Posts by herk

740

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.

the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.

the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.

the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.

the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.

the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.

the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.

the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.

herk

LucidSky,

Where in Scripture does it say that God is three persons in one being?

"No one can serve four masters; for either he will hate the one and love the others, or he will be devoted to the three and despise the other." (Matthew 6:24)
"Not everyone who says to us, 'Lord, Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost who are in heaven will enter." (Matthew 7:21)

The Shema says that God is one, so is there any clarification of the Shema in the NT?

"Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouths of God." (Matthew 4:4)
"Make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the thrones of God." (Matthew 5:34)

When a Christian refers to God as 'Father', is he/she refering to all God-parts or just the Father-part?

"Your wills be done, on earth as it is in heaven." (Matthew 6:10)
"We have believed and have come to know that you are the Holy Third of God." (John 6:69)

And should he/she pray to each God-part in turn to be fair, or 1 or 2 or all of them depending on the situation?

"Your Father, Son and Holy Ghost who see what is done in secret will reward you." (Matthew 6:4)
"Close your door and pray to your Father, Son and Holy Ghost who are in secret, and your Father, Son and Holy Ghost who see what is done in secret will reward you." (Matthew 6:6)

740

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.

the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.

herk

UnDisfellowshipped,

I understood your point perfectly. And I spent paragraph after paragraph dealing with it. Still, you seem not to have noticed. Do you actually read what I write at all?

God is said to be "alone holy." So, according to the way you reckon things, there is absolutely no one else who is holy. Yet, the Bible speaks of "thousands" who are "holy ones." So, you need to loosen up a bit and let the Bible speak for itself rather than constantly be trying to find loopholes for proving your Trinity theory.

Jesus was not always the Lord. God made him such. God has authority to make someone king, priest, prophet, judge, or lord. He made Samuel a judge and David a king and Isaiah a prophet. He also exalted Jesus to the position of Lord.

"All authority has been given to me." (Mt 28:18)
"The Father ... has given all things into his hand." (Jn 3:35)
"God has made this Jesus ... both Lord and Christ." (Ac 2:36)
"Him God has exalted ... to be Prince and Savior." (Ac 5:31)
"He raised him ... far above all principality and power and might and dominion." (Eph 1:21)
"God also has highly exalted him." (Php 2:9)
"Angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to him." (1 Pe 3:22)

This will probably be my last post to you, UnDisfellowshipped. I think I fell into a trap. I'm merely wasting my time if I'm dealing with someone who has a mind completely closed even to what the Scriptures say.

The above texts simply can't be misunderstood. But judging by your usual response, I'm sure you will find a way.

herk

740

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.

the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.

herk

UnDisfellowshipped,

You wrote:

Interesting. Trinitarians probably feel the same way about non-Trinitarians

The big difference is that I gave you specific examples. Show me even one instance where I've said I can't accept what the Bible says because I can't "imagine" it's true or that it doesn't "seem" right.

It's easy to accuse without evidence. It's another story when you have to come up with the facts. And remember, it's facts that count, not your interpretations of what I've written.

herk

740

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.

the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.

herk

Undisfellowshipped,

You wrote:

However, Herk, you seem to be implying that since Peter only called Jesus "The Messiah and the Son of the Living God" then that must mean that Jesus is not God because Peter did not call Him God.
that would mean that since Peter did not call Jesus "Lord" in that Verse, then that must mean that Jesus is not Lord! Since Peter did not call Jesus "Savior" in that Verse must mean that Jesus is not the Savior! Since Peter did not call Jesus "King" in that Verse must mean that Jesus is not our King! Since Peter did not call Jesus "Son of Man" in that Verse must mean that Jesus is not the Son of Man! Do you see my point?

I see the point you are trying to make, but the fact remains that Peter never referred to Jesus as God. Your reasoning, when it comes down to basics, is not an effort to discover what Peter really meant, but merely to prove that Peter believed in the Trinity.

There is no question that Jesus is Lord, Savior, King and the Son of Man. But all those titles were not at issue in Jesus' question to Peter. Jesus knew what others thought of him. He was a great prophet, and probably nothing more. But Jesus wanted to know what the apostles thought. If Jesus was God himself, this gave Peter an excellent opportunity to say so. But he did not! He described Jesus in those terms that were revealed to him by God. God did not tell Peter that Jesus is God. He told Peter that Jesus is "the Messiah, the Son of the living God." It is really your argument that would deny that Jesus is Lord, Savior, King, etc. Peter told Jesus the very most he thought of him, and nothing less. He chose those two titles that embrace everything that Jesus is, namely, Messiah and Son of the living God. It is the Messiah and Son of God who is the Savior, King, Lord, and Son of man. But the Messiah is not God. He is the Son of God.

In answer to my questions, you wrote:

I can't imagine "God" being a title of Israel's King, that seems like it would be completely contradictory to the Ten Commandments.

Does it really matter what you or I "imagine"? Isn't this an admission that you prefer your own personal opinion over the Bible? If the Scriptures plainly identify each of Israel's kings as "God," what grounds do any of us have for saying the Scriptures are wrong? Even Trinitarian scholars like those who translated the NIV point that out, but you don't even agree with them! Isn't that being a bit arrogant and presumptuous? --To pretend that you are wiser than even those who have translated the Bible, some having spent most of their lives in that effort?

By accepting only what you want to believe, you are failing to see the true picture. Jesus is "God" in a special way, but not in the Trinitarian way. If it was the Trinitarian way, then the kings of ancient Israel would also be part of God. But they are not, and neither is Jesus. It is no wonder that people believe in the Trinity! They've been trained by their churches to accept only those parts of the Bible that they "imagine" are true.

It means nothing to Trinitarians that the only one in Revelation who properly receives worship is God and he alone. (4:10; 5:14; 7:11; 11:1, 16; 14:7; 15:4; 19:4, 10; 22:9) Never is the Lamb worshipped. Neither is the Holy Spirit. But the heart's desire of every Trinitarian is to find some evidence somewhere which shows that the Son and Holy Spirit are worshipped.

Sometimes I wonder why I spend any time at all with Trinitarians. I just hope their way of thinking never brushes off on me. I would rather accept every word of the Bible than deny even a word or phrase of it as they so often do. All through my life I have found that the average Trinitarian isn't really interested in what the Scriptures actually teach. Time and again, they show that they believe only what they want to believe. Happily, there are some exceptions, and what joy they experience when they finally learn the truth about God and Christ!

I know you're thinking that I'm being mean-spirited. But how else should I feel than the way I've explained up above. You categorically denied what the Bible actually says. You've done this before. Yet, you think that's okay. I find that totally amazing, and yet I shouldn't, since you simply illustrate what's so awfully wrong with the Trinity theory.

You wrote:

What does the Greek word for "midst" mean?

I carefully explained that in my post to you:

"In the midst" means "in front of," according to other translations. Revelation 4:6 mentions others who are also "in the midst of the throne."

I don't think you noticed that. Who are those others? Should they also be worshipped? Do they also share equality with God? The scripture says that "in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne, were four beasts full of eyes before and behind."

Do you have an answer, hopefully from the Bible and not just your opinion???

Herk