Exploring Trinitarian Logic

[face2face]

@Brakelite

Maybe you will begin to appreciate how "special" the Lord Jesus Christ is?

Christ is the real and perfect fulfillment of all that was symbolized in the Old Testament. He is the true light foreshadowed by the symbolic light that appeared at the beginning (John 1:9), the true bread represented by the manna (John 6:32), and the true vine prefigured in the Old Testament (John 15:1). There are true worshippers, in contrast to false ones (John 4:23), and the true God who requires our wholehearted devotion and worship (1 John 5:20)

Impossible for God to do all this by an already Glorified being - you know it!

F2F

 

[Brakelite]

GREAT

Now, why did you say(yesterday) that the FATHER begot Christ in Eternity past??? = Which is completely false

Question. If Jesus wasn't a Son until Bethlehem, what was He?

The following are all excerpts from that same conversation, therefore are all from the same context... Who is Christ?

“42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. 54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: 55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. ”
John 8:42, 54-56, 58 KJV

Unfeigned Bible

Unfeigned Bible

www.unfeignedbible.app

 

[Brakelite]

@Brakelite

Maybe you will begin to appreciate how "special" the Lord Jesus Christ is?

Christ is the real and perfect fulfillment of all that was symbolized in the Old Testament. He is the true light foreshadowed by the symbolic light that appeared at the beginning (John 1:9), the true bread represented by the manna (John 6:32), and the true vine prefigured in the Old Testament (John 15:1). There are true worshippers, in contrast to false ones (John 4:23), and the true God who requires our wholehearted devotion and worship (1 John 5:20)

Impossible for God to do all this by an already Glorified being - you know it!

F2F

No, I don't know that at all. I fully understand, likely more than you, He was the fulfillment of all the prophecies and types in the OT, but why couldn't the Son of God Who had a radical change in nature by becoming human, accomplish all that as a human being, living by faith as our example, despite being subject to all the heredity of 4000 years of human weaknesses and failures?
By whose Spirit did the OT prophets speak and write?

 

[face2face]

Question. If Jesus wasn't a Son until Bethlehem, what was He?

The following are all excerpts from that same conversation, therefore are all from the same context... Who is Christ?

“42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. 54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: 55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. ”
John 8:42, 54-56, 58 KJV

Unfeigned Bible

Unfeigned Bible

www.unfeignedbible.app

Another question...why would God put Abraham through Genesis 22 if Abraham was not to learn that God would actually do the same BUT go through with it?

F2F

 

[face2face]

No, I don't know that at all. I fully understand, likely more than you, He was the fulfillment of all the prophecies and types in the OT, but why couldn't the Son of God Who had a radical change in nature by becoming human, accomplish all that as a human being, living by faith as our example, despite being subject to all the heredity of 4000 years of human weaknesses and failures?
By whose Spirit did the OT prophets speak and write?

As you are well aware, the victory had to be achieved through the Son of Man, not by someone merely pretending to be him.

Christ is either the true fulfillment of all the Old Testament shadows, types, and antitypes, or He is not.

This question goes to the core of your understanding of who Almighty God is! Christ was either a mortal man (like you!), or He was not. He cannot be both, as the contradictions are too numerous to ignore.

Unlike many in this forum, you are a genuine Bible student, and these questions will continue to challenge you until you grasp the "big picture" of who and what God truly is.

He either declared Who He is through a mortal man or He did not.

• Romans 3:25: "God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished."
• Romans 3:26: "He did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus."

You see the point the writer is labouring?

God was either glorified through the flesh of sin or He was not. If you claim He was, then it would be impossible to believe in the pre-existence of Christ..

F2F

 

[Brakelite]

This is why the ceremonies (Law) have ceased because their ultimate fulfilment has been revealed

The ceremonies that pointed forward to Christ, the rituals and priesthood and sacrifices etc, were all presented to Moses and Israel as a more detailed and formal presentation of the gospel that existed from the time Adam first fell. The reason? As a system of healing, forgiveness, and restoration to a relationship with God. From the first animal that provided clothing for the Eden couple, to the sacrifices of the patriarchs like Noah, and Abraham and his children, to the sanctuary services throughout Israel's national existence, everything was ordained as a response to the sin problem. Unfortunately, you are making the same mistake that the majority of Christians make, attempting to lump in the weekly Sabbath with all the other annual Sabbaths in order to do away with it. The weekly Sabbath was instituted before sin. Just like marriage. Yet I don't hear anyone wanting to do away with marriage right? Well, except the devil of course. Mmm. He's also trying to do away the with Sabbath. The weekly Sabbath was not any part of the atonement. In fact, the atonement was in part instituted and enforced  because the weekly Sabbath was not honoured along with the other commandments (including the 7th...You offend in one, you offend in all).

Boy you are really getting a lesson here!

Don't get carried away. Some things you present are good, but it isn't new. But your conclusions are misguided, and you have presented nothing to deter me from believing in Christ's divinity and deity.

 

[face2face]

The ceremonies that pointed forward to Christ, the rituals and priesthood and sacrifices etc, were all presented to Moses and Israel as a more detailed and formal presentation of the gospel that existed from the time Adam first fell. The reason? As a system of healing, forgiveness, and restoration to a relationship with God. From the first animal that provided clothing for the Eden couple, to the sacrifices of the patriarchs like Noah, and Abraham and his children, to the sanctuary services throughout Israel's national existence, everything was ordained as a response to the sin problem. Unfortunately, you are making the same mistake that the majority of Christians make, attempting to lump in the weekly Sabbath with all the other annual Sabbaths in order to do away with it. The weekly Sabbath was instituted before sin. Just like marriage. Yet I don't hear anyone wanting to do away with marriage right? Well, except the devil of course. Mmm. He's also trying to do away the with Sabbath. The weekly Sabbath was not any part of the atonement. In fact, the atonement was in part instituted and enforced  because the weekly Sabbath was not honoured along with the other commandments (including the 7th...You offend in one, you offend in all).

You miss the point Brakelite (again)

The sabbath was one literal day, one day! But was it?

Mark 2:27And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: 28Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

What Jesus is conveying is that God created the Sabbath day to teach mankind certain principles, not the other way around!—God did not create man to teach the Sabbath.

Do you understand?

While this might seem obvious, for Jews in Jesus' time, or even today among Seventh-Day Adventists, there is a tendency to give the Sabbath a legalistic importance, making it something it wasn’t originally intended to be.

Interestingly, in Genesis, it doesn’t mention God creating anything on the Sabbath day. However, Jesus emphasizes that there are important reasons why God appointed this day.

What did the Sabbath law (Moses) command the people to do?

To rest from all their labors, or as Exodus puts it, “they ceased from all their works” (Exod. 20:10).

Simply put, what God was saying is, “I rested after my works, so I want you to rest from yours.”

God used the Sabbath day as an example to help people understand important principles for their own lives.

Now, who was the first person to break the Sabbath law?

This is a key question that will help us understand the New Testament as we move forward.

The first person to break the Sabbath law was the man who gathered sticks (Numbers 15:32).

In a way, Adam and Eve were the first to break the Sabbath principles because they were the first humans to seek their own desires. When they sinned, it forced God to interrupt His rest.

When Adam and Eve sinned (we don't know exactly when), they created a situation where God had to leave His rest and begin working again.

What was God's work when He began again?

God's work was to reinstate the Sabbath, and though thousands of years have passed, we are still not in that ultimate Sabbath rest. To restore the rest that was lost, God raised up His only Son with a specific mission: to reestablish the future rest, which is the Kingdom of God.

Christ worked both physically and spiritually alongside His Father to restore the rest lost in Eden.

Remember, the Scribes and Pharisees often criticized Jesus and His disciples for working on the Sabbath.

Jesus' response was:

John 5:17

“My Father has been working until now, and I have been working.” (Note: God a lot longer!)

In fact my Father and I are doing the same work and you are accusing me of breaking the Sabbath when I am actually trying to reinstate it!

Mankind that broke the Sabbath – they didn’t know his whole life work is to restore the Sabbath.

So the Sabbath is not a single day Brakelite; Christ showed us that living the Sabbath is to rest from the works of the flesh EVERYDAY! which is why the Kingdom age will be likened to a sabbath rest.

i.e. an 8th day without end! (1000 years then death is last to be swallowed up!

Don't get carried away. Some things you present are good, but it isn't new. But your conclusions are misguided, and you have presented nothing to deter me from believing in Christ's divinity and deity.

You have come this far Brakelite...not much further!

(we will put that comment to the test I'm sure!

F2F

 

[face2face]

@Brakelite

Let's now explore the principles of the Sabbath law together:

Isaiah 58:13-14:

"If you turn away your foot from the Sabbath, From doing your pleasure on My holy day, And call the Sabbath a delight, The holy day of the LORD honorable, And shall honor Him, not doing your own ways, Nor finding your own pleasure, Nor speaking your own words, Then you shall delight yourself in the LORD; And I will cause you to ride on the high hills of the earth..."

What God is teaching us is that He wants us to honor Him every day.

But how?

By not doing our own ways, not finding our own pleasure, and not speaking our own words.

God wants us to seek His ways, find what pleases Him, and speak His words.

He knew that man, driven by the flesh, would do everything he thinks is right. So, God led by example and showed man and woman that by resting, He would model the kind of rest we should take from our own foolish works.

Jesus became Lord of the Sabbath because he found rest from the lusts of the flesh putting it to death on the cross so while Christ himself has rest he is working with God to bring about our eternal rest.

So yes, consider the Sabbath fulfilled in its Lord but there is still much work to be done is putting our desires to death like he did!

Galatians 5:24, which says:

"And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires."

F2F

 

[face2face]

but it isn't new

I never claimed it was. The Original Gospel is 2000 years old and older if you consider it was preached to Abraham!

Galatians 3:8 "And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed."

It was actually taught by the Angels in Genesis 3:15 so imagine how precious it is that you are being shown such old truth!

F2F

 

[Brakelite]

Another question...why would God put Abraham through Genesis 22 if Abraham was not to learn that God would actually do the same BUT go through with it?

F2F

Mmm. Verse 8. Provided Himself as the Lamb.

 

[face2face]

Mmm. Verse 8. Provided Himself as the Lamb.

“God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.” Gen 22:8.

God would have a Son (Seed of the Woman) who would not be from the seed of man.

How true these words are! Only God could provide a lamb of such a nature to atone for the sins of humanity (John 1:29). Abraham spoke to Isaac from the depth of his faith. He understood that Isaac must be brought back from the dead in order to ultimately provide the Lamb of God for the sins of the world. It was with this deep conviction that he spoke these words. Abraham could say no more, as he was unaware of God's specific intention for Isaac, yet his faith led him to believe that Isaac would indeed be brought back to life (Heb. 11:18-19)—otherwise, the promise would fail.

F2F

 

[face2face]

 

[CadyandZoe]

I'd love to see your evidence. Please share. (I'll ignore the chronological contradiction of "corrupted our modern Bibles in the early 300s" because I know what you mean.) I'm thinking some of that evidence will taint the Eastern Orthodox more than the RCC, but let's see what you've got first.

When was the Council of Nicea? Was it a Catholic Council? Why did their nonsense survive all these years?

Answer the questions, and you will receive your proof.

 

[CadyandZoe]

OK, to confirm my understanding of what you are saying here, you think that the Bibles we have are wrong, and you are busy working out how they should actually read, is that right?

Much love!

Yes, the Bibles we have are wrong concerning the doctrine of the Trinity.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Even if the contentious part of verse 19 was not a forgery, or a later side note insertion, there is no Trinity action here at all..

Yes, one can easily see that Jesus defined a triad in that verse. But the passage does not support the idea that the essence of God is comprised of three individuals.

 

[RedFan]

When was the Council of Nicea? Was it a Catholic Council? Why did their nonsense survive all these years?

Answer the questions, and you will receive your proof.

325 CE.

It was "catholic" in the sense of being attended by bishops throughout Christendom, but certainly not "Roman" Catholic in any proper sense (over three hundred bishops attended, and only three legates of the absent Pope Sylvester were sent in his stead).

What "nonsense" do you have in mind? Here is the Nicene Creed as translated in R.P.C. Hanson’s The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (1988), a book well worth reading:

“We believe in one God Father Almighty Maker of all
things seen and unseen:

"And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten
as only-begotten of the Father, that is of the substance
(ousia) of the Father, God of God, Light of light, true God
of true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the
Father, through whom all things came into existence, both
things on heaven and things on earth; who for us men and
for our salvation came down and was incarnate and
became man, suffered and rose again the third day,
ascended into the heavens, is coming to judge the living and
the dead. And in the Holy Spirit.”

“But those who say ‘There was a time when he did not
exist,’ and ‘Before being begotten he did not exist,’ and that
he came into being from non-existence, or who allege that
the Son of God is of another hypostasis or ousia, or is
alterable or changeable, these the Catholic and Apostolic
Church condemns.”

If you point out the parts of this which you consider "nonsense," perhaps I can weigh in on your question about how they survived for another 1700 years.

 

[face2face]

@RedFan @CadyandZoe

Its theological scaffolding which is the reason it has lasted so long! (It's also God's Will it does!)

- The abuse of Genesis 1:26
- The abuse of John 1:1-4
- The Historical development via councils of men (Council of Nicaea (325 AD) and the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD))
- The social model (Persons)
- The substance model (Dualism also known as the Hypostatic Union)
- The formulated creeds of men (councils and confessions)
- Thousands of Commentaries! (My Logos Library contains 9480 works/books)

Today the RCC has developed the CCC (The Catechism of the Catholic Church) which contains 2,865 paragraphs in total.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Westminster Catechism, and others in Protestant, Reformed, Lutheran, and Orthodox traditions.

When the Lord returns, all this will soon fade away, and the Saints will be entrusted with the responsibility of proclaiming the Original and True Gospel of God with great power.

F2F

 

[CadyandZoe]

Error-

The claim that the Catholic Church "corrupted" the Bible in the early 300s is often associated with conspiracy theories but does not align with the historical evidence.

Council of Nicaea (325 AD):

The Council of Nicaea addressed theological issues, particularly the Arian controversy, not the canonization of Scripture.
The Bible's canon was not finalized at this council.

We are not discussing the canonization of Scripture; rather, we are focusing on the translation of Scripture. First, all Christians, except for those who believe the King James Version (KJV) is inspired, acknowledge that the original autographs are the inspired texts. Translations themselves are not inspired. Second, translations are sold on the open market, not given away. Any translation of Scripture that does not support orthodox teachings, such as the Trinity or the Deity of Christ, tends to be rejected by the public. Book sales would plummet.

History needs to be understood within the cultural, philosophical, and religious ideas in existence at the time. Both sides of the Arian controversy were wrong because the underlying philosophical presuppositions accepted as true were wrong. Very few people alive today understand what the controversy was about.

No Evidence of Systematic Corruption:

Surviving manuscript evidence (e.g., the Dead Sea Scrolls, Codices Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus) shows consistency in the transmission of biblical texts.

Differences in translations (e.g., the Textus Receptus, the Majority Text, and the Alexandrian Text) are typically due to scribal variations, not malicious intent.

No claim was made concerning the manuscripts.

So, your assertion seems to reflect a specific theological or ideological stance rather than being grounded in mainstream textual criticism or historical scholarship.

Your rebuttal was off the mark because it didn't address my claim, which had nothing to do with the Canon or the Manuscripts.

 

[CadyandZoe]

325 CE.

It was "catholic" in the sense of being attended by bishops throughout Christendom, but certainly not "Roman" Catholic in any proper sense (over three hundred bishops attended, and only three legates of the absent Pope Sylvester were sent in his stead).

So, you admit it was "Catholic" in some sense? So I was correct in my statement? Did you know that the term "Catholic" at that time was synonymous with "Orthodox"? Did you know that the Reformers were unorthodox?

What "nonsense" do you have in mind? Here is the Nicene Creed as translated in R.P.C. Hanson’s The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (1988), a book well worth reading:

“We believe in one God Father Almighty Maker of all
things seen and unseen:

"And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten
as only-begotten of the Father, that is of the substance
(ousia) of the Father, God of God, Light of light, true God
of true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the
Father, through whom all things came into existence, both
things on heaven and things on earth; who for us men and
for our salvation came down and was incarnate and
became man, suffered and rose again the third day,
ascended into the heavens, is coming to judge the living and
the dead. And in the Holy Spirit.”

“But those who say ‘There was a time when he did not
exist,’ and ‘Before being begotten he did not exist,’ and that
he came into being from non-existence, or who allege that
the Son of God is of another hypostasis or ousia, or is
alterable or changeable, these the Catholic and Apostolic
Church condemns.”

If you point out the parts of this which you consider "nonsense," perhaps I can weigh in on your question about how they survived for another 1700 years.

It's all nonsense.

 

[RedFan]

So, you admit it was "Catholic" in some sense? So I was correct in my statement? Did you know that the term "Catholic" at that time was synonymous with "Orthodox"? Did you know that the Reformers were unorthodox?

It's all nonsense.

OK, I think I have passed your entrance exam to be admitted into the Shrine of your wisdom. Now, kindly provide the proof you said I would receive regarding the early third century infection of Scriptural translations.