The Trinity

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You didn't read my post. The Bible doesn't talk about Jesus as part of a "godhead" or "godgoo" or anything else you want to call it. "God" is shown as identically equal to "the Father", with no ifs, ands or buts about it.

NOT:

SRC: Shield of the Trinity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

DEUS NON EST FILIUS
SPIRITUS SANCTUS NON EST PERSONA​

That is funny, because John 5:18 states that Jesus was on the verge of being put to death for making himself equal with God, which harmonizes perfectly with Phil 2:5-9.

So once again, we are talking about the nature of God, and Trinitarians always maintained that all three share the nature of divinity.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

That is funny, because John 5:18 states that Jesus was on the verge of being put to death for making himself equal with God, which harmonizes perfectly with Phil 2:5-9.

So once again, we are talking about the nature of God, and Trinitarians always maintained that all three share the nature of divinity.

Thank you for quoting a scripture, Wild.

Notice that the ones saying Jesus was "equating himself with God" were Jews, not Jesus. The chief of the priests interrogating Jesus also considered it "blasphemy", for Jesus to claim to be the "Son of God":

Matt 26
[63] But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
[64] Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
[65] Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.
[66] What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.

These are peculiar passages, which show the possible influence of the Book of Enoch. That book is not considered canonical by any other than the Ethiopian & Eritrean Orthodox churches; but it was widely read in Jesus' day. Peter and Jude both quote from it, and fragments of it are found among the earlier manuscripts in the Dead Sea caves. There was apparently an attempt by both Jews and Christians, to expunge the memory of it, and it was considered a lost book until discovered in Ethiopia.

It MAY have been that this priest considered that claiming to be Messiah automatically constituted a claim of divinity (as the Book of Enoch reportedly tends in that direction). On the other hand, the priest was just as likely to think that the rest of what Jesus said was blasphemous, namely, that they would "hereafter see him sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven" Remember that the chief priests were Sadducees, who did not believe in the Resurrection.

For the record, Jews of TODAY do not consider any "messiah", unique or otherwise, to be divine. That is why they look askance at scriptures like John 5 and Matthew 26.

I hope we can now confidently put John 5 aside, as possible "evidence" that Jesus is God/ divine/ whatever you want to call him.

 

[icebuddy]

Please quote scriptures, one at a time; and if you really want to do me a favor, check to see if they haven't already been thoroughly discussed here.

These things have been thoroughly discussed thousands of years ago and people that say Jesus is Not God where deemed heretics. How far would you like to go back?

Jesus is not God

Try saying that in Greek and not finding yourself in a bind. Jesus is God to the glory of the Father. You have just looked the image of God in the face and said "Not God". Something i would never do. Even the OT Prophets looked at the Angel of the Lord and said "God Jehovah". How much more is Jesus!

simply because the scriptures, dozens and dozens of them, say he is not God. Just to humor you, I will continue my list of scriptures that contain both the word "Jesus" and "God", to see if ANY of them equate Jesus with God

You limit God to your human understanding.

Rev 1
[1] The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him
"Which he gave unto himself?" No. "Which God the Father gave unto him?" No. You seem to be trying to waste my time and wear me out.

First off, The Revelation of Jesus Christ is a book which God gave to his angel to show John. Read the whole verse. Look who God gave it too. I read this as follows: The Real understanding of Jesus, which God gave to his angel to show to John. Simply put: The Book of Jesus, which God gave to his angel to show to John. I have no problem seeing God being Jesus either.

The Revelation of Jesus, which Jesus gave to his angel to show John

I'm just getting started. These all say clearly, "FILIUS NON EST DEUS". Do you think you can overturn the entire New Testament, with one or two scriptures? Go on, present your scriptures, and completely ignore those I've posted here. If I don't bother to deal with what you come up with, there seem to be plenty here who will. But if you will repeatedly not listen to what we have to say, why should we bother with what you say?

Like I have said before, someone is blinded by satan. What do you think satan would want you to say to the image of God, the one who expresses The Father exactly? Would he have you say "My Lord and my God" or "NOT God"?

The problem I see you having is that when you see a passage that says "God and Savior" you have no problem seeing that as 1 person Jehovah. Yet when you see a passage that says "God and Jesus" you fail to see 1 person Jehovah, but now see 2 persons and then separate them. The Greek word "AND" is not a separating word. I looked up a few passages, but your mind is locked.

For example: Jesus is the Son of God - You see this and say Jesus cannot be God, the Jews saw this and say Jesus claimed equality to God and a mere man made himself to be God. I see this and see 1 John 1-4. That some got to see the Eternal Word of Life made flesh which we sometimes call the Godman Jesus.

You see John 1:1 and say see God cant be with Himself. But how do you know? Many believe our God of love was not alone as 1 person with nothing to love, but that the Father, Eternal Word, and Holy Spirit existed from time eternal and expressed Love between each other.

You define God with One Single unit being with no plurality, yet are you certain of your definition? You have defined things in your head before you have read the scripture and that is why you see what you see. That is why the Jews didnt believe because they already made up their minds what they believed to be true.

pray for understanding to fall upon us both

in Love,
tom

 

[BlandOatmeal]

That is funny, because John 5:18 states that Jesus was on the verge of being put to death for making himself equal with God, which harmonizes perfectly with Phil 2:5-9.

So once again, we are talking about the nature of God, and Trinitarians always maintained that all three share the nature of divinity.

I will deal with Philippians 2 separately, lest this get confused with the above:

Phil. 2
[5] Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
[6] Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

Note two things:

First of all, Jesus is not called "God". That title is reserved exclusively for the Father. There is no "God the Father and God the Son", as stated in the Trinitarian doctrine.

Secondly, WE are expected to have the same mind as Jesus in this matter. In other words, WE are to consider ourselves as being in the form of God, and not consider it robbery for us to be equal with God.

We are indeed made in God's image, and have an "equality" with God in the fact that we can approach Him without intermediate, as intimate friends:

John 16
[26] At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you:
[27] For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.
[28] I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.
[29] His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb.
[30] Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.

Notice again here, that Jesus is not called God, nor part of a "Godhead". He is described, rather, as a messenger from God, like the angels [though, of course, of a higher status than the angels; for God adopted him as His son].

 

[icebuddy]

First of all, Jesus is not called "God". That title is reserved exclusively for the Father.

Try saying that in Greek... Jesus is God to the glory of God the Father! Did you know the OT prophets called the Angel of the Lord God and Jehovah and treated him as he were God? How much more can we call Jesus God and Savior, the one who is exactly like the father expressing him as the Image of God?

Who would want you to look to the Image of God and say, "Not God"?

2Cr 4:4In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
2Cr 4:5For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.
2Cr 4:6For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

 

[Shermana]

That is funny, because John 5:18 states that Jesus was on the verge of being put to death for making himself equal with God, which harmonizes perfectly with Phil 2:5-9.

So once again, we are talking about the nature of God, and Trinitarians always maintained that all three share the nature of divinity.

It's also important to note that the claims of the Pharisees were not necessarily accurate accusations.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

Try saying that in Greek... Jesus is God to the glory of God the Father! Did you know the OT prophets called the Angel of the Lord God and Jehovah and treated him as he were God? How much more can we call Jesus God and Savior, the one who is exactly like the father expressing him as the Image of God?

Who would want you to look to the Image of God and say, "Not God"?

2Cr 4:4In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
2Cr 4:5For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.
2Cr 4:6For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

I am created in God's image, and I am not God. Please look at the preponderence of evidence, the dozens of scriptures that show that God is not Jesus and Jesus is not God., and stop these stretchy, illogical tangents.

 

[Shermana]

I am created in God's image, and I am not God. Please look at the preponderence of evidence, the dozens of scriptures that show that God is not Jesus and Jesus is not God., and stop these stretchy, illogical tangents.

Stretchy illogical tangents are about all these Christians have to maintain their historic doctrines, without them, they'd have to go with what the text plainly says in direct context, and that would discredit their views instantly.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

Stretchy illogical tangents are about all these Christians have to maintain their historic doctrines, without them, they'd have to go with what the text plainly says in direct context, and that would discredit their views instantly.

Thank you, Shermana.

I presume you know, what great controversy the Trinity doctrine was born in. The following describes this controversy, blow by blow:

Chapter 47
Fall In The East — The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon

This doctrine was not born out of any sound, thoughtful theological discussion. That sort of discussion can be found in the great teaching epistles such as Romans and Ephesians (which are replete with verses that describe Jesus as NOT God). The Trinity arguments, on the other hand, originated in power struggles within the church after the Roman Emperor (more precisely, his mother) began taking up the Christian cause. The controversy was judged by men of prestige within the church, who had garnered Imperial favor, in councils presided over by the Emperor himself. Even so, none of these councils ended any controversy; but instead engendered new ones, which were arbitrated by yet more councils. The decisions of those councils ended in expulsions of entire people groups from the church, such as the Germans, the Armenians, the Ethiopians and the Egyptians. The massive disunity that followed was exploited by the Arab Muslims, who found the Eastern Roman Empire easy pickings because of their many quarrels.

Paul sums up such doctrines:

Gal 5
[19] Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
[20] Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
[21] Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

From me to you,

Num 6
[24] The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:
[25] The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
[26] The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

 

[CG Didymus]

I presume you know, what great controversy the Trinity doctrine was born in. The following describes this controversy, blow by blow:

Chapter 47
Fall In The East — The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon

This doctrine was not born out of any sound, thoughtful theological discussion. That sort of discussion can be found in the great teaching epistles such as Romans and Ephesians (which are replete with verses that describe Jesus as NOT God). The Trinity arguments, on the other hand, originated in power struggles within the church after the Roman Emperor (more precisely, his mother) began taking up the Christian cause. The controversy was judged by men of prestige within the church, who had garnered Imperial favor, in councils presided over by the Emperor himself. Even so, none of these councils ended any controversy; but instead engendered new ones, which were arbitrated by yet more councils. The decisions of those councils ended in expulsions of entire people groups from the church, such as the Germans, the Armenians, the Ethiopians and the Egyptians. The massive disunity that followed was exploited by the Arab Muslims, who found the Eastern Roman Empire easy pickings because of their many quarrels...

So where does that leave Jesus? Where does that leave all the trinitarian Christians? Jesus is almost God? He's perfect in every way but is not the same substance as God? I can see why the easier decision was to make him God. But if it is not the true and correct decision and all these trinity-believing Christians are wrong? That would be something.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

So where does that leave Jesus?

At the right hand of God -- not a bad place.

Where does that leave all the trinitarian Christians?

In error, but in lots of company.

Jesus is almost God?

I don't know what you mean by "God". If you mean YHVH, he is not and can never be YHVH until the great "all in all" happens:

1 Cor 15
[23] But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
[24] Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
[25] For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
[26] The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
[27] For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
[28] And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto Him [capitalization mine] that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

At that time, of course, we who are in Christ will also be in Him, not nearer and not further from God, but all in all -- that said, note that we are not God nor Gods.

He's perfect in every way but is not the same substance as God?

"Substance" is a Trinitarian word, part of their endless quarrels and excommunications. Jesus is not God, period.

I can see why the easier decision was to make him God. But if it is not the true and correct decision and all these trinity-believing Christians are wrong? That would be something.

Something, yeah.
Shalom shalom :balloons:

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Thank you for quoting a scripture, Wild.

But of course :yes:

Notice that the ones saying Jesus was "equating himself with God" were Jews, not Jesus.

Not entirely so. The scripture that I quoted, in context, was from the author of the book itself. In that context it wasn't about what the Jews thought, it was what the author implied Jesus to be.

The chief of the priests interrogating Jesus also considered it "blasphemy", for Jesus to claim to be the "Son of God":

Right, the chief priests, they would certainly have known what would qualify a person to speak blasphemy. I mean heck, if we are all "sons of god", then Jesus claiming to be son of God would not have any significance unless his claim of being "Son of God" meant something more than what it would mean when we say we are children of God in the general sense. It is apparent that the Jews knew the distinction and therefore they were ready to put him to death because of it.

Matt 26
[63] But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
[64] Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
[65] Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.
[66] What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.

These are peculiar passages, which show the possible influence of the Book of Enoch. That book is not considered canonical by any other than the Ethiopian & Eritrean Orthodox churches; but it was widely read in Jesus' day. Peter and Jude both quote from it, and fragments of it are found among the earlier manuscripts in the Dead Sea caves. There was apparently an attempt by both Jews and Christians, to expunge the memory of it, and it was considered a lost book until discovered in Ethiopia.

It MAY have been that this priest considered that claiming to be Messiah automatically constituted a claim of divinity (as the Book of Enoch reportedly tends in that direction). On the other hand, the priest was just as likely to think that the rest of what Jesus said was blasphemous, namely, that they would "hereafter see him sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven" Remember that the chief priests were Sadducees, who did not believe in the Resurrection.

And they had every right to think that if one is claiming to be the son of God, that that is a claim of divinity. And even in the Matthew scripture...26:63...Jesus was asked is he the son of God. "The" son of God. Not "a" son of God, but "the" son of God. Why ask him that if there wasn't any significance in claiming to be "the" son of God? That is because they knew what Jesus was implying, and Jesus didn't make any sugar coat it throughout scripture...He implied that he was the son of God, the son of man, and even the Messiah.

For the record, Jews of TODAY do not consider any "messiah", unique or otherwise, to be divine.

Then why did they want to execute him?? He certainly wasn't speaking blasphemy if he wasn't claiming to be divine..so why did they want to execute him?

I hope we can now confidently put John 5 aside, as possible "evidence" that Jesus is God/ divine/ whatever you want to call him.

Um, no we can't. Sorry. Scripture is clear, as there are many scriptures which state that Jesus has the same attributes that the Father has, and you can only have this attribute if you have the nature of deity.

 

[Shermana]

Not entirely so. The scripture that I quoted, in context, was from the author of the book itself. In that context it wasn't about what the Jews thought, it was what the author implied Jesus to be.

And on what grounds do you claim to know that it was the author's exact thoughts and not recapping what he was charged for?

Then why did they want to execute him?? He certainly wasn't speaking blasphemy if he wasn't claiming to be divine..so why did they want to execute him?

Angels are "Divine". They are even called "Divine beings" in many translations. Saying that you existed before Abraham would certainly be something along the lines of what one could call blasphemy. After all, the exact charge was claiming to be the SON of god. And being THE son of god, would mean he placed himself at the top of the Angelic hierarchy. Which is why they said "You make yourself to be a god" (Not just "God" as most Trinitarian translations mistranslate). Which is why he responds the way he does in John 10:34.

, as there are many scriptures which state that Jesus has the same attributes that the Father has

Like? Like 14:28 where he says the Father is greater than him? Like in Revelation 1:1 where it says he received Revelation from the Father Himself? How could he receive revelation if he was exactly Equal and had the same mind and knowledge?

 

[icebuddy]

I am created in God's image, and I am not God. Please look at the preponderence of evidence, the dozens of scriptures that show that God is not Jesus and Jesus is not God., and stop these stretchy, illogical tangents.

To compare you and Jesus is faulty. Jesus "IS" the image of God in whom you are made in the likeness of... But yet we can look to Jesus and see God and say "My Lord and My God". Jesus is expressing the Father exactly in his very being and to see Jesus is to see God. You however, are nowhere close that that (nor is any man for that matter)

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

To compare you and Jesus is faulty. Jesus "IS" the image of God in whom you are made in the likeness of... But yet we can look to Jesus and see God and say "My Lord and My God". Jesus is expressing the Father exactly in his very being and to see Jesus is to see God. You however, are nowhere close that that (nor is any man for that matter)

So was Jesus part of the Us who confused mans language at the tower of babel?

 

[icebuddy]

Thank you, Shermana.

This might be what seperates us all... If you had 1 name to call upon at death, what would it be? For sure mine is JESUS!

Ask yourself a question: If you did die today, would you know that you are saved?

Then the next question would be: How is one saved? How are my sins forgiven?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

This might be what seperates us all... If you had 1 name to call upon at death, what would it be? For sure mine is JESUS!

Ask yourself a question: If you did die today, would you know that you are saved?

Well according to Ecclesiastes...the Dead know nothing.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

This might be what seperates us all... If you had 1 name to call upon at death, what would it be? For sure mine is JESUS!

Ask yourself a question: If you did die today, would you know that you are saved?

The place I hope to go after death does not have a multi-headed god.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

And on what grounds do you claim to know that it was the author's exact thoughts and not recapping what he was charged for?

For a couple reasons. First, in the full context...John 5:17-18..

17Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working."

18 For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God."

I just don't see how you can interpret verse 18 as the Jews false interpretation of what Jesus meant. These Jewish officials ate, slept, and BREATHED the law and it would have been foolish for them to think that just by calling God his own Father, that Jesus was implying he was equal to God. That is just flat out naive. I call my father, MY OWN FATHER...but that is no way implying that I am equal to him in any way. There is just no correlation between calling someone your father and equality...

Unless we look at verse before it, verse 17, at which Jesus said that he is working just like his Father. In Numbers 15:32-36 a man was put to death for gathering sticks on the Sabbath (God commanded no work on the Sabbath). So the Jews, in keeping the law, wanted to put Jesus to death for working on the Sabbath. Jesus said his Father works on the Sabbath, and so should he is working too, which is in fact making it seem as if he is equal to God, and if Jesus was just an "ordinary" man, he would have deserved to be put to death under Jewish law.

So either Jesus committed an act worthy of death or he didn't. If he didn't, then he is in fact equal to God.

Angels are "Divine". They are even called "Divine beings" in many translations. Saying that you existed before Abraham would certainly be something along the lines of what one could call blasphemy. After all, the exact charge was claiming to be the SON of god. And being THE son of god, would mean he placed himself at the top of the Angelic hierarchy.

What? Sherm, that is by far the most faulty interpretation I've ever seen. He was "placing himself at the top of Angelic hierarchy? Aw man that is just doing to much Sherm. There is no scriptural evidence that suggests that Jesus is/was angelic. None. I bet you've been to quite a few Kingdom Halls with that interpretation.

Which is why they said "You make yourself to be a god" (Not just "God" as most Trinitarian translations mistranslate). Which is why he responds the way he does in John 10:34.

Jesus was saying that if there is any sense that we can call mere men "god", then how much more can the term be used for him. In any case, he never denied being God and one would think he would adamantly deny being God if he was accused of such a blasphemous thing, if he wasn't. In other words "I am not saying I am, and I am not saying I am" kind of thing.

Like? Like 14:28 where he says the Father is greater than him?

At school, the principal is greater than the teachers. Look, the Father is greater than the Son and Phil 2:5-9 states why. Jesus surrendered his equality with the Father in terms of rank. There is a heirarchy at which Jesus is second to the Father, but that is only in terms of rank, but that says nothing about their nature as both share the same nature of Deity.

Like in Revelation 1:1 where it says he received Revelation from the Father Himself? How could he receive revelation if he was exactly Equal and had the same mind and knowledge?

Well in John 21:17, Jesus apparently have the attribute of omniscience so that isn't even the question. The question is what did John mean in Rev 1:1. Notice the scripture begins with "The Revelation of Jesus Christ"...but if God gave it to him, why not say "the revelation of God which he gave to Jesus Christ"? In what way is it Jesus'? Maybe even after Jesus ascended to heaven the hierarchy is still in effect. Either way, if Jesus doesn't know everything, then why would Peter say so and why would Jesus not deny it in all honesty?

 

[icebuddy]

So was Jesus part of the Us who confused mans language at the tower of babel?

I have no idea what or where you are going with this. Jesus is the true Image of God, Gods own visible image is Jesus. Jesus is the Image we can Worship!