Ihedinobi:

What does it matter whether I perused the references or not? In fact, I did just for the hell of it. I didn't need to nor was I obliged to because your provision of the citations was a ruse to avoid admitting your insolent ignorance toward the Bible. I did say that all you want is to pit Scriptures against themselves and rewrite them. That's the pride of Lucifer.

Piggybacking on the flawed knowledge of others is not a scholarly approach to rightly diving the word of truth.

The bible you claim to have a deep knowledge of debunks all your points with relative ease.

You exhume the trinitarian spirit , need I say more.

frosbel:

Piggybacking on the flawed knowledge of others is not a scholarly approach to rightly diving the word of truth.

The bible you claim to have a deep knowledge of debunks all your points with relative ease.

You exhume the trinitarian spirit , need I say more.

@bolded, you don't mean the Bible you keep correcting, do you? Anyway, good night. I'm quite done with this. Knock yourself out rewriting the Word of God.

Why do we like to create titles/names and different groups amongst Christians sef?

Trinitarian, Unitarian, Evangelical, etc, etc. . .

The Lord is ONE - what does this mean? Was that a counting exercise or an expression of the only God worthy of worship?

What does it mean to be a 'trinitarian'? Who defined what this means?

John said the Word was with God and the Word was God - does that contradict the Lord is ONE verse or are they simply both sides of the same coin misunderstood by people eager to assign labels to themselves and to others?

@ frosbel do you know who the 'us' in Genesis is referring to?

debosky:

John said the Word was with God and the Word was God - does that contradict the Lord is ONE verse or are they simply both sides of the same coin misunderstood by people eager to assign labels to themselves and to others?

@ frosbel do you know who the 'us' in Genesis is referring to?

God is one and the Lord is one.

God meaning Yahweh and the Lord meaning Jesus Christ.

The word was made flesh, God's wisdom/purpose/plan , for the redemption of mankind now made flesh and brought into being , a reality in the person of Christ.

Hence we have the initiation of the plan in Genesis ;

"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel." - Genesis 3:15

Notice that the verse above is referring to Christ Jesus through God's spoken word even though he did not exist then, and it calls him the offspring of a WOMAN.

There is nowhere in the bible where God is referred to as a Triune being, the source of this doctrine should be a cause for concern, alas the same catholic church that pentecostals condemn is the same church to which their creeds are aligned.

Finally, the 'US' in Genesis either refers to a congregation of higher ranking angelic beings or God in his infinite majesty. The Jewish Encyclopaedia attests to this fact , that the plurality of Elohim when referring to God , does not necessarily mean more than one.

( http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5704-elohim )

Otherwise we have a problem almost immediately with the next verse ( v27 ) which goes like :

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." - Genesis 1:27

Whereas in v26 it says let 'us' , in v27 it concludes exactly as one would expect with the words HIS , HE and HIM.

Obviously these are singular words and cannot by any stretch of the imagination be made to mean the opposite.

debosky: Why do we like to create titles/names and different groups amongst Christians sef?

Trinitarian, Unitarian, Evangelical, etc, etc. . .

The Lord is ONE - what does this mean? Was that a counting exercise or an expression of the only God worthy of worship?

What does it mean to be a 'trinitarian'? Who defined what this means?

John said the Word was with God and the Word was God - does that contradict the Lord is ONE verse or are they simply both sides of the same coin misunderstood by people eager to assign labels to themselves and to others?

@ frosbel do you know who the 'us' in Genesis is referring to?

if the word was with God in the beginning that should not be difficult to do.

Meaning that God(father) was talking to the word(Jesus)

debosky:
@ frosbel do you know who the 'us' in Genesis is referring to?

frosbel:

this is a simple and easy question directed at you.

debosky:
@ frosbel do you know who the 'us' in Genesis is referring to?

see how difficult and long it took you to answer a very simple question because you denied that Jesus had lived befor coming to earth.

"the word(Jesus) was with God(father) in the begining" John 1:1

very simple.
Stop ropping yourself.

Peace

frosbel:


God is one and the Lord is one.

God meaning Yahweh and the Lord meaning Jesus Christ.

The word was made flesh, God's wisdom/purpose/plan , for the redemption of mankind now made flesh and brought into being , a reality in the person of Christ.

Hence we have the initiation of the plan in Genesis ;

"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel." - Genesis 3:15

Notice that the verse above is referring to Christ Jesus through God's spoken word even though he did not exist then, and it calls him the offspring of a WOMAN.

There is nowhere in the bible where God is referred to as a Triune being, the source of this doctrine should be a cause for concern, alas the same catholic church that pentecostals condemn is the same church to which their creeds are aligned.

Finally, the 'US' in Genesis either refers to a congregation of higher ranking angelic beings or God in his infinite majesty. The Jewish Encyclopaedia attests to this fact , that the plurality of Elohim when referring to God , does not necessarily mean more than one.

( http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5704-elohim )

Otherwise we have a problem almost immediately with the next verse ( v27 ) which goes like :

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." - Genesis 1:27

Whereas in v26 it says let 'us' , in v27 it concludes exactly as one would expect with the words HIS , HE and HIM.

Obviously these are singular words and cannot by any stretch of the imagination be made to mean the opposite.

Ihedinobi:

I believe LoJ already cleared that up, didn't he?

Regardless, you were implying that we weren't told who the "us" are in whose image man was created, weren't you? Well, that verse told us without mincing words that it was God in Whose Image man was created.

So the question arises: "Is God an "us" or is God only one part of the image in which man was created?"

Do you have an answer to that? That is, beyond telling us that the translation was wrong. That's an old excuse nowadays.

jOHN 17/5And now, O Father, glorify me with your own self with the glory which I had with you before the world was.

CHRIST EXISTED BEFORE HE WAS SENT TO EARTH, HE EVEN SAID IT THAT "before abraham he was. So God was talking to them, Himself and others with him.

truthislight:

see how difficult and long it took you to answer a very simple question because you denied that Jesus had lived befor coming to earth.

"the word(Jesus) was with God(father) in the begining" John 1:1

very simple.
Stop ropping yourself.

Peace

The word was with the Father but the word was not yet a being.

However , I do not want us to debate this issue here, let us revert the other thread to discuss this in detail , otherwise we could derail the purpose of this particular thread - thanks.

@Thread, my answer is this:

mark 12:29 "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.

If our savior declears that God is one then "GOD IS ONE" But not Three in ONE.

frosbel:


God is one and the Lord is one.

God meaning Yahweh and the Lord meaning Jesus Christ.

Does this mean that they are both one and the same?

The word was made flesh, God's wisdom/purpose/plan , for the redemption of mankind now made flesh and brought into being , a reality in the person of Christ.

If the word was made flesh, then it existed in a different form previously. God's plan is an action of God, but isn't God. The bible explicitly says the Word WAS God - so I struggle to follow your explanation above.

Hence we have the initiation of the plan in Genesis ;

"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel." - Genesis 3:15

Notice that the verse above is referring to Christ Jesus through God's spoken word even though he did not exist then, and it calls him the offspring of a WOMAN.

Like you said, this is best tackled elsewhere, but I definitely disagree with this. The bible says everything that was created was created through him, so I don't see how he didn't exist before creation.

There is nowhere in the bible where God is referred to as a Triune being, the source of this doctrine should be a cause for concern, alas the same catholic church that pentecostals condemn is the same church to which their creeds are aligned.

Let's get back to the basics here and not condemn for the sake of condemning. If a doctrine is sound, we shouldn't dispose of it simply because it is associated with the RCC.

The bible describes the Word of God as being with God and being God - not an attribute of God, but God Himself. That suggests two distinct personalities that are God does it not?

Finally, the 'US' in Genesis either refers to a congregation of higher ranking angelic beings or God in his infinite majesty. The Jewish Encyclopaedia attests to this fact , that the plurality of Elohim when referring to God , does not necessarily mean more than one.

( http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5704-elohim )

Otherwise we have a problem almost immediately with the next verse ( v27 ) which goes like :

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." - Genesis 1:27

Whereas in v26 it says let 'us' , in v27 it concludes exactly as one would expect with the words HIS , HE and HIM.

Obviously these are singular words and cannot by any stretch of the imagination be made to mean the opposite.

Why can it not mean a conversation between God and the Word (which was God also)?

plappville: @Thread, my answer is this:

mark 12:29 "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.

If our savior declears that God is one then "GOD IS ONE" But not Three in ONE.

This answer presupposes that the verse is a counting exercise - is it not saying that the Lord, is the only God (i.e. stop believing/worshipping these other gods - Baal, etc) as opposed to describing the nature of the God?

frosbel:

The word was with the Father but the word was not yet a being.

However , I do not want us to debate this issue here, let us revert the other thread to discuss this in detail , otherwise we could derail the purpose of this particular thread - thanks.

I dont want to see you as some one that is trying to bend the truth but rather as one that is and has made a lot of ground shifting understanding and i hope that as you continue your search you will sort things out yourself.

I dont wish any banta with you, i only pop in because of that dbosky question.

When i decide to take someone up it is usually due to deliberate twisting and lying against the scriptures,
wish i have not arrived at that conclussion yet concerning you.

And not when you are doing a good work thus far that i should allow pride to blind me to that.

But if you sould kindly see how this fact did address dabosky's question maybe you should start having an open mind on this issues.

The bible from GENESIS to revelation agrees perfectly when the teaching is gotten rightly.

Peace

debosky:

Does this mean that they are both one and the same?

No.

If the word was made flesh, then it existed in a different form previously. God's plan is an action of God, but isn't God. The bible explicitly says the Word WAS God - so I struggle to follow your explanation above.

if we are to take your logic, then the WORD is not a being ?

Surely a WORD is a WORD and a being is a being.

God's WORD , his WORD of action and purpose representing him in all ramifications became flesh in the person of Christ.

Which brings me to my next question ;

If Jesus pre-existed as the WORD , in what form please , was this WORD an angel, spirit or just a WORD, or was this WORD as some erroneously say the second person of a made-up trinity ?

Like you said, this is best tackled elsewhere, but I definitely disagree with this. The bible says everything that was created was created through him, so I don't see how he didn't exist before creation.

Read This


Christ is the revelation of God's Eternal Purpose which He had when He created all things.

Let's get back to the basics here and not condemn for the sake of condemning. If a doctrine is sound, we shouldn't dispose of it simply because it is associated with the RCC.

actually no sir.

If a Pagan King with his Pagan popes presided over a council of compromising bishops to hammer down the Trinity as a doctrine of the church and if countless thousands were killed for rejecting this heresy, it is evident that there is something wrong somehwre.

Where is the Spirit in all of this confusion.

The bible describes the Word of God as being with God and being God - not an attribute of God, but God Himself. That suggests two distinct personalities that are God does it not?

wrong again.

read This

debosky: Why do we like to create titles/names and different groups amongst Christians sef?

Trinitarian, Unitarian, Evangelical, etc, etc. . .

The Lord is ONE - what does this mean? Was that a counting exercise or an expression of the only God worthy of worship?

What does it mean to be a 'trinitarian'? Who defined what this means?

John said the Word was with God and the Word was God - does that contradict the Lord is ONE verse or are they simply both sides of the same coin misunderstood by people eager to assign labels to themselves and to others?

My brother, I do not discuss the Nature of God in order to divide. It is a means of gathering in. Christianity is built on the Trinity. It is impossible to be a Christian and truly fight the Trinity. This does not mean that every Christian understands the Trinity or even accepts it. It only means that a Christian by nature already knows it to be true. After all, it is on God that his Faith is founded.

Now, the truth is that Christians are at varying degrees of development with God. Some are no more than children, some are adolescents and a few come into adulthood in Christ. The degree of understanding corresponds to the degree of maturity. And the thing with adolescents is their skepticism. Adolescents are transiting from childhood to adulthood, from necessary dependence to self-identity. That usually results in their rebelling against all authority. All Christians go through that phase to find the right authority to trust and hinge their lives upon. So it really is no surprise if they question the very foundations of their Christianity.

But they cannot persist in it if they are Christians, not without losing their very faith. And it is impossible to go back to not being a Christian once one has become one, so it is impossible for a Christian to remain in skepticism about God's Nature once they have begun to question it. They will find the Truth and know it, because the Truth is in them themselves.

I persist in discussing it to help them through the phase. My interest is not only the people who are attacking the Doctrine but also others who in their walk with God have begun to wonder about it as well. Some of the people fighting the Doctrine are not Christians at all, but I treat them as though they are for this reason.

The urgency is because Christianity as a whole is founded on the Trinity or Tri-Unity of God. An attack on that is an attack on everything that is Christ. The logical outcome is an outright rejection of God.

plappville:

jOHN 17/5And now, O Father, glorify me with your own self with the glory which I had with you before the world was.

CHRIST EXISTED BEFORE HE WAS SENT TO EARTH, HE EVEN SAID IT THAT "before abraham he was. So God was talking to them, Himself and others with him.

About the green, He said that before Abraham He is, not was. The grammar wasn't wrong.

About the red, who is "them, Himself and others with him"? Are these people all God or what? If they are not all God alone, then should the verse read "in the image of God created he him"? Should it not read "in the image of God and them, Himself and others with him created they him"?

Either man was created in the image of a singular God with a plural personality or man was created in the image of plural gods. Which would you have it be, sister?

[quote author=Ihedinobi]

My brother, I do not discuss the Nature of God in order to divide. It is a means of gathering in. Christianity is built on the Trinity.

Fa fa foul.

Christianity is not built on the Trinity , this is a false understanding of the gospel and quite misleading.

It is impossible to be a Christian and truly fight the Trinity.

Another falsehood.

The Trinity is an idol to many and almost certainly not of God.

It is a blasphemous insult to want to divide God into parts based on the tradition of Man and not of God.

This does not mean that every Christian understands the Trinity or even accepts it. It only means that a Christian by nature already knows it to be true.

0/10

Now, the truth is that Christians are at varying degrees of development with God. Some are no more than children, some are adolescents and a few come into adulthood in Christ.

True

The degree of understanding corresponds to the degree of maturity.

absolutely

And the thing with adolescents is their skepticism. Adolescents are transiting from childhood to adulthood, from necessary dependence to self-identity. That usually results in their rebelling against all authority. All Christians go through that phase to find the right authority to trust and hinge their lives upon. So it really is no surprise if they question the very foundations of their Christianity.

Wow , sorry dear but you remind me of my RCC days , they will be proud to have you in their midst.


Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.

But they cannot persist in it if they are Christians, not without losing their very faith. And it is impossible to go back to not being a Christian once one has become one, so it is impossible for a Christian to remain in skepticism about God's Nature once they have begun to question it. They will find the Truth and know it, because the Truth is in them themselves.

God's nature is found in it's simplicity , he is the ONE undivided , self-existent , Almighty God of heaven and earth and no partners or equals can be associated with him.

Your saviour once said , when tempted by Satan ( oh by the way God cannot be tempted ) :

"Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.'"

I persist in discussing it to help them through the phase. My interest is not only the people who are attacking the Doctrine but also others who in their walk with God have begun to wonder about it as well. Some of the people fighting the Doctrine are not Christians at all, but I treat them as though they are for this reason.

Mate your ignorance on this issue is exemplary , please do not take this as an insult, I mean it.

The urgency is because Christianity as a whole is founded on the Trinity or Tri-Unity of God. An attack on that is an attack on everything that is Christ. The logical outcome is an outright rejection of God.

Wrong again, I am not sure what bible you read.

The gospel is hinged on Christ Jesus the saviour and the good news he brought about the kingdom of GOD.

The bible , nowhere supports your suggestion that our faith is founded on a mysterious trinity.

About the green, He said that before Abraham He is, not was. The grammar wasn't wrong.

No, you err again.

God's name is not I AM .


Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I am." In this selfsame Gospel, John gives us the very principle believed by Jews which brought them to this anger:


John testified concerning him and cried out saying, "This is he of whom I said, 'He who comes before me has precedence because he was before me.'" (1:15; cf. 1:30).

Obviously, this is the reason the Jews were angry at Jesus and wanted to stone him and not because they thought he was claiming to be Yahweh. These Jews had just asked Jesus, "Are you greater than our father Abraham?" Jesus' answer at John 8:58 was, "." This is what angered the Jews. He was not only claiming to be greater than these Jews themselves,> but greater than their father Abraham who they considered to be greater than all of them.

They knew that because he was claiming to be the Son of God that Jesus was claiming not only to be greater than them, which really angered them, but now he was illustrating he was greater than Abraham, and none of them would dare to ever make such a claim for themselves. This incited huge jealousy and anger among them.

The whole world was following after Jesus and this was not only threatening their role as leaders but Jesus was also instructing the people they were not doing things right against the Jewish establishment. Jesus was before Abraham and thus greater than Abraham. And this is why they wanted to stone him and finally charged him, not with claiming to be "God," but claiming to be the Son of God. And of course, these Jews were not Trinitarians who presumed the term "Son of God" meant Jesus was also "God."

He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God. (John 8:47)

Read More HERE

Either man was created in the image of a singular God with a plural personality or man was created in the image of plural gods. Which would you have it be, sister?

Grammar !!

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

If HIS here means a plural , then we might as well all have a brain transplant , lol.

frosbel:
if we are to take your logic, then the WORD is not a being ?

Surely a WORD is a WORD and a being is a being.

The bible says The WORD was God - i.e, the same thing in this instance.

God's WORD , his WORD of action and purpose representing him in all ramifications became flesh in the person of Christ.

No - God's action is not the same thing as God - The WORD (note the definitive) was GOD.

If Jesus pre-existed as the WORD , in what form please , was this WORD an angel, spirit or just a WORD, or was this WORD as some erroneously say the second person of a made-up trinity ?

Jesus is the WORD and the WORD was God - I don't know what form he existed with, but Jesus was in very nature God as we were taught in Philippians 2:6-7, as we are told, so not just 'a' WORD, because he is THE WORD that was GOD.

Christ is the revelation of God's Eternal Purpose which He had when He created all things.

In his human form yes - but he did not begin to exist when he was conceived/born of Mary.

If a Pagan King with his Pagan popes presided over a council of compromising bishops to hammer down the Trinity as a doctrine of the church and if countless thousands were killed for rejecting this heresy, it is evident that there is something wrong somehwre.

I disagree, not with the fact that people were wrongfully killed, but with your characterization. Even with its flaws, the RCC council could still have delivered sound doctrine, so long as it is supported by biblical evidence.

read This

For those unable to read it, let me post the relevant conclusion here:

Both of the above interpretations approach absurdity in my opinion. For John to have joined both instances of (theos) with the conjunction kai and intend one instance to be defined completely different than another is extremely unlikely. It is far more likely that "God" in the second instance is referring to the same "God" in the first instance where "God and God" means "God the Father and God the Father" with the only difference being that John is referring to the Father in the second instance in a qualitative manner

Based on all the evidence I am persuaded the translation of John 1:1 is correct as it stands in Trinitarian Bibles. However, given their interpretation of the verse, their translation is incorrect for them and should read, "the Word was god" which means in English, "the Word was divine."

With respect to interpretation, I agree with both sets of Trinitarian scholars and theologians who have disagreed with each other. In other words, I accept (1) the qualitative sense of the second instance of theos but I am also fully persuaded that we are to understand that John intends to refer to (2) God the Father in that qualitative way. Put another way, John is telling us the Word which was with God the Father in the beginning was not something other than God the Father but was, qualitatively or characteristically, God the Father Himself.

This is splitting hairs at best and introduction of human ideas into the scripture - you cannot be 'qualitatively' or 'characteristically' God and not be God himself. A simple, straightforward reading of the translation (which your link agrees is correct) leads us to the conclusion that The Word was God, not 'qualitatively' anything, simply God.

[quote author=debosky]

The bible says The WORD was God - i.e, the same thing in this instance.

Now tell me , the WORD was GOD in what sense ?

You have not answered my question, was Jesus a being or a WORD that pre-existed ?

No - God's action is not the same thing as God - The WORD (note the definitive) was GOD.

The first point is that there is a difficulty in conceiving that the Word is with God on the one hand, and is God on the other. The first clause states that there is a distinction between the Word and God (since the one is with the other), while the second states that they are one and the same.

As it stands the sentence does not make sense. It does make sense, however, if we realise that the word theos in Greek used here is an equivalent of the Hebrew word Elohim. Now Elohim can mean God, gods, a god, judge, exalted one, and even angel. The first word refers to God, while the second to another entity. The reference to another entity clearly shows the Word not to be the God with whom the Word is. Indeed some scholars point out that a better translation would be: `and the Word was a god'. This also appears to me to be somewhat forced. One of the other alternatives should probably be chosen.

The trinitarian claim depends on John 1:14, `The Word became flesh.' If this is taken to mean that the Almighty God became flesh, or became incarnate as a human being, this would entail a change in the essence of God, which is both logically and Scripturally unacceptable. Note that this text does not say that Jesus is God.

Jesus is the WORD and the WORD was God - I don't know what form he existed with, but Jesus was in very nature God as we were taught in Philippians 2:6-7, as we are told, so not just 'a' WORD, because he is THE WORD that was GOD.

Of course he had the divine nature of God in him through God's spirit , otherwise this statement will not use the phrase "Jesus was in very nature God ". It would simply read "Jesus was GOD".

You may want to consider the following scripture :

"Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires." - 2 Peter 1:4

or , how about :

Ephesians 4:24 and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness


We are also participants of that divine nature of God through his spirit.

Jesus was conceived by the Spirit , anointed by the Spirit and resurrected by that same Spirit of GOD, his divinity is not and has never been under question.


Remember also that God gave his Son the Spirit without measure, if Jesus was GOD why will the father give him his Spirit without measure.

For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit.- John 3:34

You guys need to put on your thinking caps .

In his human form yes - but he did not begin to exist when he was conceived/born of Mary.

What did he exist as ? Surely if there was a second person of the trinity this will be most apparent from the OT to the NT, no ?

If Jesus was God number 2 as you say, where is this in scripture, surely God would have said, my number 2 is coming as a man, no ?

Why is the scripture silent on this erroneous system of belief ?

I disagree, not with the fact that people were wrongfully killed, but with your characterization. Even with its flaws, the RCC council could still have delivered sound doctrine, so long as it is supported by biblical evidence.

This is fact !

A doctrine that is biblical does not need force to implement it, to do so is to exhibit the spirit of the anti-christ.

This is splitting hairs at best and introduction of human ideas into the scripture - you cannot be 'qualitatively' or 'characteristically' God and not be God himself. A simple, straightforward reading of the translation (which your link agrees is correct) leads us to the conclusion that The Word was God, not 'qualitatively' anything, simply God.

Sorry your cohorts are the ones using human logic to explain a most unexplainable and mysterious concept which has made a mockery of our faith and prevented countless millions from getting saved.

The Jews for one will find your claims rather bogus and blasphemous, that their Yahweh then one God is actually 3.

lol...... Frosbel, you really are a dog with a bone about the Trinity, aren't you? I leave you alone and address myself to other people and you jump on my comments. Sure, I'll indulge you, but not for your own sake anymore.

frosbel: Fa fa foul.

Christianity is not built on the Trinity , this is a false understanding of the gospel and quite misleading.

On what then is it built?

Another falsehood.

The Trinity is an idol to many and almost certainly not of God.

It is a blasphemous insult to want to divide God into parts based on the tradition of Man and not of God.

Who does this dividing really? Trinity or the Unitarian doctrine? Who holds that there are other gods beside God? Is it the preachers of a tri-[b]UNI[/b]ty or preachers of multiple gods under the guise of unitarianism?

0/10

I didn't expect you to understand that. I expected debosky to understand it. But to help such as may be caught in confusion because of it. A baby or toddler does not "know" that it is human, but then why does it act like one? Is it not because deeper than the level of conscious knowledge is a level of unconscious knowledge that makes everything act according to kind? Even the Christian who attacks the doctrine of the Trinity, only by dint of having Christ in them, already knows it to be Truth. The attack is onto understanding, whether they're conscious of that or not.

True

Ok

absolutely

Ok

Wow , sorry dear but you remind me of my RCC days , they will be proud to have you in their midst.


Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.

I assure you they wouldn't. No "ism" would. By the way, how many churches have you been through, Frosbel? RCC, Deeper Life, etc etc! You still haven't found the Authority you can hinge on, have you? Isn't that why you are scooping all this nonsense and plastering Nairaland with it? Is it perhaps that you are hungry for understanding? I know that feeling, but allow me to assure you that the answer to Zophar's question in Job 11:7 is NO, man cannot by searching find out God. We find when we seek because we're shown, not because we discover.

God's nature is found in it's simplicity , he is the ONE undivided , self-existence , Almighty God of heaven and earth and no partners or equals can be associated with him.

You do realize that you are preaching Islam, right? And you really do not recognize that there is a glaring fallacy in their conception of God, do you? A simple God does not build a complex universe. The maker must be more complex than that which it makes. This is why all over the Bible we are told of a mystery of Godliness or, should I say, Godness.

I should probably tell you that once you insist on simplifying God, you start to generate irreconcilable contradictions in His Nature of Love.

Your saviour once said , when tempted by Satan ( oh by the way God cannot be tempted ) :

"Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.'"

Yes, He did. So?

Mate your ignorance on this issue is exemplary , please do not take this as an insult, I mean it.

Ok. It is one though, seeing that I am indeed not the ignorant one here. But I couldn't care less.

Wrong again, I am not sure what bible you read.

The very one you keep trying to correct, Frosbel.

The gospel is hinged on Christ Jesus the saviour and the good news he brought about the kingdom of GOD.

The bible , nowhere supports your suggestion that our faith is founded on a mysterious trinity.

Who is the Lord Jesus and what is the kingdom of God?

No, you err again.

God's name is not I AM .

Did I say that it is? I ask that even though I know that it is. But since I did not say that it is, what is my error?

Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I am." In this selfsame Gospel, John gives us the very principle believed by Jews which brought them to this anger:


John testified concerning him and cried out saying, "This is he of whom I said, 'He who comes before me has precedence because he was before me.'" (1:15; cf. 1:30).

Obviously, this is the reason the Jews were angry at Jesus and wanted to stone him and not because they thought he was claiming to be Yahweh. These Jews had just asked Jesus, "Are you greater than our father Abraham?" Jesus' answer at John 8:58 was, "." This is what angered the Jews. He was not only claiming to be greater than these Jews themselves,> but greater than their father Abraham who they considered to be greater than all of them.

They knew that because he was claiming to be the Son of God that Jesus was claiming not only to be greater than them, which really angered them, but now he was illustrating he was greater than Abraham, and none of them would dare to ever make such a claim for themselves. This incited huge jealousy and anger among them.

The whole world was following after Jesus and this was not only threatening their role as leaders but Jesus was also instructing the people they were not doing things right against the Jewish establishment. Jesus was before Abraham and thus greater than Abraham. And this is why they wanted to stone him and finally charged him, not with claiming to be "God," but claiming to be the Son of God. And of course, these Jews were not Trinitarians who presumed the term "Son of God" meant Jesus was also "God."

He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God. (John 8:47)

Read More HERE

Wonderful, Frosbel. The Bible did not say then that they took up stones to stone Him because HE MADE HIMSELF EQUAL TO GOD, ehn?

Grammar !!

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

If HIS here means a plural , then we might as well all have a brain transplant , lol.

Of course it's singular. You didn't get confused, did you? God is singular. There is only one God, Frosbel. Not two or myriad. There isn't one Almighty God and one mighty God and myriad angel gods. There is only one God, Frosbel, one alone. Hence the singular pronoun. Don't be confused.

debosky:

The bible says The WORD was God - i.e, the same thing in this instance.



No - God's action is not the same thing as God - The WORD (note the definitive) was GOD.



Jesus is the WORD and the WORD was God - I don't know what form he existed with, but Jesus was in very nature God as we were taught in Philippians 2:6-7, as we are told, so not just 'a' WORD, because he is THE WORD that was GOD.



In his human form yes - but he did not begin to exist when he was conceived/born of Mary.



I disagree, not with the fact that people were wrongfully killed, but with your characterization. Even with its flaws, the RCC council could still have delivered sound doctrine, so long as it is supported by biblical evidence.



For those unable to read it, let me post the relevant conclusion here:

Both of the above interpretations approach absurdity in my opinion. For John to have joined both instances of (theos) with the conjunction kai and intend one instance to be defined completely different than another is extremely unlikely. It is far more likely that "God" in the second instance is referring to the same "God" in the first instance where "God and God" means "God the Father and God the Father" with the only difference being that John is referring to the Father in the second instance in a qualitative manner

Based on all the evidence I am persuaded the translation of John 1:1 is correct as it stands in Trinitarian Bibles. However, given their interpretation of the verse, their translation is incorrect for them and should read, "the Word was god" which means in English, "the Word was divine."

With respect to interpretation, I agree with both sets of Trinitarian scholars and theologians who have disagreed with each other. In other words, I accept (1) the qualitative sense of the second instance of theos but I am also fully persuaded that we are to understand that John intends to refer to (2) God the Father in that qualitative way. Put another way, John is telling us the Word which was with God the Father in the beginning was not something other than God the Father but was, qualitatively or characteristically, God the Father Himself.

This is splitting hairs at best and introduction of human ideas into the scripture - you cannot be 'qualitatively' or 'characteristically' God and not be God himself. A simple, straightforward reading of the translation (which your link agrees is correct) leads us to the conclusion that The Word was God, not 'qualitatively' anything, simply God.

Wonderful post, sir. About the bolded, Frosbel was wrong about the emperor and the council. I'm not sure if he's intentionally lying or not. But there was no violence or coercion involved in the events of that council. It was the Arians, holders of unitarianism, who started violence. But of course, a dog with a bone will attack its very own puppy over it.

[quote author=Ihedinobi]lol...... Frosbel, you really are a dog with a bone about the Trinity, aren't you? I leave you alone and address myself to other people and you jump on my comments. Sure, I'll indulge you, but not for your own sake anymore.

my pleasure !

Who does this dividing really? Trinity or the Unitarian doctrine? Who holds that there are other gods beside God? Is it the preachers of a tri-UNIty or preachers of multiple gods under the guise of unitarianism?

You are sorely confused, how can you turn the pagan trinity around and call those who believe in ONE God polytheists

I didn't expect you to understand that. I expected debosky to understand it. But to help such as may be caught in confusion because of it. A baby or toddler does not "know" that it is human, but then why does it act like one? Is it not because deeper than the level of conscious knowledge is a level of unconscious knowledge that makes everything act according to kind? Even the Christian who attacks the doctrine of the Trinity, only by dint of having Christ in them, already knows it to be Truth. The attack is onto understanding, whether they're conscious of that or not.

Truths about the nature of God should be easy to undersatnd, God the father in his great love and mercy is not the author of confusion.

To show you God's humility , he came down from heaven , he himself and went past Moses , covering Moses's face with his hand so that he will not die.

God came down in the singular in this instance ! Why are these simple truths so difficult for you to grasp ?

I assure you they wouldn't. No "ism" would. By the way, how many churches have you been through, Frosbel? RCC, Deeper Life, etc etc! You still haven't found the Authority you can hinge on, have you? Isn't that why you are scooping all this nonsense and plastering Nairaland with it? Is it perhaps that you are hungry for understanding? I know that feeling, but allow me to assure you that the answer to Zophar's question in Job 11:7 is NO, man cannot by searching find out God. We find when we seek because we're shown, not because we discover.

I stand by the bible or should we say sola scriptura and yes the Muslims beat you on this one, they do indeed have a better understanding.

You do realize that you are preaching Islam, right? And you really do not recognize that there is a glaring fallacy in their conception of God, do you? A simple God does not build a complex universe. The maker must be more complex than that which it makes. This is why all over the Bible we are told of a mystery of Godliness or, should I say, Godness.

It is a mystery to the unconverted not to the converted.

The babes understand it , the pharisees do not.

"since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them." - Romans 1:19

God makes things plain not incomprehensible as you and your cohorts would like us to beleive.

According to Ihedinobi , just waive the magic wand and whoa !!! the trinity is suddenly fact , not so my friend

Wonderful, Frosbel. The Bible did not say then that they took up stones to stone Him because HE MADE HIMSELF EQUAL TO GOD, ehn?

Since when does make myself equal to God mean being God ?


Mate you need to remove the lenses of tradition and read the bible again.

Of course it's singular. You didn't get confused, did you? God is singular. There is only one God, Frosbel. Not two or myriad. There isn't one Almighty God and one mighty God and myriad angel gods. There is only one God, Frosbel, one alone. Hence the singular pronoun. Don't be confused.

hahaha

@Debosky ,

can you help me here.

I read the following scripture and need to to understand how you see it and point out the trinity.


Exodus 33:18 - 34:5-7
New International Version (NIV)
18 Then Moses said, “Now show me your glory.”

19 And the Lord said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 20 But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”

21 Then the Lord said, “There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. 22 When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 23 Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.”


Then the Lord came down in the cloud and stood there with him and proclaimed his name, the Lord. 6 And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.”


Can you kindly help us wrench the concept of the Trinity out of this scripture master piece.

Secondly :

1. how many Faces do we have here

2. how many Backs do we have here

3. how many Hands do we have here

Thanks in advance.

Ihedinobi:

About the green, He said that before Abraham He is, not was. The grammar wasn't wrong.

About the red,[b] who is "them, Himself and others with him"? Are these people all God or what? [/b]If they are not all God alone, then should the verse read "in the image of God created he him"? Should it not read "in the image of God and them, Himself and others with him created they him"?

Either man was created in the image of a singular God with a plural personality or man was created in the image of plural gods. Which would you have it be, sister?

@Frosbel has treated almost all before my arriver, but i will just add to it, God was probably talking with HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN and Host of Angels which he had created before mankind.

Man was created in the Image of God.

frosbel:
Now tell me , the WORD was GOD in what sense ?

You have not answered my question, was Jesus a being or a WORD that pre-existed ?

This is self-explanatory - if God is a being and the bible says The WORD was GOD, then Jesus was a being.

frosbel: The first point is that there is a difficulty in conceiving that the Word is with God on the one hand, and is God on the other. The first clause states that there is a distinction between the Word and God (since the one is with the other), while the second states that they are one and the same.

I agree - that is the mystery of the divine nature of God and Jesus.

As it stands the sentence does not make sense. It does make sense, however, if we realise that the word theos in Greek used here is an equivalent of the Hebrew word Elohim. Now Elohim can mean God, gods, a god, judge, exalted one, and even angel. The first word refers to God, while the second to another entity. The reference to another entity clearly shows the Word not to be the God with whom the Word is. Indeed some scholars point out that a better translation would be: `and the Word was a god'. This also appears to me to be somewhat forced. One of the other alternatives should probably be chosen.

I agree with the above - which, interestingly goes against YOUR assertion that Jesus was not a being. Or is an 'entity' not a being now?

The trinitarian claim depends on John 1:14, `The Word became flesh.' If this is taken to mean that the Almighty God became flesh, or became incarnate as a human being, this would entail a change in the essence of God, which is both logically and Scripturally unacceptable. Note that this text does not say that Jesus is God.

Who implied a change in the 'essence' of God? It simply means God took on flesh, and nothing to do with his 'essence'.

Of course he had the divine nature of God in him through God's spirit , otherwise this statement will not use the phrase "Jesus was in very nature God ". It would simply read "Jesus was GOD".

It didn't need to - the focus was on Jesus' humility, what he left behind to come to earth.

You may want to consider the following scripture :

"Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires." - 2 Peter 1:4

Jesus was conceived by the Spirit , anointed by the Spirit and resurrected by that same Spirit of GOD, his divinity is not and has never been under question. Remember also that God gave his Son the Spirit without measure, if Jesus was GOD why will the father give him his Spirit without measure.

For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit.- John 3:34 You guys need to put on your thinking caps .

All these references are to the physical incarnation of Jesus, they do not refer nor deal with his pre-existence with God as the Word in the beginning!

A doctrine that is biblical does not need force to implement it, to do so is to exhibit the spirit of the anti-christ.

This is rubbish - human beings decide to kill, not a doctrine. Even the purest thing can be twisted for the aims of killing, so killing in itself is not evidence of the rightness or wrongness of a doctrine.

What did he exist as ? Surely if there was a second person of the trinity this will be most apparent from the OT to the NT, no ?
If Jesus was God number 2 as you say, where is this in scripture, surely God would have said, my number 2 is coming as a man, no ? Why is the scripture silent on this erroneous system of belief ?

I have not even put forth my opinion on the 'trinity' or 'God's number 2' here - so don't ascribe such positions to me. My point is very clear - Jesus was in the beginning with God, and wasn't a 'plan/wisdom' of God as you claimed.

As for what God said about Jesus? For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Number 2 or Number whatever isn't the issue here. Jesus is God and was with God in the beginning!

Sorry your cohorts are the ones using human logic to explain a most unexplainable and mysterious concept which has made a mockery of our faith and prevented countless millions from getting saved.

The Jews for one will find your claims rather bogus and blasphemous, that their Yahweh then one God is actually 3.

Ah I see - so what the Jews believe is now what determines the truth?

Salvation comes by confessing Jesus is Lord and accepting his salvation - anyone who refuses to accept that is on his own!

The only human logic I've seen here so far is by you - the one disputing the very claim of the bible that THE WORD was with God in the beginning!

debosky:

This answer presupposes that the verse is a counting exercise - is it not saying that the Lord, is the only God (i.e. stop believing/worshipping these other gods - Baal, etc) as opposed to describing the nature of the God?

Yes it is used to affirm the fact that God is "ONE" and is often used to contradict the concept of plurality in the Godhead.

debosky:

This is self-explanatory - if God is a being and the bible says The WORD was GOD, then Jesus was a being.

It isn't to me dear Sir.

A being or a Word ? Which one .

If a being as what ? And kindly show me this being represented in the bible.

I agree - that is the mystery of the divine nature of God and Jesus.

As I said and I say again, it is a mystery only to the unconverted.



"the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints." - Colossians 1:26

Who implied a change in the 'essence' of God? It simply means God took on flesh, and nothing to do with his 'essence'.

Okay , let us go with your logic .

1. God overshadowed Mary and she conceived and gave birth to God
2. Mary is the Mother of God , so the catholics are right
3. God anointed God with a third God before God was able to start his minstry
4. God was tempted though James debunks this
5. God was a man though God's word itself says GOD is not a man
6. God died
7. God prayed to God
8. God raised up God from the dead.


Can you not see how silly this whole Trinity nonsense sounds ?

All these references are to the physical incarnation of Jesus, they do not refer nor deal with his pre-existence with God as the Word in the beginning!

which means he was not fully Man.

If God was the man, then we are without hope because we can never achieve the feats Jesus achieved such as overcoming sin, etc , because he was successful as God and not as Man, this is blasphemy !

This is rubbish - human beings decide to kill, not a doctrine. Even the purest thing can be twisted for the aims of killing, so killing in itself is not evidence of the rightness or wrongness of a doctrine.

If you say so, Calvin will agree with you here.

I have not even put forth my opinion on the 'trinity' or 'God's number 2' here - so don't ascribe such positions to me. My point is very clear - Jesus was in the beginning with God, and wasn't a 'plan/wisdom' of God as you claimed.

as what ?

As for what God said about Jesus? For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Jesus is the father of the new and everlasting kingdom of God, as in :

"And again, "I will put my trust in him." And again he says, "Here am I, and the children God has given me." - Hebrews 2:13

Here Jesus clearly states that God gave him children , so he is their father.

And he is indeed Almighty and Lord but also a god in his own right.

But he is not Yahweh.

Number 2 or Number whatever isn't the issue here. Jesus is God and was with God in the beginning!

It is the issue , sir.

Show me where this no.2 person is depicted in scripture

Ah I see - so what the Jews believe is now what determines the truth?

What do you think , they for one know Hebrew more than you do , no ?

In fact they can read the original manuscripts ( the scholars among them ) with relative ease.

Salvation comes by confessing Jesus is Lord and accepting his salvation - anyone who refuses to accept that is on his own!

Amen, we are 100% together with this one.

He is not only Lord of Lords , he is also King of Kings and Son of the living God.

plappville:

Yes it is used to affirm the fact that God is "ONE" and is often used to contradict the concept of plurality in the Godhead.

I don't agree that the verse is intended as a numerical counting exercise - it was to teach Israel to forsake other gods in the land that God was giving them.

Reading the passage in context, we read this in verse 14 of Deuteronomy 6: Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you

[quote author=frosbel][/quote]

Dude, stop adding "quote author = Ihedinobi" in your comment so that I can copy it more easily. Eliminate the spaces on both sides of the equal sign. The above is what I get when I click on Quote. Sheesh!

I have a few questions for you, Father Frosbel, oh thou possessor of all knowledge, thou conqueror of the great mystery of God's Nature. Please indulge me. I'll ask them one at a time to eliminate confusion.

Is God infinite?

plappville:

@Frosbel has treated almost all before my arriver, but i will just add to it, God was probably talking with HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN and Host of Angels which he had created before mankind.

Man was created in the Image of God.

Frosbel had? Well, you guys reason alike so you'll say the same things, right? Lol

So, you do not see the contradiction between

plappville: Man was created in the Image of God.

and

plappville: God was probably talking with HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN and Host of Angels which he had created before mankind.

considering that what God was saying to "HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN and Host of Angels he had created before mankind" was "let US create man in our own image"?

In other words, God created man in the image of God and the angels, no? Man should be exhibiting characteristics analogous to the angel.

[quote author=Ihedinobi]

Frosbel had? Well, you guys reason alike so you'll say the same things, right? Lol

So, you do not see the contradiction between

I can tell you her reasoning even in French defeats your hands down

[quote author=frosbel][/quote]

I dare you to make your comments quotable if you're not afraid of looking like a fool, Frosbel. I'll bet you slink off like a coward

Edit: Ok. Now this was me putting me foot in it. Classic. Frosbel, I see it's not your fault about the quote thing. Well, too bad. I badly wanted to rip into that ridiculous answer you gave to me. Guess, I'll have to lie down and lick my paws Or maybe, just maybe, I'll figure something out and come after you again. Hehehe

plappville:

jOHN 17/5And now, O Father, glorify me with your own self with the glory which I had with you before the world was.

CHRIST EXISTED BEFORE HE WAS SENT TO EARTH, HE EVEN SAID IT THAT "before abraham he was. So God was talking to them, Himself and others with him.

Geez!!! What's with you guys and edition of comments? You're forever editing your previous posts. Frosbel puts his foot in it a truckload amount of times and is forever deleting his posts. What really is it? Too embarrassed by things you've said? You need to be absolutely right so that you can preach down at others? Smh

Leave your mistakes and errors and imperfections alone, lady. If you're a Christian, that is, if you're counting on the Perfection of the Lord Jesus to cover you, you should let yourself alone. When you screw up, don't attempt to obliterate all evidence of the failure, that is not necessary and is even counterproductive. Go to the Lord with your screw-up and entrust your mess to Him.

It's because you don't count Christ Jesus enough that you keep doing aboutface in argument and speaking incoherence. And I am only stating a fact that I have tried to show you by questions I've already asked you.

Edit: oops!!! My bad For some reason, the quoted comment looked different to me. Oh Frosbel, what have you done to me? You just stirred me up and then bored me to the point of snapping at every shadow. C'mon, man.