amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
and who is and are the key leaders
they came as did JUDAS . FROM WITHIN .
Western Trinitarians, do not follow the early church teaching.
- Thread starter Hepzibah
- 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!
they came as did JUDAS . FROM WITHIN .
amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
WE were warned to beware of the most deadly kind of deciever and betrayer .
Not one from WITHOUT but those from within .
IS IT really so hard to beleive that our betrayer and betrayal cometh from WITHIN .
If that seems hard to beleive . WHO betrayed JESUS . was it one from outside
OR ONE FROM THE INSIDE . one who had been as though he was of them .
OUR BETRAYAL and our PERSECUTION will come FROM a pretender and pretenders my friend .
CHRISTENDOM HAS BEEN INFILTRATED .
Interesting. Then you will have some insight into the things I mentioned. Normally they are not allowed to prozelytise alone. Sad for you though. They break up families.
There is an acceptance of minor differences from the early church onwards so long as they are not heretical, from leaders.
Many are still lead astray.
Yes that was the beginning but the Father only existed as God, who alone is eternal in the sense that He had no beginning whereas the Son was begotten and the Spirit came forth. This is the early church belief.
This is where they differ. It says unto us the Child is born of the flesh. But He existed in Spirit beforehand, begotten before creation.
Ronald David Bruno
Well-Known Member
Not as bad or sad as you think. They love me ... just praying for me to know the truth someday and come out of Christiandom darkness led by Satan.
The Jesus I know preexisted in the eternal Godhead. He is the Alpha and Omega, the Creator, the Great I Am. The Father addresses Him in Hebrews 1:8 "Oh God ..."
"Jesus, who, as He already existed in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself by taking the form of a bond-servant and being born in the likeness of men" Phil. 2:6-7
This I think is why He is lenient with us in our various views of the Trinity and Him as God.
He was always God, He didn't become equal to God. Ask your logical professor if someone could become equal to an almighty God? Omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence is required to have all authority in heaven and on earth. Also Col. 1:16-17 identifies Jesus as the CREATOR.
The begotten part is flesh only, not His spirit. Doesn't say anywhere that He was begotten before the beginning.
God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm:
‘ You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.’ Acts. 13:33
Psalm 2:7, a prophecy, says "Today I have become your Father". That was when Jesus was born. Then the prophets y jumps to His Millennial Kingdom.
Last edited:
Marvelloustime
Well-Known Member
face2face
Well-Known Member
- Jun 22, 2015
- 8,243
- 1,202
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
There is no Scripture safe from the Trinitarian Credal Notions!
In 1 Corinthians 1:24, Jesus is described as "the power of God." Similarly, in Acts 8:10, Philip the evangelist is referred to as the "power of God" by Simon the sorcerer. However, this doesn't imply that Simon believed Philip to be Jesus, or that they were one and the same.
Further to this the gospel itself is described as the "power of God" (1 Cor. 1:18), but that doesn't mean that the gospel and Jesus are one and the same thing.
I could continue and point out more inconsistencies that frequently arise when the early Church Fathers are presenting their unfounded arguments.
At Least the Inspired Writers used the OT to provide a foundation of truth. We have nothing in the Bible to go by with the Trinity
F2F
I think the early church believed -
God, the Father
God, the Son
God, the Holy Spirit.
Three distinct uncreated eternal Personalities.
And They are ONE.
God the Son descended from heaven (John 3:13) and incarnated as God the Son in the human flesh (John 1:14).
I can share your worries after debating the Unitarians here, they are growing and nowadays (thanks to the media and especially the social media) it's popular to kick against anything that is mainstream. Add up that we are living in the so called age of reason where about everything should be understood by logic and when logic does not apply and can't be understood it is false. And then the Trinity is an easy target because the Trinity can't be understood, only believed.
Hey Face, stay out of this topic, respect the OP, there are several other threads where you can express your JW theology.
face2face
Well-Known Member
- Jun 22, 2015
- 8,243
- 1,202
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
Here it is Pro!
God, the Father
Son of God
The Holy Spirit being the Power of God
The Word of God descended from Heaven by the Power of the Holy Spirit and gave conception in Mary
Given the widespread influence of Trinitarian error for the past 1,700 years, it's predictable that a resurgence of the Original Gospel would occur as we approach the Master's return.
Wow such an admission @Wrangler & @APAK
Ephesians 3:3-6 how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel."
The Gospel here is inferred as a message understood!
Colossians 1:26-27 the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to his saints. To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.
Can you find me Pro anywhere in the Bible that teaches:
1. The Trinity is unknown, and yet to be believed upon
2. The Godhead is unknown, and yet to be believed upon
3. That the nature of Christ is unknown, and yet to be believed upon
Look forward to those references!
F2F
Jesus is not like God the Father, the source of all things who is eternal therefore has no beginning, but is begotten by the Father. This is the point where it says 'in the beginning', the point at which the eternal God, had to make a change in order to enter time and space, being purely Spirit. God the Father extended Himself. That point of entry brought forth Jesus His Son, also divine and God and the Holy Spirit who also had a source for existence who would one day enter mankind. That entry into flesh would apply for all of creation.
God was then able to bring forth creation through His Son.
Later Jesus would leave His place in heaven with the Father and take on human flesh for the Father to complete His plan to fully enter into His creation and bring forth humans who would be restored tot he position He originally intended for them, holy beings in whom the Spirit could dwell and share in eternal life with the Godhead.
In the beginning which means creation. This is what I am interpreting from scripture so far with my partial knowledge of the early teachings which I will get into fully.
As I have described to the last poster, the three are one in essence and all are divine and worthy of worship.
There are some points of the Trinity that do not stand to logic but I believe that scripture gives us a good idea.
I am not equipped at present to debate you and kindly ask if you would leave this thread as you are not able to keep on topic.
I will say to you, that your view and the existing Trinitarian view expressed here, which I claim to not be the one of the early church, and are both imbalanced, two extremes and missing the full truth that stand somewhere in the middle. Scriptures can be bandied about from both sides.
There is also the element of revelation, when many here will profess to having an encounter with the living God at one point in their lives, out of necessity, so are not purely arguing from the written word, and in that encounter with God, the heavenly being was identified as the Lord Jesus Christ who came to save them.
We have the same argument between Reformed and Arminians, doing the same thing and being imbalanced in the same way- a ploy of the enemy.
If the Lord desires me to debate JW's I will get back to you later.
It is that encounter that they call 'born again' and everyone has the same testimony - that it was Christ they encountered.
May I suggest that you consider this.
May I suggest that you consider this.
"Bear always in mind that this is the rule of faith which I profess; by it I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and so will you know in what sense this is said. Now, observe, my assertion is that the Father is one, and the Son one, and the Spirit one, and that They are distinct from Each Other. This statement is taken in a wrong sense by every uneducated as well as every perversely disposed person, as if it predicated a diversity, in such a sense as to imply a separation among the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit.
I am, moreover, obliged to say this, when (extolling the Monarchy at the expense of the Economy) they contend for the identity of the Father and Son and Spirit, that it is not by way of diversity that the Son differs from the Father, but by distribution: it is not by division that He is different, but by distinction; because the Father is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from the other in the mode of their being. For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: “My Father is greater than I.” In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being “a little lower than the angels.” Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He, too, who sends is one, and He who is sent is another; and He, again, who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made is another.
Happily the Lord Himself employs this expression of the person of the Paraclete (Holy Spirit), so as to signify not a division or severance, but a disposition (of mutual relations in the Godhead); for He says, “I will pray the Father, and He shall send you another Comforter…even the Spirit of truth,” thus making the Paraclete distinct from Himself, even as we say that the Son is also distinct from the Father; so that He showed a third degree in the Paraclete, as we believe the second degree is in the Son, by reason of the order observed in the Economy. Besides, does not the very fact that they have the distinct names of Father and Son amount to a declaration that they are distinct in personality? For, of course, all things will be what their names represent them to be; and what they are and ever will be, that will they be called; and the distinction indicated by the names does not at all admit of any confusion, because there is none in the things which they designate. “Yes is yes, and no is no; for what is more than these, cometh of evil.”
Tertullian Against Praxeas Chapter IX
I am, moreover, obliged to say this, when (extolling the Monarchy at the expense of the Economy) they contend for the identity of the Father and Son and Spirit, that it is not by way of diversity that the Son differs from the Father, but by distribution: it is not by division that He is different, but by distinction; because the Father is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from the other in the mode of their being. For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: “My Father is greater than I.” In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being “a little lower than the angels.” Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He, too, who sends is one, and He who is sent is another; and He, again, who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made is another.
Happily the Lord Himself employs this expression of the person of the Paraclete (Holy Spirit), so as to signify not a division or severance, but a disposition (of mutual relations in the Godhead); for He says, “I will pray the Father, and He shall send you another Comforter…even the Spirit of truth,” thus making the Paraclete distinct from Himself, even as we say that the Son is also distinct from the Father; so that He showed a third degree in the Paraclete, as we believe the second degree is in the Son, by reason of the order observed in the Economy. Besides, does not the very fact that they have the distinct names of Father and Son amount to a declaration that they are distinct in personality? For, of course, all things will be what their names represent them to be; and what they are and ever will be, that will they be called; and the distinction indicated by the names does not at all admit of any confusion, because there is none in the things which they designate. “Yes is yes, and no is no; for what is more than these, cometh of evil.”
Tertullian Against Praxeas Chapter IX
Interesting ....I do this a lot as well on long videos.
God the Father, brought Jesus Christ into being at the beginning of creation, whereas He Himself existed eternally, and at the point of creation, as it is through Christ that this creation came forth. Scripture is not clear so far on whether the two were at the same time or not. I think it is indicated that they were.
I would add, that the incarnate Christ, being a mix between eternity and creation, has the ability to function throughout creation as Saviour and not just after the incarnation.
I don’t mean to derail this thread, but I believe the prologue of John clearly affirms that the two existed simultaneously. Let me know if you agree, @Hepzibah.
Exegesis of ἦν (ēn, "was") and the Imperfect Tense in John 1:1
The phrase Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος ("In the beginning was the Word") in John 1:1 is a pivotal statement regarding the eternal existence of the Son, and the use of the imperfect verb ἦν (ēn, "was") carries profound implications for understanding His nature and preexistence.
1. Syntactical Analysis of Ἐν ἀρχῇ ("In the beginning")
The phrase Ἐν ἀρχῇ draws an intentional parallel to Genesis 1:1 in the Septuagint (Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς, "In the beginning God created").
However, while Genesis refers to the starting point of creation, John 1:1 employs Ἐν ἀρχῇ to place the Word prior to creation. The Word is depicted as already existing at the commencement of time, transcending the temporal framework.
This is a deliberate contrast to the aorist verb ἐποίησεν ("created") in Genesis, which denotes a completed action marking the start of creation.
2. The Imperfect Verb ἦν ("was")
The verb ἦν (imperfect form of εἰμί, "to be") is critical to the theological weight of John 1:1. Unlike the aorist tense, which indicates a completed action with a definitive starting point, the imperfect tense conveys continuous or ongoing action in the past. In this context, ἦν signifies the Word's continuous, eternal existence before and during the beginning of creation. This is contrasted with the later use of the verb ἐγένετο ("came into being") in John 1:3 to describe the creation of all things.
Key Implications of the Imperfect Tense:
Timeless Existence: The use of ἦν in Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος explicitly denies that the Word had a point of origin.
The Word was already existing (ongoingly) when "the beginning" occurred. As Daniel B. Wallace notes in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, the imperfect here suggests durative action extending indefinitely into the past, underscoring the eternal existence of the Word.
Contrasted with Creation: The verb ἐγένετο in John 1:3 emphasizes the coming into being of created things, thereby distinguishing the uncreated nature of the Word. The Word’s existence is not described in terms of becoming but simply as eternally "being."
3. Semantic Weight of ὁ λόγος ("the Word")
The designation ὁ λόγος emphasizes the Word’s unique identity as divine Person, expression, and communication. The imperfect tense reinforces this identity as not only preexistent but also coexistent with God (πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, "with God"). The Son is not a created intermediary but the eternal expression of God’s nature, inseparable from the Godhead.
4. Theological Significance of the Imperfect Tense
The use of ἦν in all three clauses of John 1:1 highlights three distinct yet interconnected truths about the Word:
Eternality- Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος confirms the Word’s existence before creation, negating any notion of the Son coming into being at a specific point in time.
Distinctiveness- ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν ("the Word was with God") asserts the Word's distinct personhood, while the imperfect tense suggests an eternal relationship.
Divinity- θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος ("the Word was God") declares the full deity of the Word, with the imperfect tense affirming that the Word has always been divine.
Thanks and God bless.
J.
Similar threads
