way. I will concede that the BEST option is to have BOTH and then use them (and a concordance or interlinear bible) to check each other.

Jesus dying in the flesh in no way impacted His being everlasting or eternal. He was still out and about, even though He had died on the Cross;

I don't agree with that. I think that there are only TWO states of existance: Life and death. There is physical life and physical death. There is eternal life and eternal death. But there are no "inbetween" states of existence for God or for anyone else! And I think that scripture makes that clear whenever it contrasts one directly against the other. When Jesus died on the cross, he was literally dead! He wasn't out and about again until he was resurrected from death on the third day. At this point, he was no longer dead, but very much alive and at this point he is eternal with God.

Point being, death was not a cessation of Jesus' existence. He was still very much alive, and very much active, even if dead in the flesh.

I don't think so. You are right in that death was not a cessation of his existence because he was ultimately resurrected. But for three days, he was dead and committed no acts. He no longer "existed" anymore than James Gandolfini exists now. He was raised from the dead, at which point he existed again. But for that three days, there was no Jesus!

Good! Even if we don't agree on doctrine, agreeing to be friends is also very good

:dan:

Ahh, my apologies; I embedded it in a word. I'm going to also throw in an article about how Hades (the Greek word used for "Sheol" in the Septuagint) is viewed in Christianity and in the Bible.

Even though I think I'm pretty clear about this already, I shall give it a look, then comment later. Till then, peace out, and God bless.

 

[captainbryce]

There is, I believe, immense scriptural basis for believing Jesus is God and Savior and for the triune nature of God, but on a personal level I know that until I realized my personal need to trust Jesus to save me ...I was spiritually blind to the scriptures.

I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't "presume" anything about me based on your own experiences. I'd be perfectly happy to examine and debate any of the scriptures that you believe support a belief in the triune nature of God. And I'm sure you'd be equally willing to examine and explain your point of view on every scripture I can provide proving that there Jesus is NOT God. Would that be fair?

First I believe scripture is a huge factor and my experience is only valid because it lines up with the scriptures. I did not mean to sound as if I was saying a person had to accept the trinity first to be born-again. I am saying that I was saved by Christ and born-again...then the trinity became understandable and clear. I do think it is possible for someone to be saved and born-again without necessarily understanding or believing in the trinity...but then I believe the Holy Spirit will make the truth of the triune nature of God clear to the Christian.

Fair enough. I disagree with you but at least this is a more "reasonable" position than someone just saying that you're not a Christian because you don't believe in trinity.

[FONT=&quot]I understand what you are saying and agree that something is not true simply because everyone believes it, but when all who are born-again Christians believe the Father, Son, Holy Spirit are God as the scriptures reveal then I think it is a practical demonstration of the truthfulness concerning the triune nature of God as revealed in the scriptures.
[/FONT]

I'd like you to first establish that the scriptures "reveal" what you say they do.

Well, I don’t consider it judging others as much as judging truth from error which the scriptures demand that a believer must do.

Perhaps. But I still think it is rather presumptuous (and insulting) for one to assume that someone else's interpretation and experiences have led them to something that is FALSE just because it is different from your own perspective. But this is an area that I personally don't think it relevant in terms of salvation. I don't judge other self-professed Christians for believing in trinity (which is a doctrine that I reject as unbiblical). I believe that someone can be a Christian and have a solid foundation in Christ whether they believe in trinity or not. The problem is, many trinitarians are the opposite. I find that most of them DO judge me for not believing in a doctrine that they accept. They think that to reject trinity automatically means that someone is not a believing in Christ, and I find that ridiculous.