The Trinity

[icebuddy]

I did not say that El is never used of Jesus.

I said that Adonai is never used for Jesus.

Adonai is only used for God the Father.

Research it.

Adonai is Hebrew and used only in the Old Testament. The NT was written in Greek and is where Jesus was born and written about. Since the old testament was in Hebrew and the NT in Greek I dont see how Adonai would ever come up in Greek? Give me a Greek Equivalent that you might be looking for... Since the NT is Greek, what Greek word would you like to see used of Jesus to show him as God?

In Love

 

[icebuddy]

Here you have:

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 45-61

Got it thanks

 

[icebuddy]

It really didn't matter who they were expecting they were expecting him around that time-- and no they were not expecting God, I doubt they knew who would come.

Where they expecting Micheal the Arch angel?

Again, Do you put your own belief under the same scrutiny?

Jesus will return at (Har-mageddon) on his white horse.

I thought you believed he returned already in 1914? Do you believe he will be coming twice or once invisible (1914) and one visible (at Har-mageddon) ?

 

[Jensen]

So, what I infer is that there is "Jesus the G-d", and "Jesus the man". I don't really think it is some 'mix' of deity. There are too many references to Jesus AS G-d to infer that.
Just my opinion.

I.e.
Jesus the G-d

Jesus the man
Jesus the man is a reflection of Jesus the G-d.

Here it appears that you think that Jesus alone is God. Am I right? And if so who do you think YHWH, Yahweh, Jehovah is?


Doesn't the bible say that Jesus is the image of God? not that it says he is the image or reflection of Jesus,that is himself.

Maybe, I'm misunderstanding what you are saying....

 

[Desert Snake]

Here it appears that you think that Jesus alone is God. Am I right? And if so who do you think YHWH, Yahweh, Jehovah is?


Doesn't the bible say that Jesus is the image of God? not that it says he is the image or reflection of Jesus,that is himself.

Maybe, I'm misunderstanding what you are saying....

Well, from my perspective, Jesus the man is just that, a man, except He was born of the Spirit. in this sense, Yeshua is G-ds Son, yet also Scripture refers to Jesus as G-d. That indicates to me that Yeshua through the Spirit is a representation of G-d, thereby implying no contradiction.
The Scripture indicating Jesus as G-ds Son in Heaven indicate to me that there is a Jesus the G-d.

Actually, I did notice a possibility of Jesus as G-d in Heaven, only, being a possible interpretation, but I'm sticking to standard interpretation here.

 

[Jensen]

I agree. But I think that Jesus is also in G-d form, the 'man' is a creation, human.
We can "know the Father" through Jesus, thusly.
So, it is not contradictory to say Jesus is both man and G-d, imo. It is just that they are separate beings.

This above seems a little clearer as to what you are saying.
Still, some say that Jesus was the first creation of God, and so my question then would be....do you believe that God created Jesus before everything else? And if so, do you believe that he was created as a man at that time? Do you believe that he was a man-human- before his coming to be born as a babe, son of Mary?

We are all in the image of God, Jesus just more so being that he never sinned, and so is sinless just as God is. I agree that Jesus can be called god, as the bible says that all man can be called god, including anyone that is a messenger of God, such as angels, and man, and those that are in positions of judgement such as judges etc; the thing is this doesn't make them God, YHWH, Yahweh, Jehovah, the supreme being, the almighty God, but mighty individuals, as god can mean mighty ones, whereas when we say God we mean the creator and father of us all.

Hope I wasn't too confusing....

 

[icebuddy]

Hmm , yes, like a strawman 'well, you don't believe /such & such/ so how can you believe/such &such'....Then I'm asking 'Really? I don't believe in trinity concept? Why not? Where exactly does it state in the Bible that I'm not supposed to believe in trinity concept?''....

We can all be like the thief on the cross who didnt know allot about who Jesus really was, but my main concern are for those that would look to the very Image of God and say, "NOT God". That is what i say is very dangerous.

Also, I agree with the adonai term, I think the usage for 'normal' people might be a redaction in translation, far as I can tell.. though, not positive/

adonai is Hebrew. Since the NT is in Greek, what Equivalent word would you like to see used of Jesus in the Greek? i would also ask, if Jesus is truly the Exact representation of the Fathers very being, why wouldnt you call him Adonai.

Even the Bible says we can call Jesus, "Jehovah our Righteousness" at Jer 23:6, so i see no problem calling Jesus by his Family name. (Inherited or always his)

John 17:11 - what name is Jesus talking about?

in love

 

[icebuddy]

Hi icebuddy,
I'd have to disagree, as I for one, grew up not going to church, and read the bible before knowing anything about what the trinity was; had heard the word, but that was about all. I read and studied the NT quite a bit before looking into what the trinity was said to be. And I never got the impression that the bible taught a trinity. I strongly saw one God, that is one being, one person, one individual, one God that had a Son, the Savior. I started with the NT as the OT looked so long, but have read it through also several time.

Let me ask you this, what verse made you think that the one God was one being, one person, one individual ?

My second question would be, how many creators are there? was God alone and created by himself?

In Love

 

[Jensen]

Good to see you back, Icebuddy.

 

[Desert Snake]

This above seems a little clearer as to what you are saying.
Still, some say that Jesus was the first creation of God, and so my question then would be....do you believe that God created Jesus before everything else? And if so, do you believe that he was created as a man at that time? Do you believe that he was a man-human- before his coming to be born as a babe, son of Mary?

We are all in the image of God, Jesus just more so being that he never sinned, and so is sinless just as God is. I agree that Jesus can be called god, as the bible says that all man can be called god, including anyone that is a messenger of God, such as angels, and man, and those that are in positions of judgement such as judges etc; the thing is this doesn't make them God, YHWH, Yahweh, Jehovah, the supreme being, the almighty God, but mighty individuals, as god can mean mighty ones, whereas when we say God we mean the creator and father of us all.

Hope I wasn't too confusing....

Lol no it's o.k. I think Jesus the man isn't G-d. That's why He was born of the Spirit.
Pretty sure we agree there.
I likewise think there is a Jesus the G-d, if there wasn't, why the numerous reference to such, I disagree with the idea that it is 'metaphorical' or such terminology, that is blasphemous by all Biblical standards imo.
I think with translation redactions we have a false implication of 'men' being referred to as G-d.

Biblical 'god' is like our usage, it's a title. It is used metaphorically for Satan, even. However we know that the Bible is not saying these are The G-d, the Creator G-d.

 

[icebuddy]

In the real Hebrew---YHWH(Jehovah) said to my lord.---- any place in the ot--GOD-LORD--all capitols--YHWH(Jehovah) belongs. nearly, 6800 spots

Jesus is both the Root and Offspring of David. Read John 17:11 what name is Jesus talking about?

In Love

 

[Jensen]

Shalom Jensen, good post.

Thanks. Haven't seen you here before, so welcome to this discussion.

To clarify, Yeshua was "Jehovah" (Yahweh) and He emptied Himself to become a man. His decision to give up what He was allowed for Him to become MANY, just as a seed is only one, until it is planted in the earth, to become many. The Father is ALL of the Elohim united as ONE, with Yeshua as the supreme One within that unity. Yeshua is the Head of this unity, but the unity as a whole is GREATER than Him alone. Hope this helps. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

Jesus wasn't Jehovah. He was and is Yahweh's Son. And I think a better understanding would be is that he humbled himself, not emptied himself. How does one empty himself. But Humbled? Yes, he humbled himself of his own free will to do the will of God his Father. That will of God being obedience to God, ans carrying out what God asked him...bringing us the Good News, and dying for mans sins. He didn't empty himself of being God.

The Father is the God of Jesus, and of us, and is the only one true God.
Jesus is His Son. He is not God because he is God's son...
just as we are not God because of being his sons and daughter.

I find the verses that I'd given easy enough to understand that it isn't Jesus who is God being that he has a God and Father just as we do, in fact the same God and Father.

Jensen

 

[Ken Brown]

Thanks. Haven't seen you here before, so welcome to this discussion.

Jesus wasn't Jehovah. He was and is Yahweh's Son. And I think a better understanding would be is that he humbled himself, not emptied himself. How does one empty himself. But Humbled? Yes, he humbled himself of his own free will to do the will of God his Father. That will of God being obedience to God, ans carrying out what God asked him...bringing us the Good News, and dying for mans sins. He didn't empty himself of being God.

The Father is the God of Jesus, and of us, and is the only one true God.
Jesus is His Son. He is not God because he is God's son...
just as we are not God because of being his sons and daughter.

I find the verses that I'd given easy enough to understand that it isn't Jesus who is God being that he has a God and Father just as we do, in fact the same God and Father.

Jensen

Shalom Jensen, thank you for the welcome. When I stated that Yahweh/Yeshua emptied Himself, I was referring to Phil 2:7 where Paul states the Greek word:

G2758 (kenoo), to make empty

This making Himself EMPTY, was referring to Him being the I AM (Yahweh). Yeshua was "I AM"-Yahweh even before Abraham:


Jn 8:58-59
58 Yeshua said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM.

59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

And this is why they took up stones to stone Him, because He was claiming to be Yahweh. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew

 

[Desert Snake]

G2758 (kenoo), to make empty

This making Himself EMPTY, was referring to Him being the I AM (Yahweh). Yeshua was "I AM"-Yahweh even before Abraham:


Jn 8:58-59
58 Yeshua said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM.

59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

And this is why they took up stones to stone Him, because He was claiming to be Yahweh. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew

I think these are representative the 'Jesus the G-d' type references that I believe indicate Jesus is G-d.
I don't think Yeshua is calling his physical body ( the man), G-d.

 

[Ken Brown]

I think these are representative the 'Jesus the G-d' type references that I believe indicate Jesus is G-d.
I don't think Yeshua is calling his physical body ( the man), G-d.

Shalom disciple, Yeshua IS the restored Yahweh Elohim, but as he walked this earth 2000 years ago, he was ONLY a man, who was given a FULL measure of the Spirit. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

 

[Jensen]

Usually its a translation named after the one man who translated it...

Can you name a bible that was translated by one person?
The KJV was named for one person....King James, yet it wasn't translated by him, but by a number of people...a panel.

What I see going on is that many "Trinitarians" will be happy sticking to one bible and reading it from beginning to end and we will all believe that one would conclude that Jesus is YHWH or Jehovah with the Father in the OT and not separate from God Almighty, but somehow the same.

Well, that conclusion is not the trinity. Jehovah is the name of the Father. And Jesus according to the trinity is not the Father. What you stated above is more descriptive of Oneness.

And when we come to passages that seem to have difficulties, we must find out what the translator meant.

Actually, the translators should try to come as close as possible to what the writer of that book of the bible meant. I don't want to hear what the translators thinks it means....they shouldn't be interpreting for us, but only translating as accurately as they can. We should be attempting to understand what the author of the book is saying. He is the one bringing us the message, not the translators.

For example: A Translator might of translated John 1:1 as the WORD WAS DEITY. When reading what the translator meant was that He believes only God is True Deity and therefore the word was God. Yet in todays world many have diluted words to mean an array of things. Deity to a JW means angle like... Therefore they would like this translation and although its true translator did not translate it to mean angle like or even god like, he would disagree with the JW usage of it...

What you describe above is the translator allowing his preconceived beliefs to influence how he is translating, something that shouldn't be done. And, yes, because words do over time take on different meanings, this is why the translators need to translate accordingly to what the meanings were at the time of the authoring of those bible books, and not how those words are used today. And hopefully, know what they're doing.

Anyways, if we can all find verses that agree with our belief, then haven't we done the backwards move? What I would ask: is there any one bible alone that agrees with ones beliefs from beginning to end plainly? For example, when Thomas said to Jesus plainly, "My Lord and My God". This is enough plain evidence that Thomas saw Jesus for more than a man or an angel. Many JW use to tell me Thomas was surprised and blurted out "Oh My God" its Jesus my Lord...

I read the bible first with little views of what I believed other than I did believe in God. (this was when in my late teens) After reading it a number of times, I started to come to what I thought it was saying, was teaching us, and began to have some beliefs develop, this comes from not being taught what I was expected to believe long before being old enough to read and study it for myself.

As for Thomas, he was a doubter, and so I do not use his verse to form a doctrinal belief. Especially, when there are many many verses that are more straight forward in meaning that one can base beliefs on.

Now for a request Icebuddy.....could you please not bring up the JW and the WT and what they believe in reply to my posts as I am not one. It confuses the issue and I'd rather reply without feeling a need to reply to your comments on them.

so if I was in need of help with the bible, what church would you send me to? Lets say I believed you to be right and I was so wrong, where could I go? These are things one needs to think about...

I wouldn't send you to a church. I'd tell you to read, study, and use cross-referencing within the bible, with as open a mind as possible; to leave yourself open to any possible understanding. Even if it might be different than what you already thought was accurate. God bless..

Jensen

 

[Desert Snake]

Something to add to the debate, I don't see an apparent contradiction between 'oneness',(my position), and trinitarianism. I wonder if I'm not understanding the trinity concept in how it is believed.

 

[Desert Snake]

Shalom disciple, Yeshua IS the restored Yahweh Elohim, but as he walked this earth 2000 years ago, he was ONLY a man, who was given a FULL measure of the Spirit. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

Right, I agree with that.

 

[Jensen]

We believe that reading the bible concludes many things. Doctrines are formed based upon the bible. The reason they where formed was to keep bad ideas from emerging. Gnosticism was one of them...

I think you missed my point. There is already a doctrine in the bible. Instead of trying to form a doctrine, let the bible give you the doctrine that is within the bible, by reading, studying, and learning what the doctrine of the bible is. And then accept that and believe that and not form a doctrine of your own.

Not sure what you meant here? The Translators are translating from the inspired writings? unless one knows Hebrew and Greek and the slang of the day, we are dependent upon the translators...

The translators should understand Hebrew, Greek, and the slang, and the formal language of that time, and translate as accurately to that as possible, without allowing their views and their beliefs to influence how they translate. It should be as close to what the author of the book was saying, if at all possible. I do not think they should let their own views alter how they might translate verses. That is what I'm saying.

Jensen

 

[Jensen]

I believe allot of passages relating to Jesus are only possible because of his lowering himself to become a man. Firstborn to Mary and God the Father. I believe Jesus was only Born once, 2014 some years ago. Before this, Jesus was God and with God as the Eternal Word. Now that you have my answer, would that help with what I was looking for?

In Love

Yes, it does help.

I believe that Jesus was born once.