The Trinity

by meadow77 740 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

William Penwell

We have missed the point of Jesus message and allowed organized reliogion to think for us. A good quote I have used before by Dr. Wayne Dyer:
The leaders of the church have misconstrued the teachings of the great religious leaders and attempted to teach conformity by using fear of retribution as a weapon. Thus a man behaves morally not because he believes it to be appropriate for him, but because God wants him to behave that way. If in doubt, consult the commandments rather than yourself and what you believe. Behave because someone has told you to and because you will be punished if you dont, not because you know it to be the right behavior for you. Organized religion appeals to your approval seeking needs. It may produce the same behavior that you would have chosen, but you havent chosen it freely.
Using yourself as a guide and not needing the approval of an outside force is most religious experience you can have. It is a veritable religion of itself in which an individual determines his own behavior based upon his own conscience and the laws of his culture that work for him, rather than because someone has dictated how he should behave. A careful look at Jesus Christ will reveal an extremely self-actualized person, an individual who preached self-reliance and was not afraid to incur disapproval. Yet many of his followers have twisted his teachings into a catechism of fear and self hate.
Wayne Dyer
Your Erroneous Zones
Page 59
"A careful look at Jesus Christ will reveal an extremely self-actualized person, an individual who preached self-reliance and was not afraid to incur disapproval. Yet many of his followers have twisted his teachings into a catechism of fear and self hate."
Will
gumby

Gumby, it still amazes me how so many readily condemn the Catholics, yet it was they who compiled and declared the bible truth.
Thats the problem Lew....they declared it.
Did God ever command a book to be compiled of the NT? If it was his book to us in my opinion.....it wouldn't have been lost the first time nor be in question.
Why does the story of Jesus go hand in hand with Osisis Dionysus in every detail.......this one being BEFORE Jesus?
Lew....you recommended a book to me a long time ago.I'll recommend one to you. "The Jesus Mysteries".Have a look. It's eye opening.
hooberus

Herk said:
"Whether we're trinitarian or unitarian in our beliefs, it's always best to show respect for the other person and his or her point of view, at least at the outset of any discussion. I'm not a trinitarian. I've heard every one of your arguments before andfound them extremely weak upon cross-examination. However, they would invite discussion if you hadn't hammered away from the beginning that you are right and persons who disagree are liars."
Herk how do you feel about the angel point raised by meadow? The first 2 Chapters of Hebrews seems to me to substantaite clearly the statement:
SEE HEBREWS FOR REFUTATION TO JESUS AS AN ANGEL
Edited by - hooberus on 30 November 2002 14:51:10
herk

UnDisfellowshipped,
I carefully read what you wrote and I'm convinced most persons would understand you just as I did. When you said "most of the time" and "whenever," I can hardly be blamed for taking you at your word. I responded accurately when I showed you that in all cases, not simply the majority, where both Jesus and God the Father are mentioned together, there isn't the slightest hint in the context that Jesus is a "separate person" within the Trinity. Now that you've explained more clearly what you intended, your point is even more superfluous. It doesn't prove a thing.
You wrote:
In the Scriptures, most of the time, whenever The Father and Jesus are mentioned in the same Verses, The Father is called God, and Jesus is distinguished because they are SEPARATE PERSONS.
In the 387 instances that I mentioned, Jesus is not "distinguished" (according to the dictionary definition) as being a separate person within the Trinity. He is shown simply as being a person who is not God, just as the mention of any other person in the same sort of context would mean that the person is not God.
At least 189 times he spoke of God as his Father, instead of as God. If your point had any validity, he should have called him God all the time. On the other hand, a prince doesn't call his father the king if he himself is the king. If he did so in truth, the realm would have two kings, the father and the son. For the same reason Jesus would not speak of his Father as his God if he himself were God. If both were God, then we have the scenario of two Gods, not just one.
Additionally, the New Testament writers used the term for "Father" 16 times when they clearly meant God, and in such cases Jesus is not mentioned in the immediate context. If Jesus is God, and if the Holy Spirit is God, then they should have said "God" instead of limiting godship to the Father alone.
They wrote of God as "God the Father" 13 times. (Gal 1:1; Eph 6:23; Php 2:11; Col 3:17; 1 Th 1:1; 2 Th 1:2; 1 Ti 1:2; 2 Ti 1:2; Tit 1:4; 1 Pe 1:2; 2 Pe 1:17; 2 Jn 3; Jude 1)
And 14 times they described him as "the God and Father." (Ro 15:6; 1 Co 15:24; 2 Co 1:3; 11:31; Gal 1:4; Eph 1:3; 4:6; Php 4:20; 1 Th 1:3; 3:11, 13; Jas 1:27; 1 Pe 1:3; Re 1:6)
So, there are many texts that clearly show that the Father is God. No guesswork is necessary. There is no need to rationalize and say we can see "evidence" that the Father is God in such-and-such texts. The Bible states many times in unmistakable terms that the Father is God.
Can you show us a dozen or so texts that say the same thing about Jesus? About the Holy Spirit? Can you show us even one text that speaks of "God the Son" and another that mentions "God the Holy Spirit"? Why not? If both are equal with the Father as members of the triune God, wouldn't that be a good place to start in showing the credibility of such a teaching?
Herk
SwedishChef

So much debate on John 1:1. Why? Because it says it so clearly. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. There really is no debating on what it says. The Word, if you read on, is unmistakably Jesus.
"He came unto his own, and his own received him not."
"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us."
"That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." Remember Jesus says "I am the light of the world."
So there is not question that the Word is Jesus.
In verse one it says that Jesus was with God and WAS GOD. Pretty clear to me.
The reason why this passage is under constant attack is because of it's clearity. Every single version out there (except for the NWT, of course) says "the Word was God."
I think it is very ignorant for anyone to say that I am the one twisting Scripture when it is stated plainly that Jesus is God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
Now anyone who is a student in the Bible knows there is ONE INDEPENDANT CREATOR. Isaiah 44:24, "Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself"
So the Biblically unbased proclamation that Jehovah used Jesus to create the universe is falsified.
Question: How can God be three and one at the same time?
Answer: "He cannot be three and one in the same sense. In what sense can He be one and three? A perfectly satisfactory answer to this question is manifestly impossible from the very nature of the case: (1) God is infinite, we are finite. He "dwells in the light no man can approach unto." Our attempts at a philosophical explanation of the tri-unity of God is an attempt to put the facts of infinite being into the forms of finite thought, and of necessity can be, at the best, only partially successful. This much we know, that God is essentially one, and that He is also three. There is but one God: but this one God makes Himself known to man as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and they are sparate personalities." -- R.A. Torrey
What "unitarians" are saying is that God, in fact, can't do everything. That it would be impossible for Him to send Himself to die for our sins. Putting limitations on God is a dangerous game to play. For "with God all things are possible." (Mark 19:26)
A unitarians unbelief in the trinity is a manifestion of their unbelief in the Bible.
Another verse attacked for it's clearity: 1 Timothy 3:16 "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."
The fact is God did pay for our sins. Jesus is God. That is a very Biblically based statement.
Acts 20:28 "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." God purchased the church with his own blood.
Revelation 1:7-8 "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen."
And they also WHICH PIERCED HIM. Now he who was pierced is now speaking in the next verse.
"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."
HE WHO WAS PEIRCED IS THE ALPHA AND OMEGA.
Micah 5:2 "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."
This is a prophecy about the Messiah. It is stated that the Messiah has an EVERLASTING PAST. Who has an everlasting past but God?
Don't ever say that I twist scripture when such clearity is used in these passages.
--and herk, I'm sorry if I'm such a smart alec wise guy, but it makes me mad that people can't see (and when they do, deny) the obvious.
herk

UnDisfellowshipped,
You wrote:
How do you know that Psalm 45:6 (or the whole Chapter of Psalms 45) is addressed to a Human King of Israel?
There are many Trinitarian scholars who say so. For example, a footnote in the NIV Study Bible states: "Ps 45 A song in praise of the king on his wedding day (see title). He undoubtedly belonged to David's dynasty, and the song was probably used at more than one royal wedding. Since the bride is a foreign princess (see vv. 10, 12), the wedding reflects the king's standing as a figure of international significance (see note on v. 9). Accordingly he is addressed as one whose reign is to be characterized by victories over the nations (vv. 3-5; cf. Ps 2; 110). As a royal son of David, he is a type (foreshadowing) of Christ."
The footnote for verse 6 says: "45:6 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.' The Davidic king (the 'L ORD 's anointed,' 2Sa 19:21), because of his special relationship with God was called at his enthronement the 'son' of God (see 2:7; 2Sa 7:14; 1Ch 28:6; cf. 89:27). In this psalm, which praises the king and especially extols his 'splendor and majesty' (v. 3), it is not unthinkable that he was called 'god' as a title of honor (cf. Isa 9:6). Such a description of the Davidic king attains its fullest meaning when applied to Christ, as the author of Hebrews does (Heb 1:8-9)."
You wrote:
Please read Acts 2:25-31 to see how Prophecies like Psalm 45:6 about Christ were stated in the Bible.
As I'm sure you are aware, Acts 2 says nothing about Psalm 45. Are we to understand that nothing in the Psalms applies to the people who lived during the period when it was being written? As shown by the NIV Study Bible, Psalm 45:6 is not a prophecy in particular. It was written for special occasions in the ceremonies of ancient Israel.
You wrote:
Hmmm, well, I would the majority of Translations I have do not include the word "Him". The King James Version and a couple other Translations I have do include the word "Him", but about 17 Translations I have do not.
A quick reading of Revelation 5 shows there is only one person sitting upon the throne. See verse 7 and also verses 1 and 13 as I mentioned:
The One sitting upon the throne that is surrounded by the angels is not the Lamb. It is God. (Verses 1, 13)
I asked if you would agree with Peter's answer to Jesus' question on who Jesus is. You didn't answer the question. You threw two other texts at me that have nothing to do with Peter's answer. So, the question remains: Was Peter correct when he did not say Jesus is God? Was he wrong when he said Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the living God? What is your answer? You know, of course, that if you say Peter was wrong, then you are saying God is wrong, since Jesus told Peter that his answer came from God.
What Thomas said was a different story. We can discuss that another time. I just wish you would stick with what we've been dealing with so far, instead of frequently changing the subject.
Will you answer the questions I've raised in this post? (1) Were the kings of Israel addressed as God, and if so, did that mean they were actually God himself? (2) If Jesus was addressed as God in the same way that Israel's kings were addressed, does that prove he is God himself? (3) Will you acknowledge that the "him" who is worshipped in Revelation 5 is God and not the Lamb, as shown by the fact that only God is sitting upon a throne and only the one on the throne is rendered worship? (4) Will you acknowledge that Peter was correct in his identification of Jesus, not as God, but as the promised human Messiah, the Son of God?
Herk
SwedishChef

Another thing to add to my post above:
If the apostle Thomas, without correction, called Jesus Lord and God, I think it is a safe bet that Jesus is Lord and God.
John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
In response to the discussion about John 3:13.
"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."
The Strongs and Youngs literal translations show that the KJV was correct translating this verse.
Strongs literal: "And no one has gone up into Heaven except he out of Heaven having come down the Son of Man, who is in Heaven."
Youngs literal: "and no one hath gone up to the heaven, except he who out of the heaven came down -- the Son of Man who is in the heaven."
gumby

So there is not question that the Word is Jesus.
Ther actuall word is "Logos"
This word was unknown to the early hebrews and was a NT usage of a word the ancients used.
Guess how the pagans described the LOGOS? He was of God, he was the representation of God, he was god in the flesh, he was God. Kinda similar to Jesus.
Edited by - Gumby on 30 November 2002 16:26:31
SwedishChef

Gumby, if in fact your sources are credible (which I highly doubt they are), then all I have to say is Satan has his counterfeits. Christianity is indeed unlike any other religions out there. It is the one true religion. The Bible is the one true infallible Word of God.
The one thing I just cannot understand is why people like you actually go out of your way to try to discredit the Bible to cause people to defect from their faith.
I can tell that will never happen to a true Christian. God keeps us.
fjtoth

Firm,
As shown in this graphic taken from the Hebrew Bible, the Tetragrammaton does not appear at all in Isaiah 9:6. As you mentioned, perhaps you're looking at Isaiah 9:6 in a translation where the numbering is different than in regular Bibles. If that's true, the message wouldn't be the same. So, even if the Tetragrammaton appeared there, it would not show that the Messiah bears the name of the Tetragrammaton. The Tetragrammaton is never translated as "mighty God," but almost always as "L ORD ."
fjtoth

The Trinity

Share this