Is the man Jesus Christ also the LORD? (page 8)

herk

. . . and there isn't even a single verse that says God is Three Persons or Three Anything!

herk

Nearly all trinitarians use the same texts and arguments that Hooberus does above. There must be a reason why they ignore and even hide some of the facts presented in the Bible about God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. What could be their motive?

They believe they have the truth, and they've closed their minds to the other side of the argument. Because the Bible states that the Father is God, that Jesus is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God, they pontificate that God is precisely Three Persons, not One Person or Five Persons or Ten Persons. They stick to their pronouncement despite the fact that the Bible plainly says angels are God, Moses is God, David is God, Solomon is God, the judges of Israel are God, and that even the Devil is God [ho theos]. They would object if non-trinitarians suggested that the Devil is also a Trinity since Satan, Peter and Judas--three persons--are called Satan and Devil. (Matthew 16:23; John 6:70) It's okay for them to use that sort of logic when they apply it to God, but it's not okay for others to employ the same sort of logic in defining the Devil. But they're right about the Devil. It's ridiculous to resort to such "logic." Equally ridiculous, however, is the "logic" trinitarians use to arrive at the conclusion that God is Three Persons.

None of the texts that trinitarians use state that God is Three. Most of their favorite texts suggest only that both the Father and Jesus are divine. Often the Holy Spirit--the "Third" member of the Trinity--is overlooked or ignored. They brush aside the hundreds of passages that show plainly that Jesus is not God in the sense that the Father is God. To compensate for those texts that show Jesus could not possibly be God in the full sense of the word, they've invented a "dual nature" for God's Son. They call him a God-man. When he shows human weakness or otherwise indicates that he is not equal to God, they say that's his "human nature" coming through. At all other times he manifests "divine nature." They're not inclined to make such an argument for Moses or David, even though they also were addressed as God due to being God's agents and spokespersons. They also brush aside the Bible teaching that all genuine Christians are destined to share in "divine nature." (2 Peter 1:4; Ephesians 4:13, 14; Hebrews 12:10; 1 John 3:2) So Christ's having "divine nature" does not mean that he is God any more than his followers having "divine nature" means that they will someday be God, in the fullest sense.

Amazingly, trinitarians expect us to believe that Jews who listened intently to Jesus also thought he was God the Son and not simply the Son of God. But the truth is otherwise. First century Jews did not have the luxury of possessing a modern dictionary or cyclopedia produced by orthodoxy that defines a Trinity doctrine developed long after the apostles had died. When people heard Jesus say, "My teaching is not my own. It comes from him who sent me. If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own," they did not argue that Jesus said this from his human nature and that in his divine nature he is still God. (John 7:16) No, unlike people who already believe in the Trinity, when the disciples heard this, it made them think Jesus was not God!

The Trinity developed because philosophers lined up texts as Hooberus has done above--texts that imply Jesus might be God. While doing so, they completely shunned the hundreds of texts that say otherwise. They developed their illogical doctrine over a period of three centuries. Then they told everybody that this is what Jesus and his disciples believed hundreds of years earlier. This same method of propaganda continues to promote the Trinity doctrine in our own day.

herk

hooberus

The Trinity developed because philosophers lined up texts as Hooberus has done above--texts that imply Jesus might be God. While doing so, they completely shunned the hundreds of texts that say otherwise.

Please list some of these "hundreds of texts that say otherwise"

Farkel

hooberus,

: (Note: "LORD" all capitals =YHWH Hebrew)

No it doesn't. Don't you know anything? If you disagree with me, then prove it. (You can't)

Farkel

hooberus

In the KJV "LORD" all capitals is the KJV phrase for YHWH. Look in a strongs concordance.

Farkel

hooberus,

: In the KJV "LORD" all capitals is the KJV phrase for YHWH. Look in a strongs concordance.

Well, the KJV is not any final authority on anything, my friend. It was translated in 1611. This is 2004. That's nearly 400 years difference. Lord is "adonai." Period. The Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek languages did not have CAPITAL letters as far as I know. These were added later by folks who sought to deify or at least emphasize certain characters in the English translations. Nor were our modern punctuation symbols used, like commas. That's why the WTS can add a comma and change the ENTIRE meaning of a verse to suit their agenda, videlecet:

"Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise."

as opposed to the unpunctuated and original version:

"Truly I tell you today you will be with me in Paradise."

The WTS slant was that Jesus was saying TODAY that in some distant time Barabbas would be with him in Paradise.

The original slant was that Jesus was saying that on that very day Barabbas at their mutual deaths would be with him in Paradise.

This is yet another reason why Bible exegesis is total bullshit. The Greeks didn't have commas back then, folks, and sometimes commas can mean everything, as I've just shown.

Farkel

Is the man Jesus Christ also the LORD?

herk

herk

hooberus

Farkel

hooberus

Farkel

donkey

herk

herk

herk

Share this