Exploring Trinitarian Logic
- Thread starter RedFan
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
Do you realize that we don't have access to the original manuscripts and that we only have copies of copies with all the risks involved (proven additions, human errors) while the ECF's likely had access to the more reliable manuscripts? So when they quote Scripture it is a source for error checking.
Have a look what we have today, 1900+ years later, it ain't much.
For Israel, I was thinking primarily of Lev. 4:35, Lev. 5:15-16 and Lev. 16:13. (But Is. 43:25 and Micah 7:18-19 are worth a look too.) There was a mechanism in place under Mosaic law for forgiveness of sin.
For non-Jews without the written law of Moses as their guide, the "law" by which they were judged was, as Paul notes in Rom. 2:14-16, written in their hearts. When Jonah was sent to the Gentiles of Nineveh (Jonah 3:1), it indicates that God’s mercy extended even to heathen, but on condition of their repentance (Jonah 3:6-10). We have to figure, with Amos 9:7, that God's love covered the Gentiles as well as Israel.
Last edited:
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
I have no idea what the ECF's had or didn't have. All I know is that they were wrong on many doctrines and promoted false teaching, including the syncretic doctrine of the Trinity.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
Early Church Fathers…..no guarantee of incorruption in their writings as none of them were included in the canon.
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
BOTH are TRUE
Logic and intellect cannot ascend to the Throne of Elohim even though many try.
Intellectual discussion can be rich in observation, analysis and deduction = all of which came from Elohim to us.
Elohim established, from the Beginning, a Way in which to know the True Living Elohim.
This has never changed since the Beginning.
In today's christianity and all religions, man's fallen intellect becomes stumbling block unto himself which results in all the denominations.
In His Great love for us Elohim cleared the Way for us to know Him Who is Invisible = His WORD
This has never changed since the Beginning.
The Beginning = Genesis is the Foundation for all Truth that would follow.
This is where we FIRST learn of The Creator Elohim Who is PLURAL in His Existence from Eternity
Genesis 1:26 - Let Us make man in Our image according to Our likeness = ELOHIM is 3
Anyone who chooses to not accept Genesis will not be able to understand Who Elohim IS.
This is where your journey to Discovery Begins and it Ends in Revelation
SHALOM to all who are in the CHRIST
Tertullian will intensely argue that the Father and Son are separate persons, unlike Modalism which argues that they are all the same person. It is an excellent Unitarian argument. He uses almost all the same verses that a Unitarian would use to show you that Jesus is not God. He argues that the Father and Jesus are not the same person, but when he comes across 1 Corinthians 8:6, "Yet for us there is one God, the Father," he says that in this case the Son is included in the term "Father." What reason does he give for this exception? None whatsoever. He just dismisses it so that he can justify his arguments. Just consider this, only God = Father, and then listen to his arguments. They are fantastically Unitarian!
Chap. III. vv. 1. "The majority of believers, are STARTLED at the Dispensation (of the Three in One)...They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods...While the Greeks actually REFUSE to understand the oikonomia, or Dispensation (of the Three in One)."
These are incredible statements! Tertullian is acknowledging that the majority of believers did not agree with the Doctrine of the Trinity. They accused him of being a polytheist. The Greeks refused altogether to believe him. These statements are probably the best proofs that the Doctrine of the Trinity was not taught by the Apostles. If it had been taught by them, the majority of believers would have known about the Dispensation and would not have been startled by it, neither would they have accused him of worshipping two gods. This doctrine was something new, it was not the established belief of Christianity as you can see. It was starting to work itself out, and at the same time some people were trying to spread this new teaching to other Christians. But it was not in the majority, in fact, it was very much in the minority.
Historical writings... will lead you to the actual truth about what happened in the past... Not just what your told to believe...!
Suxs to be proven wrong over an over again thus you need a ban to save you... from non-biblical teachings!
Lets' not forget Augustine....
The fine Christian whom put fellow Christians to death over this topic...Do the research and math...
AUGUSTINE: CONFESSIONS
Book 7 CHAPTER IX
13. And first of all, willing to show me how thou dost "resist the proud, but give grace to the humble,"[184] and how mercifully thou hast made known to men the way of humility in that thy Word "was made flesh and dwelt among men,"[185] thou didst procure for me, through one inflated with the most monstrous pride, certain books of the Platonists, translated from Greek into Latin.[186] And therein I found, not indeed in the same words, but to the selfsame effect, enforced by many and various reasons that "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made." That which was made by him is "life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shined in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." Furthermore, I read that the soul of man, though it "bears witness to the light," yet itself "is not the light; but the Word of God, being God, is that true light that lights every man who comes into the world." And further, that "he was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not."[187] But that "he came unto his own, and his own received him not. And as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believed on his name"[188]--this I did not find there.Book 7 CHAPTER XIX
- 25. But I thought otherwise. I saw in our Lord Christ only a man of eminent wisdom to whom no other man could be compared--especially because he was miraculously born of a virgin--sent to set us an example of despising worldly things for the attainment of immortality, and thus exhibiting his divine care for us. Because of this, I held that he had merited his great authority as leader. But concerning the mystery contained in "the Word was made flesh," I could not even form a notion. From what I learned from what has been handed down to us in the books about him--that he ate, drank, slept, walked, rejoiced in spirit, was sad, and discoursed with his fellows--I realized that his flesh alone was not bound unto thy Word, but also that there was a bond with the human soul and body. Everyone knows this who knows the unchangeableness of thy Word, and this I knew by now, as far as I was able, and I had no doubts at all about it. For at one time to move the limbs by an act of will, at another time not; at one time to feel some emotion, at another time not; at one time to speak intelligibly through verbal signs, at another, not--these are all properties of a soul and mind subject to change. And if these things were falsely written about him, all the rest would risk the imputation of falsehood, and there would remain in those books no saving faith for the human race.
Therefore, because they were written truthfully, I acknowledged a perfect man to be in Christ--not the body of a man only, nor, in the body, an animal soul without a rational one as well, but a true man. And this man I held to be superior to all others, not only because he was a form of the Truth, but also because of the great excellence and perfection of his human nature, due to his participation in wisdom.
Alypius, on the other hand, supposed the Catholics to believe that God was so clothed with flesh that besides God and the flesh there was no soul in Christ, and he did not think that a human mind was ascribed to him.[218] And because he was fully persuaded that the actions recorded of him could not have been performed except by a living rational creature, he moved the more slowly toward Christian faith.[219] But when he later learned that this was the error of the Apollinarian heretics, he rejoiced in the Catholic faith and accepted it. For myself, I must confess that it was even later that I learned how in the sentence, "The Word was made flesh," the Catholic truth can be distinguished from the falsehood of Photinus. For the refutation of heretics[220] makes the tenets of thy Church and sound doctrine to stand out boldly. "For there must also be heresies [factions] that those who are approved may be made manifest among the weak."[221]
Book 7 CHAPTER XX
26. By having thus read the books of the Platonists, and having been taught by them to search for the incorporeal Truth, I saw how thy invisible things are understood through the things that are made. And, even when I was thrown back, I still sensed what it was that the dullness of my soul would not allow me to contemplate. I was assured that thou wast, and wast infinite, though not diffused in finite space or infinity; that thou truly art, who art ever the same, varying neither in part nor motion; and that all things are from thee, as is proved by this sure cause alone: that they exist.
Of all this I was convinced, yet I was too weak to enjoy thee. I chattered away as if I were an expert; but if I had not sought thy Way in Christ our Saviour, my knowledge would have turned out to be not instruction but destruction.[222] For now full of what was in fact my punishment, I had begun to desire to seem wise. I did not mourn my ignorance, but rather was puffed up with knowledge. For where was that love which builds upon the foundation of humility, which is Jesus Christ?[223] Or, when would these books teach me this? I now believe that it was thy pleasure that I should fall upon these books before I studied thy Scriptures, that it might be impressed on my memory how I was affected by them; and then afterward, when I was subdued by thy Scriptures and when my wounds were touched by thy healing fingers, I might discern and distinguish what a difference there is between presumption and confession--between those who saw where they were to go even if they did not see the way, and the Way which leads, not only to the observing, but also the inhabiting of the blessed country. For had I first been molded in thy Holy Scriptures, and if thou hadst grown sweet to me through my familiar use of them, and if then I had afterward fallen on those volumes, they might have pushed me off the solid ground of godliness--or if I had stood firm in that wholesome disposition which I had there acquired, I might have thought that wisdom could be attained by the study of those [Platonist] books alone.
Book 8 CHAPTER II
3. I went, therefore, to Simplicianus, the spiritual father of Ambrose (then a bishop), whom Ambrose truly loved as a father. I recounted to him all the mazes of my wanderings, but when I mentioned to him that I had read certain books of the Platonists which Victorinus--formerly professor of rhetoric at Rome, who died a Christian, as I had been told--had translated into Latin, Simplicianus congratulated me that I had not fallen upon the writings of other philosophers, which were full of fallacies and deceit, "after the beggarly elements of this world,"[240] whereas in the Platonists, at every turn, the pathway led to belief in God and his Word.Out of the Prophets and into Plato... and now we get a Trinity... well written AUGUSTINE!!!
I could have not made your point more open with out your confession!!!
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Theological labels can be misleading because you usually cannot limit the beliefs of everyone. The term Trinity as you know was coined between the biblical era and the Ecumenical Councils. It was used to define more than one concept but none included the one God formula until the Ecumenical Councils defined it as such. And its purpose was not to define the truth but to stop the disagreements on what defined the Three, by the command of Emperor Constantine who insisted on one belief on this concept. And really it did not settle anything, just silenced the arguments upon threat of excommunication or death as a heretic.
Juan Baixeras writes a 55 page Patristic study of the Kingdom of God and the development of the Trinity on his web site. Here is a small section of this writings… You must realize that in the early days Greek philosophy was the major thought pattern of the civilized world. Anyone who was anyone was educated in Greek philosophy. Another reason why these philosophies were so quick to influence early Christianity is that in the beginning of the church, the leaders were for the most part Jewish, with the Jewish concept of God.
"The Jews conceive God as an absolutely simple unity (inferring absolutely no constituent divisions)." (Jewish Thought 6/12/96)
When Christianity started spreading, the leaders of the churches were now Gentiles who had converted to Christianity. These people, for the most part, had been educated in Greek philosophies in their schools and universities. As educated persons, they of course wanted to find a place for their new religious beliefs within the philosophical framework they had already acquired. So when they read Hebrew Scriptures, they could not help injecting Greek philosophical meanings into them. The Encyclopedia Britannica says concerning Christian Platonist:
"They did not believe that truth could conflict with truth and were confident that all that was rationally certain in Platonic speculation would prove to be in perfect accordance with the Christian revelation. Their unhistorical approach and unscholarly methods of exegesis of texts, both pagan and Christian, facilitated this confidence."
There was also the felt need of some Christians with Greek philosophical training to express Christianity in those terms, both for their own intellectual satisfaction and in order to convert educated pagans.
What is needed today is to remove all the Greek influence from what is called modern day Christianity, and return to the Christianity that was preached by Jesus and his Apostles.
The Council of Nicaea, in 325 AD., made "Jesus of the same substance as God." This is not the Trinitarian doctrine we know of today, but it was a start. Fifty-six years later, at the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD., the Holy Spirit was added to the formula, bringing to life the modern day Trinity. One can easily see that even at Nicaea the Trinity was not an established doctrine by the absence of the Holy Spirit. Trinitarians will argue that the belief in a triune God was there from the Apostles, and that it was formalized as dogma at Nicaea and Constantinople. But the fact is that the New Testament does not anywhere teach the doctrine of the Trinity. The Doctrine of the Trinity, was not an established doctrine from Apostolic times, but a slowly developing idea that took over three hundred years to formalize.
325 AD - Constantine convenes the Council of Nicaea in order to develop a statement of faith that can unify the church. The Nicene Creed is written, declaring that "the Father and the Son are of the same substance" (homoousios). Emperor Constantine who was also the high priest of the pagan religion of the Unconquered Sun presided over this council. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:
"Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions and personally proposed the crucial formula expressing the relationship of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council. "of one substance with the Father."
The American Academic Encyclopedia states:
"Although this was not Constantine’s first attempt to reconcile factions in Christianity, it was the first time he had used the imperial office to IMPOSE a settlement."
At the end of this council, Constantine sided with Athanasius over Arius and exiled Arius to Illyria.
328 AD - Athanasius becomes bishop of Alexandria.
328 AD - Constantine recalls Arius from Illyria.
335 AD - Constantine now sides with Arius and exiles Athanasius to Trier.
337 AD - A new emperor, Contantius, orders the return of Athanasius to Alexandria.
339 AD - Athanasius flees Alexandria in anticipation of being expelled.
341 AD - Two councils are held in Antioch this year. During this council, the First, Second, and Third Arian Confessions are written, thereby beginning the attempt to produce a formal doctrine of faith to oppose the Nicene Creed.
343 AD - At the Council of Sardica, Eastern Bishops demand the removal of Athanasius.
346 AD - Athanasius is restored to Alexandria.
351 AD - A second anti - Nicene council is held in Sirmium.
353 AD - A council is held at Aries during Autumn that is directed against Athanasius.
355 AD - A council is held in Milan. Athanasius is again condemned.
356 AD - Athanasius is deposed on February 8th, beginning his third exile.
357 AD - Third Council of Sirmium is convened. Both homoousios and homoiousios are avoided as unbiblical, and it is agreed that the Father is greater than His subordinate Son.
359 AD - The Synod of Seleucia is held which affirms that Christ is "like the Father," It does not however, specify how the Son is like the Father.
361 AD - A council is held in Antioch to affirm Arius’ positions.
380 AD - Emperor Theodosius the Great declares Christianity the official state religion of the empire.
381 AD - The First Council of Constantinople is held to review the controversy since Nicaea. Emperor Theodosius the Great establishes the creed of Nicaea as the standard for his realm. The Nicene Creed is re-evaluated and accepted with the addition of clauses on the Holy Spirit and other matters. (History of Arian Controversy)
If you believe that Nicaea just formalized the prevalent teaching of the church, then there really should not have been any conflicts. Why should there be? If it were the established teaching of the church, then you would expect people to either accept it, or not be Christians. It would be like me being a member of the Communist Party. I would join it knowing that they do not believe in the ownership of private property, no conflict. But now, say after I have been a member of the party for a few years, someone decides to introduce a proposal that we allow the ownership of private property, not everyone in the party is going to agree, the result is conflict. This is similar to what happened in the church. It was not the established teaching, and when some faction of the church tried to make it official, the result was major conflict.
It was mainly a theological power grab by certain factions of the church. The major complication throughout all this was that the emperors were involved. At Nicaea it was Constantine that decided the outcome. Then as you can see, we have the flip-flopping of opinion with the result that Athanasius is exiled and recalled depending on who is in power. We even have in 357 AD the declaration that homoousios and homoiousios are unbiblical, and that the Father is greater than His subordinate Son. This is 180 degrees from Nicaea. It is definitely not the Trinitarian formula.
In 380 AD Emperor Thedosius declares Christianity the state religion. One can come to the conclusion that whichever way Theodosius favors, is the way in which it is going to end. This is exactly what happened next. In 381 AD the struggle was finally ended by the current emperor, Theodosius the Great, who favored the Nicene position. Just like at Nicaea, the EMPEROR again decided it. The emperors were dictating the theology of the church. The big difference now was that there was not going to be any more changing sides. It was now the state religion. You cannot make Christianity the state religion and then change its beliefs every few years, it would undermine its credibility as the true faith. The Trinity was now the orthodox position, and the state was willing to back it up. Debates however, would continue for years to come.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Long post but still condensed….There is some truth to your post but I do not agree with some of the conclusions.
The 12 Apostles mostly represented the beliefs of the Jewish-Christians. That belief system mostly died out before the 1st century. Are there Jewish-Christian beliefs that you want to resurrect?
The Apostle Paul mostly represent the Gentile-Christians.... are there things about his teachings you disagree with.
Put I do agree that Greek philosophy permeated those Gentiles that were educated.
And I agree that the concepts and aspects of the formula and function of the Trinity was an evolving Christian thought and is still evolving. The concept of the one God formula is definitely borrowed from Greek Mythology were some of their gods had more than one aspect.
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
The accusation against those who choose to believe what the Bible says rather than what they assume that it says is the difference between the “wheat” and the ”weeds”….the “sheep” and the “goats”….
They say…..
The NWT, along with other translations render the second “theos” in John 1:1 as “a god” in the full meaning of the word “theos” in Greek (understood by first century writers) as opposed to later century translators with a bias towards the trinity….a false doctrine that gradually worked its way into the foretold apostate church, which Christendom pretends never happened, when it actually did, right in front of their noses.
Go to any Greek to English Interlinear and see what the word “theos” meant to the Bible writers.
It’s primary definition is….
“In the beginning (en archē) was the Word, (ho logos) and the Word (ho logos) was with God, (ho theos) and the Word was God.(theos)
Since both the Father and son are mentioned in the same verse, they are differentiated by that little word “ho” (the) You can see that “ho logos” is “the word”….and “ho theos” is “the God” but the definite article is not used for the second mention of “theos”, which leaves it open for the translators to add an indefinite article, as they have done throughout the Greek scriptures. Every time you see an “a” or an “an” it is inserted by the translators so that the English flows correctly as it is read by us English speakers.
To omit the definite article or to add it when it is not in the original text, is deceptive, especially when one is trying to promote a doctrine that was not even official “church” doctrine until the 4th century.
That means that the trinity as a concept and as a doctrine was missing entirely from the way the first Christians read the scriptures. Every instance where scripture is mentioned by trinitarians to demonstrate a triune god, it is in ambiguous verses and backed up by suggestion and inference…..no doctrine, especially a primary one can be based on supposition….there must be clear statement that leaves no room for conflicting views. Who is the author of such conflict…..? We already know……and how smug would he be if he got the majority to believe a lie that would in turn lead them to a major breach of the first Commandment?…..no one who puts other equal gods in the Father’s place will inherit the Kingdom.
Calling “the Word” “a god” is exactly what is indicated in the NWT…..the son is not an equal “God” with the Father but a divine one, who was authorized by his God and Father. How many times did Jesus call Yahweh, “my God”?….even in heaven? Does God have a God for whom he is “a holy servant”? (Acts 4:27, 30)
If “the Father is greater” than the son, then there is no equality. Jesus has been “the son of God” since the “beginning” of his existence…..he has served as his Father’s mouthpiece (logos) just as Aaron served as the mouthpiece for Moses to Pharaoh. He did so under divine authority…..did Jesus have divine authority?
In Matt 28:18, before commissioning his disciples to spread the good news and to make disciples, Jesus said…
“All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.”
If Jesus was God, why would the Father have to “give” him any authority?
In Phil 2:5-11….another scripture that is mistranslated and misinterpreted to mean something it never says….
“Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped“
Existing “in God’s form” simply means he was a spirit being like his Father……all who inhabit the spirit realm are spirits, including the Creator…..it is a realm where material beings cannot go, or exist.
“but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man“
So he willingly emptied himself of his spirit form in order to be born as a human child.
Dying in our place was the only way to redeem us from the sin Adam left to all his children.
Atonement is “one for one” so Jesus life atoned for Adam’s….a sinless life was taken from Adam’s children by an act of disobedience, but an act of obedience on the part of God’s son gets us back what Adam lost for us…….everlasting sinless life in paradise on earth……there was never a mention of going to heaven or of serving a triune God…..Israel never heard of such things.
The Jews never expected their Messiah to rule from heaven or for his chosen “saints” to join him there…..but that is what Jesus promised them…a place in his Father’s house…..with his grand spiritual temple in heavenly “New Jerusalem”……no city on earth fits the description that is given in Revelation 21:12-21 of heavenly Jerusalem.
Only a symbolic city could have the dimensions and splendor of New Jerusalem. Its base was foursquare, about 555 km (345 mi) on each side, or about 2,220 km (1,379 mi) completely around, that is, 12,000 furlongs. Being a cube, the city was also as high as it was long and wide. No earthly city could ever reach that far into “outer space.” (Heb 12:22-24)
“New Jerusalem” is a cube 345 miles on each side, or 1,379 miles all around. Imagine a city wall 354 mikes high!
“He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”
To whom was God “obedient to the point of death”? Is God obedient to himself? Can mere humans kill an immortal God? What a preposterous assumption!
“For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name”
God highly exalted himself and gave himself a name that is above the name he already has? (Psalm 83:18 KJV)
“so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.“ (NASB)
Is this bowing at the knee, “worship”? or is it an expression of respect….bowing was a common custom in Bible times.…but who is it that receives the glory…? Jesus?…or his Father?
It is the ones who place three equal gods in the Father’s place who commit the breach…..not the ones who understand what “theos” means in Greek, and list him as ‘a divine mighty one’ “a god-like one”…..but never is he called a deity, or asked to be worshipped.
The son worships the Father even in heaven. (Rev 3:12) The Father worships no one, and the holy spirit doesn’t worship anyone either. No scripture says to worship the holy spirit.
These are the facts…plain and simple.
They say…..
So, let me demonstrate who it is that is breaking the First Commandment….
The NWT, along with other translations render the second “theos” in John 1:1 as “a god” in the full meaning of the word “theos” in Greek (understood by first century writers) as opposed to later century translators with a bias towards the trinity….a false doctrine that gradually worked its way into the foretold apostate church, which Christendom pretends never happened, when it actually did, right in front of their noses.
Go to any Greek to English Interlinear and see what the word “theos” meant to the Bible writers.
It’s primary definition is….
- “a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities”
- spoken of the only and true God
- refers to the things of God
- his counsels, interests, things due to him
- whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way
- God's representative or viceregent
- of magistrates and judges”
- God's representative or viceregent
“In the beginning (en archē) was the Word, (ho logos) and the Word (ho logos) was with God, (ho theos) and the Word was God.(theos)
Since both the Father and son are mentioned in the same verse, they are differentiated by that little word “ho” (the) You can see that “ho logos” is “the word”….and “ho theos” is “the God” but the definite article is not used for the second mention of “theos”, which leaves it open for the translators to add an indefinite article, as they have done throughout the Greek scriptures. Every time you see an “a” or an “an” it is inserted by the translators so that the English flows correctly as it is read by us English speakers.
To omit the definite article or to add it when it is not in the original text, is deceptive, especially when one is trying to promote a doctrine that was not even official “church” doctrine until the 4th century.
That means that the trinity as a concept and as a doctrine was missing entirely from the way the first Christians read the scriptures. Every instance where scripture is mentioned by trinitarians to demonstrate a triune god, it is in ambiguous verses and backed up by suggestion and inference…..no doctrine, especially a primary one can be based on supposition….there must be clear statement that leaves no room for conflicting views. Who is the author of such conflict…..? We already know……and how smug would he be if he got the majority to believe a lie that would in turn lead them to a major breach of the first Commandment?…..no one who puts other equal gods in the Father’s place will inherit the Kingdom.
Calling “the Word” “a god” is exactly what is indicated in the NWT…..the son is not an equal “God” with the Father but a divine one, who was authorized by his God and Father. How many times did Jesus call Yahweh, “my God”?….even in heaven? Does God have a God for whom he is “a holy servant”? (Acts 4:27, 30)
If “the Father is greater” than the son, then there is no equality. Jesus has been “the son of God” since the “beginning” of his existence…..he has served as his Father’s mouthpiece (logos) just as Aaron served as the mouthpiece for Moses to Pharaoh. He did so under divine authority…..did Jesus have divine authority?
In Matt 28:18, before commissioning his disciples to spread the good news and to make disciples, Jesus said…
“All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.”
If Jesus was God, why would the Father have to “give” him any authority?
In Phil 2:5-11….another scripture that is mistranslated and misinterpreted to mean something it never says….
“Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped“
Existing “in God’s form” simply means he was a spirit being like his Father……all who inhabit the spirit realm are spirits, including the Creator…..it is a realm where material beings cannot go, or exist.
“but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man“
So he willingly emptied himself of his spirit form in order to be born as a human child.
Dying in our place was the only way to redeem us from the sin Adam left to all his children.
Atonement is “one for one” so Jesus life atoned for Adam’s….a sinless life was taken from Adam’s children by an act of disobedience, but an act of obedience on the part of God’s son gets us back what Adam lost for us…….everlasting sinless life in paradise on earth……there was never a mention of going to heaven or of serving a triune God…..Israel never heard of such things.
The Jews never expected their Messiah to rule from heaven or for his chosen “saints” to join him there…..but that is what Jesus promised them…a place in his Father’s house…..with his grand spiritual temple in heavenly “New Jerusalem”……no city on earth fits the description that is given in Revelation 21:12-21 of heavenly Jerusalem.
Only a symbolic city could have the dimensions and splendor of New Jerusalem. Its base was foursquare, about 555 km (345 mi) on each side, or about 2,220 km (1,379 mi) completely around, that is, 12,000 furlongs. Being a cube, the city was also as high as it was long and wide. No earthly city could ever reach that far into “outer space.” (Heb 12:22-24)
“New Jerusalem” is a cube 345 miles on each side, or 1,379 miles all around. Imagine a city wall 354 mikes high!
“He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”
To whom was God “obedient to the point of death”? Is God obedient to himself? Can mere humans kill an immortal God? What a preposterous assumption!
“For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name”
God highly exalted himself and gave himself a name that is above the name he already has? (Psalm 83:18 KJV)
“so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.“ (NASB)
Is this bowing at the knee, “worship”? or is it an expression of respect….bowing was a common custom in Bible times.…but who is it that receives the glory…? Jesus?…or his Father?
It is the ones who place three equal gods in the Father’s place who commit the breach…..not the ones who understand what “theos” means in Greek, and list him as ‘a divine mighty one’ “a god-like one”…..but never is he called a deity, or asked to be worshipped.
The son worships the Father even in heaven. (Rev 3:12) The Father worships no one, and the holy spirit doesn’t worship anyone either. No scripture says to worship the holy spirit.
These are the facts…plain and simple.
Last edited:
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
When I took a deep dive into academia, a staunch concept was authoritative reference. Having studied Scripture, it is hard to imagine anyone considering non-Scripture as an authoritative reference over Scripture. It is a world view that is foreign to me ... Forget what Jesus said or those who walked with him. Centuries later, this other guy said ... Huh?
God's angels had no issues with worshipping Christ as a babe (along with wise men!) when God the Father brought Him(self) the Son, into the world
Of course, they had seen them in Heaven and enthroned in glory but we by faith believe.
If your wise you will worship like they all did who are wise unto salvation.
Else you're a raging fool to fight against God, for who has resisted His rule?
Or you will be smashed to pieces, the rock of Christ who is God will fall on and crush you.
Psalm 2
1 Why do the [a]nations [b]rage,
And the people plot a [c]vain thing?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves,
And the rulers take counsel together,
Against the Lord and against His Anointed,[d] saying,
3 “Let us break Their bonds in pieces
And cast away Their cords from us.”
4 He who sits in the heavens shall laugh;
The Lord shall hold them in derision.
5 Then He shall speak to them in His wrath,
And distress them in His deep displeasure:
6 “Yet I have [e]set My King
[f]On My holy hill of Zion.”
7 “I will declare the [g]decree:
The Lord has said to Me,
‘You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.
8 Ask of Me, and I will give You
The nations for Your inheritance,
And the ends of the earth for Your possession.
9 You shall [h]break them with a rod of iron;
You shall dash them to pieces like a potter’s vessel.’ ”
10 Now therefore, be wise, O kings;
Be instructed, you judges of the earth.
11 Serve the Lord with fear,
And rejoice with trembling.
12 [i]Kiss the Son, lest [j]He be angry,
And you perish in the way,
When His wrath is kindled but a little.
Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him.
Ephepsians 1
11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, 12 that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.
13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who[d] is the [e]guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.
Of course, they had seen them in Heaven and enthroned in glory but we by faith believe.
If your wise you will worship like they all did who are wise unto salvation.
Else you're a raging fool to fight against God, for who has resisted His rule?
Or you will be smashed to pieces, the rock of Christ who is God will fall on and crush you.
Psalm 2
1 Why do the [a]nations [b]rage,
And the people plot a [c]vain thing?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves,
And the rulers take counsel together,
Against the Lord and against His Anointed,[d] saying,
3 “Let us break Their bonds in pieces
And cast away Their cords from us.”
4 He who sits in the heavens shall laugh;
The Lord shall hold them in derision.
5 Then He shall speak to them in His wrath,
And distress them in His deep displeasure:
6 “Yet I have [e]set My King
[f]On My holy hill of Zion.”
7 “I will declare the [g]decree:
The Lord has said to Me,
‘You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.
8 Ask of Me, and I will give You
The nations for Your inheritance,
And the ends of the earth for Your possession.
9 You shall [h]break them with a rod of iron;
You shall dash them to pieces like a potter’s vessel.’ ”
10 Now therefore, be wise, O kings;
Be instructed, you judges of the earth.
11 Serve the Lord with fear,
And rejoice with trembling.
12 [i]Kiss the Son, lest [j]He be angry,
And you perish in the way,
When His wrath is kindled but a little.
Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him.
Ephepsians 1
11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, 12 that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.
13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who[d] is the [e]guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.
The Parable of the Minas
11 Now as they heard these things, He spoke another parable, because He was near Jerusalem and because they thought the kingdom of God would appear immediately. 12 Therefore He said: “A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and to return. 13 So he called ten of his servants, delivered to them ten [e]minas, and said to them, ‘Do business till I come.’ 14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We will not have this man to reign over us.’15 “And so it was that when he returned, having received the kingdom, he then commanded these servants, to whom he had given the money, to be called to him, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading. 16 Then came the first, saying, ‘Master, your mina has earned ten minas.’ 17 And he said to him, ‘Well done, good servant; because you were faithful in a very little, have authority over ten cities.’ 18 And the second came, saying, ‘Master, your mina has earned five minas.’ 19 Likewise he said to him, ‘You also be over five cities.’
20 “Then another came, saying, ‘Master, here is your mina, which I have kept put away in a handkerchief. 21 For I feared you, because you are [f]an austere man. You collect what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.’ 22 And he said to him, ‘Out of your own mouth I will judge you, you wicked servant. You knew that I was an austere man, collecting what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow. 23 Why then did you not put my money in the bank, that at my coming I might have collected it with interest?’
24 “And he said to those who stood by, ‘Take the mina from him, and give it to him who has ten minas.’ 25 (But they said to him, ‘Master, he has ten minas.’) 26 ‘For I say to you, that to everyone who has will be given; and from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him.
27 But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.’ ”
Being a Trinitarian, I believe in "One God, the Father Almighty" -- as the opening of the Nicene Creed that I recite regularly puts it. There are not many gods. There is one God. Elohim is plural, signifying many gods in the Pantheon of national gods that the ancient Israelites believed existed, of which their national God was chief (which explains why He declared Himself to be the Lord THEIR God, not the ONLY God -- with none of the others to be worshipped before Him). Elohim's grammatical number does not suggest that there are two gods or three gods or any particular number. It does not suggest the presence of the Trinity. Three "persons" in one God, per the orthodox Trinitarian formulation, would be rendered Anashim rather than Elohim.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
