The Trinity

[kylixguru]

If by this you mean that Jesus can't be a god separate from Jehovah, you are correct. He is Jehovah in the flesh.

This is why when Jesus returns in the capacity of Son of Man in the latter days, I view this advent as another advent of Jehovah. What does Son of Man come to do? He comes to redeem His Father Michael-Adam from His transgression and fall. This fall also occurs in the latter days as prophesied in Daniel 12 when it talks about Michael standing up. Son of Man is also instrumental in having the usurper Cain ousted from off Adam's throne so that the Father may regain His throne in victory. In the process of this redemptive effort, there is a union that takes place between Michael and Jehovah. This is where the office or title of Eloheim comes into play. The Almighty God, the Alpha and the Omega.

There is no need for the Father to pray to the Son. God doesn't do things for no reason at all. Since this is the null hypothesis, one must prove that it is necessary for God to pray to Jesus and didn't because Jesus wasn't god.

Son of Man (Jehovah) is the redeemer of Man (Michael-Adam).
Adam was put in the place of being our God as the very image and likeness of the standing God, who was the former Adam of the previous cycle of Creation. Adam is who we are responsible to recognize as our Father and our King and as our God.

The Kingdom Jesus taught the Christians to pray for the coming of is the Kingdom of the Father. Not the kingdom of heaven, as that is distinct. Jesus likely knew that in this cycle of creation that the new Adam was scheduled to come in the 6th millennium because Day 6 is when "man" was scheduled to be created.

Therefore, Jesus was pointing to the kingdom of the new Adam, created in the image and likeness of the previous creation's Adam. Jesus warned the people that if they are not watching in humility that the Father could end up being among them as if a thief in the night. (Luke 12:36-40)

Adam would come in the latter days as Michael standing up to go from prince to king but there would be a time of trouble, which is the war in heaven, over this matter. (Daniel 12:1)

Even though Adam did transgress and fall, His only begotten Son of Man would redeem Him. Abel was killed by his brother Cain and Cain was totally overcome by the Serpent and disowned and so Seth was the only begotten son of Adam who came to His aid. Seth also performed the role of kinsman redeemer for Abel as well.

Opinions are a dime a dozen. Opinion in my estimation are the wandering thoughts of men from the truth.

You could also have yet to hold false opinions yourself. An opinion is just an opinion. Everyone should take whatever opinions they hear and test them out and see if scripture can support them. If scripture can be read in such a way to support an opinion, then keep it in mind as a possibility instead of just throwing it away.

I've found that understanding scripture properly is similar to what you do in Soduku. There is a single concrete solution to the entire puzzle that a person ultimately can assemble. The process of getting there is a rather tedious exercize of candidate management. If at any time you neglect to handle your candidates properly you can enter in a number as a hard fact by mistake. And, then, if you add in a hard fact that is in error, you continue onward until you reach a point that you are stopped. You begin to encounter connundrums that cannot be resolved. You go into the mode of being "ever learning" but "never able to come to the truth". At some point everyone should realize what they are up against and realize that the hard numbers the world offers you simply don't work. It ends up in a confusing mess that puts you at odds with hard truths, which should never happen if you are managing your candidates correctly. The hard number that our planet is over 6000 years old is something that should not be ignored. That rules out a lot of candidates. The trouble is, in this game you have to discover what all potential candidates are available as well. We aren't just dealing with numbers 1 to 9, but matters of truth in spiritual realms people really don't have an understanding of at a fundamental level.

 

[kjw47]

Yes, the King of Israel who needed to be redeemed and the Lord who redeemed him ENTER INTO UNION.

This is known as the ATONEMENT of Christ.

Let me spell that out a little more carefully for you:

AT-ONE-MENT.

This means something happened when those two entities became ONE.

Eloheim = ( Jehovah <=> Michael )

That is the Trinity properly understood.

Allah/Eloheim/Father isn't just 1/3. He is the WHOLE.

Jehovah = the allmighty true God, always was and always will be. The Father.
Michael = the archangel, created--- came to earth and was called Jesus. Jehovahs master worker, appointed king for 1000 years. Serves the Father, before, during and after earth.

 

[kylixguru]

Jehovah = the allmighty true God, always was and always will be. The Father.
Michael = the archangel, created--- came to earth and was called Jesus. Jehovahs master worker, appointed king for 1000 years. Serves the Father, before, during and after earth.

I disagree.

And Eloheim is?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Elohim means God. [ God is a title not a personal name ]
Adhonai means Sovereign Lord. [ Lord is a title not a personal name ]

Neither of which is the Tetragrammaton [YHWH]

KJV at Psalm 110 v 1 mentions two [2] LORD/Lord's
One LORD is in all capital letters because that is where the Tetragrammaton stood.[YHWH]
The other Lord [ not in all capital letters ] stands for Jesus as Lord.

 

[Shermana]

I disagree.

And Eloheim is?

Elohei Ha-Elohim, the "god of the gods" (Psalm 136:2) is the Most High.

Jesus, the Firstborn of Creation, is AN elohim, as in one "Elohim" among many (The word Elohim, though plural is also used in the singular to refer to Angels as well as the Most High god). Jesus is a totally separate being, the first created soul, the first of the Spiritual Creation. He is no way the same being, person, or entity as the Father, the god of the gods. Jesus may be the "King of kings" but the Father is the "King of king of kings" (Sirach).

All Angels are called "Elohim". There is only one "Ha-Elohim", there is only one "THE god".

 

[kjw47]

I disagree.

And Eloheim is?

Did you ever read Moses writings in Gods word? you must have, Moses wrote the word Elohim--Yet It is 100% undisputable fact that Moses along with every israelite who ever existed while serving the allmighty true God served a single being God named YHWH(Jehovah). Jesus' God as well-rev 3:12, John 20:17.

 

[shivadas]

The trinity seems to be popular in most faiths, so I believe in it...
The most straight forward one is the Hindu trimurti- creator, protector destroyer
The catholic one lines up with this father-creator, protector-son, holyspirit-destroyer
Same with the Wicca trinity maiden-creator, mother-protector, crone-destroyer

These all represent the three expressed natures of the divine..

Gnostic and tantrik Trinity's are differ ant as they normally represent Mother,father,and energy

As this is a reoccurring theme in religion I assume its true...

 

[Avoice]

Edit: You were not speaking to me.

Interesting Edit. If you are referring to my lack of posting, my PC Power Supply went out Saturday morning when I intended to post my answer to you.

en archE En ho logos kai ho logos En pros ton theon kai theos En ho logos

The above is obtained from the interlinear translation of the Greek scriptures provided by Scripture4all.org. You can jump all over me about it, but Anarthrous has nothing to do with it.

What I found out about the word is from MS Encarta: "used or occurring without a definite or indefinite article"

I am not only going by the Interlinear translations of 2 sources to date, my interpretation has 7 pages of scriptures from e-Sword's search program that make "God was the Word" more in context with the entirety of the Bible than the translation that the "Word was God or the god".

With out a decent starting place for further research, I stand on the literal translation of the Greek which stands: God was the Word

 

[Shermana]

Most Greek grammar sources are written by Trinitarian and Church aligned writers, so comparing them against the independent scholars like Dr. Jason Beduhn and non-aligned movements like the JWs (who did not in fact invent this interpretation as many Trintiarian apologist sites dishonestly indicate) will always amount to a numerical superiority.

Nonetheless, the non-church aligned opinion among numerous objective scholars is that it does in fact say "And a god was the word" and even Trinitarian apologists like Dr. Moffatt, Emeritus Profess or Greek at Oxford and Dr. Goodspeed of Chicago have translated it as "And the word was Divine". In addition, the traditional "Word was God" these prominent Trinitarian scholars agree is remnants of a Modalist interpretation, not classical Trinitarian, of which "Divine" suits it better, although in no other recorded case does "Theos" or "Theon" amount to a qualitative. Even Wallace admits that "a god" is possible but argues against it as "highly unlikely" purely on Theological grounds.

In the end, the Trinitarian sources will always attempt to give one reason or another why it should say "God" instead of "a god", mostly in dishonest ways that involve overlooking key issues of context and even resorting to fabricated Grammar "rules" like "Calwell's rule" that was invented to combat the "Word was Divine" and "Word was a god" translations that were gaining traction in the scholarly community.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

As regards to the station of Jesus, there are different openions, mostly because the Bible says different things about Jesus.
The Bible itself, describes Jesus, as a Prophet, who is an image of God, who is in unity with the father, but the father is greater than the son, and the son says whatever and however the Father says.

Historically, there has been some argument between Christian Denominations regarding Jesus station.

Firstly, we can see the Bible describes Jesus as an Image of God.
So, in this analogy, the Image of God has appeared in the Mirror, who is Jesus. This Mirror, due to its spiritual perfections, has the ability to reflect the Will, Words and Attributes of God.




"In whom the god of this world hath blinded theminds of them which believe not, lest the light ofthe glorious gospel of Christ, who is the imageof God, should shine unto them." 4:4 2 Corinthians



It is interesting to note that the mirror analogy was not unknown to early Christians; the great theologian Origen (185-254 C.E.), citing the Book of Wisdom, called Christ 'the spotless mirror' of God's workings (Origen, On First Principles 26).

Moreover, the following verses from the Bible confirm this:

"and we all, with unvailed face, the glory of the Lord beholding in a mirror, to the same image are being transformed, from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord." 2 cori 3-18

and

“The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.” Hebrew 1-3

According to Clarke commentary of Bible, the interpretation of Image of God:

The brightness of his glory - &#913;&#960;&#945;&#965;&#947;&#945;&#963;&#956;&#945; &#964;&#951;&#962; &#948;&#959;&#958;&#951;&#962; The resplendent outbeaming of the essential glory of God. Hesychius interprets &#945;&#960;&#945;&#965;&#947;&#945;&#963;&#956;&#945; by &#951;&#788;&#837;&#955;&#953;&#959;&#965; &#966;&#949;&#947;&#947;&#959;&#962;, the splendor of the sun. The same form of expression is used by an apocryphal writer, Wis. 7:26, where, speaking of the uncreated wisdom of God, he says: "For she is the splendor of eternal light, &#945;&#960;&#945;&#965;&#947;&#945;&#963;&#956;&#945; &#947;&#945;&#961; &#949;&#963;&#964;&#953; &#966;&#969;&#964;&#959;&#962; &#945;&#953;&#836;&#948;&#953;&#959;&#965;, and the unsullied mirror of the energy of God, and the image of his goodness." The word &#945;&#965;&#947;&#945;&#963;&#956;&#945; is that which has splendor in itself &#945;&#960;&#945;&#965;&#947;&#945;&#963;&#956;&#945; is the splendor emitted from it; but the inherent splendor and the exhibited splendor are radically and essentially the same.


And according to Gill’s exposition:
so the phrase , "the brightness of his glory", is used of the divine Being, in the Chaldee paraphrases (r); see the Apocrypha.
"For she is the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of his goodness.'' (Wisdom 7:26)
And the express image of his person; this intends much the same as the other phrase; namely, equality and sameness of nature, and distinction of persons; for if the Father is God, Christ must be so too; and if he is a person, his Son must be so likewise, or he cannot be the express image and character of him;
"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature" - Colossians 1:14-15

Therefore in this analogy, if the Jesus is the Mirror, and God is the Sun, we can see the Light of the Sun in the Mirror.
Therefore if we look at the mirror, we can say that we see the Sun. On the other hand we can say that is a Mirror, but not the Sun, as the Sun is not physically in the Mirror, but its image is.
Likewise if you saw Jesus, you can say He is the Father, as the Image of God appears in the Mirror of Jesus. And if at the same time you say, He is not God, but a prophet and son of Man, that is also true, because He is the Mirror.

Thus Jesus has said: “I and the Father are one”
He also said: “The Father is greater than I”, and alluded to Himself as a Prophet, who only says what God says.

 

[Avoice]

Most Greek grammar sources are written by Trinitarian and Church aligned writers, so comparing them against the independent scholars like Dr. Jason Beduhn and non-aligned movements like the JWs (who did not in fact invent this interpretation as many Trintiarian apologist sites dishonestly indicate) will always amount to a numerical superiority.

Nonetheless, the non-church aligned opinion among numerous objective scholars is that it does in fact say "And a god was the word" and even Trinitarian apologists like Dr. Moffatt, Emeritus Profess or Greek at Oxford and Dr. Goodspeed of Chicago have translated it as "And the word was Divine". In addition, the traditional "Word was God" these prominent Trinitarian scholars agree is remnants of a Modalist interpretation, not classical Trinitarian, of which "Divine" suits it better, although in no other recorded case does "Theos" or "Theon" amount to a qualitative. Even Wallace admits that "a god" is possible but argues against it as "highly unlikely" purely on Theological grounds.

In the end, the Trinitarian sources will always attempt to give one reason or another why it should say "God" instead of "a god", mostly in dishonest ways that involve overlooking key issues of context and even resorting to fabricated Grammar "rules" like "Calwell's rule" that was invented to combat the "Word was Divine" and "Word was a god" translations that were gaining traction in the scholarly community.

Numerical superiority has proven over and over to be in error in everything from astronomy to paleontology. The translation finalized by the Nicaen council was done under the influence of politics and the chance to be free of persecution as a religion. Frankly I no longer trust it.

Nothing on Translation of Kione Greek that I have found have been clear enough to override a literal translation and the word "God" or "a god" is hardly as important as the word order in this case. As much hassle as it may cause me I'm convinced of the minority report in the case of : God was the Word. This also agrees with Genesis: In the beginning God created...

I will once again try some research into the Grammaric rules that govern the translation.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

In the beginning was the Word

God was before the beginning according to Psalm 90 v 2

Jesus was not before the beginning as God was before the beginning.- Revelation 3 v 14

 

[kylixguru]

In the beginning was the Word

God was before the beginning according to Psalm 90 v 2

Jesus was not before the beginning as God was before the beginning.- Revelation 3 v 14

This pertains to Adam and Son of Man.

Adam was formed as a perfect image of God and was given dominion.
Adam was commanded to "name" all the "creatures".
Adam transgressed and fell.
Adam's fall caused complete darkness.

"The King is dead!"

The greater light to rule the day became darkened.

But, the Word (Son of Man) redeemed Adam from death and hell.
And, the process of Adam's redemption by Son of Man resulted in their union.

Upon Adam's redemption, it was as if a great light broke fourth from the darkness.
This is the beginning of the Millennium and is also the beginning of a new Creation.

"Long live the King!"

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The Millennium starts after the 'time of separation' of Matthew 25 vs 31,32

Jesus millennial-long judgment day [ 1000-year day ] begins after Armageddon Psalm 46 v 9]

 

[kylixguru]

The Millennium starts after the 'time of separation' of Matthew 25 vs 31,32

Which is in accordance with what is on the agenda for Day 1 of Creation.
The light/day is divided from the dark/night.

Jesus millennial-long judgment day [1000-year day] begins after Armageddon Psalm 46 v 9]

I'm fine with that.
Armageddon is the beginning of the destruction and death of the old Creation.

The end and the beginning overlap.

The Millennium is the previous cycle's Day 7 and the new cycle's Day 1 concurrently.

Thus, we are on the cusp of a brand new Creation.

Son of Man (Jesus returned as firstborn in spirit) and Man (Adam who transgressed and fell) enter into union and ignite a new supernova of truth and light.

 

[Shermana]

Numerical superiority has proven over and over to be in error in everything from astronomy to paleontology.

Exactly.

The translation finalized by the Nicaen council was done under the influence of politics and the chance to be free of persecution as a religion. Frankly I no longer trust it.

There was no "Finalized translation" at Nicea. There was just a loose Formal-informal agreement to accept that the Arians were wrong, which Constantine later overturned. But it is excellent that you no longer trust this council which for some reason still serves as a rallying point for modern Christians.

Nothing on Translation of Kione Greek that I have found have been clear enough to override a literal translation and the word "God" or "a god" is hardly as important as the word order in this case. As much hassle as it may cause me I'm convinced of the minority report in the case of : God was the Word. This also agrees with Genesis: In the beginning God created...

Try Daniel Wallace, Edgar Goodspeed, and James Moffatt who all translated it as "And the word was Divine" instead. (All prominent Trinitarian professors). It may not be "a god" but its essentially the same thing, because by saying "The word was Divine" they are then saying it means "A divine being was the word" nonetheless even if Wallace still insists it applies to God. This is how many non-church aligned translations write it as well. If you want I can provide a list of translations of John 1:1c that use a similar concept or directly use "a god". But at least Wallace is honest enough to not rely on Colwell's rule, even if he writes off the "a god" translation purely on Theological grounds, though he accepts it as "possible".

I will once again try some research into the Grammaric rules that govern the translation.

I suggest you make sure that your grammar writing is not done by a Trinitarian, they are very known to deliberately make up Grammar rules like "Colwells' rule" in a blatantly dishonest attempt to fallaciously support their position. Unfortunately, like I said with the numerical issue, most writing on the subject is in fact done by church-aligned Trinitarians who will in fact carry their bias into the translation. So you will have to be willing to take a step away from the mainstream church opinions and go into independent scholar land, because Trinitarians do in fact dominate Greek language studies in terms of numbers. You will find 10 "Bible grammar" language books written by a church-aligned author for every independent one. Probably more.

 

[Avoice]

Shermana,

Thank you for some real good places to start. I will gladly take a look at Wallace's work.


Quote Avoice:
The translation finalized by the Nicaen council was done under the influence of politics and the chance to be free of persecution as a religion. Frankly I no longer trust it.


quote Shermana: There was no "Finalized translation" at Nicea. There was just a loose Formal-informal agreement to accept that the Arians were wrong, which Constantine later overturned. But it is excellent that you no longer trust this council which for some reason still serves as a rallying point for modern Christians.

Translation was the only word I could come up with at the time I wrote my post. Constantine's political influence on the Scriptures is a really aggravating issue with me. Just keeping Christianity legal would have been more appropriate.

I tend to avoid Trinitarian interpretations any more.

 

[sojourner]

Shermana,

Thank you for some real good places to start. I will gladly take a look at Wallace's work.


Quote Avoice:
The translation finalized by the Nicaen council was done under the influence of politics and the chance to be free of persecution as a religion. Frankly I no longer trust it.


quote Shermana: There was no "Finalized translation" at Nicea. There was just a loose Formal-informal agreement to accept that the Arians were wrong, which Constantine later overturned. But it is excellent that you no longer trust this council which for some reason still serves as a rallying point for modern Christians.

Translation was the only word I could come up with at the time I wrote my post. Constantine's political influence on the Scriptures is a really aggravating issue with me. Just keeping Christianity legal would have been more appropriate.

I tend to avoid Trinitarian interpretations any more.

It appears from this post that you misunderstand 1) what went on at Nicea, 2) the social and political climate of the day, and 3) the communal nature of Xy.

 

[Shermana]

I tend to avoid Trinitarian interpretations any more.

Very good! It will be very difficult since most works are by far and large from Trinitarians. A few versions by Trinitarians like Goodspeed's "An American version" aren't too shabby, but you'll have to search out for the independent scholarly versions. But by escaping from the Church-aligned translations and recognizing that they have things at stake by insisting on particular key (distorted) translations on disputed spots, you will find yourself a giant step closer to finding the True, original intended meaning of the writ.

 

[sojourner]

In order to achieve that end, the criterion really ought to be: "Who knows their stuff & is well peer-reviewed," not "Who's a Trinitarian & who's not."