How easy is it for Trinitarians to misread the scriptures?

[rrobs]

I wonder how you figure I said Jesus was God from John 17:5.
We certainly don't want to mix up the terms of God. But Jesus is termed as "a God," in his heavenly state, OR can also be termed Mighty God in fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy, in terms of understanding. But he is not the ALmighty God. He clearly stated he was the Son of God, he came from heaven, and the Father was greater than he is. He is not part of a trinity of three persons each and all equal to one another. Sorry if this was not clear, thanks for mentioning it so I can possibly clear it up.
John 17:5 - And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.
(This does not mean that Jesus was/is "God," equal to his Father. It means, in fact, he was/is NOT. Although given great power.)
Sorry, I see how my previous reply was not related properly.

Well, it was probably me, the reader. It is so rare to see a Christian that knows who their savior is, that I guess I presumed something I should not have presumed.

I see now what you are saying and I couldn't agree more. Yes, Jesus was given power. Why would God need to be given power? And why would God have to pray to Himself?

If God Himself was going to come down and fix the problem (sin), why did He wait 4,000 years to do it? It took 4,000 years because that's how long it took God to convince a man to carry out the logos, the plan, of John 1:1. Making Jesus God obliterates the brilliance of that plan and totally minimizes the accomplishment Jesus did for us.

What's the big deal for God to obey Himself and believe He'd raise Himself from the dead? Yawn, yawn...But for a man to do that is absolutely extraordinary!

God bless

 

[rrobs]

Certainly not to contest you, but please do say how you figure John 17:5 might mean that Jesus is God?

I thought you said that John 17:5 means Jesus is God because it says Jesus had glory with the Father before the world began. There can be no argument against Jesus having glory before the world began, but it is equally true that God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world. I was trying to say that neither us nor Jesus actually existed, but that we were all in God's foreknowledge.

Anyway, what does the word god mean to you?

Anyone with power and authority, humans included.

I deliberately left off the capital G there, because in general, God with a capital G refers to only one God, not two, and not three. But there are cases that the term 'god' is used not applying to the only true God that Jesus was referring to. So let's go back to John 17:5. I don't see that it implies that Jesus is "God."
"Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was." Do you think this could mean that Jesus is God?

That would be a major negatory. Jesus is the son of God. God is the epitome of logic and a son being his own father is the epitome of illogical.

Here's how I read it: Jesus was praying to his heavenly Father, asking God his Father to glorify him (Jesus) alongside, together, however you want to phrase it, with his Father, with the glory Jesus had before the world was.

Yes.

In general the Gospel of John is filled with statements of things that will not occur until the future but spoken of as already having occurred. It is highly prophetic. The scriptures say that, "God calls things that be not as though they were." God is so sure that He would eventually carry out the logos, the plan, of John 1:1 that He spoke of them as already having occurred. A common reply to someone who asks another to do something is, "consider it done!" Not that hard to understand.

Add to all of that John's (actually God's) purpose in writing the gospel is, "...that ye might believe that Jesus is God;" Wait! That's not what it says! How about, "...that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; " I guess 98.6% of Christendom prefers and would love the former, but that's not what it says.

Take care.

 

[sojourner]

Yes, I was never Catholic and before I read and studied the Bible I did not follow these things much.

In curriculum studies, we learn that there are both explicit and implicit curriculum, as well as something called “null curriculum.” You see, all teaching takes place through the community. That’s one reason why it’s essential for a believer to be part of a congregation, because that’s how Christians learn and grow. The Bible is very much part of the community’s teaching. It requires communal interpretation, based in the theology and other teachings of the community.

There are things the Church teaches explicitly through the Bible and through other writings and doctrines. There are also things that the Church teaches implicitly through personal interaction. One has to be part of a church within the Apostolic Succession in order to adequately receive this implied curriculum and details of doctrine (such as the doctrine of the Trinity). One can read the doctrines in a vacuum, but it’s mainly in the ways in which these doctrines and teachings are lived out through example in the community that the nuances are taught.

 

[YoursTrue]

In curriculum studies, we learn that there are both explicit and implicit curriculum, as well as something called “null curriculum.” You see, all teaching takes place through the community. That’s one reason why it’s essential for a believer to be part of a congregation, because that’s how Christians learn and grow. The Bible is very much part of the community’s teaching. It requires communal interpretation, based in the theology and other teachings of the community.

There are things the Church teaches explicitly through the Bible and through other writings and doctrines. There are also things that the Church teaches implicitly through personal interaction. One has to be part of a church within the Apostolic Succession in order to adequately receive this implied curriculum and details of doctrine (such as the doctrine of the Trinity). One can read the doctrines in a vacuum, but it’s mainly in the ways in which these doctrines and teachings are lived out through example in the community that the nuances are taught.

Of course you bring up many interesting points, and of course you apparently (?) believe you are within the structure of the true faith. But the last point you say about examples, that is why I appreciate a couple of points there as to follow Jesus in his example, also when he told Peter to put down his sword in order to defend him. One time I visited the Vatican museum and saw the statue of Peter. Who is said to have been killed in a horrible way. Although the Bible doesn't say how he died. But the point is that Jesus said his disciples would be persecuted.

 

[sojourner]

Of course you bring up many interesting points, and of course you apparently (?) believe you are within the structure of the true faith. But the last point you say about examples, that is why I appreciate a couple of points there as to follow Jesus in his example, also when he told Peter to put down his sword in order to defend him. One time I visited the Vatican museum and saw the statue of Peter. Who is said to have been killed in a horrible way. Although the Bible doesn't say how he died. But the point is that Jesus said his disciples would be persecuted.

It’s like the story of Washington chopping down the cherry tree. We know it’s not factual, but it does illustrate a truth about the man. People and circumstances — life — can be viewed in any number of different ways that are truthful, but that bring out what, to us, is most important. That’s what theological constructs do concerning God.

 

[eik]

You have no idea what you are writing about. I know this is a debate thread but ... really!!! At least debate about true Scriptures of Yhwh God and his Christ, and Trinitarianism.

Trinitarianism is not found in the scripture, but comes from Greek triadism. It is a fusion of biblical concepts and Greek philosophy. So why condemn me? I think I know what I am talking about.

There were and are not three Christ’s preached... only two: True Christ, the glorified man, and false Christ, an impossible god-man part of a trio of an Trinity-organisation termed ‘God’.

That is the philosphical Christ. He was never preached but enforced by anathemas.

JW’s do preach a strange elixir, a synergy, that the son was once an angel... but that is easily dismissed as, from Arianism, no angel could be ‘son of God in the flesh’, and from trinity, the Son pre-existed the angels and angels are servants of God in ways unlike a Son. This partway partnoway concoction fails at the first hurdle as to the origins of Jesus.

No JWs around here.

Choose your camp! For or against the truth!
Jesus says that it is better to be ‘Cold’ against him or better to be ‘Hot’ for him - but to be ‘Tepid’ is filthy and he spits you out.

I find your condemnatory style hard to bear. This is a discussion forum and you're making too make assumptions that I don't care for.

The truth: Jesus is ‘Son of God’ because he did all that God commanded him to do. The first Adam was ‘Son of God’ (Luke 3:38) but sinned and lost his place. Another was brought up to replace him: called ‘The Last Adam’.

No he was son of God at birth before he had even done anything at all.

Both the first and the last Adam were created NOT FROM THE SEED OF ANOTHER HUMAM BEING. Both their bodies were ENLIVENED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT BREATHE OF GOD... and therefore were SINLESS AND HOLY ...

And so is every child of a believer at birth:

1 Cor 7:14 "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy"

I guess I did misunderstand some of what you said. I'm think I'm beginning to see that we both understand the scriptures in more of the same light than not.

I'll have to work on John where, as you pointed out, Jesus said they were from below while he was from above. It is important that we understand the scriptures, not from a modern Western point of view, but from an ancient Middle Eastern point of view. Their worldview was quite different than our own. It's just something I always try to keep in mind and it has helped me work through difficult verses. I need to do that with John.

The biggest problem I have with Jesus being preexistent is that it would hardly make him like us.

Heb 4:15,

For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.
​

If Jesus preexisted how could he be tempted just like us? I might react differently to temptation if I had a consciousness that I existed with God before the world was created. Knowing that would be a huge advantage during temptation over someone who did not know they preexisted.

God bless

Knowledge doesn't make you inherently different from someone without knowledge. When it says Christ was like us, it means constituted like us, a true human being. Everything Christ said came from his faith, which came from obedience. "To him who has more will be given." Matt 25:29. It applied to Christ as much as to anyone. Christ was treated no differently by God to anyone else, all things considered.

 

[Soapy]

Trinitarianism is not found in the scripture, but comes from Greek triadism. It is a fusion of biblical concepts and Greek philosophy. So why condemn me? I think I know what I am talking about.

Trinitarianism is not found in the scriptures: absolutely true.

My expression of protestation against your post is that, knowingly or otherwise, you do express none truthful ideas which appear trinitarianistic.

I am one who is Anti-Trinity to my core, so I will oppose any and all content that professes (or appears to profess) trinity ideology.

That is the philosphical Christ. He was never preached but enforced by anathemas.

I have no idea what that means!

How many Christ’s are there? I know of (believe in) only one: the Anointed (‘Christ’ means ‘Anointed one’) whom scriptures tells us was named ‘Jesus’. Actually, it was ‘Joshua’ or a derivative but who’s taking notice that ‘Joshua’ and ‘Jesus’ both mean, ‘He who saves his people!’ and that there was no one in Joseph’s family named “Jesus”, when he was named. Tradition meant that a Male child should be named after a family member in lineage - see the problem with Zaccharias being forced against tradition to call his son, ‘John’... I’m sure you all know the story

No JWs around here.

Glad to hear if. But it was just a point of order in context of the issue.

I find your condemnatory style hard to bear. This is a discussion forum and you're making too make assumptions that I don't care for.

This typifies responses from those who just lost a debate point: attack the truth speaker and claim being offended... The quote I referred to came from Jesus... and he, too, was speaking the truth against those who spoke ignorantly (in ignorance). If you feel threatened by the truth then perhaps you’re not equipped to be debating on aspects of life-defining matters as expressed in the verse:

• ‘This means life, that they should believe in you [Father], the only true God, and [in] Jesus Christ whom you sent!’ John 17:3

Should I be saying: maybe and couldbe and if this and if that... Debates are typically anachronistic - are you fear filled by hearing your views damned for the nonsense that may be expressed at times?? Or do you just want people to agree with you... that’s not debate then, is it? Perhaps you should be in the section marked, ‘Discussion’!!?

No he was son of God at birth before he had even done anything at all.
....
And so is every child of a believer at birth:

1 Cor 7:14 "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy"

Oh dear... I see now why you fear opposition!!! This verse is misplaced as evidence to what I was stating. Children of sinful man are still born in sin. Adam and Jesus are the only two humans born not from the seed of sinful Father but the breath of God’s Holy Spirit. The sanctified man or woman spoken of in the verse you quote refers to the sin resulting in ETERNAL DEATH that was awaiting ALL MANKIND whether they were good or not so good did to the sin of the first man, Adam.

A child, is NO LONGER subject to ETERNAL DEATH if it is the offspring of at least one believing parent. NOTE: we are not CONDEMNING children in the SECULAR WORLD... this is purely SPIRITUAL theology.

 

[YoursTrue]

In curriculum studies, we learn that there are both explicit and implicit curriculum, as well as something called “null curriculum.” You see, all teaching takes place through the community. That’s one reason why it’s essential for a believer to be part of a congregation, because that’s how Christians learn and grow. The Bible is very much part of the community’s teaching. It requires communal interpretation, based in the theology and other teachings of the community.

There are things the Church teaches explicitly through the Bible and through other writings and doctrines. There are also things that the Church teaches implicitly through personal interaction. One has to be part of a church within the Apostolic Succession in order to adequately receive this implied curriculum and details of doctrine (such as the doctrine of the Trinity). One can read the doctrines in a vacuum, but it’s mainly in the ways in which these doctrines and teachings are lived out through example in the community that the nuances are taught.

God can intervene (if you believe anything in the Bible), in the community, just as He did with Paul, and just as He did with Pharaoh.

 

[YoursTrue]

It’s like the story of Washington chopping down the cherry tree. We know it’s not factual, but it does illustrate a truth about the man. People and circumstances — life — can be viewed in any number of different ways that are truthful, but that bring out what, to us, is most important. That’s what theological constructs do concerning God.

Jesus said his followers would be persecuted.

 

[sojourner]

God can intervene (if you believe anything in the Bible), in the community, just as He did with Paul, and just as He did with Pharaoh.

Immaterial.

 

[sojourner]

Jesus said his followers would be persecuted.

Immaterial.

 

[Muffled]

if you like you could lookup the definition of the word sheʼohlʹ ,haiʹdes and “Gehenna” , i could tell you how these words word read in english but you seem to be a do it your self kinda person

I believe you have characterized me correctly except for the fact that my diversity comes from Jesus not from me.

I believe I am quite familiar with the words and their cultural background and Hell also.

 

[Muffled]

So you consider drowning just punishment for those who want to do evil all the time.

I believe I don't know where you got drowning from but removal from earths surface to its interior keeps evil people way from those who do not wish to have any.

I do believe Jesus had a cement shoes type concept for those who abuse children.

 

[Muffled]

I have read it many times, we are talking also about explaining it, which you have not done, it doesn't make sense and is not biblically sound.

I believe I have explained it quite rationally over and over but irrational people seem to think their irrationality has more value.

 

[Soapy]

If one were to read 2 Cor 3, one would discover Paul speaking about God in terms of “Lord.” He then says, “the Lord is the Spirit.” This absolutely identifies the Spirit as God. In Romans 9, Paul refers to Christ as God, and refers to him as Lord in several cases.

1. Scriptures says that GOD made Jesus to be both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36)
2. But sojourner says that ‘Lord’ and ‘God’ are interchangeable
3. So Acts 2:36, in sojourner’s doctrine, reads thus:
   1. “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: Lord has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both God and Messiah."
4. But also, sojourner presents this part verse: ‘The Lord is the Spirit’... and we know that ‘The Spirit’ is the Spirit of God: The Father’s holy Spirit... therefore sojourner is fatally claiming that Holy Spirit is Jesus (The Lord) and Jesus is the Holy Spirit... but...
5. Since sojourner claims that Lord and God are interchangeable he now has a conundrum...
   1. Jesus Lord and therefore also the holySpirit AND ALSO GOD
   2. The Holy Spirit is GOD because it’s also Lord and also... the Son
   3. The Father is Lord AND BOTH the other two AND GOD
   4. BUT REMEMBER THAT GOD IS ESSENCE in which the three SHARE

You will already have worked out that the doctrine of the trinity is already destroyed from the simple phrase in trinity:

• The three are One God ... (meaning, the three are One Essence)
• ‘The Father is not the Son... the Son is not the Holy Spirit.. the Holy Spirit is not the Father... but they are all three God’ ... but since all three are Lord, according to Sojourner’s doctrine, ... wait... didn’t the Lord MAKE Jesus to be GOD? What was Jesus BEFORE God made him GOD???

And you can see that 5:1-4 above demonstrates the absurdity of sojourner a claim that:

• ‘Lord’ is interchangeable with ‘God’
• ‘The Lord is the Spirit’
• ‘GOD made [] Jesus to be both Lord AND Christ’

Translate: ‘Essence made Jesus to be both God and saviour’

If Jesus is ESSENCE, how is he ‘made to be GOD’?

Can GOD be MADE?

Confused? You should be??

 

[Soapy]

The spirit can die by the actions of man himself, but the soul can only be destroyed by God.

Elk, the Soul is ‘the person’.
The body of a soul is merely a shell to contain the SPIRIT of the SOUL.

The Spirit cannot be ‘killed’ by man so it is pointless scriptures saying it cannot. We already know that at death the Spirit returns to God who gave it...

Spirit is God-given BREATH... it is what ENLIVENS the inert Body:

• ‘And God blew the breath of life into the nostrils and the man BECAME A LIVING SOUL’

Adam’s body was lifeless until it was enlivened with breath (Spirit). When Adam died, his Spirit, given by God, returned you God... so the PERSON of Adam STILL EXISTS because his SPIRIT still exists. Adam’s BODY NO LONGER EXISTS but his SOUL remains.

Only YHWH GOD can DESTROY the COMPLETE PERSON, that is, the SOUL.... by destroying the SPIRIT that He holds for the person.

 

[sojourner]

1. Scriptures says that GOD made Jesus to be both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36)
2. But sojourner says that ‘Lord’ and ‘God’ are interchangeable
3. So Acts 2:36, in sojourner’s doctrine, reads thus:
   1. “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: Lord has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both God and Messiah."
4. But also, sojourner presents this part verse: ‘The Lord is the Spirit’... and we know that ‘The Spirit’ is the Spirit of God: The Father’s holy Spirit... therefore sojourner is fatally claiming that Holy Spirit is Jesus (The Lord) and Jesus is the Holy Spirit... but...
5. Since sojourner claims that Lord and God are interchangeable he now has a conundrum...
   1. Jesus Lord and therefore also the holySpirit AND ALSO GOD
   2. The Holy Spirit is GOD because it’s also Lord and also... the Son
   3. The Father is Lord AND BOTH the other two AND GOD
   4. BUT REMEMBER THAT GOD IS ESSENCE in which the three SHARE

You will already have worked out that the doctrine of the trinity is already destroyed from the simple phrase in trinity:

• The three are One God ... (meaning, the three are One Essence)
• ‘The Father is not the Son... the Son is not the Holy Spirit.. the Holy Spirit is not the Father... but they are all three God’ ... but since all three are Lord, according to Sojourner’s doctrine, ... wait... didn’t the Lord MAKE Jesus to be GOD? What was Jesus BEFORE God made him GOD???

And you can see that 5:1-4 above demonstrates the absurdity of sojourner a claim that:

• ‘Lord’ is interchangeable with ‘God’
• ‘The Lord is the Spirit’
• ‘GOD made [] Jesus to be both Lord AND Christ’

Translate: ‘Essence made Jesus to be both God and saviour’

If Jesus is ESSENCE, how is he ‘made to be GOD’?

Can GOD be MADE?

Confused? You should be??

What a load of logical horse crap. If people are confused it’s because of your fallacies

 

[Soapy]

What a load of logical horse crap. If people are confused it’s because of your fallacies

Oh, so now you see how your ‘doctrine’ is ‘horse crap’.

1) It is you who claimed that ‘Lord’ and ‘God’ are interchangeable.

2) It is you that declared your doctrine includes ‘The Lord is the Spirit’

3) It is you that claim that ‘God is Essence’ and that the three persons share in the essence

4) Scriptures declares that ‘God MADE ... Jesus TO BE Lord and Christ’

5) So if Lord and God (And therefore, also Essence) are interchangeable then:

1. ‘Lord made ... Jesus to be God and Christ’
2. AND ‘Essence Made ... Jesus ...’
3. But if Jesus IS GOD (is ESSENCE) then it is that Essence makes essence even as essence is GOD who is a SHARED (?entity?!!!) in which the three (who are ESSENCE) share!!?

Do you agree that 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5:1-3, are all true by your doctrine ... show your reasoning please.

 

[sojourner]

Oh, so now you see how your ‘doctrine’ is ‘horse crap’.

1) It is you who claimed that ‘Lord’ and ‘God’ are interchangeable.

2) It is you that declared your doctrine includes ‘The Lord is the Spirit’

3) It is you that claim that ‘God is Essence’ and that the three persons share in the essence

4) Scriptures declares that ‘God MADE ... Jesus TO BE Lord and Christ’

5) So if Lord and God (And therefore, also Essence) are interchangeable then:

1. ‘Lord made ... Jesus to be God and Christ’
2. AND ‘Essence Made ... Jesus ...’
3. But if Jesus IS GOD (is ESSENCE) then it is that Essence makes essence even as essence is GOD who is a SHARED (?entity?!!!) in which the three (who are ESSENCE) share!!?

Do you agree that 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5:1-3, are all true by your doctrine ... show your reasoning please.

I didn’t claim all those things, and you’ve managed to twist what I did claim. You’re gaslighting.

 

[YoursTrue]

1) I've previously pulled out names in other posts. Didn't you read them?
2) I don't attempt to define God. I do attempt to put forth theological propositions.
3) You don't believe the Bible speaks of God's being? "Being," "substance," "essence" all come from the Greek ousia. What scriptural passage that deals with God doesn't claim God's essence?

Didn't Jesus say the stones could cry out if the disciples wouldn't?