The Trinity (page 50)

herk

SwedishChef,

You wrote:

Herk, I am personally requesting you stop posting these rediculous cartoons.

Whether by Scripture or by cartoons, the truth hurts you, doesn't it?

Herk

Roddy

Great cartoon Herk. True that only the Father knows the hour. Drives home the point.

I've heard most of the arguments, in this thread, before. For some reason I don't recall stumbling across Acts 20:28, though. The NWT inserts the word "son", to add their doctrinal slant to this text. So much for literal translating.

On the subject of blasphemy, I submit Matt.12:31,32; 1Tim.1:13; James 2:7, for interest.

I think Trinitarianism is far easier to understand if you think of the "Q continuum" from "Star Trek the Next Generation". That having been said, I find it mildly amusing when I see folks scrabbling to put God in a box.

Anyone know where I can get some popcorn?

herk

UnDisfellowshipped,

You tried to pretend great wisdom by suggesting that Jesus had to be either the True God or a False God. That makes George Washington either the True God or a False God according to your logic. Jesus never claimed to be the Almighty God and neither did George Washington. You're the God-maker. Jesus didn't make himself God, but you did. Yet, you've got as much authority to do so as somebody who makes Washington into the Almighty God.

So, now you have said that Jesus is not the True God. Jesus is not a false god. Jesus is not a god.

There you go again, just like the Pharisees. Instead of accepting what I have said, as well as what the Scriptures say, you think you can twist our words and use false logic to paint truth as fiction. Your statement shows that you've never taken the time to read or note what I have actually said, or what the Scriptures teach, about Christ's relationship with God.

I'm deliberately twisting facts by saying that unitarians believe that the Word is the Mighty God but not Almighty God? Please elaborate.

What elaboration is needed? In just one sentence you show you can't tell the difference between "mighty" and "almighty."

I looked it up and proskuneo worship is only mentioned as being given to humans or holy angels around 5 times in the New Testament, and 3 of those times the person who was giving the proskuneo worship was reproved! They obviously would not have been reproved if the proskuneo worship they were giving was simply honor.

The fact remains that Jesus was never given latreuo. God the Father alone is worthy of such higher form of worship. That some were reproved for rendering proskuneo to a creature is not proof that the reprover viewed proskuneo on a par with latreuo. If it was, then all such acts should have been reproved, but they were not. I can understand why a godly person, even an angel, would reject proskuneo, and you should understand that too. Out of deep reverence for God, we need to be cautious that we do not accept undue honour and praise that really should be given to God and his principal Son.

However, in Revelation 3:9, proskuneo worship must simply mean that they were giving honor to the Church, otherwise it would contradict the rest of the Scriptures, either that, or it means that they would come and give proskuneo worship to God in the presence of the Church "before their feet."

Here you you acknowledge that proskuneo does not have the same meaning as latreuo, though Trinitarians generally can't seem to see the difference. The Scriptures clearly show that Christ, angels and men may receive proskuneo, but only God the Father is entitled to latreuo. Apparently, it's more a matter of Trinitarians not wanting to see it than it is of them being unable to see it.

As I showed above, there is obviously TWO different types of proskuneo worship -- One type that ONLY God should receive and another that simply means giving honor.

Did you show it, or did you twist the Scriptures to arrive at your conclusion that, by the way, has no support among Greek language scholars?

I would love to see you explain what John 5:23 actually means.

As Jesus said, "I told you, and yet you do not believe." Instead of being careful to note how "even as" is used throughout John's Gospel, you choose to lean upon your own preference for its meaning. There is no way for a Christian to reason with any person like you who is so obstinate as to believe he knows the Greek language better than Bible translators and other scholars.

I see no problem really. The Father and the Son and Christians are all in union as "One Body" right?

Jesus did not say "One Body." He said "one," period. Incidentally, if Christians are members of Christ's body, doesn't the Trinity doctrine then mean that they are members of God's body, making them equal with God? Think about that. Or do you actually believe that God has at least two bodies, one for the Father and another for Christ?

As I have proven above, it most certainly was not a lie.

It's always interesting when Trinitarians say they have "proven" something when the most they did was merely put forth their personal and unscriptural yet extremely dogmatic interpretation.

Anyway, my point was the Father and the Word receive EQUAL Honor, Glory, and Praise, yet, in the Old Testament YAHWEH said that He would NOT share His glory with ANYONE else.

Here again is evidence of obstinancy. It is your interpretation of Revelation 5 and that's all that says the Lamb received equal honour, etc. with the Father. You can't prove it. You can only conjecture it. And even then, your whimsical thinking contradicts the spirit of everything stated in that chapter about God on the throne and the Lamb and others in the midst of the throne. (Revelation 5:6) You fail to see that if you include the Lamb among those worshipped it is arbitrary to say the others are not worshipped!

I did not make this up, it is most certainly what the JW's at one time believed, and they are unitarians. Also, I believe JosephMalik (or someone else on this Website) told me something very similar before.

Here, you continue your bold-faced lie, pretending that unitarians made up the phrase "Special Created Being." You have no honesty, sincerity or truth in you at all, UnDisfellowshipped. This is plain evidence to me that you are nothing more than a deliberate deceiver. You can't even admit that you are lying about that phrase! You can't admit that you made it up! You say the JWs did, and you know you are lying about that! You try to push the blame on Joseph Malik, and you know you are lying about that too! How can anyone believe anything you say? How can you even trust yourself when you are so eager to distort and misrepresent and falsify?

Oh yeah, well that is exactly what JosephMalik has been saying throughout this whole Thread, so obviously you haven't been reading his posts, or you would know why I said that.

You, not I, are the one not reading carefully. If you were more careful, you would have noticed that I said, "Most biblical unitarians would deny such a teaching." Joseph Malik does not represent most biblical unitarians, showing that you really don't know much about them, though you think you do.

WHY does Matthew make a point of telling everyone what Immanuel means? How many other Names or Titles does Matthew explain? Why did he think it was so important to explain what Immanuel means?

This is typical of your failure to use logic and reason while pretending to be good at it. What you are saying is that Matthew's giving the meaning of a name means that the person is that name. Jesus is Greek and Joshua is Hebrew. So, since they both had the same names, according to the way you reason, Moses' successor is also God. Isaiah's son was named Immanuel and Jesus was called Immanuel, and so, Isaiah's son, according to your false logic, is also God.

I stated basically what you had told me before in this Thread. You were going to believe Peter over Thomas.

To state something "basically" means to state it truthfully. Again, you lie and distort. NO ONE in this thread has ever even hinted that they believe Peter over Thomas. But to bolster your ego, and to convince yourself that you've discovered a fabulous proof for your pagan concept, you are willing to stoop to misrepresenting and distorting what others say as well as what the Scriptures teach. Instead of imitating Christ, you think it's far more honourable to imitate the scribes and Pharisees and even the Devil himself. Shame on you!

First of all, you said that Psalm 45 is about a Human King (which would have been Solomon). So, the following Verses are about Solomon, who later became an "Apostate" of God:

Again, it doesn't matter to you that the Bible itself speaks of David and the other kings of Israel as "God." What matters is that it doesn't fit your theory, so you reject what the Bible says. I quoted scholars who say that the kings were viewed as "God" since they spoke for him, just as angels were called "Jehovah." But you know better than the scholars. Again I say, if only I could be as wise as you!

Herk

fjtoth

LittleToe,

The following translations read similar to the NWT:

"through the death of his own Son." (Today's English Version)
"with the blood of his own Son." (Contemporary English Version)
"with the blood of his own Son." (New Revised Standard Version)
"with the blood of his own Son." (Revised Standard Version)
"with the blood of His own Son." (The Holy Bible in Modern English, by F. Fenton)
"with the blood of his own Son." (The New Jerusalem Bible)
"with the death of his own Son." (New Century Version)

Matthew 12:31, 32 states a difference in the consequences for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and against the Son. Biblical unitarians believe the Holy Spirit is God's power and influence, and hence an extension of God the Father. That would explain why blasphemy against the Spirit is more serious.

As for putting God "in a box," I think he's done that himself. Jesus said regarding the Jews who did not believe in a triune God, "We worship what we KNOW." (John 4:22) He said in prayer to God, whom he knew better than anyone else did, "This is eternal life, that they may KNOW you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." (John 17:3) So, it seems quite possible that God can be known, and that it's worth the struggle to get to know him better.

fjtoth

herk

SwedishChef,

You wrote:

This prophecy is one which identifies Messiah as the most Holy. Who can have the title "most Holy" but God Himself?

The prophecy in Daniel 9:24 concerning "the Most Holy" does not refer to a person. A place is meant. Note some other translations:

Holy of Holies

Amplified Bible

Darby Translation

Youngs Literal Translation

"most holy place"

Contemporary English Version

English Standard Version

New American Standard Bible

New Living Translation

Herk

fjtoth

DakotaRed,

I couldn't agree more with your following statement:

25 pages later, we see the same pig headed fool still ranting on that his view has not yet been refuted. Well, there are no so blind as those who will not see.

SwedishChef struck me as arrogant and lacking in honesty and humility right from the beginning of his entry into this thread. UnDisfellowshipped is like his twin brother. After watching this circus, I've lost all respect I ever had for Baptists.

Elderrepents,

I also agree with your following conclusion.

Herk wins the argument

Herk,

Keep those cartoons coming. Maybe something will eventually sink in. For some people you just have to paint pictures before they see the light.

fjtoth

Crazy151drinker

God can create everything, and Jesus died so everyone can go to heaven but OH NO they cant be the same! That would be impossible!! LOL

undercover

I read the first 2 or 3 pages of this "discussion" and decided to skip ahead to page 25 and see if it was decided if the trinity is true or not.

Oh well. Maybe by page 30 we'll know.

The Trinity

Share this