Exploring Trinitarian Logic

[Magdala]

I don't understand your question until you answer mine. What does it mean for them to be one?

I've already explained to you what the concept of the Holy Trinity means. What do you not understand about the following question: "You said that Jesus instructed His apostles to initiate new disciples, as in Christians, of all nations for Him, by baptizing them in His name, and so you would think that Jesus would've told them to do that only in the name of the Son, but He didn't, rather said, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." So, what's your explanation for why Jesus included the name of the Father and of the Holy Spirit if it's about baptizing in the Son's name for the Son?

 

[APAK]

I've heard it said that according to most scholars, The Didache (Teachings of the Twelve Apostles) was written in the late first century or possibly early second century, and that the consensus on the range is 70–110 AD. If that's true, there still would've been members of the Twelve that were alive. Can you show me a contemporary writing from that period that either contradicts or condemns The Didache (Teachings of the Twelve Apostles)?

Here's one source that is confident on this subject..

July 2015
Frank W. Nelte
AN EVALUATION OF THE DIDACHE

"Didache" is a Greek word that means "Teaching". The title "Didache" is given to a brief so-called
"Christian treatise" that was discovered in 1873 by the Greek Orthodox Metropolitan (i.e. archbishop)
Philotheos Bryennios in the library of the Greek Convent of the Holy Sepulchre in Constantinople (i.e.
Istanbul today), along with a number of other ancient documents like "the Epistle of Barnabas", "First and
second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians", etc. Bryennios was 40 years old at that time, and he had
already studied in Germany at the universities in Berlin, Leipzig and Munich. Bryennios was actively
committed to introducing church reform into his church. His university training in Germany had suitably
equipped him for the role of a reformer.

The manuscript Bryennios found contains the date of the year 1056 A.D., a date that was provided by
the scribe who produced this manuscript. This date is not in dispute, and the physical manuscript
Bryennios found certainly does not go back to earlier than the eleventh century. Many of the extant New
Testament manuscripts also only go back to the 11th century.

Bryennios chose to publish in 1875 the various letters he had found, but only published the Didache in
1883. That is somewhat surprising in view of his close association with scholars at three German
universities, and also since scholars frequently visited his library in the hope of finding something new.
One would have expected Bryennios to be eager to share his find with the academic world. But
Bryennios kept his find secret for 10 years, till eventually publishing it in 1883.

Prior to 1873 the existence of this anonymous document was unknown. Specifically, two Western
Greek language scholars who had combed through the content of that library very meticulously,
looking for anything out of the ordinary, in 1845 and in 1856 respectively, had not come across
this parchment, which is also somewhat surprising, because it consists of 120 sheets of
parchment, each measuring 7.4 inches by 5.8 inches, and bound under a leather cover. It is a fine
specimen which one would expect to attract some attention from zealous Western researchers
looking for new information. It is in fact of a better quality than most of the relatively older New
Testament texts that have survived. But the Western scholars somehow never found this work in
1845 and in 1856, decades before Bryennios discovered it.

Roswald D. Hitchcock made a translation into English in 1884, the year after Bryennios had published
the Greek text. Hitchcock divided the whole text into 7 chapters. Subsequent translators and editors
have revised Hitchcock’s organization, and today the whole text of the Didache has been divided into 16
chapters, which together consist of a total of 97 verses.

The separation into chapters is quite arbitrary, and the division into 16 chapters specifically was
motivated by a desire to compare it to the Gospel of Mark, the shortest of the gospels, which also has
16 chapters (but almost seven times as many verses as the Didache). There was a motivation amongst
scholars to elevate the supposed importance of the Didache, a manuscript they know was only produced
in 1056 A.D.
Most verses consist of from one to three sentences in length. The whole work translated into English is
basically the length of a short article, about 8 pages of print, which, incidentally, required 120 sheets of
parchment to write down. So it takes about 15 sheets of parchment in that format for one page of print in
modern text format.

Now there source goes on for another 30-odd pages....................I have it all in my possession....

These so-called Teachings IMO are a fraud designed to introduce a fraudulent document and discredit certain scripture.

----------I hope this is useful to you------------

 

[Wrangler]

I agree, it is not too damming if understood correctly. It just gives the appearance of this triune entity.

That’s were understanding it is a forgery comes in. As a child, I found this verse so peculiar, out of context, at the end before the ascension , this is snuck in. Why didn’t Jesus explain this over the years he walked with the Apostles? Odd to leave it to us to read into.

Sneaking it in at the end of the scroll, a forgery makes sense, supported by the fact that the Apostles did not obey this one time! Not one time! Suspicious indeed.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I've already explained to you what the concept of the Holy Trinity means.

If you did, I missed it.

What do you not understand about the following question: "You said that Jesus commissioned His apostles to initiate new disciples, as in Christians, of all nations for Him, by baptizing them in His name, and so you would think that Jesus would've told them to do that only in the name of the Son, but He didn't, rather said, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." So, what's your explanation for why Jesus included the name of the Father and of the Holy Spirit if it's about baptizing in the Son's name?"

The reason is NOT because all three are God. The reason is because God has given them all authority to speak for him.

 

[APAK]

@LuxMundi ...LM let me add a little more info from that souce I gave in post # 2,342..it is eye-opening

---------------
Today we would hardly divide a script of a mere 97 verses into 16 separate chapters, but that’s what the
editors have done in an attempt to elevate the importance of the Didache. In fact, 7 of those 16 chapters
consist of 5 verses or less each. It is a short work.

The first line of this treatise reads: "Teaching of the Lord to the Nations by the Twelve Apostles",
an obvious appeal to Matthew 28:19. Now that brings us to why this document is deemed to be
so very important.

You see, some of the early Catholic so-called "church fathers" had mentioned a work they called
"Teachings of the Apostles". They classified this as amongst the spurious works, alongside works like
"The Epistle of Barnabas" and "The Apocalypse of Peter", etc. For example, Eusebius wrote around 324
A.D. in his "Historia Ecclesiastica", in Book III, chapter 25 the following:

"Let there be placed among the spurious works the Acts of Paul, the so-called Shepherd and the
Apocalypse of Peter, and besides these the Epistle of Barnabas, and what are called the Teachings of
the Apostles, and also the Apocalypse of John, if this be thought proper, for as I wrote before, some
reject it, and others place it (i.e. the Book of Revelation) in the canon."

Note that Eusebius used the expression "what are called" and not "what is called". Eusebius may have
had several different works in mind, rather than just one specific work? Those other early "church
fathers" likewise used the plural "Teachings" and not the singular "Teaching" for the title of what they had
in mind, perhaps a collective title for several works? Yet the Didache uses the singular "Teaching" in its
title.

Those scholars today who have gone all gaga over the work presented by Bryennios (and very many
have!) very conveniently overlook small details like this. They have convinced themselves that there was
one work that circulated amongst the early Christians, and that what Bryennios presented is a faithful
copy, made in 1056 A.D., of that one ancient work.

A number of those "church fathers" placed the works they referred to as "Teachings of the Apostles" in
the "apocrypha" category (i.e. secret mystical books of unknown authorship) with questionable merit, and
some of those "church fathers" rejected "Teachings of the Apostles" outright. Whatever those "Teachings
of the Apostles" had been, they had not enjoyed the support of those early Catholic church leaders.

However, before Bryennios nobody knew anything at all about the supposed content of the "Teachings
of the Apostles", how long it was or what subjects it addressed; or whether it was just one specific work
or whether it consisted of several different works. The content of the work or works mentioned by the
"church fathers" was totally unknown to all the scholars prior to 1883 when Bryennios published his
find. In fact, there is actually no concrete evidence that what Bryennios found is actually connected with
the "Teachings of the Apostles" that those "church fathers" made reference to.

..........................and of course this is not all of it-------------

 

[Magdala]

If you did, I missed it.

You couldn't have because we were discussing back and forth about it.

The reason is because God has given them all authority to speak for him.

You said that Jesus instructed His apostles to initiate new disciples, as in Christians, of all nations for Jesus, by baptizing them in Jesus's name,, but Jesus didn't tell them to do so only in the name of the Son (Jesus), which He should've done if it's for Him, yes?

 

[CadyandZoe]

You couldn't have because we were discussing back and forth about it.



You said that Jesus commissioned His apostles to initiate new disciples, as in Christians, of all nations for Him (Jesus), by baptizing them in His name (Jesus's), but Jesus didn't tell them to do so only in the name of the Son (Jesus), which He should've done if it was for Him (Jesus), yes?

If each of them teaches the same thing, then what is the difference?

 

[Magdala]

If each of them teaches the same thing, then what is the difference?

So, you're no longer saying that Jesus instructed His apostles to initiate new disciples, as in Christians, of all nations for only Him (the Son Jesus), and are now saying for the Son (Jesus), the Father, and the Holy Spirit?

 

[marks]

Why? Can't we live with some Scriptural inconsistency? It doesn't trouble me. Does it trouble you?

I prefer to read the Bible with understanding, so I like to understand when something appears inconsistent. I've always found that a closer prayerful look clears things up.

Much love!

 

[marks]

I already did.... If you took the time to read my Agency post.. like I suggested you do... You would have known John was correct... and in Exodus 24:11.... Only God's Agent was present... Not God!!! Now go read my post so that you may know these things!!!

Except that is says it was God. I believe what is written.

Much love!

 

[marks]

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

And you know what is right?

Much love!

 

[Magdala]

Part I

Here's one source that is confident on this subject..

July 2015
Frank W. Nelte
AN EVALUATION OF THE DIDACHE

"Didache" is a Greek word that means "Teaching". The title "Didache" is given to a brief so-called
"Christian treatise" that was discovered in 1873 by the Greek Orthodox Metropolitan (i.e. archbishop)
Philotheos Bryennios in the library of the Greek Convent of the Holy Sepulchre in Constantinople (i.e.
Istanbul today), along with a number of other ancient documents like "the Epistle of Barnabas", "First and
second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians", etc. Bryennios was 40 years old at that time, and he had
already studied in Germany at the universities in Berlin, Leipzig and Munich. Bryennios was actively
committed to introducing church reform into his church. His university training in Germany had suitably
equipped him for the role of a reformer.

The manuscript Bryennios found contains the date of the year 1056 A.D., a date that was provided by
the scribe who produced this manuscript. This date is not in dispute, and the physical manuscript
Bryennios found certainly does not go back to earlier than the eleventh century. Many of the extant New
Testament manuscripts also only go back to the 11th century.

Bryennios chose to publish in 1875 the various letters he had found, but only published the Didache in
1883. That is somewhat surprising in view of his close association with scholars at three German
universities, and also since scholars frequently visited his library in the hope of finding something new.
One would have expected Bryennios to be eager to share his find with the academic world. But
Bryennios kept his find secret for 10 years, till eventually publishing it in 1883.

Prior to 1873 the existence of this anonymous document was unknown. Specifically, two Western
Greek language scholars who had combed through the content of that library very meticulously,
looking for anything out of the ordinary, in 1845 and in 1856 respectively, had not come across
this parchment, which is also somewhat surprising, because it consists of 120 sheets of
parchment, each measuring 7.4 inches by 5.8 inches, and bound under a leather cover. It is a fine
specimen which one would expect to attract some attention from zealous Western researchers
looking for new information. It is in fact of a better quality than most of the relatively older New
Testament texts that have survived. But the Western scholars somehow never found this work in
1845 and in 1856, decades before Bryennios discovered it.

Roswald D. Hitchcock made a translation into English in 1884, the year after Bryennios had published
the Greek text. Hitchcock divided the whole text into 7 chapters. Subsequent translators and editors
have revised Hitchcock’s organization, and today the whole text of the Didache has been divided into 16
chapters, which together consist of a total of 97 verses.

The separation into chapters is quite arbitrary, and the division into 16 chapters specifically was
motivated by a desire to compare it to the Gospel of Mark, the shortest of the gospels, which also has
16 chapters (but almost seven times as many verses as the Didache). There was a motivation amongst
scholars to elevate the supposed importance of the Didache, a manuscript they know was only produced
in 1056 A.D.
Most verses consist of from one to three sentences in length. The whole work translated into English is
basically the length of a short article, about 8 pages of print, which, incidentally, required 120 sheets of
parchment to write down. So it takes about 15 sheets of parchment in that format for one page of print in
modern text format.

Now there source goes on for another 30-odd pages....................I have it all in my possession....

These so-called Teachings IMO are a fraud designed to introduce a fraudulent document and discredit certain scripture.

----------I hope this is useful to you------------

Following Philotheos Bryennios's discovery of an 11th century manuscript version of the Didache (Teachings of the Twelve Apostles), two fragments of the work were later discovered: a 4th century Greek papyrus in Oxyrhynchus, Egypt, and a 5th century Coptic papyrus. Moreover, virtually the entire text of Didache (Teachings of the Twelve Apostles) with modifications and interpretive comments, is reproduced in Greek (as came to be recognized after Bryennios’s discovery) in the Apostolic Constitutions (Book VII), a 4th century church order, there are also traces of a somewhat paraphrastic Ethiopic translation of the Didache 11.3–13.7 and 8.1–2, and a Latin version of the first five chapters was discovered in 1900 by J. Schlech. There are said to have been updated versions of the historical and instructional document Didache (Teachings of the Twelve Apostles), but the general consensus is that it's a 1st-century document.

Tag: @BreadOfLife

 

[Magdala]

Part II

@LuxMundi ...LM let me add a little more info from that souce I gave in post # 2,342..it is eye-opening

---------------
Today we would hardly divide a script of a mere 97 verses into 16 separate chapters, but that’s what the
editors have done in an attempt to elevate the importance of the Didache. In fact, 7 of those 16 chapters
consist of 5 verses or less each. It is a short work.

The first line of this treatise reads: "Teaching of the Lord to the Nations by the Twelve Apostles",
an obvious appeal to Matthew 28:19. Now that brings us to why this document is deemed to be
so very important.

You see, some of the early Catholic so-called "church fathers" had mentioned a work they called
"Teachings of the Apostles". They classified this as amongst the spurious works, alongside works like
"The Epistle of Barnabas" and "The Apocalypse of Peter", etc. For example, Eusebius wrote around 324
A.D. in his "Historia Ecclesiastica", in Book III, chapter 25 the following:

"Let there be placed among the spurious works the Acts of Paul, the so-called Shepherd and the
Apocalypse of Peter, and besides these the Epistle of Barnabas, and what are called the Teachings of
the Apostles, and also the Apocalypse of John, if this be thought proper, for as I wrote before, some
reject it, and others place it (i.e. the Book of Revelation) in the canon."

Note that Eusebius used the expression "what are called" and not "what is called". Eusebius may have
had several different works in mind, rather than just one specific work? Those other early "church
fathers" likewise used the plural "Teachings" and not the singular "Teaching" for the title of what they had
in mind, perhaps a collective title for several works? Yet the Didache uses the singular "Teaching" in its
title.

Those scholars today who have gone all gaga over the work presented by Bryennios (and very many
have!) very conveniently overlook small details like this. They have convinced themselves that there was
one work that circulated amongst the early Christians, and that what Bryennios presented is a faithful
copy, made in 1056 A.D., of that one ancient work.

A number of those "church fathers" placed the works they referred to as "Teachings of the Apostles" in
the "apocrypha" category (i.e. secret mystical books of unknown authorship) with questionable merit, and
some of those "church fathers" rejected "Teachings of the Apostles" outright. Whatever those "Teachings
of the Apostles" had been, they had not enjoyed the support of those early Catholic church leaders.

However, before Bryennios nobody knew anything at all about the supposed content of the "Teachings
of the Apostles", how long it was or what subjects it addressed; or whether it was just one specific work
or whether it consisted of several different works. The content of the work or works mentioned by the
"church fathers" was totally unknown to all the scholars prior to 1883 when Bryennios published his
find. In fact, there is actually no concrete evidence that what Bryennios found is actually connected with
the "Teachings of the Apostles" that those "church fathers" made reference to.

..........................and of course this is not all of it-------------

Regarding the following excerpt from the article An Evaluation of the Didache by Frank W. Nelte that you copied and pasted from, note the bold red (section from the article that you deliberately left out):

"You see, some of the early Catholic so-called "church fathers" had mentioned a work they called "Teachings of the Apostles". They classified this as amongst the spurious works, alongside works like"The Epistle of Barnabas" and "The Apocalypse of Peter", etc. For ex ample, Eusebius wrote around 324 A.D. in his "Historia Ecclesiastica", in Book III, chapter 25 the following:

"Let there be placed among the spurious works the Acts of Paul, the so-called Shepherd and the Apocalypse of Peter, and besides these the Epistle of Barnabas, and what are called the Teachings of the Apostles, and also the Apocalypse of John, if this be thought proper, for as I wrote before, some reject it, and others place it (i.e. the Book of Revelation) in the canon."

Note that Eusebius used the expression "what are called" and not "what is called". Eusebius may have had several different works in mind, rather than just one specific work? Those other early "church fathers" likewise used the plural "Teachings" and not the singular "Teaching" for the title of what they had in mind, perhaps a collective title for several works? Yet the Didache uses the singular "Teaching" in its title. Those scholars today who have gone all gaga over the work presented by Bryennios (and very many have!) very conveniently overlook small details like this. They have convinced themselves that there was one work that circulated amongst the early Christians, and that what Bryennios presented is a faithful copy, made in 1056 A.D., of that one ancient work.

[COMMENT: The fact that Eusebius questioned the validity of the Book of Revelation is of no consequence to us.]

A number of those "church fathers" placed the works they referred to as "Teachings of the Apostles" in the "apocrypha" category (i.e. secret mystical books of unknown authorship) with questionable merit, and some of those "church fathers" rejected "Teachings of the Apostles" outright. Whatever those "Teachings of the Apostles" had been, they had not enjoyed the support of those early Catholic church leaders."

So, your source quotes the words of Eusebius—who admitted to personally rejecting "the so-called Teachings of the Apostles", while apparently also questioning the validity of the Book of Revelation, as well as acknowledged that there are those who class them "with the accepted books" (Historia Ecclesiastica, Bk. III, ch. 25)—in his article that attempts to discredit the Didache (Teachings of the Apostles), despite acknowledging that there is "no concrete evidence that what Bryennios found is actually connected with the "Teachings of the Apostles" that those "church fathers" made reference to". For the sake of argument, if the "Teachings of the Apostles" referenced by Eusebious and the Didache (Teachings of the Apostles) are connected, Eusebius's influence in the early Christian Church doesn't entail an invitation to the faithful to have a particular trust in his personal life or personal judgments and opinions.

 

[APAK]

Following Philotheos Bryennios's discovery of an 11th century manuscript version of the Didache (Teachings of the Twelve Apostles), two fragments of the work were later discovered: a 4th century Greek papyrus in Oxyrhynchus, Egypt, and a 5th century Coptic papyrus. Moreover, virtually the entire text of Didache (Teachings of the Twelve Apostles) with modifications and interpretive comments, is reproduced in Greek (as came to be recognized after Bryennios’s discovery) in the Apostolic Constitutions (Book VII), a 4th century church order ,there are also traces of a somewhat paraphrastic Ethiopic translation of the Didache 11.3–13.7 and 8.1–2, and a Latin version of the first five chapters was discovered in 1900 by J. Schlech. There are said to have been updated versions of the historical and instructional document Didache (Teachings of the Twelve Apostles), but the general consensus is that it's a 1st-century document.

Tag: @BreadOfLife

11th Century version.? The two works of the 4th and and 5th Century then constitute the entire 11th Century version..? And other 'traces' of it in the Ethiopian/ic 'translation'. And then the 11th Century version in the Apostolic Constitution of the 4th Century. Can this be truly reliable?

Then a Latin version of the 1st 5 chapters of seriously what version, found in 1900? How would one know?

I'm pretty conservative in my conclusions and I cannot let myself jump to believing it's a 1st Century document, in fact how does one make that assumption at all with any confidence?

And also despite and based on all the evident I have and you have presented and others it cannot be said with any high degree of confidence.

And it still shows a very weak argument with all this fragments pieces and repositories spanning over 1600 years. It much easier and more logical to believe that someone spawned these 'Teaching' say by the 4th century AD and other added to it....and then a version of the 11 century appeared and another one in 1900 of the 1st 5 Chapters.

I can however be confident, and with much caution, as a logical and viable compromise, see the document as a 4th century as its earliest generation as a completed document, at this time. I still favor it as an 11th Century document to tell you the truth because of how, and what was found and the scholastic appeal and intertest or lack there of, etc..

 

[CadyandZoe]

So, you're no longer saying that Jesus commissioned His apostles to initiate new disciples, as in Christians, of all nations for only Him (the Son Jesus), and are now saying for the Son (Jesus), the Father, and the Holy Spirit?

I never said only him.

 

[CadyandZoe]

And you know what is right?

Much love!

In some cases, I know what the translation should have said.

 

[Magdala]

I never said only him.

That can't be because you said that when Jesus instructed His apostles to initiate new disciples, as in Christians, of all nations in His name, that it's for Jesus. Are you now saying that it's for the Son (Jesus), the Father, and the Holy Spirit?

 

[Wrangler]

In some cases, I know what the translation should have said.

A great example is how Houtos means the preposition ‘this’ and not the pronoun ‘he’ in John 1:2 as it was in 6:60. Doing so is a deliberate manipulation of text to better appeal to the trinitarian IDOL.

Houtos Means Only "This" (John 6:60 & 1:2)

This is a rare exploration by me into foreign Languages. houtos is the Greek word in both verses. It means "this" in English. οὗτος - Wiktionary Determiner οὗτος • (hoûtos), f αὕτη (haútē), n τοῦτο (toûto) (medial demonstrative determiner and pronoun) this (of place) here in contrast with ὅδε...

www.christianityboard.com

 

[Aunty Jane]

Thanks @Aunty Jane and @face2face for both thoughtful posts.

I think it's obvious by now we are not going to agree, nevertheless we can give it a try on which points we agree when it's about the question -

Good to explore these things…..

Who is Jesus and what do we know about Him -

1. We know Jesus as only human He preexisted and knew His life with the Father when He was on Earth (John 17)
2. We know Jesus with the Father was involved in the creation story (Col 1)
3. We know Jesus is the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end (Rev)

So, Jesus existed before creation, before humans were created.

So, who is He?

OK…so what do we really know about Jesus from Scripture, as opposed to what we think we know?

Based on John 17:3, we have to “know” Jesus as the one who was “sent” by his Father. And we need to “know“ the Father as well……but apparently not the holy spirit, which, if he was an equal part of the trinity, is a bit of a mystery.

We also know that Jesus had a God whose worship he promoted. (John 20:17) On earth he spoke about his “God and Father”.…which some say was only when in his human form…….but….
Jesus spoke of his Father as “my God” four times in one verse, after his return to heaven. (Rev 3:12)
Can God have a God in heaven?

The apostle John received his Revelation in the latter part of the first century, well after Jesus‘ resurrection.
Revelation 1:1 reveals where the Revelation came from….from the Father, to the son, to an angel and then to John. If Jesus is an equal member of the godhead, why the chain of command, remembering that this is from heaven.
Paul also revealed that Christ has a “head” (authority) over him, so not equal to his God and Father. (1 Cor 11:3, also written after Jesus’ death and return to heaven.)

Jesus was 100% mortal human or he could not have died.….and it is impossible for mere mortals to kill an immortal God in a human body. As redeemer, he had to offer an equivalent sacrifice to what Adam lost for all his children. A sinless human life was given to redeem the sinless human life lost for all humanity.
Nor would God have needed the help of angels to strengthen him after the devil’s temptations (Matt 4:11) and also in the final part of his earthly assignment. (Luke 22:42) Does God need angels to give him strength?

We also know that he was instrumental in creation, as the “us” and “our” of Genesis 1:26. But this does not make him the Creator, only the Father carries that title….
Paul tells us in Col 1:15-17 that the pre-human Jesus was the one “through whom” creation was made. The power and the raw materials were provide by the great Architect and the work was carried out under his instruction by his “master workman”. (Prov 8:30-31)

When something is done “through” someone else acting as an agent, they do all things in the name of the one who provided them with their instructions.
In major landmark constructions, the architect is credited with the design of the building, having made all the decisions concerning it, but his instructions must be followed and carried out by the construction crew. Do we often hear about the builders in such a construction, or does the architect get the credit for his building?

The title “Alpha and Omega” belongs only to the Creator.……in itself, the title conveys the idea of the start and the finish or completion of something. The personage who is so designated would, therefore, be viewed as the beginner of certain things and the one who brings these things to a successful conclusion.

Based on what is revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures, the title “the Alpha and the Omega” would certainly fit the Almighty God. At Isa 55:11 for example, it says…. “so my word that goes forth from my mouth will prove to be. It will not return to me without results, but it will certainly do that in which I have delighted, and it will have certain success in that for which I have sent it.”
It is God who is the beginner and finishers of all his will desires.

At Rev 21:6-7 the angel states, speaking for the Father..…”And he said to me: “They have come to pass! I am the Alʹpha and the O·meʹga, the beginning and the end. To anyone thirsting I will give from the spring of the water of life free. 7 Anyone conquering will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be my son.”

Nowhere is Jesus ever said to be the father of these conquerors….he calls them his “brothers”. (Matt 25:40; Heb 2:10-12)

Jesus as the “firstborn” “only begotten” “son of God” existed “before all things”, but he had a beginning as it is stated in the Scriptures….he is not an eternal being as the Father alone is eternal. (without beginning or end)

Col 1:15….”He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation”….as the firstborn of ALL creation, he is part of that creation…the “beginning” of it. (Rev 3:14)

So, from my studies which are not encumbered by any trinitarian leanings, or mistranslated verses, I have allowed the Scriptures themselves to tell me who Jesus was, and is, and always will be.

I see the trinity as a travesty and the devil’s biggest lie…..leading the unwary to break the first and most important Commandment. (Exodus 20:3) That of putting three “gods” in the place of the one and only Yahweh/Jehovah.

 

[face2face]

Please provide a scripture reference where it explicitly states that Jesus "was raised in sinful flesh," as you seem to suggest that He took on Adam's sinful nature.

14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. 16 For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants. 17 For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Heb 2:14-17

Red text is the context of this section.

Johann is the children which have flesh and blood (fact!) if you deny this you would be a waste of my time!
Jesus shared in their humanity
Johann, due to deaths dominion and slavery to sin is in fear of death
Jesus was made fully human in every way remove sin within himself

Hebrews 9:26 But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Now try and find for me a Scripture that applies to Jesus in flesh as being Divine! I'm not wanting any verses from you that speak to the Glorified Christ! I want plain and clear verses that talk to the Lord nature being two!

I ask so I can thoroughly address your claim and demonstrate how this misrepresents the clear teaching of Scripture.

Don't think of quoting Romans 8:3, which says Jesus came "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας).

This does not mean He took on sinful flesh or Adam’s fallen nature; rather, He took on fully human flesh without inheriting sin or corruption.

J.

Yes, it does, and you know why!

How can God condemn sin in Jesus if it's not represented in Him?

What you're doing is removing the condemnation by making Jesus a god-man, and in doing so, you strip away the victory God achieved over sin’s flesh.

“In the likeness of sinful flesh, to be a sin offering. And so He condemned sin in the flesh.”

Johann, explain this to me—why would God even make Jesus flesh? What was the point? What made Jesus a suitable sin offering if, as you say, He had two natures?

I think the truth is starting to seep through. It’s a trickle, but it’s getting through!

F2F