I want to do a few blogs on the Trinity. The first one will be about the logic of the Trinity. The second one will be about Biblical arguments for the Trinity. The third one will address common objections to the Trinity. This comes from an outline I did when I taught on the Trinity in Sunday school a few years ago.
First, let me give a definition of the Trinity: There is one being who is God, and that God exists as three distinct persons, namely the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who are coequal and coeternal. The one uncreated God is a tri-personal being.
I'll admit that the Trinity seems odd, but it is not, as some suppose, self-contradictory. On the surface, to say that God is One and Three at the same time seems contradictory, but we must remember what a contradiction is. Two claims can only contradict each other if they are talking about the same thing at the same time and in the same sense. God is not three in the same sense that God is one. If the Trinity required that God was one being who was three beings, that would be a contradiction. Or if the Trinity required that God was one person who was three persons, that would also be a contradiction. But the Trinity requires that God is one being who is three persons. There is no contradiction, because God is one in a different sense than God is three.
This being/person distinction strikes us as odd for the simple reason that in or ordinary experience, all people and animals are uni-personal beings. "Being" and "person" are nevertheless distinct categories. A being is anything that exists. A person is a particular kind of being that posesses personhood. Here's an analogy to explain this categorical difference:
rock: 1 being, 0 persons.
human: 1 being, 1 person.
God: 1 being, 3 persons.
Since not all beings are persons, "being" and "person" are distinct categories. If it's possible for there to be one being who is not a person, and another being who is one person, there's no difficulty in supposing the possibility of there being another being who is three persons.
To further clarify what exactly the Trinity is, I'll contrast it with three other views. These views go by different names, so I'll mention all that I'm aware of.
Trinitarianism = tri-unitarianism
one nature or being (God) who is three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)
Modalism = Sabellianism = Jesus Only = Oneness = Patripassionism
One person (Jesus) who manifests himself in three modes or natures (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)
Arianism = Subordinationism = Unitarianism
One being (God = YHWH) who is one person (the Father). Jesus is a created being.
Tri-theism = polytheism
Three separate and distinct gods.
Arians (especially Jehovah's Witnesses) often confuse Trinitarianism with either tri-theism or modalism. Trinitarians do not believe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate and distinct Gods (tri-theism), but rather they are separate and distinct persons. Neither do Trinitarians believe that the Father and the Son are the same person (modalism), but rather that they are the same being.
The Trinity is arrived at by deductive reasoning. It's based on the logical consistency of various points found in the Bible.
1. There is one and only one God.
2. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.
From these two points, it follows deductively that:
3. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same God.
But there's another point:
4. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father.
From 3 and 4, it follows deductively that the one God is a tri-personal being.
The question now is whether or not these three points are Biblical. If they are, then the Trinity is Biblical.
For the Trinity, part 1
225 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 225 of 225Larry goes on to say that I am a Pharisee and elitist yet claims "there are few people in this world who know more about the Trinity doctrine than the person to whom you are now speaking. I dare say, I know your doctrine better than you do." Is this not itself an elitist attitude?
Larry writes: What is "lacking" my dear friend is any coherent thought patterns in what you are attempting to communicate. What is lacking is any reason or logic or biblical evidence for the existence of the doctrine of the Trinity.
No biblical evidence for the existence of the Trinity? Who aside from YHWH is ever called I AM in scripture? Who does YHWH share his glory with? Do the Father and the Son share glory? Is the Ruwach (spirit) of YHWH simply an impersonal force? How can an impersonal force be grieved?
Even the word itself (Trinity) is NEVER mentioned or defined in the Bible.
Neither is the word Bible, do you believe the in bible? The word monotheism is not found in the bible, should we not be monotheists for this reason? Larry and I have already had this discussion, he is circling back to his old arguments. Again I must say it is not the word Trinity I am attached to but the meaning or idea behind it that is plainly evident in scripture, just as it's not the word monotheism but the idea of monotheism that I subscribe to.
This fact is also very disconcerting to many Trinitarians.
That is sad to hear, it really shouldn't be if they were simply taught the basics of doctrine. I do wonder if they feel the same discontentment over the lack of the words "omnipresent" or "omniscience" in the bible? I strongly doubt it. Once we get past the word to the concept I doubt most Trinitarians would have a problem with the word Trinity not being in the bible either.
Apparently I have gotten under Larry's skin. He claims I would have had him burnt at the stake. As we have not discussed Ecclesiology nor Eschatology my position on Church and State is unknown to him, and certainly not beyond doubt. This is simply Red-herring and ad hominem.
Matt, apparently, does not know what an elitist is. You are on the side of the majority opinion sir. Not I. You are the one who is accepted in this Trinitarian society. Not I. It is hilarious that you would call one who is shunned by society as an "elitist". Just more proof that you do not think these things through. We who are stigmatized as "Arians" count it a privilege to "go forth "... unto him outside the camp, bearing his reproach." (Heb 13) The truth is never accepted by those that are "of" this world and Matt is simply a dupe (not unlike the Pharisees) who is doing the work of the enemy of souls.
Matt asks, "Who aside from YHWH is ever called I AM in scripture?" Jesus Christ is never referred to as "the I AM" an the truth is, neither is YHWH. But, that will be an argument for another day.
Regarding the word Trinity NOT being in the Bible. Let us ask Matt, is the word "Bible" a Biblical doctrine? Are there any synonyms for the word "bible" in the Bible, like the word "scripture"? Matt does not compare apples to apples. There are no synonyms for the word "Trinity" in the Bible, and there is no scripture used in the bible to prove the doctrine of the trinity that cannot be better interpreted to mean something that makes a lot more sense. I have looked at all of them for decades and I have read the Bible for decades. There is no Trinity in the Bible except Baal.
You haven't gotten under my skin Matt. I am as cool as a cucumber. But, you do not have to be a Roman Catholic to want to burn people. The history of Trinitarianism is one of anger, hate, torture, and murder of all who disagree with them. You can feel the devil's own venom in their words of condemnation and the mythological hell with which they threaten their theological adversaries. Matt's writings are no exception and are actually a good example of it, all his denials notwithstanding. We know the truth about Trinitarianism and the evil forces of this world which promote it. It thrives on intolerance, elitism, arrogance, hatred, and finally, murder.
Larry,
I will once again bite on your red herring, an elitist need not be a member of the majority. Furthermore just because the "society shuns" you, and I am quite sure that you would only be "shunned" in conservative bible believing communities not in society as a whole, western society is quite pluralistic, that does not make you any less of an elitist. You simply believe that your Arian group is more advanced in theology than those neanderthal Trinitarians.
Back to the topic at hand. Indeed the concept of a Bible is found in the scriptures, yet the word is never used. Likewise the words omniscient, omnipresent, and monotheism are not found in scripture yet I would submit that the concepts of these are found as is the Trinity. Those concepts are what Trinitarians subscribe to, the word Trinity makes it easy to recognize we are speaking of the Christian God and not the god of the Pharisees, Greeks, Mormons, Islam, Unitarians, Arians, etc. However we are just as happy saying "Hear O' Israel the LORD your God, the LORD is one. The Father is the LORD (James 3:9). Jesus is the LORD(Isaiah 40:3 cf. Matthew 3:1-3). The Holy Spirit is the LORD (Isaiah 63:14 cf. Deuteronomy 32:12). The Father is not the Son, nor the Holy Spirt, the Son is not the Holy Spirit nor the Father, the Holy Spirit is not the Father, nor the Son (Matthew 3:16)."
Larry once again lumps me in with all Trinitarians of the past present and future, regardless of how far apart we might be theologically. This would be similar to my lumping Larry with all Arians of the past including Mormons, Muslims, Jehovah's Witness', Christadelphianism, Certain Roman Catholic Sects, Christian Science, certain Scientologists, etc. Indeed Arians via Constantine II had Athanasius and other Trinitarians in exiled under threat of death. And what about those Muslim Arians, you surly cannot say they never used wrong methods, and indeed they did influence the modern Arian movement.
Finally Larry lists Five things that "Trinitarianism" thrives on:
Intolerance: Indeed Trinitariansm is, we are following our Master. (John 14:6) I will gladly admit I am not a pluralist and believe that Christianity is the only way to God as Father. I will also state that true Christianity is Trintarian at its core.
Elitism: Indeed, if by that you mean we hold that Christians are Trinitarians and that the bible teaches Trinitarianism. Basically we get the right to define our beliefs. Yet not if by this you mean only a certain class of citizen is allowed to be a Trinitarian. Nor if you simply mean we are the majority in society as there are certainly more Arians in the world than Trinitarians today.
Arrogance: Indeed, if by this you mean we destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive in obedience to Christ, then yes, we are uncompromising on who and what God is and who and what God is not. Yet not if by this you mean an offensive display of self-importance.
Hatred: Indeed, if by that you mean we hate false doctrine and expose the lies of the devil wherever they lay. Yet not if by this you mean personal hatred toward people.
Murder: Indeed, if by that you mean we uphold the laws of governments knowing that they do not bare the sword in vain. Peter, Paul, James, etc did spread Trinitarianism even with their "murders" at the hands of the civil magistrate. Yet we are not if by this you mean that Trinitarianism spread through jihad.
Let the readers decide
The Encyclopedia Britanica reminds us that: “Neither the word ‘Trinity’ nor the explicit doctrine as such appears at any one place in the Bible...”
But the same is true of almost all Trinitarian language about God. For example, the phrases “God the Son,” “God the Holy Spirit” and “the God-Man” are foreign to scripture. The phrases “first person” or “second person,” or even “the third person” of the Trinity are also alien to the pages of holy writ. The terms “co-eternal, co-eval, co-equal”, are also not in the Bible. As we shall see, the concept or the phrase “three persons in one God” is nowhere mentioned by the prophets or apostles. In fact, the Jesuit Gerald O’Collins admits plainly that “the New Testament does not state the doctrine of three persons in one nature.” When Catholic seminarians ask, “How does one preach the Trinity?” They are told that “if ‘the Trinity’ here means Trinitarian theology, the best answer would be that one does not preach it at all.” Why? Because the “Biblical homily is the place for the word of God, not ...theological elaboration.” (my italics) Trinitarian theology is, therefore, defined by Trinitarians as “theological elaboration” and not as the “word of God.”
The Encyclopedia of Religion tells us the following: “Exegetes (interpreters) and theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity, even though it was customary in past dogmatic tracts on the Trinity to cite texts like Genesis 1:26, ‘Let us make humanity in our image, after our likeness’ as proof of plurality in God. Although the Hebrew Bible depicts God as the father of Israel and employs personifications of God such as Word, Spirit, Wisdom, and Presence, it would go beyond the intention and spirit of the Old Testament to correlate these notions with later Trinitarian doctrine. ...Further, exegetes and theologians agree that the New Testament also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity. ...In the New Testament there is no reflective consciousness of the metaphysical nature of God (immanent trinity), nor does the New Testament contain the technical language of later doctrine (hupostaasis, ousia, substantia, subsistentia, prosopon, persona). Some theologians have concluded that all post-biblical Trinitarian doctrine is therefore arbitrary.”
The Encyclopedia of Religion, In the definition of “Trinity” on page 54, Mircea Eliade, Editor in Chief, Macmillan Pub. Co. N. Y. Amazingly, Dr. Herbert Lockyer (Trinitarian) author of All the Doctrines of the Bible tells us the following: “...the Bible does not supply us with any definition of the Trinity.”
Trinitarians admit the following: “The term 'Trinity' is not a biblical term, ...we are not using Biblical language when we define what is expressed by it as the doctrine that there is only one and true God, but in the unity of the Godhead there are three co-eternal and coequal Persons, the same in substance but distinct in subsistence.” And: “Not even the NT is the source of that revelation.” Crestwood Christian Fellowship
The Encyclopedia of Religion admits: “Theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity.”
In his book The Triune God, Jesuit Edmund Fortman confesses: “The Old Testament ...tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ...There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a [Trinity] within the Godhead. ...Even to see in [the O. T.] suggestions or foreshadowings or ‘veiled signs’ of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers.” Again, Jesuit Fortman states: “The New Testament writers ...give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-eternal divine persons ...Nowhere do we find any Trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead.”
The Encyclopedia Britannica records the historical fact that Christians used the pagan doctrine of substance as well as the doctrine of hypostases to describe the relationship between God and his Son Jesus Christ: “Christian theology took the Neoplatonic metaphysics [philosophy] of substance as well as its doctrine of hypostases [essence, or nature] as the departure point for interpreting the relationship of the ‘Father’ to the ‘Son.’ Their problem was to make ‘God the Father,’ ‘God the Son,’ and ‘God the Holy Spirit’ not three Gods but one. For years, they quarreled over whether the persons of the Trinity were of similar substance (Greek, homoiousia) or of the same substance (homoousia). This controversy was settled in favor of homoousia at the Councils of Nicaea in 325 and Constantinople in 381 (AD).”
The Britannica adds: “From the outset, the controversy between both parties (at Nicaea) took place upon the common basis of the Neoplatonic concept of substance, which was foreign to the New Testament itself. It is no wonder that the continuation of the dispute on the basis of the metaphysics of substance likewise led to concepts that have no foundation in the New Testament.”
Jean Danielou, in his book The First Six Hundred Years, says this of the word ‘homoousios’: “The adoption of this word, in defense of which severe battles were later to be fought, marks a memorable date in the doctrinal history of Christianity. By thus inserting in the profession of faith a new term which originated no longer in Scripture but in man’s reason, the Council of Nicaea recognized as fruitful the purely theological attempt at elucidating revelation, and used its authority to sanction the progress made in rendering explicit the contents of faith. With this Council the Church resolutely entered on the path which would eventually lead, in modern times, to such solemn ‘definitions’ as the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception, Papal infallibility, and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.” Jean Danielou, The First Six Hundred Years, pg. 252, 253. McGraw-Hill Book Co. New York.
Voltaire once said, and I agree: “From all this they conclude that it would be wiser to abide by the authority of the apostles, who never spoke of the Trinity, and to banish from religion forever all terms which are not in the scriptures, such as Trinity, person, essence, hypostasis, hypostatic and personal union, incarnation, generation, procession, and so many more like them, which, being absolutely meaningless, since they have no real representative in nature, can provoke only false, vague, obscure and incomplete ideas in the understanding.”
Thomas Jefferson once said: "... [A] short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State; that the purest system of morals ever before preached to man, has been adulterated and sophisticated by artificial constructions, into a mere contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves; that rational men not being able to swallow their impious heresies, in order to force them down their throats, they raise the hue and cry of infidelity, while themselves are the greatest obstacles to the advancement of the real doctrines of Jesus, and do in fact constitute the real Anti-Christ."
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Samuel Kercheval, 1810
Jefferson was ... resolutely disgusted with the peculiar Christian (supposedly a monotheistic based religion) belief in the Trinity. To consume the Trinitarian doctrine so dominant within the Christian religion was not only illogical but also lacked utility. This was a corruption that was not even within the sacred text. It was a magical creation at best. Jefferson strongly believed that such incoherent theology was to be subject to criticism: “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.”
This creation by the priests leading up to the fourth century had fully incorporated Platonic mysticism and paganism in order to make Christianity more appealing and simultaneously confounding to the masses. Because no one could understand how one God is three, yet the three are one, clarity required an authoritarian figure to decipher the illogical doctrine. By forcing such an unreasonable philosophy, the priestcraft initiated a firm hold on spiritual and mental freedoms.
The Trinity, however, represented much more than just an illogical dogma. For Jefferson, these ‘‘metaphysical insanities’’ hindered the growth of humanity and suggested ‘‘mere relapses into polytheism, differing from paganism only by being more unintelligible.’’ The Trinity survived and drew strength based on its exclusivity, both esoteric and demanding of authoritarian explanation. It frustrated many reasonable men, causing some to reject Jesus Christ’s message entirely. Belief in the Trinity served no moral utility and it was incomprehensible to logic. Worse yet, the believers in the Trinity persecuted those who ‘‘cannot perceive the Geometrical logic of Euclid in the demonstrations of St. Athanasius that three are one, and one is three; and yet that the one is not three, nor the three one.’’ For Jefferson, more important than the illogical doctrine itself was the way in which the church and state worked together to implement it into Christian mainstream thought.
cont...
Jefferson looked towards the fateful association of church and state, secured through Trinitarian mythology, as the ultimate means of suppressing humanity’s essential freedoms. The history of the doctrine’s origins shed light on how church and state came to dominate society at large. Merely three centuries after Jesus’ message of the loving singular God, a great debate had arisen concerning the nature of Jesus himself. This debate culminated under the rule of the Roman Emperor, Constantine. Constantine ended the persecution of the Christians, it is believed, after his eyes were opened to the Savior following the victory at the Milvian Bridge in 312. He threw his political clout behind the Christian church and made Christianity a political tool. This association of the Roman Empire and the Christian church came at a time when debate was still alive as to the nature of the Father-Son relationship. On May 20, 325, Constantine summoned the Council of Nicaea to establish uniformity of opinion and end the debate of the relationship of God and Son. Constantine exerted immense pressure to solve the dispute. The council, under the heavy-handed pressure of having the Roman Emperor residing over the debate, decided that God and Son were co-equal as a doctrine that should become Christian ‘truth.’ The Athanasian Creed was the result, and Constantine instantly supported the decision. Church and state were now linked by the notion that three Gods were no different than one.
However, not all church teachers readily accepted this doctrine, and the philosophical struggle continued. How could the Logos, thought to be the Word of God and Jesus Christ, be divine and not suggest two Gods? This baffling formulation was causing religious unrest in the Roman Empire. By 380, the Emperor Valerian had issued a proclamation of intolerance:
We will that all our subjects … believe the one divinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, of majesty co-equal, in the holy Trinity. We will that all those who embrace this creed be called Catholic Christians. We brand all the senseless followers of other religions by the infamous name of heretics, and forbid their conventicles to assume the name of churches.
Toleration and debate disappeared in favor of authoritarian rule. The bond of Church and State represented the suppression of both mental faculties and bodily freedoms.
The Exaltation of a Reasonable Deity: Thomas Jefferson’s Critique of Christianity
JEREMY KOSELAK
Communicated by: Dr. Patrick Furlong
A recognized authority on the subject, James Hastings in his Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics confesses the following: “At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian. It was not so in the Apostolic and Sub-Apostolic Ages, nor was it so even in the age of the Christian Apologists.”
History is replete with the fact that the early church was not Trinitarian. Martin A. Larson, in his book The Story of Christian Origins, tells us that the recorded writings of early Christians were “Arian”: “An examination of the works of Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilus, Hippolytus, Novatian, and Dionysius of Alexandria, all written between 170 and 250 AD, reveals that their concept of Christ was substantially Arian: that is, the same as expressed in Colossians 1:15, ‘the image of God, the firstborn of every creature.’” Martin A. Larson, The Story of Christian Origins
The Encyclopedia Britanica tells us that “...believers in God as a single person - unitarian Christians - were ‘at the beginning of the third century still forming a majority.”
Eerdman (a Trinitarian), in his Handbook to the History of Christianity, also witnesses to same historical fact: “Before the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) all theologians viewed the Son as in one way or another subordinate to the Father.” Eerdman's Handbook to the History of Christianity, pg. 112, 113.
In the Encyclopedia Britanica we read: “...it is something of an anachronism to speak of the biblical doctrine of the Trinity...” The Catholic Church admits that the early church did not adhere to the idea of a triune God, as Jesuit Gerald O'Collins put it in the magazine U.S. Catholic: “Of course it took some centuries before the full and explicit church teaching on the Trinity developed. The New Testament does not state the doctrine of 'three persons in one nature.”
The Roman Catholic author Jean Guitton also wholeheartedly admits: “The divinity of Christ, though it may find expression on the lips of the faithful, will always be in danger. It is so great a mysterium fidei (mystery of faith). It is almost impossible to understand that God is man in a true, real, and profound sense, ...Even St. Paul himself possibly never dared to give explicit expression to the identity of Jesus with God.” Jean Guitton, Great Heresies and Church Councils, pg. 80
H. P. Blavatsky, in Isis Unveiled, makes the pagan connection: “But few are the men who, like Dr. Priestly, have the courage to write, ‘We find nothing like divinity ascribed to Christ before Justin Martyr (AD 141), who, from being a philosopher, became a Christian.’ ”
A. E. Taylor tells us, in his book Platonism and Its Influence, that: "In the fourth century, the 'Platonists' formed the nucleus of the last opposition to the triumph of the Church..." This “opposition” would not die easily. It would, in fact, survive and be strangely, mysteriously, and gradually blended into the teachings of the church itself. In the end the church conquered Platonism by absorbing it into the church. Durant’s comment about the Church’s acceptance of Plotinus, the pagan Neoplatonist, is as follows: “Christianity accepted nearly every line of him.” Eerdman, the Christian historian, concurs: “Platonic, and later Neoplatonic, concepts were the prevailing philosophical tradition throughout the pagan world. And when Christianity converted Europe, a syncretic spirit and attitude among the clergy and laity resulted in deliberate attempts by Christian missionaries to ‘baptize’ features of pagan religions and thus overcome them by absorbing them into Christianity.”
Eerdman's Handbook to the History of Christianity, pg. 88.
Matt claims I have not addressed the issue of the Trinitarian use of the word BEING and PERSON. My argument here rests in the fact that this is NOT a Biblical doctrine and is a Neoplatonic idea plagiarized from Plotinus. I will not pretend with Matt and the Trinitarians that it is a Biblical idea when it plainly is NOT!
I repeat the words of Voltaire, who even being an atheist, had a better sense of the truth than these Trinitarian theologians:
“From all this we conclude that it would be wiser to abide by the authority of the apostles, who never spoke of the Trinity, and to banish from religion forever all terms which are not in the scriptures, such as Trinity, person, essence, hypostasis, hypostatic and personal union, incarnation, generation, procession, and so many more like them, which, being absolutely meaningless, since they have no real representative in nature, can provoke only false, vague, obscure and incomplete ideas in the understanding.”
Somehow some of my blogs appear to be repeated. i will work to have them removed
“Trinity is still without mathematical blessing, congruent with its lack of scriptural vocabulary or clear support. It is short on mere (non-fraudulent) scriptural hints that can be ‘taken’ in its favor, yet foundered in opposing verses, tainted by paganism, surrounded at every stage by controversy, bloodshed, and persecution and completely without a logical, sensible, or comprehensible foundation. Superstition is about forgetting the real question and focusing on fantastic speculations; science and Christianity are antithetical to this. Oh barbarian brothers in Christ! Why do you call our master “Good”? Only God our Father is Good (Matt. 19:17); only God is God.” http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2005/PSCF3-05Blodgett.pdf
The Nicene Creed asserts that Father and Son are 'homoousios,' meaning, of one substance, essence, or being: This, is denied by Finis Dake, who had been a pastor at the Trinitarian Assemblies of God, finds multiple "beings" in God:
"There is more than one Jehovah and more than one God as individuals, but they are one Jehovah and one God in unity, thus expressing the truth of 3 separate and distinct persons, beings, or individuals in the Divine Trinity....Since there are 3 persons or beings, then the only way they can be one is in the sense of unity, as prayed for in Jn. 17:21-23." (Finis Dake, The Dake Annotated Reference Bible, p. 394 (235).)
Three "beings" is three ousia's: tritheism. Dake was edging closer to the truth than we know...
"Error of Opinion may be tolerated
where Reason is left free to combat it."
- Thomas Jefferson
I study with the JW's(Jehovah's Witnesses btw) before someone starts throwing the C word let's look at the definition shall we?
CULT
1 : formal religious veneration : WORSHIP
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : the object of such devotion c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion
2.If Jesus is GOD why is he CREATED?
Revelation 3:14 READS 14 “And to the angel of the congregation in La·o·di·ce′a write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God,
According to the sahidic coptic manuscript which dates back to the 2ND CENTURY and is one of the first translations of the greek text into a nonbiblical language AFTER PENTECOST!!!!!!!!!!!!! The word used for beginning in the sahidic coptic can't be twisted to mean anything other then beginning!!! I learned that outside the WTBTS BTW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3. If Jesus is GOD why is his name and miracles and titles NOT unique?
RESURRECTION
Elisha bought back the dead 2 Kings 4:34-35
He even resurrected the dead while he was DEAD 2 Kings 13:20-21
HEALING LEPROSY
2 Kings 5:10-14
FEEDING HUNDREDS WITH A FEW LOAVES OF BREAD
2 Kings 4:42-44
TWO OTHERS WERE NAMED JESUS IN THE BIBLE
Joshua is equivalent to Yeshua in Hebrew
There's another Jesus??!!!
Luke 3:29
29 [son] of Jesus,
[son] of E·li·e′zer,
[son] of Jo′rim,
[son] of Mat′that,
[son] of Le′vi,
TITLES NOT UNIQUE
Christ is a title that means king or anointed various people in the bible under Jehovah's direction got the title king or anointed
Saul is contextually referred to as the "anointed of Jehovah"
1 Samuel 24:6 READS 6 Hence he said to his men: “It is unthinkable, on my part, from Jehovah’s standpoint, that I should do this thing to my lord, the anointed of Jehovah, by thrusting out my hand against him, for he is the anointed of Jehovah.” 7 Accordingly David dispersed his men with these words, and he did not allow them to rise up against Saul. As for Saul, he rose up from the cave and kept going on his way.
David is WORSHIPPED and called the king with Jehovah unless you believe people just do a respectful bow to Jehovah and not worship him??!!!
1 Chronicles 29:20 READS 29 And David went on to say to all the congregation: “Bless, now, Jehovah YOUR God.” And all the congregation proceeded to bless Jehovah the God of their forefathers and bow low and prostrate themselves to Jehovah and to the king.
Othniel is called savior
Judges 3:9 READS 9 And the sons of Israel began to call to Jehovah for aid. Then Jehovah raised a savior up for the sons of Israel that he might save them, Oth′ni·el the son of Ke′naz, the younger brother of Ca′leb.
Others are called God
1 Corinthians 4:4, Psalms 82:1,6, Exodus 4:16,17(God, Word, Spirit btw, was this a human trinity?)
Son of man
Ezekiel 8:5
King of Kings
Daniel 2:37
Light of the world
Matthew 5:14
4. Why is he never called the most high, Almighty or even God the son?
I study with the JW's(Jehovah's Witnesses btw) before someone starts throwing the C word let's look at the definition shall we?
CULT
1 : formal religious veneration : WORSHIP
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : the object of such devotion c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion
2.If Jesus is GOD why is he CREATED?
Revelation 3:14 READS 14 “And to the angel of the congregation in La·o·di·ce′a write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God,
According to the sahidic coptic manuscript which dates back to the 2ND CENTURY and is one of the first translations of the greek text into a nonbiblical language AFTER PENTECOST!!!!!!!!!!!!! The word used for beginning in the sahidic coptic can't be twisted to mean anything other then beginning!!! I learned that outside the WTBTS BTW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3. If Jesus is GOD why is his name and miracles and titles NOT unique?
RESURRECTION
Elisha bought back the dead 2 Kings 4:34-35
He even resurrected the dead while he was DEAD 2 Kings 13:20-21
HEALING LEPROSY
2 Kings 5:10-14
FEEDING HUNDREDS WITH A FEW LOAVES OF BREAD
2 Kings 4:42-44
TWO OTHERS WERE NAMED JESUS IN THE BIBLE
Joshua is equivalent to Yeshua in Hebrew
There's another Jesus??!!!
Luke 3:29
29 [son] of Jesus,
[son] of E·li·e′zer,
[son] of Jo′rim,
[son] of Mat′that,
[son] of Le′vi,
TITLES NOT UNIQUE
Christ is a title that means king or anointed various people in the bible under Jehovah's direction got the title king or anointed
Saul is contextually referred to as the "anointed of Jehovah"
1 Samuel 24:6 READS 6 Hence he said to his men: “It is unthinkable, on my part, from Jehovah’s standpoint, that I should do this thing to my lord, the anointed of Jehovah, by thrusting out my hand against him, for he is the anointed of Jehovah.” 7 Accordingly David dispersed his men with these words, and he did not allow them to rise up against Saul. As for Saul, he rose up from the cave and kept going on his way.
David is WORSHIPPED and called the king with Jehovah unless you believe people just do a respectful bow to Jehovah and not worship him??!!!
1 Chronicles 29:20 READS 29 And David went on to say to all the congregation: “Bless, now, Jehovah YOUR God.” And all the congregation proceeded to bless Jehovah the God of their forefathers and bow low and prostrate themselves to Jehovah and to the king.
Othniel is called savior
Judges 3:9 READS 9 And the sons of Israel began to call to Jehovah for aid. Then Jehovah raised a savior up for the sons of Israel that he might save them, Oth′ni·el the son of Ke′naz, the younger brother of Ca′leb.
Others are called God
1 Corinthians 4:4, Psalms 82:1,6, Exodus 4:16,17(God, Word, Spirit btw, was this a human trinity?)
Son of man
Ezekiel 8:5
King of Kings
Daniel 2:37
Light of the world
Matthew 5:14
4. Why is he never called the most high, Almighty or even God the son?
2.If Jesus is GOD why is he CREATED?
Revelation 3:14 READS 14 “And to the angel of the congregation in La·o·di·ce′a write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God,
According to the sahidic coptic manuscript which dates back to the 2ND CENTURY and is one of the first translations of the greek text into a nonbiblical language AFTER PENTECOST!!!!!!!!!!!!! The word used for beginning in the sahidic coptic can't be twisted to mean anything other then beginning!!! I learned that outside the WTBTS BTW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3. If Jesus is GOD why is his name and miracles and titles NOT unique?
RESURRECTION
Elisha bought back the dead 2 Kings 4:34-35
He even resurrected the dead while he was DEAD 2 Kings 13:20-21
HEALING LEPROSY
2 Kings 5:10-14
FEEDING HUNDREDS WITH A FEW LOAVES OF BREAD
2 Kings 4:42-44
TWO OTHERS WERE NAMED JESUS IN THE BIBLE
Joshua is equivalent to Yeshua in Hebrew
There's another Jesus??!!!
Luke 3:29
29 [son] of Jesus,
[son] of E·li·e′zer,
[son] of Jo′rim,
[son] of Mat′that,
[son] of Le′vi,
TITLES NOT UNIQUE
Christ is a title that means king or anointed various people in the bible under Jehovah's direction got the title king or anointed
Saul is contextually referred to as the "anointed of Jehovah"
1 Samuel 24:6 READS 6 Hence he said to his men: “It is unthinkable, on my part, from Jehovah’s standpoint, that I should do this thing to my lord, the anointed of Jehovah, by thrusting out my hand against him, for he is the anointed of Jehovah.” 7 Accordingly David dispersed his men with these words, and he did not allow them to rise up against Saul. As for Saul, he rose up from the cave and kept going on his way.
David is WORSHIPPED and called the king with Jehovah unless you believe people just do a respectful bow to Jehovah and not worship him??!!!
1 Chronicles 29:20 READS 29 And David went on to say to all the congregation: “Bless, now, Jehovah YOUR God.” And all the congregation proceeded to bless Jehovah the God of their forefathers and bow low and prostrate themselves to Jehovah and to the king.
Othniel is called savior
Judges 3:9 READS 9 And the sons of Israel began to call to Jehovah for aid. Then Jehovah raised a savior up for the sons of Israel that he might save them, Oth′ni·el the son of Ke′naz, the younger brother of Ca′leb.
Others are called God
1 Corinthians 4:4, Psalms 82:1,6, Exodus 4:16,17(God, Word, Spirit btw, was this a human trinity?)
Son of man
Ezekiel 8:5
King of Kings
Daniel 2:37
Light of the world
Matthew 5:14
4. Why is he never called the most high, Almighty or even God the son?
More importantly Romans 1:20-26 contradicts any idea of God being a man.
2.If Jesus is GOD why is he CREATED?
Revelation 3:14 READS 14 “And to the angel of the congregation in La·o·di·ce′a write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God,
According to the sahidic coptic manuscript which dates back to the 2ND CENTURY and is one of the first translations of the greek text into a nonbiblical language AFTER PENTECOST!!!!!!!!!!!!! The word used for beginning in the sahidic coptic can't be twisted to mean anything other then beginning!!! I learned that outside the WTBTS BTW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3. If Jesus is GOD why is his name and miracles and titles NOT unique?
RESURRECTION
Elisha bought back the dead 2 Kings 4:34-35
He even resurrected the dead while he was DEAD 2 Kings 13:20-21
HEALING LEPROSY
2 Kings 5:10-14
FEEDING HUNDREDS WITH A FEW LOAVES OF BREAD
2 Kings 4:42-44
TWO OTHERS WERE NAMED JESUS IN THE BIBLE
Joshua is equivalent to Yeshua in Hebrew
There's another Jesus??!!!
Luke 3:29
29 [son] of Jesus,
[son] of E·li·e′zer,
[son] of Jo′rim,
[son] of Mat′that,
[son] of Le′vi,
TITLES NOT UNIQUE
Christ is a title that means king or anointed various people in the bible under Jehovah's direction got the title king or anointed
Saul is contextually referred to as the "anointed of Jehovah"
1 Samuel 24:6 READS 6 Hence he said to his men: “It is unthinkable, on my part, from Jehovah’s standpoint, that I should do this thing to my lord, the anointed of Jehovah, by thrusting out my hand against him, for he is the anointed of Jehovah.” 7 Accordingly David dispersed his men with these words, and he did not allow them to rise up against Saul. As for Saul, he rose up from the cave and kept going on his way.
David is WORSHIPPED and called the king with Jehovah unless you believe people just do a respectful bow to Jehovah and not worship him??!!!
1 Chronicles 29:20 READS 29 And David went on to say to all the congregation: “Bless, now, Jehovah YOUR God.” And all the congregation proceeded to bless Jehovah the God of their forefathers and bow low and prostrate themselves to Jehovah and to the king.
Othniel is called savior
Judges 3:9 READS 9 And the sons of Israel began to call to Jehovah for aid. Then Jehovah raised a savior up for the sons of Israel that he might save them, Oth′ni·el the son of Ke′naz, the younger brother of Ca′leb.
Others are called God
1 Corinthians 4:4, Psalms 82:1,6, Exodus 4:16,17(God, Word, Spirit btw, was this a human trinity?)
Son of man
Ezekiel 8:5
King of Kings
Daniel 2:37
Light of the world
Matthew 5:14
4. Why is he never called the most high, Almighty or even God the son?
Amazing description of Trinity and early church heresy. Thank you! So simple, yet so accurate. I'm chest deep in readings for a class in history of theology. Maybe you could come to teach it. Crazy.
Kelly
Forgive me if I do not have the extensive knowledge like Larry or Matt about the whole issue.
If there is ONE GOD as stated in the OT then, we should accept that HE is the GOD Almighty. The only GOD of the Hebrews, and as we know today, the GOD of the chosen people.
The Jews believe in ONE GOD up to now. Although they did not believe Jesus as the Messiah; I do not think that they believe Jesus as GOD or part of a trinity. Jesus taught Christians that HE is the way to GOD.
So what is wrong believing that Jesus is the Son of GOD as He Himself revealed in the Bible? Is it a sin to believe that He is not a part of the trinity?
I enjoy informative discussion, so I'm just sharing my opinion. We are all believers of Jesus Christ as our Savior, so I guess that's the only thing we all can agree to..
First of all, I want to mention that, don't you think God is One and we have been created by the same God. The one who created the whole universe and the seventh heaven, do you think you can comprehend what god is capable of. You think you can relate to the holy trinity but brother that is one thing which means nothing, it has zero outcome. Science has been claiming that the earth and everything in this universe came to existence because of the big bang, but brothers ask your self, is it really justified that one day you will die and the life will end and all your family and friends will leave you apart. Well, I don't believe at all because if I have been taught that Adam was the first person to come to the earth and how the earth was made then I have also managed to learn about the end of this world and the way it will be destroyed and I actually found it sensible, logical.
You have to be as humble as you can which Muslims do.
Don't carry on believing if you think you can question it. I personally tried all the possible ways to question the religion of Islam and I had no other option but to believe it.
At times you will think that there is so much to do in this world and you would not want to miss it, but the actual pleasure lies after death.
You will only find the religion interesting if you are a good human being, try to dig deeper and you will end up with two options. ACCEPT IT or IGNORE IT(for worldly pleasure)
-Anonymous
Post a Comment