Who IS "The Only TRUE God"- as Jesus put it?

[Pegg]

Tell me, do you think that the following instructions for baptism contain evidence of the Trinity?

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit...

No I dont. Being baptized was a symbol of ones decision to serve God the Father. Christians were to serve God through Jesus and with holy spirit....this is why the expression Jesus used was 'in the name of the father, son and holy spirit' A christian had to recognize all three. But this in no way implies a triune god.

The fact is that the prayer of confession of faith which I posted, shows in two ways that no trinity was even remotely considered in the early days of christianity.
Firstly, it does not mention the holy spirit at all. Secondly, Jesus is refered to as a 'servant' just as King David is refered to as a servant. And if you look at some of the other translations of the Didache you'll see that Jesus is called a 'boy' of God just as King David is called a 'boy' of God.

Jesus was considered to be a servant...not someone who had a co-equal existence with God. This fact is also born out by the writings of the church fathers...they also explain Jesus as a 'son' who served and who had a 'beginning' as opposed to a part of some trinity.

 

[sojourner]

No I dont. Being baptized was a symbol of ones decision to serve God the Father. Christians were to serve God through Jesus and with holy spirit....this is why the expression Jesus used was 'in the name of the father, son and holy spirit' A christian had to recognize all three. But this in no way implies a triune god.

The fact is that the prayer of confession of faith which I posted, shows in two ways that no trinity was even remotely considered in the early days of christianity.
Firstly, it does not mention the holy spirit at all. Secondly, Jesus is refered to as a 'servant' just as King David is refered to as a servant. And if you look at some of the other translations of the Didache you'll see that Jesus is called a 'boy' of God just as King David is called a 'boy' of God.

Jesus was considered to be a servant...not someone who had a co-equal existence with God. This fact is also born out by the writings of the church fathers...they also explain Jesus as a 'son' who served and who had a 'beginning' as opposed to a part of some trinity.

Not every expression of devotion to God must include the Trinitarian formula in order for an understanding of Trinity to exist. As I mentioned, there was some understanding of Jesus and the Holy Spirit as Divine Being evident in the gospels. Was it fully-formulated? No. That makes no difference. Was the concept of Jesus fully formulated in the OT? No. That makes no difference. There was some sort of understanding of Messiah evident in the OT. But you don't seem to pooh-pooh the idea of Jesus, just because the OT doesn't mention him specifically, do you?!

The inclusion of specific Trinitarian language in a document as early as the Didache shows that the understanding was present, even if the theology hadn't been fully worked out yet. As the doctrine points out, Jesus was fully human and fully Divine. Therefore, some aspects of his speech, nature and character are going to be portrayed as "fully human," such as being called "Son of God," "servant of God," "ascending to my God and your God," etc. Some aspects will be portrayed as "fully Divine," such as Thomas' exclamation and Jesus referring to himself as "I Am," etc.

The fact simply remains that there was, very, very early, some understanding of Jesus as Divine -- whether or not it was fully formulated at that point.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

and the concept of the trinity was just one amongst many other pagan practices/traditions/ideas added to the fold.

Added... by whom, exactly? The concept of Trinity appears so early in Xy -- implied by at least John and Paul (who were both Jews), that it's really difficult to argue for "inaccuracy by virtue of late addition." Additionally, we're all aware that Xy is a broad amalgamation. It's not a religion, or a belief system, so much as it is a way of life that can embrace many (if not all) cultural expressions.

I never said it was one person in particular. This was gradual and done as a collective. The concept of trinity (in any form) predates Christianity. Pagan belief (i.e. belief in triune god) found it's way in to early and modern day Christianity. The Greeks and the Romans of the day had already been practicing this belief amongst other pagan pratices and gods they had so it's not surprising to see it emerge early on in Christianity. In fact it's commonly known that as far back as the Babylonians they worshiped a triune godhead.....the practice may even go back further into Egypt or even as far back as the Sumerians.

 

[Pegg]

Not every expression of devotion to God must include the Trinitarian formula in order for an understanding of Trinity to exist. As I mentioned, there was some understanding of Jesus and the Holy Spirit as Divine Being evident in the gospels. Was it fully-formulated? No. That makes no difference. Was the concept of Jesus fully formulated in the OT? No.

There was nothing to formulate. Jesus explicitly told them who he was...he said he was the 'Son of God'
He said he had come to do his fathers will. He told them that by following him they can become sharers in the heavenly kingdom that will one day take over the earth so that all people can live under Gods rule.

Jesus himself gave the formulation of who he was...later christians simply changed it.

That makes no difference. There was some sort of understanding of Messiah evident in the OT. But you don't seem to pooh-pooh the idea of Jesus, just because the OT doesn't mention him specifically, do you?!

The OT contains plenty of information about the Messiah and when he would arrive and what he would do...we can easily see how Jesus fits the role of the Messiah unlike the trinity doctrine which cant be seen in the NT or OT anywhere.

The inclusion of specific Trinitarian language in a document as early as the Didache shows that the understanding was present, even if the theology hadn't been fully worked out yet.

I read the entire Didache and could not find any evidence of a trinity teaching anywhere. Jesus is called a 'son' a 'boy' a 'servant' and the holy spirit doesnt even get a mention except for baptism and that is reasonable because Jesus said the same thing.

You see, this is the problem. It was Jesus and his Apostles who laid the basis of christianity...it is from them that we should get our understanding. They do not present us with a trinity teaching and christianity was NEVER primitive. True christianity is what Jesus and the Apostles gave us as preserved in the writings of the NT...not what someone 300 years later gave us.

As the doctrine points out, Jesus was fully human and fully Divine. Therefore, some aspects of his speech, nature and character are going to be portrayed as "fully human," such as being called "Son of God," "servant of God," "ascending to my God and your God," etc. Some aspects will be portrayed as "fully Divine," such as Thomas' exclamation and Jesus referring to himself as "I Am," etc.

I dont know why people keep missing the point, but the I AM reference by Jesus is NOT the same as the I AM from the OT...they are completely different phrases used...and the same greek word is translated in other NT passages by the same translators as 'I AM HE'

So why that scripture is continually used to show that Jesus is the same as the OT God is beyond me...it comes down to ignoring the facts.

The fact simply remains that there was, very, very early, some understanding of Jesus as Divine -- whether or not it was fully formulated at that point.

His divinity is not in question. Angels are also divine but we dont say they must be God because they are divine.. And what about Christs brothers who receive a throne in heaven? They too receive glorified bodies and enter the heavens but we dont claim that they are also God.

And what about Satan the Devil...he exists as a divine spirit and yet we know he certainly is not God Almighty.

Being divine does not make one God Almighty. The heavens contain myriads of divine beings and only one of them is the Almighty.

 

[sojourner]

There was nothing to formulate. Jesus explicitly told them who he was...he said he was the 'Son of God'
He said he had come to do his fathers will. He told them that by following him they can become sharers in the heavenly kingdom that will one day take over the earth so that all people can live under Gods rule.

Jesus himself gave the formulation of who he was...later christians simply changed it.

Did we? What does it mean to be "Son of God?" (This should be good, because you're going to completely oversimplify it just in order to come up with a "pat" answer that makes you comfortable.) Are you aware that "Son of God" has a wide, wide range of theological implications, not the least of which is a trinitarian concept of God?

The OT contains plenty of information about the Messiah and when he would arrive and what he would do...we can easily see how Jesus fits the role of the Messiah unlike the trinity doctrine which cant be seen in the NT or OT anywhere.

Oh? Really?!
From the very beginning, God has been hoping to fashion us into true community. God has always worked through, with, and for the people -- the community. The Trinity is the God of community. Elizabeth Johnson says, "divine trinity must be seen to consist not in the identity of an absolute subject but in the living koinea, the community, amongst three distinct persons." (She Who Is: The Mystery of God in Feminist Discourse; NY: Crossroad Publ., 1992) Because God is Trinity, three persons in one, God is community. That's how we become God's people, and the Body of Christ.

I read the entire Didache and could not find any evidence of a trinity teaching anywhere. Jesus is called a 'son' a 'boy' a 'servant' and the holy spirit doesnt even get a mention except for baptism and that is reasonable because Jesus said the same thing.

You see, this is the problem. It was Jesus and his Apostles who laid the basis of christianity...it is from them that we should get our understanding. They do not present us with a trinity teaching and christianity was NEVER primitive. True christianity is what Jesus and the Apostles gave us as preserved in the writings of the NT...not what someone 300 years later gave us.

how many times, specifically, must something be mentioned in order for it to be considered bona fide?

We do get our understanding from Jesus and the apostles. The sticker is that the Church is not in stasis. The Church is a living, organic entity. Living things grow and change or they die. Jesus intended for the ekklesia to be koinea, and that assembled community, becoming the Body of Christ, includes Jesus, Paul, Peter, James, Athanasius, Polycarp, John Paul, John Spong, Martin Luther, John Wesley, Hilda, Patrick, Origen, and all of us. The revealed purpose never stops being revealed. Therefore, our understanding of Trinity is built upon the very early understanding of Trinity held by the author(s) of the Didache (once again, not written 300 years later, but around the same time as John's gospel). we have built on that understanding, and we continue to do so.

The teachings were preserved in part in the Bible, but there also has always been a very strong and respected extra-Biblical tradition, which continues. If you understood the canon and the process by which it was formed, perhaps you wouldn't be so quick to twist the texts into something more than they are: The written product of the Tradition, constituting "what we can read in church."

I dont know why people keep missing the point, but the I AM reference by Jesus is NOT the same as the I AM from the OT...they are completely different phrases used...and the same greek word is translated in other NT passages by the same translators as 'I AM HE'

So why that scripture is continually used to show that Jesus is the same as the OT God is beyond me...it comes down to ignoring the facts.

Pot, meet Kettle...

His divinity is not in question. Angels are also divine but we dont say they must be God because they are divine.. And what about Christs brothers who receive a throne in heaven? They too receive glorified bodies and enter the heavens but we dont claim that they are also God.

Well, you need to specifically define "Divine," then. I define "Divine" as "God." what I meant was that there was some sort of understanding that Jesus was, in some way, God.

And what about Satan the Devil...he exists as a divine spirit and yet we know he certainly is not God Almighty.

Not sure I'd describe Satan as "divine."

The heavens contain myriads of divine beings and only one of them is the Almighty.

And that Almighty has Being in three distinct Persons.

 

[Pegg]

Did we? What does it mean to be "Son of God?" (This should be good, because you're going to completely oversimplify it just in order to come up with a "pat" answer that makes you comfortable.) Are you aware that "Son of God" has a wide, wide range of theological implications, not the least of which is a trinitarian concept of God?

the angles are called 'sons of God' -
Gen 6:2, "The sons of God began to notice the daughters of men"
Job 1:6, "...the sons of God entered to take their station..."
Job 38:7 "...all the sons of God began shouting in applause..."

the jews were called 'sons of God'
Ex 4:2 “...Israel is my son, my firstborn.
Ro 9:4 "who, are Israelites, to whom belong the adoption as sons"
2 Sam 7:14 "I myself shall become his (Solomons) father, and he himself will become my son"

the brothers of Christ are called 'sons of God'
John 1:12 "However, as many as did receive him, to them he gave authority to become God’s children"

Ephesians 1:5 For he foreordained us to the adoption through Jesus Christ as sons to himself

Rom 8:23 "...we ourselves also who have the firstfruits, namely, the spirit... are earnestly waiting for adoption as sons..."

Rev 21:7 Anyone conquering will inherit these things, and I shall be his God and he will be my son

we are called 'children of God'
Romans 8:16 The spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are God’s children
2Cor6:18 “‘And I shall be a father to YOU, and YOU will be sons and daughters to me,’ says Jehovah the Almighty.



If God wanted us to think of Jesus as something more then a 'son' then he would never have called him a 'son' because there is no distinction between angels and humans when it comes to being called Gods sons/children

A son/daughter is a progeny and that is exactly what we are, what the angels are and what Jesus is.

 

[Pegg]

We do get our understanding from Jesus and the apostles. The sticker is that the Church is not in stasis. The Church is a living, organic entity. Living things grow and change or they die.

but to what extent should the church be changed and why would it need to be changed?
Jesus established 'the way' and the standards set by the apostles for the church should be sufficient. The church has been greatly changed though from what Jesus established.
For instance:
'there should not be divisions among you' is what Jesus said, but the later church divided everyone up into classes...The laity were one class and the clergy another with its multiple offices and titles, privileges, rights, peculiar dress and habits. In the Roman Catholic Church there are eight grades or distinctions of clergy. What must Jesus think of that?

Jesus intended for the ekklesia to be koinea, and that assembled community, becoming the Body of Christ, includes Jesus, Paul, Peter, James, Athanasius, Polycarp, John Paul, John Spong, Martin Luther, John Wesley, Hilda, Patrick, Origen, and all of us.

Did Jesus say there would be a succession of Apostles after his 12? I dont think i've read anywhere in the NT about any succession.
What i have read is the Apostles words about what will happen to the church after they were gone...that in itself indicates that there would be no succession. Also, If Athanasius was truly an Apostle, why did the church send him into exile? A church led by holy spirit would be united, not divided. And some of the teachings of these later men were actually in opposition to what we find in the NT...eg. About three centuries after his death, Origen was formally declared a heretic because of his teaching and platonic influences and the man didnt even view the bible accounts as literal.

Polycarp I can agree with because he was one of the few who actually taught what he learned from the Apostle John, but some of those of the 2nd/3rd centuries began to go way off what was written by the apostles.

Well, you need to specifically define "Divine," then. I define "Divine" as "God." what I meant was that there was some sort of understanding that Jesus was, in some way, God.

Divine does not always mean God himself. Something can be of a divine nature. According to The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, the expression to thei′on “is derived from the adjective theíos, meaning ‘pertaining to God,’ ‘divine.’”

For example at Colossians 2:9 Paul says that in Christ “all the fullness of the divine quality [the‧o′tes] dwells bodily.” Some translations read “Godhead” or “deity,” which Trinitarians interpret to mean that God personally dwells in Christ. (KJ, NE, RS, NAB) But Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon defines the‧o′tes in basically the same way it does thei‧o′tes, as meaning “divinity, divine nature.”

Jesus is divine in nature because he is a spirit...he is in the same form as God is....the angels are divine in nature also because they too exist in the form of God in that they too are spirits.

 

[sojourner]

the angles are called 'sons of God' -
Gen 6:2, "The sons of God began to notice the daughters of men"
Job 1:6, "...the sons of God entered to take their station..."
Job 38:7 "...all the sons of God began shouting in applause..."

the jews were called 'sons of God'
Ex 4:2 “...Israel is my son, my firstborn.
Ro 9:4 "who, are Israelites, to whom belong the adoption as sons"
2 Sam 7:14 "I myself shall become his (Solomons) father, and he himself will become my son"

the brothers of Christ are called 'sons of God'
John 1:12 "However, as many as did receive him, to them he gave authority to become God’s children"

Ephesians 1:5 For he foreordained us to the adoption through Jesus Christ as sons to himself

Rom 8:23 "...we ourselves also who have the firstfruits, namely, the spirit... are earnestly waiting for adoption as sons..."

Rev 21:7 Anyone conquering will inherit these things, and I shall be his God and he will be my son

we are called 'children of God'
Romans 8:16 The spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are God’s children
2Cor6:18 “‘And I shall be a father to YOU, and YOU will be sons and daughters to me,’ says Jehovah the Almighty.



If God wanted us to think of Jesus as something more then a 'son' then he would never have called him a 'son' because there is no distinction between angels and humans when it comes to being called Gods sons/children

A son/daughter is a progeny and that is exactly what we are, what the angels are and what Jesus is.

Of whom, or what do you think Isaiah was referring when he spoke of "Emmanuel -- God With Us?"

There are all kinds of meanings for "Son (child) of God." Jesus is that, because Jesus is fully human. But Jesus is also "Lord." It's just not an "either/or" proposition. It's a "both/and" proposition.

 

[sojourner]

but to what extent should the church be changed and why would it need to be changed?

Things change, or they die. I believe I already said that. The Church should change to the extent that it remains relevant for us, and reflects the particular theological understanding we have developed since the 1st century.

Jesus established 'the way' and the standards set by the apostles for the church should be sufficient.

yes, but if the "way" is to be the "way" -- that is, a journey, it must actually go somewhere. We're not talking about standards here. We're talking about furthering our understanding.

The church has been greatly changed though from what Jesus established.

Of course it has! Some of that has, IMO, not been beneficial. Some of it has been greatly beneficial. The concept of Trinity, which expands our awareness of who God is and who we are, and how we live in relationship with one another, is a good thing.

For instance:
'there should not be divisions among you' is what Jesus said, but the later church divided everyone up into classes...The laity were one class and the clergy another with its multiple offices and titles, privileges, rights, peculiar dress and habits. In the Roman Catholic Church there are eight grades or distinctions of clergy. What must Jesus think of that?

The church has always been divided into sacred offices. From the very beginning, the apostles were in charge of their various congregations. They appointed presbyters to act in their stead when they could not be present. They appointed deacons to serve the poor. They even selected their own replacements (first for Judas). That basic practice continues today. We have bishops (succeeding apostles), presbyters and deacons. I don't think Jesus would look askance at that, other than the fact that we've gotten waaaay too overorganized. I don't think the hierarchical authority is necessarily a good thing.

Did Jesus say there would be a succession of Apostles after his 12? I dont think i've read anywhere in the NT about any succession.

Well, then you weren't paying attention when they cast lots to replace Judas...

What i have read is the Apostles words about what will happen to the church after they were gone...that in itself indicates that there would be no succession.

Again: They succeeded Judas with Matthias...

Also, If Athanasius was truly an Apostle, why did the church send him into exile? A church led by holy spirit would be united, not divided.

If Judas were truly an apostle, why did he betray Jesus and commit suicide? If Peter were truly an apostle, why did he deny Jesus? Because people are human -- especially clergy!

And some of the teachings of these later men were actually in opposition to what we find in the NT...eg. About three centuries after his death, Origen was formally declared a heretic because of his teaching and platonic influences and the man didnt even view the bible accounts as literal.

And many of those who were branded heretical were the ones who denied Jesus as a Person of the Trinity...
Origen was right! The Biblical accounts are not, never were, were not meant to be literal.

Polycarp I can agree with because he was one of the few who actually taught what he learned from the Apostle John, but some of those of the 2nd/3rd centuries began to go way off what was written by the apostles.

Apostles? I'm pretty sure the original 12 never wrote anything.

Divine does not always mean God himself. Something can be of a divine nature. According to The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, the expression to thei′on “is derived from the adjective theíos, meaning ‘pertaining to God,’ ‘divine.’”

For example at Colossians 2:9 Paul says that in Christ “all the fullness of the divine quality [the‧o′tes] dwells bodily.” Some translations read “Godhead” or “deity,” which Trinitarians interpret to mean that God personally dwells in Christ

"For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily." That's the NRSV translation, which is implicitly trusted. What do you suppose that means? Could it mean precisely what it says, that the fullness of God dwells bodily in Jesus? Sounds an awful lot like "God Incarnate" to me.

Trinitarians don't assert that God dwells in Jesus. Trinitarians assert that Jesus is God -- not just a bodily shell for God. There's an important distinction there.

Jesus is divine in nature because he is a spirit...he is in the same form as God is....the angels are divine in nature also because they too exist in the form of God in that they too are spirits.

When Jesus was on earth, he certainly wasn't a spirit. He was fully human.

 

[Pegg]

Of whom, or what do you think Isaiah was referring when he spoke of "Emmanuel -- God With Us?"

There are all kinds of meanings for "Son (child) of God." Jesus is that, because Jesus is fully human. But Jesus is also "Lord." It's just not an "either/or" proposition. It's a "both/and" proposition.

Emmanuel was simply a prophetic name for the Messiah because his appearance would prove that God was still with his people

it in no way proves that Jesus is God.

 

[sojourner]

Emmanuel was simply a prophetic name for the Messiah because his appearance would prove that God was still with his people

it in no way proves that Jesus is God.

But the Messiah was seen as a Divine figure, not just present with humanity -- but in humanity. If Jesus is the Messiah, then Jesus, by definition, is of a Divine nature. I don't think there's anything "simple" about prophecy. Isaiah didn't "simply" throw out a name. There's a very good reason why he said "God With Us."
Jesus, being fully human and fully Divine, provides the bridge between God/humanity.

 

[Pegg]

Things change, or they die. I believe I already said that. The Church should change to the extent that it remains relevant for us, and reflects the particular theological understanding we have developed since the 1st century.

but you realise that to some church's, their understanding is that women can be heads of the church and homosexuality is not a sin and sex before marriage is not a sin and idols are acceptable and pagan religious practices are acceptable ....and the list goes on

Some church's have even decided that the bible is 'out of date' and they downplay many of the moral laws found in the bible.

All they are doing is disregarding the word of God in favor of the sensibilities of people who disregard Gods laws.

The church has always been divided into sacred offices. From the very beginning, the apostles were in charge of their various congregations.

they were given the responsibility to form congregation so its only natural that they would lead the congregations they helped to form. But they were not considered owners of the congregations nor did they hold the authority over them as is evidence by the fact that 'older men' of the jerusalem congregation had a say in the affairs of the congregations along with the apostles as is seen in Acts 15:22-26
These older men were not apostles, but were experienced christians who served the congregations in teaching.

They appointed presbyters to act in their stead when they could not be present.

the greek word pres‧by′te‧ros, means 'elder' and these ones were the same christians who worked along WITH the Apostles in teaching and guiding the congregations. They were not only used when the Apostles were not present....they were always present and the spirit of God spoke through them just as it did through the Apostles as is seen by the account in Acts 11:27 Now in these days prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. 28 One of them named Ag′a‧bus rose and proceeded to indicate through the spirit that a great famine was about to come upon the entire inhabited earth; which, for that matter, did take place in the time of Claudius. 29 So those of the disciples determined, each of them according as anyone could afford it, to send a relief ministration to the brothers dwelling in Ju‧de′a; 30 and this they did, dispatching it to the older men by the hand of Bar′na‧bas and Saul.

And when a dispute arose about whether christians needed to be circumsized or not, these same christians were addressed along with Apostles to resolve the dispute as seen in the account at Acts 15:2 But when there had occurred no little dissension and disputing by Paul and Bar′na‧bas with them, they arranged for Paul and Bar′na‧bas and some others of them to go up to the apostles and older men in Jerusalem regarding this dispute.

So the presbyters were just as prominent in the congregations as were the Apostles. That is not a class distinction or a separation of authority.

Well, then you weren't paying attention when they cast lots to replace Judas...

Yes they did but Peters words show that an apostle had to be chosen from one who was an eyewitness of Jesus ministry only.
Acts 1:15 Now during these days Peter rose up in the midst of the brothers and said (the crowd of persons was all together about one hundred and twenty): 16 “Men, brothers, it was necessary for the scripture to be fulfilled, which the holy spirit spoke beforehand by David’s mouth about Judas, ...20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his lodging place become desolate, and let there be no dweller in it,’ and, ‘His office of oversight let someone else take.’ 21 It is therefore necessary that of the men that assembled with us during all the time in which the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 starting with his baptism by John and until the day he was received up from us, one of these men should become a witness with us of his resurrection.”

Peters statement here that the chosen apostle should be an eyewitness of Jesus resurrection shows that apostolic succession would not continue for more then a few decades for the reason that later christians were not eyewitnesses of Jesus resurrection and therefore do not meet the criteria for being an apostle.

Apostles? I'm pretty sure the original 12 never wrote anything.

John wrote 4 books of the NT. Mathew was an apostle and wrote a gospel account

 

[Pegg]

But the Messiah was seen as a Divine figure, not just present with humanity -- but in humanity. If Jesus is the Messiah, then Jesus, by definition, is of a Divine nature. I don't think there's anything "simple" about prophecy. Isaiah didn't "simply" throw out a name. There's a very good reason why he said "God With Us."
Jesus, being fully human and fully Divine, provides the bridge between God/humanity.

Or it simply means that God was with humanity and Jesus was evidence that God was with humanity because he had been sent by God to perform a duty

and yes, Jesus was divine in that he was a spirit in heaven before he was a man on earth and therefore Jesus was divine because he existed in Gods form just as the angels are divine because they exist in Gods form.

 

[search the scriptures]

pegg: "Isaiah never called Jesus Jehovah. "

because he is specifically talking about jesus. JEHOVAH = the father, jesus, and holy spirit
is why you do not believe in the trinity?
trinitarians will never say the person of jesus(alone) is JEHOVAH
If you are looking for somone to call jesus(alone) by the name of JEHOVAH i will tell you you will not see that.. because the name of JEHOVAH applies to all 3 persons as the supreme divine Almighty ruler and creator of all things or The Almighty God.



pegg : "The KJV has the first occurance at Revelation 1:8 where it is directly linked with 'The Almighty' so yes, the Alpha and Omega is the Almighty God in this verse."

"is the Almighty God in this verse"
i assume you mean it is not jesus talking...

Rev 1:8I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

which is, and which was, and which is to come =
ho ōn ho ēn ho erchomenos
ho own ho ane ho er-khom'-enos
A phrase combining G3588 with the present participle and imperfect of G1510 and the present participle of G2064 by means of G2532; the one being and the one that was and the one coming.

Almighty :
παντοκράτωρ
pantokratōr
pan-tok-rat'-ore
the all ruling, that is, God (as absolute and universal sovereign): - Almighty, Omnipotent.

was coming - messiah to come (OT)
is - christ (living)
is to come - christ (come on clouds) we are waiting for him...

Rev 4:8 And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.

which was, and is, and is to come. and Almighty same as rev 1:8....

ev 11:16 And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God,
Rev 11:17 Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.

same words as rev 1:8/rev 4:8

Almighty diety of Jesus Christ proclaimed by John

 

[abysslightdarkness]

hi Greetings dear friends
Compliments of the day.

To those who thinks Jesus and YHWH ARE godS & trinity

Reasons that they are not GOD see below

YHWH can be tempted

DEU 6:16, Ye shall not tempt the LORD your God, as ye tempted him in Massah.

JOB 2:3, And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.

ACT 15:10, Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
[SEE ALSO: EXO 17:2; MAL 3:15; MAT 4:7]

plus the temptation story of Jesus already shows very explicitly that Jesus is not perfect.
PLease do compare with James 1:13 (Codex Sinacticus)

Jesus is not god

ISA 43:10, Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

MAR 6:1, And he went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples follow him. ... 5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.

MAR 10:18, And Jesus said unto him,Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

JOH 14:28, Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

JOH 20:17, Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

1COR 15:25, For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. ... 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

COL 3:1, If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.

1TIM 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

[SEE ALSO: ISA 45:5; MAT 20:23, 24:36, 27:46; MAR 16:19; LUK 2:52; JOH 5:19, 8:28,40, 16:28; ACT 2:22, 13:23, 17:30-31; ROM 1:3; 2TIM 2:8; HEB 1:1-3, 2:9-18; 1PET 3:21-22, REV 22:16.]

YHWH creates evil

ISA 45:7, I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil.* I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things.

JER 18:11, *Now therefore go to, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the LORD; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: ....

(SEE ALSO: GEN 3:1; JUDG 9:23; JOB 42:11; JER 18:11; EZE 20:25; AMO 3:6)

YHWH the "Righteous"

NUM 31:17, *Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 *But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

LEV 26:13, I am the LORD your God, ... 16 I also will do this unto you; I will even appoint over you terror, consumption, and the burning ague, that shall consume the eyes, and cause sorrow of heart: and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it. 17 And I will set my face against you, and ye shall be slain before your enemies: they that hate you shall reign over you; and ye shall flee when none pursueth you. 18 And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins.

[SEE ALSO: LEV 26:7-8; NUM 5:1-3; DEU 20:16-17; JOS 10:40; JUDG 14:19; EZE 9:5-7]

Jesus not Omniscient

MAR 13:32, But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

LUK 8:45, And Jesus said, Who touched me? When all denied, Peter and they that were with him said, Master, the multitude throng thee and press thee, and sayest thou, Who touched me?

JOH 11:33, When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping which came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled, 34 And said, Where have ye laid him? They said unto him, Lord, come and see.


With the verses above ,they show that Jesus and YHWH both aren't fit to become a god even ,let alone in trinity with something like a god. worse still see below

2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned. God will cause us to believe lies so that he can damn us to hell.

Dearest readers ,armed with all the above mentioned verses please be still and think for a while can they be god ? even if they want to…. absolutely not.

To those who thinks Jesus and YHWH ARE godS & trinity please explain the above verses

warmest regards
thanks for reading

"How well we know ,what profitable superstition this Fable of christ has been for us." Pope Leo X (1513-1521)

 

[sojourner]

but you realise that to some church's, their understanding is that women can be heads of the church and homosexuality is not a sin and sex before marriage is not a sin and idols are acceptable and pagan religious practices are acceptable ....and the list goes on

Some church's have even decided that the bible is 'out of date' and they downplay many of the moral laws found in the bible.

All they are doing is disregarding the word of God in favor of the sensibilities of people who disregard Gods laws.

The Bible is not "the word of God." People wrote the Bible. People have certain perspectives. Those perspectives change with time and distance. We are not, culturally, the same people as the Biblical authors. Additionally, you seek to make the Bible absolute. It is not. It's extremely polyvalent. Therefore, yes, some folks ordain women, marry homosexuals, and study the Bible critically in order to glean meaning and truth out of it.

they were given the responsibility to form congregation so its only natural that they would lead the congregations they helped to form. But they were not considered owners of the congregations nor did they hold the authority over them as is evidence by the fact that 'older men' of the jerusalem congregation had a say in the affairs of the congregations along with the apostles as is seen in Acts 15:22-26
These older men were not apostles, but were experienced christians who served the congregations in teaching.

Neither do modern bishops own the church. But yes, authority structures were different then. I agree with you that authority should be more broad in the church.

the greek word pres‧by′te‧ros, means 'elder' and these ones were the same christians who worked along WITH the Apostles in teaching and guiding the congregations. They were not only used when the Apostles were not present....they were always present and the spirit of God spoke through them just as it did through the Apostles as is seen by the account in Acts 11:27 Now in these days prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. 28 One of them named Ag′a‧bus rose and proceeded to indicate through the spirit that a great famine was about to come upon the entire inhabited earth; which, for that matter, did take place in the time of Claudius. 29 So those of the disciples determined, each of them according as anyone could afford it, to send a relief ministration to the brothers dwelling in Ju‧de′a; 30 and this they did, dispatching it to the older men by the hand of Bar′na‧bas and Saul.

And when a dispute arose about whether christians needed to be circumsized or not, these same christians were addressed along with Apostles to resolve the dispute as seen in the account at Acts 15:2 But when there had occurred no little dissension and disputing by Paul and Bar′na‧bas with them, they arranged for Paul and Bar′na‧bas and some others of them to go up to the apostles and older men in Jerusalem regarding this dispute.

So the presbyters were just as prominent in the congregations as were the Apostles. That is not a class distinction or a separation of authority.

That's why the Episcopal Church ("Episcopal" meaning episkopoi, or "of bishops") is governed by two houses: The first comprised of bishops. The second is comprised of presbyters and lay delegates. Together, the bishopric, presbyterate and laity arrive at doctrine and polity.

Yes they did but Peters words show that an apostle had to be chosen from one who was an eyewitness of Jesus ministry only.
Acts 1:15 Now during these days Peter rose up in the midst of the brothers and said (the crowd of persons was all together about one hundred and twenty): 16 “Men, brothers, it was necessary for the scripture to be fulfilled, which the holy spirit spoke beforehand by David’s mouth about Judas, ...20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his lodging place become desolate, and let there be no dweller in it,’ and, ‘His office of oversight let someone else take.’ 21 It is therefore necessary that of the men that assembled with us during all the time in which the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 starting with his baptism by John and until the day he was received up from us, one of these men should become a witness with us of his resurrection.”

Peters statement here that the chosen apostle should be an eyewitness of Jesus resurrection shows that apostolic succession would not continue for more then a few decades for the reason that later christians were not eyewitnesses of Jesus resurrection and therefore do not meet the criteria for being an apostle.

You're mistaken. All Peter is saying is that the replacement should be chosen from among the koinea who were with Jesus from his baptism to his ascension, that the replacement might become a witness with the apostles, to Christ's resurrection. That is, it was the job of the apostles to witness to the resurrection -- not that it was an attribute that they had been present at the resurrection. From the ekklesia, one is called out to become a witness to the resurrection, with all the other apostles. That practice continues today.

John wrote 4 books of the NT. Mathew was an apostle and wrote a gospel account

There is no conclusive evidence that Matthew wrote the gospel. Since the gospel was written some 80-90 years following Jesus, Matthew would simply have been too old. So would John. Additionally, the earliest manuscripts of Matthew are not titled. The titles came about much, much later. (Since time seems to you to be an indicator of authenticity, and lateness seems to be held suspect, just thought I'd throw that out there...)

 

[sojourner]

Or it simply means that God was with humanity and Jesus was evidence that God was with humanity because he had been sent by God to perform a duty

and yes, Jesus was divine in that he was a spirit in heaven before he was a man on earth and therefore Jesus was divine because he existed in Gods form just as the angels are divine because they exist in Gods form.

Wait a minute! Nobody ever said the angels exist in God's form. But Philippians does say that Jesus was in God's form, and that he laid down that Divinity to take on human form. That's a pretty strong statement for the Trinity.

 

[sojourner]

To those who thinks Jesus and YHWH ARE godS & trinity

Reasons that they are not GOD see below

YHWH can be tempted

Your exegetical reasoning is abysmal.

 

[Pegg]

The Bible is not "the word of God." People wrote the Bible. People have certain perspectives. Those perspectives change with time and distance. We are not, culturally, the same people as the Biblical authors. Additionally, you seek to make the Bible absolute. It is not. It's extremely polyvalent. Therefore, yes, some folks ordain women, marry homosexuals, and study the Bible critically in order to glean meaning and truth out of it.

I dont agree that the bible is not Gods word. Its unfortunate that most churches dont believe it and if I were a person attending a church which did not believe it to be Gods word, i'd be looking for a church who does.

Those churches are not following or teaching the bible . How can they say they know who God is when they dont even believe that the bible is his word?

You're mistaken. All Peter is saying is that the replacement should be chosen from among the koinea who were with Jesus from his baptism to his ascension, that the replacement might become a witness with the apostles, to Christ's resurrection. That is, it was the job of the apostles to witness to the resurrection -- not that it was an attribute that they had been present at the resurrection. From the ekklesia, one is called out to become a witness to the resurrection, with all the other apostles. That practice continues today.

to witness something means to see it with your own eyes. Nobody today has witnessed the resurrection...nobody from even the 2nd century witnessed the resurrection. Peters words are what they are Acts 1:21 "It is therefore necessary that of the men that assembled with us during all the time in which the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 starting with his baptism by John and until the day he was received up from us, one of these men should become a witness with us of his resurrection.”
Peter's words are plain and clear. There is no on alive today who can fill this criteria.

There is no conclusive evidence that Matthew wrote the gospel. Since the gospel was written some 80-90 years following Jesus, Matthew would simply have been too old. So would John. Additionally, the earliest manuscripts of Matthew are not titled. The titles came about much, much later. (Since time seems to you to be an indicator of authenticity, and lateness seems to be held suspect, just thought I'd throw that out there...)

No conclusive evidence? You named various men earlier indicating that they were apostolic successors...did you know that all early church writers testified to the fact that matthew wrote the gospel? Matthews gospel is one of the NT books which is most unanimously established as written by matthew. From as far back as Papias of Hierapolis (early second century C.E.) onward, there is a continual agreeance among church historians that Matthew wrote it.
McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia states: “Passages from Matthew are quoted by Justin Martyr, by the author of the letter to Diognetus (see in Otto’s Justin Martyr, vol. ii), by Hegesippus, Irenæus, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Clement, Tertullian, and Origen. It is not merely from the matter, but the manner of the quotations, from the calm appeal as to a settled authority, from the absence of all hints of doubt, that we regard it as proved that the book we possess had not been the subject of any sudden change.”

But i guess if you are from a church who has no faith in the books of the bible, then it would explain why you doubt such things.
I would encourage you to put faith in the bible...it is the only source of truth.

 

[Pegg]

Wait a minute! Nobody ever said the angels exist in God's form. But Philippians does say that Jesus was in God's form, and that he laid down that Divinity to take on human form. That's a pretty strong statement for the Trinity.

Paul makes clear that spirits exist “If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one.” And because angels are spirits, both invisible and powerful, they are like God or 'Godlike' just as Jesus is 'Godlike' because they exist in spirit form. Throughout the bible we can see how angels and spirits are spoken of interchangeably:
Heb 1:7 "Also, with reference to the angels he says: “And he makes his angels spirits, and his public servants a flame of fire."

And we know that the angels can also take on human form because it was angels who visited Lot and helped him get out of the city and it was an angel who wrestled with Jacob all night and it was angels who sat and ate a meal with Abraham and Sarah and it was angels who became human and married women in the days of Noah

So if you think that the trinity is proved by Jesus becoming human, then think again... all angels were able to do the same thing.