Problems with the Trinity

[rrobs]

I'm not one for sarcasm


1. Does your biblical interpretation supersede others who differ from you?

2. Do you feel the physical bible is key to eternal life or christ himself? Can you differientiate between the two?

3. How does calling jesus god affect ones relationship with Christ?

You can summarize it or whatever. Does your interpretation supersede others; and, do you believe the bible holds eternal life or christ? Can you tell the difference?

OK. I'll be real now. Sorry for the sarcasm.

1) No.
2) The Bible is written word and Jesus is the word made flesh. Jesus followed the written word perfectly. Never made one single mistake. That is why it was said the word was made flesh and why Jesus could say that if you saw him it was the same as seeing God.
3) Can't summarize this one. You'll have to read a bit more if you want to see my feeling on this question. Sit down, get yourself a cup of coffee, and read on:

In reference to John 1:1 I found the following:

"...the fact that the word ‘God’ is used first in the sentence actually shows some emphasis that this Logos (Word) was in fact God in its nature. However, since it does not have the definite article, it does indicate that this Word was not the same ‘person’ as the Father God, but has the same ‘essence’ and ‘nature’."

Explanation of John 1:1

I think that is accurate, at least as far as I understand things. I have never argued that Jesus does not have the nature of God. A kitten has the nature of it's father, yet is not his father. Humans are the same.

But let's look at this word "logos." It is a word that simply can not be translated or understood by a nice simple 5 or 6 word definition. To the 1st century reader it was much richer than that. Part of the definition of logos in Abbott-Smith's Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament is:

"a word, not in the grammatical sense of a mere name (ἔπος, ὄνομα, ῥῆμα), but a word as embodying a conception or idea:"

To the 1st century Greeks, logos meant much more than a simply a "word." It involved the thinking process behind the speaker when they spoke. It involved the reasoning behind that which they spoke. I will go out on a limb here and say the logos can be thought of as a plan. If I'm wrong here, then the rest of my argument falls to pieces, but I am confident that thinking of logos as a plan in someone's mind is accurate. So John 1:1 is speaking of a plan God had in the beginning. Why did God need a plan and what did that plan involve?

When God created Adam he was declared as being "very good." He was in fact created sinless. His life, which is in the blood (Lev 17:11), was divine in it's source. In other words, Adam was created with innocent blood. As such he enjoyed perfect fellowship with God and there is no indication he would have ever died. Another part of the perfection in Adam was free will. God did not create a robot. He wants people to love Him by choice, not by force. Now, another often overlooked truth is that God gave Adam dominion over the earth. Adam was in charge, not God. God forfeited any control He had over the earth. Adam was boss. Well, God's intention was that before Adam exercised any control over the earth he would first communicate with Him as to what he should do in every situation. In other words, God would tell Adam the best (only way, really) to handle things to keep everything in order.

That worked for at least some while. How long, I have no idea. But at some point Adam decided to not take God's advice and listen to the devil (via Eve) instead. As good as Adam had it, I guess he thought it would be even better if he became as God Himself, knowing good and evil. Huge mistake! Now sin entered into his life, specifically into the same place where his life dwelt, i.e. in his blood. Now Adam no longer had innocent blood. As you know death came with that sin. Unfortunately for the rest of us, we got that same sin filled blood. Hence, we too die. It also broke his fellowship with God, which broken fellowship was also passed on to all of his children from that point on.

Ever wonder why God didn't just come down right then and there and make things right again? If He could have just done that, why did He wait for 6,000 years during which time people lived miserable life (thorns, etc) only to die? That brings up the logos, the plan God had to redeem mankind.

Romans declares that since sin came by man, so would redemption by another man be required. Remember, God gave dominion to man. If man blew it, man would have to fix it. But how in the world could now sinful man possibly redeem Himself? Well, man couldn't redeem himself. It would take a man, but it would have to be a very special man, specifically one who, like Adam, was created with innocent blood, a lamb without blemish.

Now it gets really good. God knew that He could impregnate a woman with seed that contained sinless blood. But He couldn't just force that upon any woman. Whoever that woman was to be, she herself had to agree to God's plan with her own free will. That meant God had to communicate that plan to mankind and wait until the woman, of her own free will, would say, "OK, Let's do it!" Hebrew 1:1 says that God communicated that plan via the spoken word as well as the written word, hoping that at some point some woman would believe enough to say, "be it done unto me according to thy word." But, lets face it, the idea of bearing a child without having intercourse was a huge pill to swallow. I'm amazed it only to 6,000 years, but that's how long it took.

Since the seed in Mary's womb came from God and not sinful man, Jesus was the second man ever created/born with innocent blood. God did not overstep anybody's free will nor did He unjustly take dominion back. He simply told mankind what could happen if someone would believe. Are you starting to see the brilliance of God's plan, the logos? It's beyond comprehension. Who else could have come up with such a plan? Brilliant to the nth degree!

But the story is not over until it's over. Jesus, being just like the first Adam, a man with innocent blood, also had free will. God did not control Jesus anymore than He controlled any other man. All God could do was communicate His will to Jesus the same way He communicated it to Adam and the rest of mankind, via words, both the written word and the spoken word. Jesus did not come into this world knowing the scriptures. He, like the rest of us made his appearance on the world stage knowing a grand total of nada, zip, nothing. Jesus had to learn the scriptures. That is why it was said that Jesus grew in stature and wisdom. Had he been God such a statement would not make sense.

Jesus learned the problem of sin and the solution just like the rest of us. The only difference was that, not only did he have to understand that he himself was the lamb without blemish, but he had to keep himself free from sin. He had to follow the law to the last jot and title. WOW! What an assignment. For 30 some years he had to keep every thought and action in perfect alignment with the scriptures. Heck, I'm glad to go 30 seconds like that!

But how must he have felt when he was reading the scriptures, and for the first time it dawned on him the horrible torture and death he'd have to face if he wanted to carry out the logos to the end. If not before, I'd sure have told God, "You must be making some kind of mistake. I'll just go my own way now, thank you!" But not our man Jesus. What a guy! The most he ever wavered was in the Garden of Getheseme when asked God if there was some other way to do this. But what did he say? "Not my will, but thine be done." The rest of course is history.

So, at least now you might understand why I say that it is demeaning to both God and Jesus to say Jesus was God. It is demeaning to God because it makes a joke out of the absolute brilliant plan, the logos, and it makes a mockery out of Jesus' life who carried out that plan despite grave personal injury to himself, to say the least. Making Jesus God does not give God the credit He deserves for coming up with such an incredibly complex yet elegant plan that would not violate our free will and still redeem us with the required blemish free lamb. Making Jesus God robs him of the credit he deserves for all he did for us poor sinful creatures. If He were God Himself, what's the big deal he always obeyed God? Would God have any problem believing He'd raise Himself from the dead in glory and virtue? I think not. But for a man to believe that is something else altogether.

Do I disrespect Jesus because I don't believe he was God? God forbid. If anybody disrespects Jesus (and God Himself) it is those on the other side of the fence. I trust you see by now how I justify making such a statement.

Jesus is my savior, my peace, my life, and much more. Yes, he did have a divine nature. So did Adam. Adam lost it and Jesus didn't. But the best part is that because Jesus didn't blow it we too share in the same divine nature. But there is one huge difference between us and Adam. Adam could, and did, loose it. But Jesus is such a complete savior that the divine nature he gave us will be kept until the very end!

That, I believe is the redemption story. As I've said, making Jesus God, destroys that story beyond all comprehension. I don't see how anybody who simply believes the logos is Jesus could be filled with a fraction of the joy with which I myself am filled.

I also understand why the trinity is far and away the most effective weapon in the devil's arsenal to keep people away from understanding the greatest story ever told. He went to great lengths, even the burning at the stake of anybody who would dare suggest that the trinity is a big fat lie.

God bless...

 

[rrobs]

Whew!!! Thanks!

BTW, we've been married for 51 years, and the only thing I have to hold against her is that she married a schmuck.

51 years, fantastic! Switch those digits around and you'll see the anniversary we'll celebrate this coming Thursday (15 years).

My wife has the same problem; she married me. But if I just say, "yes dear" to everything she's happy! Sometime's easier said than done, but so far I've managed. She's a wonderful woman. I thank God for her all the time. I have no doubt you understand that after 51 years. I'm glad for you.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

OK. I'll be real now. Sorry for the sarcasm.

1) No.
2) The Bible is written word and Jesus is the word made flesh. Jesus followed the written word perfectly. Never made one single mistake. That is why it was said the word was made flesh and why Jesus could say that if you saw him it was the same as seeing God.
3) Can't summarize this one. You'll have to read a bit more if you want to see my feeling on this question. Sit down, get yourself a cup of coffee, and read on:

In reference to John 1:1 I found the following:

"...the fact that the word ‘God’ is used first in the sentence actually shows some emphasis that this Logos (Word) was in fact God in its nature. However, since it does not have the definite article, it does indicate that this Word was not the same ‘person’ as the Father God, but has the same ‘essence’ and ‘nature’."

Explanation of John 1:1

I think that is accurate, at least as far as I understand things. I have never argued that Jesus does not have the nature of God. A kitten has the nature of it's father, yet is not his father. Humans are the same.

But let's look at this word "logos." It is a word that simply can not be translated or understood by a nice simple 5 or 6 word definition. To the 1st century reader it was much richer than that. Part of the definition of logos in Abbott-Smith's Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament is:

"a word, not in the grammatical sense of a mere name (ἔπος, ὄνομα, ῥῆμα), but a word as embodying a conception or idea:"

To the 1st century Greeks, logos meant much more than a simply a "word." It involved the thinking process behind the speaker when they spoke. It involved the reasoning behind that which they spoke. I will go out on a limb here and say the logos can be thought of as a plan. If I'm wrong here, then the rest of my argument falls to pieces, but I am confident that thinking of logos as a plan in someone's mind is accurate. So John 1:1 is speaking of a plan God had in the beginning. Why did God need a plan and what did that plan involve?

When God created Adam he was declared as being "very good." He was in fact created sinless. His life, which is in the blood (Lev 17:11), was divine in it's source. In other words, Adam was created with innocent blood. As such he enjoyed perfect fellowship with God and there is no indication he would have ever died. Another part of the perfection in Adam was free will. God did not create a robot. He wants people to love Him by choice, not by force. Now, another often overlooked truth is that God gave Adam dominion over the earth. Adam was in charge, not God. God forfeited any control He had over the earth. Adam was boss. Well, God's intention was that before Adam exercised any control over the earth he would first communicate with Him as to what he should do in every situation. In other words, God would tell Adam the best (only way, really) to handle things to keep everything in order.

That worked for at least some while. How long, I have no idea. But at some point Adam decided to not take God's advice and listen to the devil (via Eve) instead. As good as Adam had it, I guess he thought it would be even better if he became as God Himself, knowing good and evil. Huge mistake! Now sin entered into his life, specifically into the same place where his life dwelt, i.e. in his blood. Now Adam no longer had innocent blood. As you know death came with that sin. Unfortunately for the rest of us, we got that same sin filled blood. Hence, we too die. It also broke his fellowship with God, which broken fellowship was also passed on to all of his children from that point on.

Ever wonder why God didn't just come down right then and there and make things right again? If He could have just done that, why did He wait for 6,000 years during which time people lived miserable life (thorns, etc) only to die? That brings up the logos, the plan God had to redeem mankind.

Romans declares that since sin came by man, so would redemption by another man be required. Remember, God gave dominion to man. If man blew it, man would have to fix it. But how in the world could now sinful man possibly redeem Himself? Well, man couldn't redeem himself. It would take a man, but it would have to be a very special man, specifically one who, like Adam, was created with innocent blood, a lamb without blemish.

Now it gets really good. God knew that He could impregnate a woman with seed that contained sinless blood. But He couldn't just force that upon any woman. Whoever that woman was to be, she herself had to agree to God's plan with her own free will. That meant God had to communicate that plan to mankind and wait until the woman, of her own free will, would say, "OK, Let's do it!" Hebrew 1:1 says that God communicated that plan via the spoken word as well as the written word, hoping that at some point some woman would believe enough to say, "be it done unto me according to thy word." But, lets face it, the idea of bearing a child without having intercourse was a huge pill to swallow. I'm amazed it only to 6,000 years, but that's how long it took.

Since the seed in Mary's womb came from God and not sinful man, Jesus was the second man ever created/born with innocent blood. God did not overstep anybody's free will nor did He unjustly take dominion back. He simply told mankind what could happen if someone would believe. Are you starting to see the brilliance of God's plan, the logos? It's beyond comprehension. Who else could have come up with such a plan? Brilliant to the nth degree!

But the story is not over until it's over. Jesus, being just like the first Adam, a man with innocent blood, also had free will. God did not control Jesus anymore than He controlled any other man. All God could do was communicate His will to Jesus the same way He communicated it to Adam and the rest of mankind, via words, both the written word and the spoken word. Jesus did not come into this world knowing the scriptures. He, like the rest of us made his appearance on the world stage knowing a grand total of nada, zip, nothing. Jesus had to learn the scriptures. That is why it was said that Jesus grew in stature and wisdom. Had he been God such a statement would not make sense.

Jesus learned the problem of sin and the solution just like the rest of us. The only difference was that, not only did he have to understand that he himself was the lamb without blemish, but he had to keep himself free from sin. He had to follow the law to the last jot and title. WOW! What an assignment. For 30 some years he had to keep every thought and action in perfect alignment with the scriptures. Heck, I'm glad to go 30 seconds like that!

But how must he have felt when he was reading the scriptures, and for the first time it dawned on him the horrible torture and death he'd have to face if he wanted to carry out the logos to the end. If not before, I'd sure have told God, "You must be making some kind of mistake. I'll just go my own way now, thank you!" But not our man Jesus. What a guy! The most he ever wavered was in the Garden of Getheseme when asked God if there was some other way to do this. But what did he say? "Not my will, but thine be done." The rest of course is history.

So, at least now you might understand why I say that it is demeaning to both God and Jesus to say Jesus was God. It is demeaning to God because it makes a joke out of the absolute brilliant plan, the logos, and it makes a mockery out of Jesus' life who carried out that plan despite grave personal injury to himself, to say the least. Making Jesus God does not give God the credit He deserves for coming up with such an incredibly complex yet elegant plan that would not violate our free will and still redeem us with the required blemish free lamb. Making Jesus God robs him of the credit he deserves for all he did for us poor sinful creatures. If He were God Himself, what's the big deal he always obeyed God? Would God have any problem believing He'd raise Himself from the dead in glory and virtue? I think not. But for a man to believe that is something else altogether.

Do I disrespect Jesus because I don't believe he was God? God forbid. If anybody disrespects Jesus (and God Himself) it is those on the other side of the fence. I trust you see by now how I justify making such a statement.

Jesus is my savior, my peace, my life, and much more. Yes, he did have a divine nature. So did Adam. Adam lost it and Jesus didn't. But the best part is that because Jesus didn't blow it we too share in the same divine nature. But there is one huge difference between us and Adam. Adam could, and did, loose it. But Jesus is such a complete savior that the divine nature he gave us will be kept until the very end!

That, I believe is the redemption story. As I've said, making Jesus God, destroys that story beyond all comprehension. I don't see how anybody who simply believes the logos is Jesus could be filled with a fraction of the joy with which I myself am filled.

I also understand why the trinity is far and away the most effective weapon in the devil's arsenal to keep people away from understanding the greatest story ever told. He went to great lengths, even the burning at the stake of anybody who would dare suggest that the trinity is a big fat lie.

God bless...

I won't be able to go over the whole thing. It would take me hours since I can't put thoughts together in a short summary. I literally need to break it a part to find your points. I'll look through it later.

The general consensus of the last question is distinct.

If I were christian and I called jesus god, how does that statement and belief affect my relationship with Christ?

Most likely I know what you mean by the history. I know why trinitarians and nontrinatrians think about christ. I read it in scripture, both views and listen to many views confirming the truth of their personal interpretations over others. Of course, there are arguments as if one side is right and the other is wrong.

After the 1. History. 2. Explanation of verses 3. Interpretation of those verses based on ones personal belief 4. A Greek and Hebrew language lesson on what's the "right" way to see X, the question still stands:

In your opinion and experience, how is the relationship between an individual christian affected by whether he calls christ god or not?

I know the bible says jesus is god and on the flip side it says he is not. It depends on a person's relationship with Christ Not not whether they know the right Greek or hebrew word nor is it because they have the KJV compared to the New American bible.

It's a personal and experiential connection and lifestyle that makes that person believe that christ is god. You can argue about it being false, the the theme of the question is: how does X affect Y, Not what what is right or wrong.

Christians fight with each other about whose interpretation supersedes his peers yet when asked directly, they say no. It's weird to watch as if they are in denial that they are fighting during their fight. Very ironic.

But, denial aside, I'm asking about a person's personal relationship with Christ and whether it is true or false based on whether he is a trinitarian or not.

I repeated and rephrased the question and point on purpose. I'll look at your post a but later. I can't catch every point so if I miss anything important, you have to highlight it for me. When I do long posts I try to indent to seperate points or right in essay format: theme, three points, support, detail support on the three points, restate theme, conclusion on support.

Gotta eat.

Thanks for the blessing.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

John 5:39

The Bible is written word and Jesus is the word made flesh. Jesus followed the written word perfectly. Never made one single mistake. That is why it was said the word was made flesh and why Jesus could say that if you saw him it was the same as seeing God.

Above mentions the dangers of looking to scripture before Christ. Wouldnt your like to Christ to justify scripture rather than vis versa?

 

[2ndpillar]

Again, to dispel this polytheism nonsense, here's a non-faith citation:
The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (Latin: Trinitas, lit. 'triad', from Latin: trinus"threefold")[1] holds that God is one God, but three coeternal consubstantial persons[2] or hypostases[3]—the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit—as "one God in three Divine Persons". The three Persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature" (homoousios).[4] In this context, a "nature" is what one is, whereas a "person" is who one is.[5][6][7] Sometimes differing views are referred to as nontrinitarian.-- Trinity - Wikipedia

Also, Mary is not part of the Trinity nor worshiped in Catholicism but prayers can be said through her and the other saints:
Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you;
blessed are you among women,
and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners
now and at the hour of our death.
Amen.

God has more than one son (Job 1:6). And "Israel"/"Ephraim" is my "first born son"(Jeremiah 31:9) & (Exodus 4:22).

In the day, the old Catholic ladies knelt before the statue of Mary, paid for, and lighted a candle before her idol, and prayed to her for whatever reason, but first, as with Hitler, hailed her. Plus, the pope supposedly used one of his three genie wishes, his ex cathedra, and sent her supposedly to heaven, whereas she actually is in the grave. Munificentissimus Deus - Wikipedia As with most Catholic defined saints, they were generally chosen for certain reasons to pray to them, and wear their symbols/idols, such as a Saint Christopher medal.

New American Standard Bible Jeremiah 31:9
"With weeping they will come, And by supplication I will lead them; I will make them walk by streams of waters, On a straight path in which they will not stumble; For I am a father to Israel, And Ephraim is My firstborn."

Exodus 4:22
Then tell Pharaoh that this is what the LORD says: 'Israel is My firstborn son,

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm not familiar with Logos to form an opinion about whether what you said makes sense. The concept of jesus is god is that jesus has the same nature as god like father and son. If he wasn't god, to many christians he cannot save.

Incarnation isn't, in this view, seperate from what incarnates. The two views are:

1. Jesus is the incarnation of god. John 1;14

It goes like this...

A. The creator has Laws and dictations throughout the OT
B. No one listens to the Laws (of Moses)
C. The creator had a great idea. He made his Law flesh so he/his Law can "dwell among the people" so people can have intimate relationship with the creator in the name of the savior.
D. So the savior has the same goal and nature of the creator (hence why the incarnation) therefore when people come to the savior, they come to the creator. The creator saves in the name of the Law/Word made flesh.

It's has more to do with concepts than actual Greek. I took out god and jesus to just creator and savior so you can see the Greek is not near the point of how and why people call the savior the creator. It makes sense, but, well...

So, at least now you might understand why I say that it is demeaning to both God and Jesus to say Jesus was God. It is demeaning to God because it makes a joke out of the absolute brilliant plan, the logos, and it makes a mockery out of Jesus' life who carried out that plan despite grave personal injury to himself, to say the least. Making Jesus God does not give God the credit He deserves for coming up with such an incredibly complex yet elegant plan that would not violate our free will and still redeem us with the required blemish free lamb. Making Jesus God robs him of the credit he deserves for all he did for us poor sinful creatures. If He were God Himself, what's the big deal he always obeyed God? Would God have any problem believing He'd raise Himself from the dead in glory and virtue? I think not. But for a man to believe that is something else altogether.

You can't make the savior the creator just by believing it is true. When one says "in the name of" they are not seperating the source from the reflection. They see it as one because that is how the concept of salvation and incarnation works.

The person who actually saves is the creator not the savior
Since the savior is the Word/creators law made flesh, everything that people ask for of the creator they have to do in the name of the savior. The savior and creator are not seperate in those regards.

When a person says the savior is the creator what they are doing is referring to the nature and relationship between the two people. Trinity is defined by the Relationship between three. They are not each other.

So, it's not demeaning to express that the creator is god. Many people don't refer to the savior as the creator. Savior is god means everything the believer does is In the Name of thr Savior but the source is the Creator.

In other words, trinitarians worship the creator in the name of their savior. They don't seperate the two because they are both important in salvation. Non trinitarians seperate the two people. Both worship the creator. Just you guys judge others salvation based on how one express their relationship with Christ: over words. I find that silly.

Do I disrespect Jesus because I don't believe he was God? God forbid. If anybody disrespects Jesus (and God Himself) it is those on the other side of the fence. I trust you see by now how I justify making such a statement.

You wouldn't unless you pray to jesus and not in the name of Jesus. Trinitarians so the latter. If you did the former that's idolosm. The latter is trinitarian thought.

Based on scripture.

I also understand why the trinity is far and away the most effective weapon in the devil's arsenal to keep people away from understanding the greatest story ever told. He went to great lengths, even the burning at the stake of anybody who would dare suggest that the trinity is a big fat lie.

I don't have that negative mindset.

But I'm speaking of the trinity as referred in the bible.

All of you think you are right and believe the other beliefs is from the devil. That's you guys issue. The trinity I'm speaking of is directly from scripture. Not denominational.

 

[rrobs]

I won't be able to go over the whole thing. It would take me hours since I can't put thoughts together in a short summary. I literally need to break it a part to find your points. I'll look through it later.

The general consensus of the last question is distinct.

If I were christian and I called jesus god, how does that statement and belief affect my relationship with Christ?

Most likely I know what you mean by the history. I know why trinitarians and nontrinatrians think about christ. I read it in scripture, both views and listen to many views confirming the truth of their personal interpretations over others. Of course, there are arguments as if one side is right and the other is wrong.

After the 1. History. 2. Explanation of verses 3. Interpretation of those verses based on ones personal belief 4. A Greek and Hebrew language lesson on what's the "right" way to see X, the question still stands:

In your opinion and experience, how is the relationship between an individual christian affected by whether he calls christ god or not?

I know the bible says jesus is god and on the flip side it says he is not. It depends on a person's relationship with Christ Not not whether they know the right Greek or hebrew word nor is it because they have the KJV compared to the New American bible.

It's a personal and experiential connection and lifestyle that makes that person believe that christ is god. You can argue about it being false, the the theme of the question is: how does X affect Y, Not what what is right or wrong.

Christians fight with each other about whose interpretation supersedes his peers yet when asked directly, they say no. It's weird to watch as if they are in denial that they are fighting during their fight. Very ironic.

But, denial aside, I'm asking about a person's personal relationship with Christ and whether it is true or false based on whether he is a trinitarian or not.

I repeated and rephrased the question and point on purpose. I'll look at your post a but later. I can't catch every point so if I miss anything important, you have to highlight it for me. When I do long posts I try to indent to seperate points or right in essay format: theme, three points, support, detail support on the three points, restate theme, conclusion on support.

Gotta eat.

Thanks for the blessing.

Romans 10:9 & 10 are clear that if one confesses that Jesus is Lord and believes God raised him from the dead they will be saved. Nothing one way or the other about having to believe Jesus is God. I take that to mean our actual salvation does not depend on whether or not we think Jesus is God. That's why I would never say a trinitarian is doomed to eternal punishment. They aren't.

The new birth is a spiritual thing. It doesn't affect our flesh, including our mind. God talks about a "renewed mind" in the Epistles. To the degree we change our thinking to agree with God's word we will understand all the ramifications of the new birth. Suffice it to say they are nothing short of fantastic. However, to the degree our minds do not agree with the scriptures we simply miss out on the blessings in this life that an accurate knowledge provides.

In the end, it won't matter what someone thinks about Jesus. Our final end is dependent on Romans 10:9 & 10. The scriptures never suggest that someone who believes Jesus is God will be shut out of paradise nor visa versa.

So our belief on Jesus being God or not only affects how we perceive the greatness of the gift God gave us when we confessed Jesus is Lord. It would be like a distant relative dies and left you a million dollars but for whatever reason you didn't know about it. You'd be a millionaire, but wouldn't benefit by it. Hopefully when you get a chance to read the whole post you'll have more understanding on what I mean.

 

[rrobs]

John 5:39


Above mentions the dangers of looking to scripture before Christ. Wouldnt your like to Christ to justify scripture rather than vis versa?

I'm not sure either one justifies the other. They just agree.

 

[rrobs]

I'm not familiar with Logos to form an opinion about whether what you said makes sense. The concept of jesus is god is that jesus has the same nature as god like father and son. If he wasn't god, to many christians he cannot save.

Incarnation isn't, in this view, seperate from what incarnates. The two views are:

1. Jesus is the incarnation of god. John 1;14

It goes like this...

A. The creator has Laws and dictations throughout the OT
B. No one listens to the Laws (of Moses)
C. The creator had a great idea. He made his Law flesh so he/his Law can "dwell among the people" so people can have intimate relationship with the creator in the name of the savior.
D. So the savior has the same goal and nature of the creator (hence why the incarnation) therefore when people come to the savior, they come to the creator. The creator saves in the name of the Law/Word made flesh.

It's has more to do with concepts than actual Greek. I took out god and jesus to just creator and savior so you can see the Greek is not near the point of how and why people call the savior the creator. It makes sense, but, well...



You can't make the savior the creator just by believing it is true. When one says "in the name of" they are not seperating the source from the reflection. They see it as one because that is how the concept of salvation and incarnation works.

The person who actually saves is the creator not the savior
Since the savior is the Word/creators law made flesh, everything that people ask for of the creator they have to do in the name of the savior. The savior and creator are not seperate in those regards.

When a person says the savior is the creator what they are doing is referring to the nature and relationship between the two people. Trinity is defined by the Relationship between three. They are not each other.

So, it's not demeaning to express that the creator is god. Many people don't refer to the savior as the creator. Savior is god means everything the believer does is In the Name of thr Savior but the source is the Creator.

In other words, trinitarians worship the creator in the name of their savior. They don't seperate the two because they are both important in salvation. Non trinitarians seperate the two people. Both worship the creator. Just you guys judge others salvation based on how one express their relationship with Christ: over words. I find that silly.



You wouldn't unless you pray to jesus and not in the name of Jesus. Trinitarians so the latter. If you did the former that's idolosm. The latter is trinitarian thought.

Based on scripture.



I don't have that negative mindset.

But I'm speaking of the trinity as referred in the bible.

All of you think you are right and believe the other beliefs is from the devil. That's you guys issue. The trinity I'm speaking of is directly from scripture. Not denominational.

I'm not surprised you don't understand the logos enough to form an opinion. I'm guessing you have never heard the things I said in my post. It's not commonly taught, but the information is out there for anyone who wants to dig into it.

It took me a years of study to arrive at my conclusion, not an afternoon. I would suggest you may be rushing to judgement. Maybe you'll change your mind down the road with further consideration.

Jesus wasn't hesitant to call the leaders of Jewish religion children of the devil (John 8:44). I'm just following his lead, albeit to a smaller degree. I can't imagine what people would say to someone who accused the Pope of being a child of the devil, but that's akin to what Jesus said about the Pharisees. Don't mistake me for saying the Pope is from the devil, I'm just saying Jesus was not afraid to call a spade a spade. I see the trinity as a trick of the devil to keep Christians from learning who they really are in Christ and the power they have in his name. That I will stand by.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm not sure either one justifies the other. They just agree.

How so?

Jesus didn't make the two statements the same rephrased. He was literally saying why so you guys look to scripture as if It has eternal life.

Why so you look at the laws and physical scripture as if the laws (of the OT) can bring you eternal life. It is not the OT Laws that bring you eternal life. It is Me.

The scriptures speak of me and to know me, you talk to me not the scriptures. -I- hold eternal life not scriptures.

It's not verbatum. It's making a statement by retorical question to crutinize whomever he spoke with that they were looking at the wrong source.

Scripture doesn't justify christ but christ justified scripture. Which leads me to the question, does scripture (physical scripture/the bible) hold eternal life or christ.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm not surprised you don't understand the logos enough to form an opinion. I'm guessing you have never heard the things I said in my post. It's not commonly taught, but the information is out there for anyone who wants to dig into it.

It took me a years of study to arrive at my conclusion, not an afternoon. I would suggest you may be rushing to judgement. Maybe you'll change your mind down the road with further consideration.

Jesus wasn't hesitant to call the leaders of Jewish religion children of the devil (John 8:44). I'm just following his lead, albeit to a smaller degree. I can't imagine what people would say to someone who accused the Pope of being a child of the devil, but that's akin to what Jesus said about the Pharisees. Don't mistake me for saying the Pope is from the devil, I'm just saying Jesus was not afraid to call a spade a spade. I see the trinity as a trick of the devil to keep Christians from learning who they really are in Christ and the power they have in his name. That I will stand by.

Do you understand why used the word creator and savior instead of Jehovah, logos, god, jesus, lord, and, I don't know....?

I took the language issue out since we are talking about the creator and savior,

Am I wrong?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

are clear that if one confesses that Jesus is Lord and believes God raised him from the dead they will be saved. Nothing one way or the other about having to believe Jesus is God. I take that to mean our actual salvation does not depend on whether or not we think Jesus is God. That's why I would never say a trinitarian is doomed to eternal punishment. They aren't.

That's my point. How is it demeaning to god to think that way and demonic (however put) if it doesn't matter?

The new birth is a spiritual thing. It doesn't affect our flesh, including our mind. God talks about a "renewed mind" in the Epistles. To the degree we change our thinking to agree with God's word we will understand all the ramifications of the new birth. Suffice it to say they are nothing short of fantastic. However, to the degree our minds do not agree with the scriptures we simply miss out on the blessings in this life that an accurate knowledge provides.

In the end, it won't matter what someone thinks about Jesus. Our final end is dependent on Romans 10:9 & 10. The scriptures never suggest that someone who believes Jesus is God will be shut out of paradise nor visa vers

True.

So our belief on Jesus being God or not only affects how we perceive the greatness of the gift God gave us when we confessed Jesus is Lord. It would be like a distant relative dies and left you a million dollars but for whatever reason you didn't know about it. You'd be a millionaire, but wouldn't benefit by it. Hopefully when you get a chance to read the whole post you'll have more understanding on what I mean

I'm kinds at a lost to your points in relation to my comments. My point is how can believing jesus is god affect ones salvation?

If the above is true, it's in conflict with your other post about the relationship with Christ dependent on how one sees jesus as god.

 

[shunyadragon]

Again, to dispel this polytheism nonsense, here's a non-faith citation:
The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (Latin: Trinitas, lit. 'triad', from Latin: trinus"threefold")[1] holds that God is one God, but three coeternal consubstantial persons[2] or hypostases[3]—the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit—as "one God in three Divine Persons". The three Persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature" (homoousios).[4] In this context, a "nature" is what one is, whereas a "person" is who one is.[5][6][7] Sometimes differing views are referred to as nontrinitarian.-- Trinity - Wikipedia

Also, Mary is not part of the Trinity nor worshiped in Catholicism but prayers can be said through her and the other saints:
Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you;
blessed are you among women,
and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners
now and at the hour of our death.
Amen.

I consider this a very specific description of a Goddess in Roman Church theology. I know we disagree, but what you are describing is a Goddess in any other religion.

 

[2ndpillar]

I'm kinds at a lost to your points in relation to my comments. My point is how can believing jesus is god affect ones salvation?

What "salvation"? Everyone dies for their own iniquity (Jeremiah 31:30). Are you a follower of the serpent (Genesis 3:4) and his sons, and think you surely shall not die?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What "salvation"? Everyone dies for their own iniquity (Jeremiah 31:30). Are you a follower of the serpent (Genesis 3:4) and his sons, and think you surely shall not die?

Is that a retorical question?

 

[2ndpillar]

Is that a retorical question?

It is a straight up question. What "salvation" are you looking for. When, saved from whom, why, and how it supposedly affects you.

 

[rrobs]

I'm kinds at a lost to your points in relation to my comments. My point is how can believing jesus is god affect ones salvation?

Maybe I've been beating around the bush too much to make my point. So here is the most succinct way I can answer that question:

believing Jesus is God or not does not affect one's salvation in any way shape or form.​

Romans 10:9 tells us how to be saved. All it says is to make Jesus the boss in our lives and believe God raised him from the dead. It does not address the trinity one way or the other. Whether or not one believes Jesus is God has no bearing whatsoever as far as salvation is concerned. There will be plenty of folks in heaven who spent this life believing Jesus is God and plenty who believed he wasn't God. Of course, we will find out who was right all along, but we'll all still be there and finally united in doctrine and belief. Nobodies going to feel stupid or anything negative because they misunderstood who Jesus it. It'll all be good.

Take care...

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Maybe I've been beating around the bush too much to make my point. So here is the most succinct way I can answer that question:

believing Jesus is God or not does not affect one's salvation in any way shape or form.​

Romans 10:9 tells us how to be saved. All it says is to make Jesus the boss in our lives and believe God raised him from the dead. It does not address the trinity one way or the other. Whether or not one believes Jesus is God has no bearing whatsoever as far as salvation is concerned. There will be plenty of folks in heaven who spent this life believing Jesus is God and plenty who believed he wasn't God. Of course, we will find out who was right all along, but we'll all still be there and finally united in doctrine and belief. Nobodies going to feel stupid or anything negative because they misunderstood who Jesus it. It'll all be good.

Take care...

That is contradicting what you said before: So that's the problem of bastardizing God's perfect word. It's literally a matter of eternal life or death. (73)

Unless you can clarify, how can you bastardize gods word about saying jesus is god but on the same token say that saying jesus is god doesnt influence ones salvation?

Can you continue to bastardize god word on purpose and still be saved?

edit

 

[rrobs]

This is what I said, "So our belief on Jesus being God or not only affects how we perceive the greatness of the gift God gave us when we confessed Jesus is Lord. It would be like a distant relative dies and left you a million dollars but for whatever reason you didn't know about it. You'd be a millionaire, but wouldn't benefit by it."​

If the above is true, it's in conflict with your other post about the relationship with Christ dependent on how one sees jesus as god.

The new birth is one thing and the renewed mind (Eph 4:2) is something else altogether.

The new birth is a gift from God. All we do is Romans 10:9 and God creates a whole new you on the inside (2 Cor 5:17, Gal 6:15). That gift is holy spirit (Acts 1:5) and it is perfect. As far as God is concerned, it makes us as righteous as He Himself is (Rom 3:22). It freely justifies us from all our sins (Rom 3:24). It is Christ in you (Col 1:27). All of this is a spiritual happening and therefore has absolutely no effect on your flesh, including your mind.

Someone can go on thinking about God exactly as they did before their new birth. They are still born again, they simply don't understand what they have. Hence my analogy that you could be a millionaire, but it would do you no good if your didn't realize it for for some reason or another.

To learn what God has done spiritually within you by the new birth God, tells you to renew your mind. Before the new birth all you could think about were worldly thoughts but after the new birth you now have the option of changing those thoughts to align, not with the world, but with the scriptures. That means you have to study the scriptures. How else are you going to learn them if not by studying them? It's the same way you learned anything at school. The more you study the more you will know.

To summarize:

1. The new birth is by grace and as such is freely given. It requires no works on your part. Just do Romans 10:9 and your good to go.
2. The renewed mind is by works. God will not do that for you. It's up to you to do the studying needed to learn what you have and to believe and walk on it.
3. MOST IMPORTANT: To receive salvation and eternal life all you need is the first point. The second point is optional and has no bearing whatsoever on your final end. It only makes this life much more dynamic and exciting.

I'll go out on a limb here and assume you know how to use a concordance. If so, I encourage you to do a word study on the renewed mind. It's not at all complicated once you see it for yourself.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The new birth is one thing and the renewed mind (Eph 4:2) is something else altogether.

The new birth is a gift from God. All we do is Romans 10:9 and God creates a whole new you on the inside (2 Cor 5:17, Gal 6:15). That gift is holy spirit (Acts 1:5) and it is perfect. As far as God is concerned, it makes us as righteous as He Himself is (Rom 3:22). It freely justifies us from all our sins (Rom 3:24). It is Christ in you (Col 1:27). All of this is a spiritual happening and therefore has absolutely no effect on your flesh, including your mind.

Someone can go on thinking about God exactly as they did before their new birth. They are still born again, they simply don't understand what they have. Hence my analogy that you could be a millionaire, but it would do you no good if your didn't realize it for for some reason or another.

To learn what God has done spiritually within you by the new birth God, tells you to renew your mind. Before the new birth all you could think about were worldly thoughts but after the new birth you now have the option of changing those thoughts to align, not with the world, but with the scriptures. That means you have to study the scriptures. How else are you going to learn them if not by studying them? It's the same way you learned anything at school. The more you study the more you will know.

To summarize:

1. The new birth is by grace and as such is freely given. It requires no works on your part. Just do Romans 10:9 and your good to go.
2. The renewed mind is by works. God will not do that for you. It's up to you to do the studying needed to learn what you have and to believe and walk on it.
3. MOST IMPORTANT: To receive salvation and eternal life all you need is the first point. The second point is optional and has no bearing whatsoever on your final end. It only makes this life much more dynamic and exciting.

I'll go out on a limb here and assume you know how to use a concordance. If so, I encourage you to do a word study on the renewed mind. It's not at all complicated once you see it for yourself.

(I read it) Youre making my question highly complicated and round about. That and you stuck in something I did not say in my post.

You switched terms without relating it to my post. When you talk about rebirth, are you referring to salvation?

Im not asking you to teach me something I already know. Im asking why you said:

That is contradicting what you said before: So that's the problem of bastardizing God's perfect word. It's literally a matter of eternal life or death. (73)

Then you say that ones salvation isnt dependent on whether one believes jesus is god or not yet you said when they do, they are bastardizing christ and its a matter of life and death for them to believe this.

I dont have that negative view nor do I understand why you would see others as misguided (I draw conclusions on what you post rather than verbatum); so, you would need to be more succint.

Can you still be saved and bastardized christ at the same time?

If so, by what sin did jesus save you from if you (people) keep sining despite what he has done for you?