The Duality -- The Father and The Son

by UnDisfellowshipped 218 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • fjtoth
    fjtoth

  • fjtoth
    fjtoth

  • UnDisfellowshipped
    UnDisfellowshipped

    fjtoth, you said:

    Really, Undisf’d, what would be the point of my taking the time to study what comes from your mind instead of what comes from the Scriptures? Nearly all my life I’ve engaged in discussions with Trinitarians and Anti-trinitarians, and I’m quite aware of how Trinitarians think. And I’m disappointed that Trinitarians generally ignore the main thrust of Scripture and conveniently make a big deal out of a passage here or there that seems to fit their agenda.

    That appears to be a generalization, especially when you claim to know what "Trinitarians" think, as if all Trinitarians believe the exact same way and teach the exact same doctrine and interpret the Scriptures the exact same way.

    How would you like it if I lumped you in with all of the other Unitarians that I have known, including the Watchtower Society, and then claimed that I know how Unitarians think? (I'm not going to do that because it would not be very nice or loving or kind.)

    There is really no point in making a statement like that. It accomplishes nothing positive.

    You should never believe anything I tell you if it disagrees with God's inspired, perfect, infallible, incorruptible Word, the Holy Scriptures. However, I thought the purpose of a DISCUSSION Board was to discuss things, such as your beliefs and my beliefs, and to try and better understand the beliefs of the other side.

    Isn't that what Paul did? When he was with the Jews, did he not act as a Jew? When he was with those not under the Law, didn't he act as though he was not under the Law? Why did he do that? In order to understand their beliefs better so that he could explain the truth of the Gospel to them in a way that they would understand.

    Also, how can you possibly make a valid argument against someone else's beliefs UNLESS you understand what they believe? That is the mistake that the Watchtower Society constantly makes. For example, the Society repeatedly confuses MODALISM with the Trinity Doctrine, and they end up arguing against something that the majority of Trinitarians don't even believe in.

  • fjtoth
    fjtoth

    Disf'd,

    WHOA!!! I never lumped all Trinitarians together. I note by the tone of your latest entry that apparently I somehow said something that offended you. My point was that I've had many, many discussions with Trinitarians over the years. I've heard (and read) all their arguments, including yours. I read the links you posted, not within the past few days, but when you posted them. I see no point in my taking the time to re-read something that I feel is less important than the Bible itself and the discussion at hand.

    If I felt it was useful to contribute something to those threads at the time, I would have done so. We are now in a different thread. I'm living under the assumption that THIS is where we are now having a discussion, and this is where I hope we can stay focussed.

    As I mentioned on another thread where you and I were engaged in a discussion, I'm a very busy person, working long hours each day. If you feel my writing should have been better polished and more appealing, I apologize. All I can say is that I'll try to do better next time.

    Frank

  • the dreamer dreaming
    the dreamer dreaming

    no one ever seems to address what is blatantly obvious to anyone who is not a trinitarian...

    there are visions of heaven throughout the bible and just about all of them show the very same thing.

    there is ONE being who is never confused with anyone or anything but God.

    there is a second being who is identified as ONE LIKE A SON OF MAN.

    or

    Jesus at the RIGHT HAND OF GOD.

    or

    the lamb, the lion of JUDAH, who comes before the throne of GOD ALMIGHTY.

    why is it that NOT ONE vision of heaven EVER shows any 3rd person?

    infact in REV. we find the HOLY SPIRIT symbolized, not by any one person, but by SEVEN lamps of FIRE.

    there is absolutely no where in the visions of the bible showing heaven, anything but ONE GOD and another CHOSEN BY HIM.

    there is NO confusion in any of these vision as to who GOD is.

  • fjtoth
    fjtoth

    Dreamer,

    Good point.

    Mark 13:32 is related to the pictures you gave. It says, "But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone."

    Trinitarians claim that Jesus while on earth subordinated himself to the Father. According to them, Jesus "gave up," "set aside," "chose not to use" and so forth his omniscience for the duration of the "incarnation." They claim that is the reason why Jesus did not know the future day or hour.

    But what about the Holy Spirit, the so-called "Third Person of the Trinity"? Jesus very clearly and specifically said that "the Father alone" had this secret knowledge, meaning that the "Third Person of the Trinity" is also less than omniscient or all-knowing.

    I haven't met a Trinitarian yet who has shown himself capable of dealing with this issue.

    Frank

  • UnDisfellowshipped
    UnDisfellowshipped

    Frank (fjtoth),

    I apologize if I over-reacted above. It appeared that you were generalizing all Trinitarians' beliefs, and saying that all Trinitarians pick and choose which Scriptures to use in order to support their own agenda, and ignore all the other verses, and that you knew exactly how all Trinitarians think. If that is not what you were saying, then I did over-react. But if that is not what you were saying, then I'm not sure I understand what you were trying to say.

    The reason why I said some of that about checking out what others believe, is because in some of your comments above, you are assuming that I believe such and such (or using a "strawman argument"), and you are arguing against it, but in actuality, I believe differently.

    I know you do not have much free time to read or post on here. I am in a similar situation right now. I did not mean to make it sound like I was saying you HAD to read what I posted before. I simply was trying to say that if you want to better understand what I believe so that you can make better arguments against the Trinity (as I believe it to be), then you can do so with those links I provided.

    One example in point: You claimed that Trinitarians and myself teach that there are three Lords, and then you argued against that teaching. Well, I argue against that teaching as well. That would be polytheism. The Bible does NOT teach that there are three Lords, but only ONE Lord. Every Trinitarian I have ever spoken with or listened to, has not believed that there are three Lords.

    Frank (fjtoth) said:

    Please note that the NAB writes “god” with a lower case in Psalm 45:6.

    Additionally, a portion of a footnote under Psalm 45:6 in the NIV Study Bible states:

    O God. Possibly the king's throne is called God's throne because he is God's appointed regent. But it is also possible that the king himself is addressed as "god."

    That is a good Study Bible, as far as I have determined when reading from it. I agree that it is POSSIBLE Psalm 45:6 was directed originally to a human king, though I would say very unlikely, based upon the inspired interpretation of this verse from Hebrews 1:8. I'm going to go with The Holy Spirit over any other interpretation on this particular point.

    There is one other problem with Psalm 45 being directed toward a human king:

    Psalm 45:17 (ESV): I will cause your name to be remembered in all generations; therefore nations will praise you forever and ever.

    If that was directed to a human king, then that means all the nations have been praising a dead human king throughout all of history (since it was written) and will continue to do so into the future. WHO then was this human king, and how have the nations been praising this dead human king forever and ever? Why would God have the nations praise a dead human king? God made a Law against His people trying to communicate with the dead.

    Also, God said that this king's name would be remembered throughout ALL generations. If this was a human king, we do not even KNOW what his name was!!! How do you explain this?

    It's interesting that you accuse me (and all other Trinitarians) of only using Scriptures that fit in with our "agenda," but yet it is you who has refused to believe the INSPIRED interpretation of Psalm 45:6 found in Hebrews 1:8.

    Frank (fjtoth) said:

    I don't know why anyone would choose Psalm 45 to try proving that Jesus is Almighty God.

    The writer of Hebrews quoted Psalm 45:6 in order to PROVE that Jesus was much, much more superior than all the angels. Would you care to explain HOW Psalm 45:6 proves that Jesus is superior to the angels, if it is not calling Jesus "God" in a unique way that angels are NOT called "god"?

    In other words, since, as you (and Joseph Malik) have repeatedly said, angels were called "gods" or "God" in the Bible because they were God's representatives or spokesmen or given special authority to act on God's behalf, and if that is what the word "God" meant in Psalm 45:6, HOW could the writer of Hebrews quote that verse to PROVE Jesus was SUPERIOR to the angels? That makes no sense to me. That is the same question I asked Joseph Malik (who has yet to respond to it). I await your answer.

    I mean, as far as I can tell, you're basically claiming this:

    1:) Psalm 45:6 calls the human king "God" in the sense of being a representative or spokesman of God who has God's authority.
    2:) Angels can be called "God" in the sense of being representatives or spokesmen of God who have God's authority.
    3:) The writer of Hebrews quoted Psalm 45:6, a verse where a human king was called "God" as a representative of God in order to prove that Jesus was much better than angels, who are called "God" as representatives of God.

    Therefore, if we follow that logic, the writer of Hebrews was saying Jesus was greater than the other representative gods BECAUSE He was one of the representative gods!

    Frank (fjtoth) said:

    Verse 7 says the Messiah God of verse 6 has a God.

    True. The Messiah, Jesus, even though He is God by Nature, still has a God (The Father, a different Person) who He serves and worships.

    Frank (fjtoth) said:

    Almighty God does not have a God above him whom he worships. The very thought is blasphemous.

    What is the definition of the word "Almighty"? What does it mean?

    Brown-Driver-Briggs' definition says that the Hebrew word for "Almighty," Shaddai, means "Most Powerful."

    Here is Thayer's definition of the Greek word used for "Almighty" in the New Testament:

    G3841
    pantokrator

    1) he who holds sway over all things
    2) the ruler of all
    3) almighty: God

    Strong's Definition:

    the all ruling, that is, God (as absolute and universal sovereign): - Almighty, Omnipotent.

    So, now that we know what "Almighty" means, does the Bible show that Jesus is Almighty?

    Matthew 28:18 (ESV): And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

    If "Almighty" means having power or authority over all things, then Jesus, by definition, is Almighty, because He has ALL authority in HEAVEN and on EARTH.

    Other Scriptures also show Jesus is the Almighty One:

    1 Timothy 6:14-16 (ESV): to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which he will display at the proper time--he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen.

    Jesus is the Only Sovereign, The Lord of all Lords, The King of all Kings. That means He is Almighty.

    Jude 1:4 (NIV): For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

    Once again, Jesus is called the Only Sovereign.

    You have used the following reasoning to try to prove that only The Father is God:

    1:) The Bible calls The Father the Only Lord.
    2:) The Bible says that there is only One Lord.
    3:) There are NOT two Lords, only One Lord, and it is The Father.

    However, if we use that exact same reasoning with the Scriptures that say Jesus is the ONLY Lord, the ONE Lord, the ONLY Sovereign, the Lord of Lords, the Lord of all, the Lord of glory, etc., then that would have to exclude The Father from being the True Lord. It would mean that The Father must be "lord" in a lesser, inferior sense. If Jesus is our Only Sovereign, as the Bible teaches, does that exclude The Father from also being The Sovereign?

    That is why I do not believe your reasoning is correct. Rather, I believe that there is only ONE Lord (as you mentioned), but that The One Lord is The Father, The Son, and The Spirit.

    You implied that Trinitarians believe in and teach that there are three Lords.

    Here is how the Athanasian Creed puts it, in order to show that you are incorrect on that point:

    Thus the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God: And yet there are not three gods, but one God.

    Thus the Father is Lord; the Son is Lord; the Holy Spirit is Lord: And yet there are not three lords, but one Lord.

    As Christian truth compels us to acknowledge each distinct person as God and Lord, so catholic religion forbids us to say that there are three gods or lords.

    I do not base my beliefs on man-made creeds without checking them against the Bible. I would never take my doctrine from creeds instead of the Bible. I posted that Creed because it agrees with the Bible-based beliefs that I already had.

    Also, since you yourself said that The Father is the Only, One Lord, and that there cannot be TWO Lords because Jesus taught children that there is only ONE Lord -- then WHICH Lord is the ONE Lord -- The Father or Jesus? The Bible calls BOTH of them The ONE Lord:

    Jesus answered, "The most important is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. (Mark 12:29, ESV)

    yet for us there is ... one Lord, Jesus Christ ... (1 Corinthians 8:6, ESV)

    because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, "Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame." For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:9-13, ESV)

    Paul said that we must confess that Jesus is Lord, then he went on to say that it is the SAME Lord who is Lord over all.

    Notice also that the Apostle Paul quoted a Scripture that says "everyone who calls on the Name of Yahweh" and applied it directly to Jesus Christ, and put "Lord" (Kyrios) instead of Yahweh. Because of this context, what Paul was actually saying when he said "confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord" was "confess with your mouth that Jesus is Yahweh."

    So, here is how the Jewish readers of Romans would have understood what Paul said, based on the context:

    because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Yahweh and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, "Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame." For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Yahweh is Yahweh over all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For "everyone who calls on the name of Yahweh will be saved." (Romans 10:9-13)

    Frank (fjtoth) said:

    Verse 7 also says the Messiah God of verse 6 has been anointed by the God he worships. God anoints persons to have them serve as his spokespersons, representatives or agents. Scores of times the Bible refers to the act of anointing, and in every case the anointing is of someone lesser than God, never of Almighty God himself. Even the title "Christ" (Anointed One) is an obvious identification of someone who is inferior to God.

    But, the Bible teaches that Jesus WILLINGLY humbles Himself to The Father. He does not serve or obey The Father because He is inferior or lesser in Nature, but because He willingly submits to The Father's "greater" position in the Godhead relationship. I don't pretend to understand everything about the wonderful relationship within the Trinity. No human can possibly understand everything about God.

    Also, how do you explain Philippians 2:6-8?

    Philippians 2:6-8 (ESV): who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

    Philippians 2:6-8 says that Jesus came to earth in "human FORM." Was Jesus truly a Human, or was He only like a human? It also says He took on the "FORM of a servant." Was Jesus truly a Servant, or was He only like a servant? It also says that before coming to earth, Jesus existed in the "FORM of God." Was Jesus truly God, or was He only like God?

    Shouldn't the word "form" be used in the same manner in all three occurences in those verses? Also, several Translations render Philippians 2:6 to show that Jesus was indeed equal to God before coming to earth:

    "King James Version": Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God

    "New Revised Standard Version": who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited,

    "New Century Version": Christ himself was like God in everything. But he did not think that being equal with God was something to be used for his own benefit.

    "Contemporary English Version": Christ was truly God. But he did not try to remain equal with God.

    "Good News Bible": He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to remain equal with God.

    "God's Word Translation": Although he was in the form of God and equal with God, he did not take advantage of this equality.

    "New Living Translation": Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to.

    "A Conservative Version": who, existing in the form of God, did not consider being equal to God something to seize and hold.

    "Analytical-Literal Translation": who existing in the nature of God, did not consider being equal to God something to be held onto,

    "An Understandable Version of the New Testament": He existed in the form of God [i.e., He shared God’s very nature], but did not consider [remaining] equal with God something [to continue] to hold onto.

    Frank (fjtoth) said:

    Additionally, verse 7 speaks of the "companions" or "partners" of the God of verse 6, and it tells how he got to be "set above" them. He was not always above them. He got to be so because God, his God, anointed him. Almighty God has never had companions or partners as equals.

    Yes, Psalm 45:7 applies to Jesus when He was a Man on earth. Jesus did have "companions" or "associates" while He was a Man, because Jesus was truly, 100% Human. Therefore, God said He was anointing Jesus above His companions, His fellow humans.

    Frank (fjtoth) said:

    This is easy to understand if we are open-minded enough to the reasonableness of the insight offered by the NIV footnote. When Psalm 45 was written under inspiration, it was addressed to the then existing king upon David's throne.

    Where does it actually say that it was addressed to "the then existing king upon David's throne"?

    Frank (fjtoth) said:

    The Psalm applied also to his faithful descendants upon that throne, for every good king was to be obeyed in the same way one should obey God. The king spoke for God. When he spoke, it was as official as if God himself had spoken. He sat, after all, upon “the throne of the Lord.”

    Well, I would say the king was to be obeyed LIKE you would obey God, but not the SAME as you would obey God. Take for example, David. David was a good king (overall). However, should Bath-sheba have obeyed the king the same that she would have obeyed God, when King David wanted her to commit adultery with him? Or should she rather have refused? Should the men have obeyed David when he told them to load up the Ark of the Covenant on a wagon, or should they have refused?

    You should NEVER obey anyone the SAME that you would obey God. That is why the Watchtower Society is so dangerous -- they have convinced people to obey them "just as you would the voice of God."

    God is the only One that you should never question, and even then, God's Word encourages you to compare the words of holy angels from heaven and inspired Apostles against the Bible! (Galatians 1:8) God's Word the Bible is the final answer, not a human king, not a holy angel, not an Apostle, not a prophet.

    Frank (fjtoth) said:

    And this applied even more forcefully with regard to Jesus. Not only was he a descendant of David, but he was God's own genetic Son (as was Adam). He was not anointed with oil but with God's spirit, and his anointing was to the office of prophet and high priest as well as the office of king.

    Something else to think about. The Bible says that Jesus is the Only-Begotten Son of God. Humans beget humans. Apes beget apes. Dogs beget dogs. You get the idea. What does God beget? If something is begotten of God, wouldn't that Person also be God by His Nature?

    Frank (fjtoth) said:

    I think it's arbitrary and capricious to insist that Almighty God is the "God" of both verse 6 and verse 7. To do so is to close one's mind to this very Jewish use of titles, a use that originated not with men but with God, as Jesus pointed out in John 10:34 with reference to Psalm 82:6.

    I don't have any problem saying that kings and judges and angels were called gods in the sense of being a representative of God. However, as I have explained above, I believe Psalm 45:6 has an exclusive application to The Messiah, and that because of Hebrews 1:8, the word "God" in Psalm 45:6 means far more than being a representative of God.

    Frank (fjtoth) said:

    It is God himself who spoke of the ancient Davidic king as “God.”

    But you have yet to convince me that it was spoken to an "ancient Davidic king."

    Frank (fjtoth) said:

    It is also very misleading to insist that the God of verse 6 is Almighty God. For then we end up with Almighty God and Almighty God, which amounts to two Almighty Gods, and that is polytheism. In that way we reduce the sacred text to nonsense.

    No, we end up with the Trinitarian belief that there is One Person who is Almighty in Nature and Position (The Father), and that there is a Second Person (The Son) who is also Almighty in Nature and Position, because He shares the SAME Nature and Position as the First Person.

    You're correct -- if there were two Almighty Gods it would be polytheism. I do not believe that there are two Almighty Gods.

    Frank (fjtoth) said:

    The fact needs to be stated clearly that there are two definitions for God in the Bible. The words for “God” in both Hebrew and Greek applied to people as well as to God. One definition refers to God himself, and the other definition refers to special individuals appointed by him to speak in his name.

    Yes, correct, there are two types of gods in the Bible. The Apostle Paul said that there is the One True God by Nature, and then there are the "so-called gods." So, according to Paul, even the representative gods (angels, people) are in the so-called god category, because they are not the true God by Nature. However, Paul separated Jesus, and said that Jesus is NOT in the so-called god category. (See 1 Corinthians 8:6)

    If Jesus is not a so-called god, and if He is not the One True God, then what kind of "god" is left? There is no 3rd category of "gods" in the Bible.

    Frank (fjtoth) said:

    Jesus in Psalm 45:6 and Hebrews 1:8 is obviously the latter. His Father is the Great Anointer, and Jesus is the lesser Anointed One, the Christ. The Jews read this Psalm for centuries and, knowing the flexibility of the word “God,” they never concluded that the Messiah would somehow be part of a Triune God.

    I agree that the Jews, when they read Psalm 45:6, may have applied it to human kings. But that is not the inspired interpretation -- that is imperfect human interpretation. The Holy Spirit gave His interpretation in Hebrews Chapter 1.

  • UnDisfellowshipped
    UnDisfellowshipped

    Frank,

    You said:

    Mark 13:32 is related to the pictures you gave. It says, "But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone."
    Trinitarians claim that Jesus while on earth subordinated himself to the Father. According to them, Jesus "gave up," "set aside," "chose not to use" and so forth his omniscience for the duration of the "incarnation." They claim that is the reason why Jesus did not know the future day or hour.
    But what about the Holy Spirit, the so-called "Third Person of the Trinity"? Jesus very clearly and specifically said that "the Father alone" had this secret knowledge, meaning that the "Third Person of the Trinity" is also less than omniscient or all-knowing.
    I haven't met a Trinitarian yet who has shown himself capable of dealing with this issue.

    Well, you've already met him. It's me. I dealt with this issue on a thread earlier this year: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/115521/1.ashx

    Here is what I said in that thread:

    _____________________________________________________

    About your question about the Holy Spirit.... Check this out:

    In John 6:46, Jesus Christ said this (Scriptures from "The Literal Translation of the Holy Bible"/LITV):

    " not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One being from God, He has seen the Father."

    But, then in Matthew 18:10, Jesus Christ said this:

    "See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I tell you that their angels in Heaven continually look on the face of My Father in Heaven."

    In the Bible, it is extremely important to look at the context and understand what Jesus is truly saying. In John 6:46, Jesus said that ONLY HE had seen The Father, and He did not mention the fact that the angels also see The Father in Heaven. The reason for this is because in John 6:46 Jesus is making the point that no HUMAN on earth has ever seen The Father except for Jesus, so He did not need to bring the angels into his discussion. Jesus was not discussing the angels in John 6:46.

    So, just because Jesus uses the word "Only" in a certain context does not always mean that Jesus was saying "Only" in the absolute sense.

    Matthew 24:36: "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only".

    When He said that, Jesus had not yet spoken to His Apostles about the coming of the Holy Spirit (John Chapters 14-16), and so they may not have known much about Him yet. Notice this Scripture:

    John 7:39 (LITV): But He said this concerning the Spirit, whom the ones believing into Him were about to receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

    The Spirit had not yet been given to the Apostles in the fullest way. Jesus probably did not want to confuse His disciples any more than necessary by mentioning a THIRD Person in Matthew 24:36 that He had not yet told them much about.

    Jesus did not want to bring the Holy Spirit, a Person whom the Apostles hardly knew anything about at this point, into the picture until He could explain to them about who this Spirit is (John Chapters 14-16).

    Also, in the New Testament, nearly always, whenever it mentions an attribute or title of One of the Persons of the Trinity, it is true of ALL 3 Persons.

    For example: The New Testament says Jesus is our ONLY Lord (Jude 1:4, Ephesians 4:5, 1 Corinthians 8:6), but it also says that The Father is our Lord (Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21, Acts 4:29, Revelation 11:15). The New Testament also says that The Holy Spirit is Lord (2 Corinthians 3:13).

    The New Testament says Jesus Christ is the Only Judge (John 5:22, Romans 14:10-12), but it also says that God is the Judge (1 Corinthians 5:13, Hebrews 12:23, Hebrews 13:4).

    The New Testament says that The Father is "The Only True God" (John 17:3), but it also says that Jesus is God (John 20:28, John 1:1, Romans 9:5, 1 John 5:20).

    The New Testament says that God is the One who "knows the hearts" of people (Acts 1:24), but it also says that Jesus is the One who knows the hearts (Revelation 2:23).

    So, when the New Testament makes a statement that One of the Three Persons of the Trinity is the "Only" One who has a certain quality or attribute, it does NOT exclude the other Two Persons from also having that quality or attribute.

    In fact, the New Testament, in 1 Corinthians 2:10-11, DOES say that the Holy Spirit knows EVERYTHING that God The Father knows:

    1 Corinthians 2:10-11 (LITV): But God revealed them to us by His Spirit, for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. For who among men knows the things of a man, except the spirit of a man within him? So also no one has known the things of God except the Spirit of God.

    You could ask the Jehovah's Witnesses why 1 Corinthians 2:11 says that ONLY The Holy Spirit knows what God is thinking. Why did that Verse not say that Jesus knows what God is thinking?

  • fjtoth
    fjtoth

    Undisf'd,

    Please excuse my typo up above where I wrote "Disf'd" instead of "Undisf'd."

    You wrote:

    . . . you are assuming that I believe such and such (or using a "strawman argument"), and you are arguing against it, but in actuality, I believe differently.
    No, I didn’t set up a “strawman argument.” You speak English and I speak English. Each of us should have a basic understanding of the language. Sadly, this is where Trinitarians seem to fall short.

    You wrote:

    I did not mean to make it sound like I was saying you HAD to read what I posted before. I simply was trying to say that if you want to better understand what I believe so that you can make better arguments against the Trinity (as I believe it to be), then you can do so with those links I provided.

    Still, you admit you “over-reacted” because I decided not to look up the threads you linked. And in over-reacting, isn't it true that you suggested I was failing to follow the apostle Paul’s example? Pretty serious comparison, I tend to think.

    You wrote:

    You claimed that Trinitarians and myself teach that there are three Lords, and then you argued against that teaching. Well, I argue against that teaching as well. That would be polytheism.

    The Athanasian Creed says "The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord." Now, Undisfellowshiped, let’s speak man-to-man in plain English. To insist that there are not three Lords within the Trinity is worse than being ambiguous! Anyone knows what I mean if I say “Mr. Smith is Governor, Mr. Jones is Governor, and Mr. Doe is Governor.” I’m speaking of three Governors. It’s that simple. Thus three Lords mentioned by name in the creed cannot in plain English mean one Lord.

    But believers in the Athanasian Creed don’t want to be accused of polytheism. So they employ doublespeak. Their creed supplies the following sentence that contradicts the one above: “And yet there are not three Lords, but one Lord only." Can’t you see how nonsensical that is? And can’t you see why the framers of the Athanasian Creed felt compelled to add that sentence? Obviously they felt too ashamed and embarrassed to allow their polytheism to be seen so conspicuosly. Three EQUAL persons addressed as "Lord" and "God" makes a plurality of EQUAL Lords and Gods, no matter how you slice it. Trying to obliterate that fact by using mumbo-jumbo is an insult to human intelligence. I really believe such mischievous distortion of Christian teaching had to be invented by a crafty devil..

    Trinitarians have told me that God is like a triangle. A triangle, they say, illustrates how three Lords can equal one Lord. A triangle has three corners. At each corner I'm supposed to see a member of the Trinity. But I’m also to see that the whole triangle is the whole Trinity. In other words, there is a Lord at each corner, but together the Trinity is one Lord. Does that make any sense to you? To anyone? It should be embarrassing to bring up such a phony illustration. Common sense tells us that in such an illustration each Lord is only a partial Lord, not a complete Lord in his own right. I believe it dishonors God to use such an illustration that graphically defines God as only a third of a Lord. It also dishonors him to teach, as the Athanasian Creed does, that God the Father has equals who also are Lords in the same sense that he is the Lord.

    Thus the Athanasian Creed is just plain silly. It offers absolutely nothing of intelligence or value to a sincere student of the Bible. It is a vain attempt to prove that Trinitarians do not believe in three Lords when in actually they most certainly do.

    There was a period in my life when I was inclined to believe in the Trinity. But there were just too many absurdities and contradictions. That's when I determined to put all the creeds aside and stick with the Bible only. I can’t thank God enough for leading me to read a significant portion of the Bible each day. Reading the Bible in an orderly fashion soon snuffs out any possibility that the Trinity theory is from God.

    For a long time Trinitarians have impressed me as trying to pull a fast one. They staunchly deny that their doctrine is tritheism, but the longer they talk the more insincere their arguments become. And the more obvious it is that they really do worship a multiplicity of Gods just as the ancient pagans did! When they paint themselves into a corner, their ultimate line is that the Trinity is a mystery. They say God is a paradox that our finite human minds cannot fully comprehend. Haven’t you yourself admitted the same? It is no wonder that the average Christian cannot explain the Trinity. Most of the laity and many of the clergy accept it only because their denomination says it’s in the Bible, whereas it actually is not. And insult of all insults, many denominations parrot the Athanasian Creed’s pontification that no person can be saved who denies the Trinity. In fact, if we conclude after wrestling with it that this teaching is just plain incomprehensible, we are deserving of everlasting fire.

    You wrote:

    I agree that it is POSSIBLE Psalm 45:6 was directed originally to a human king, though I would say very unlikely, based upon the inspired interpretation of this verse from Hebrews 1:8. I'm going to go with The Holy Spirit over any other interpretation on this particular point.

    Are you claiming that you have more of the Holy Spirit than noted Bible scholars? Bible scholars agree with Jewish tradition as well as the NIV footnote that the Psalm was originally a wedding hymn addressed to a Jewish king and his bride. To deny that this was its original purpose is tantamount to saying the Holy Spirit misled the sons of Korah. They were inspired to compose this Psalm for use at royal weddings. And that is how it was used for about 400 years by the Levitical temple choir. Do you also disagree with scholars who tell us that some passages in the Bible have more than one application or fulfillment? Are you really "going . . . with The Holy Spirit" or are you simply showing a preference for your own private interpretation?

    You asked concerning Psalm 45:17:

    God said that this king's name would be remembered throughout ALL generations. If this was a human king, we do not even KNOW what his name was!!! How do you explain this?

    The explanation is simple. First of all, God is not the speaker in verse 17 or anywhere else in this Psalm. The speaker is a human who pledges his support by means of this song to perpetuate the king’s memory throughout the generations and awaken the praise of the nations. Secondly, many believe the hymn was composed specifically for Solomon whose name and fame have reached down to our own day. A similar hymn in praise of Solomon says this: “May his name endure forever; may his name increase as long as the sun shines; and let men bless themselves by him; let all nations call him blessed.” (Ps. 72:17)

    You wrote:

    It's interesting that you accuse me (and all other Trinitarians) of only using Scriptures that fit in with our "agenda," but yet it is you who has refused to believe the INSPIRED interpretation of Psalm 45:6 found in Hebrews 1:8.

    Where is the evidence that I’ve claimed Psalm 45:6 does NOT apply to Jesus? And as for an agenda, my only purpose is to defend the Scriptures, not some man-made creed that was written centuries after the Scriptures were completed. Can you say the same? Where in the Scriptures can you find the contradictory and confusing statement “The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord. And yet there are not three Lords, but one Lord only."?

    You asked:

    Would you care to explain HOW Psalm 45:6 proves that Jesus is superior to the angels, if it is not calling Jesus "God" in a unique way that angels are NOT called "god"?

    Trinitarians fail to read the Scriptures carefully. The twist you are giving the text by your question is that the contrast is between Christ as God and angels as not God. But that is not the contrast that the writer intends. In verse 7 the angels are said to be ministers or servants, but in verse 8 the Son is seated upon an everlasting throne with a scepter in his hand. The writer is not stating that Christ is God and the angels are not. He is showing the obvious distinction between Christ as king and the angels as servants.

    Please note that the angels are not ruled out as gods. The Psalm from which verse 6 is quoted specifies that they are indeed “gods” or, according to a footnote in the NASB, “supernatural powers.” The original Hebrew word means “gods,” but the Septuagint, quoted by the writer of Hebrews, has the Greek word for “angels.” Now, up above you stated your preference for the Holy Spirit’s interpretation. If you really mean that, and if you compare Hebrews 1:6 with it’s source, you will notice that the Holy Spirit has identified the holy angels as “gods” -- good gods and not bad ones. In this early part of the epistle, the contrast is also shown between Christ and Moses. Moses also bore the title of “God”. (Ex. 4:16; 7:1) The superiority of Christ over Moses had nothing to do with the title of “God” borne by each of them. Note how the writer of Hebrews highlights why Christ is greater than the angels and Moses:

    1:2, 4, 5 – Christ is God’s unique Son, the appointed heir. But he was not always better than the angels. He “became as much better than the angels, as he inherited a more excellent name than they.” He was begotten as God’s Son at a point in time called “Today.”

    1:3 -- Christ was not always an exalted being. It was at his ascension as the exact representation of his Father’s very nature that “he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.”

    1:6 – Christ is the Firstborn to whom even angels would bow down (Young’s Literal Translation).

    1:7 – Compared with the Son, angels are but servants.

    1:8 – It can be said of him and not of angels that he sits upon an everlasting throne in his kingdom.

    1:11 – Christ’s permanence surpasses that of heaven and earth.

    1:13 – Christ is greater than the angels because he has been elevated to sit at God’s right hand, an invitation no angel has ever received.

    2:2-4 – Angels conveyed a Law that brought punishment, but Christ conveys God’s more extraordinary message of salvation.

    2:5-9 – Though lower than the angels as a man, Christ – not the angels -- was afterward exalted above them and granted dominion over the world to come.

    3:4-6 – Moses was an attendant in God’s house, but Christ as God’s Son is over the entire house.

    Nowhere in Hebrews is it stated that Christ is God but the angels and Moses were not. Still, in the final analysis, Jesus Christ is not the Most High God. Jesus and the angels are mentioned again, in Hebrews 12. The writer speaks of “myriads of angels” and “Jesus the mediator.” But he also mentions separately “God the Judge of all.” Jesus and the angels are not “God the Judge of all.” In this way God the Father is distinguished from them.

    So the contrast is not between someone called “God,” and others who are not called “God”. The contrast is between, on one hand, an anointed king upon David’s eternal throne and, on the other hand, angels and Moses who are servants.

    Hebrews does not disprove that Jesus is “God” in the same sense that the angels, Moses and the Davidic kings were “God”. He is God in precisely the way indicated in Exodus 4:16 and 7:1, and Psalms 45:6 and 97:7.

    It should also be noted that scholars are not unanimous on how Psalm 45:6 and Hebrews 1:8 should be translated. Note some examples that differ with the KJV and others:

    “The kingdom that God has given you will last.” -- Ps. 45:6, Good News Bible

    "Thy throne, given of God’ – Ps. 45:6, The Holy Bible by Isaac Leeser

    “Your divine throne endures.” – Ps. 45:6, Revised Standard Version

    "Your throne is God's throne." -- Ps. 45:6, The Message

    "Your throne is the throne of God” – Ps. 45:6, New English Bible

    "God is thy throne." – Heb. 1:8, Moffat’s Translation

    "God is thy throne." – Heb. 1:8, The Twentieth Century New Testament

    "God is your throne.’" – Heb. 1:8, An American Translation

    "God is your throne." – Heb. 1:8, The Bible in Living English

    Just as David and others sat upon "the very throne of the Lord," also known as "the throne of David," so does Jesus. (1 Chr. 28:5, 7; Lu. 1:32) And just as David was not Almighty God, neither is Jesus.

    None of what I have written here is meant to be cynical or demeaning. All I want by engaging in this thread is to stir up some good old-fashioned Scripture-mindedness, deep thinking and reasonableness. This is what you wrote to me a little over a week ago in another thread:

    I agree with you that it is a shame when people just try to argue, but never listen to what the other side is saying. I try to always understand and listen to what the other side is saying. I try to remain open to new understandings of Scripture. I test everything like Paul said, and like the Noble-Minded Bereans did. I try to never be dogmatic or harsh or judgmental.

    My prayer is that you sincerely mean that, Undisfellowshiped. I wish you could see Trinitarianism as I now see it. I can no longer accept it because I have found, by letting the Bible speak for itself, God's message about himself and his only-begotten Son is so much easier to understand than the mysticism and incomprehensible and pompous jargon of the so-called orthodox creeds. As much as some Trinitarians I've met seem to resent it, the saying is true that 1 + 1 + 1 = 3, not 1.

    To be continued.

    Frank

  • fjtoth
    fjtoth

    Undisf'd,

    I tried to do some reformatting in the above post but couldn't. I guess I waited too long. At any rate, these are some corrections:

    You wrote:

    . . . you are assuming that I believe such and such (or using a "strawman argument"), and you are arguing against it, but in actuality, I believe differently.

    No, I didn’t set up a “strawman argument.” You speak English and I speak English. Each of us should have a basic understanding of the language. Sadly, this is where Trinitarians seem to fall short.

    You wrote:

    You claimed that Trinitarians and myself teach that there are three Lords, and then you argued against that teaching. Well, I argue against that teaching as well. That would be polytheism.

    The Athanasian Creed says "The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord." Now, Undisfellowshiped, let’s speak man-to-man in plain English. To insist that there are not three Lords within the Trinity is worse than being ambiguous! Anyone knows what I mean if I say “Mr. Smith is Governor, Mr. Jones is Governor, and Mr. Doe is Governor.” I’m speaking of three Governors. It’s that simple. Thus three Lords mentioned by name in the creed cannot in plain English mean one Lord.

    Frank

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit