The Problem With The Trinity
- Thread starter JesusIsFaithful
- 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
I didn't really quote a lot of scripture in the post she was referring to. What she was saying is that she saw the teachings of scripture in what I was saying apart from me quoting it.
But when a person rejects the deity of Christ, he or she cannot possibly use Scripture correctly or truthfully. Every passage pertaining to the Godhead and Christ will invariably be twisted. Which will then affect all other Bible truth. For example what will you do with Acts 20:28:
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God [Theos], which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Who is this God who has purchased the Church "with His own blood"?
Good post @Taken
If God so wanted, He-whom is all in all could have make Himself 4 in one, or even 5 in one...He is God, after all!
Whoa, why have I never considered this verse pertaining to Christs Godhead??
Yes...who is this God ;) Could He be.......JESUS?!!! Lol
Taken...hope all sits well with you..peace to you
Taken, Hi again…I see a great post here…
I liked your post as Nancy did, although I believe I disagree with one area categorically, and one I am not sure of….
The one portion of your post I do disagree with is the cornerstone and touchstone of Trinitarian belief. Those that believe in this statement have no explicit scriptural support as well no as contextual support. It is based on speculation at best. It was just stuck in there to lay the foundation of the 2nd person of the Trinity. It needed a foothold in scripture and they found an area for confusion.
JESUS, God WITH us...is revealed to mankind, HE IS the WORD of God.
John 1:1
John 1:14
The logos or word of God was in this case written by John, as God’s plan of salvation for mankind. Verse 14 says that this logos was or became revealed in the man Jesus as God’s agent or instrument to execute especially the critical portion of this plan, as the lamb of God. Trinitarians misplace and redefined 'logos' as the person, Jesus when no where in history or scripture is logos ever called a person, let alone Jesus. It always means inner thoughts, purpose, plans, message, commands, words, communique of God, or similar terms. God used his spirit to make it happen as he did with all his word or logos. He executed his logos or word by placing his spirit within Jesus as stated in verse John 1:14……and the rest is history. This makes Jesus unique as he carried the power of God within him as you said in your post. He carries it today, as we are in Christ, and draw off this power of God through our faith in Christ's spirit. As we become more embedded and more like the image of Christ.
Not sure on what to make of this on below. Are you saying that Jesus is God Almighty and/or that God Almighty = a separate Holy Spirit? If at least both are true is this then not Modalist or a Oneness belief? If so I also disagree with your statement.
If you are saying that whatever God declares in this world to men it indeed is him/himself and this declaration or word or logos as I just defined it above is his own, and executed by his own spirit, directly or to whomever he delegates it to, such as Jesus, - then yes, I agree with it.
I believe IN ONE Lord God Almighty, and that All He declares "IS" He Himself, "IS" He Himself, Regardless of WHAT, He Himself directs men TO Call Him at any given Time in History of mankind.
Bless you
APAK
gadar perets
Well-Known Member
OK, its time for a lesson about worship.
Much confusion concerning “worship” arises from the fact that the Hebrew and Greek words translated “worship” were translated differently when the “worship” was directed toward men.
The Hebrew word translated “worship” is Strong’s #7812 – “shachah” meaning; to depress, that is, prostrate (especially reflexively in homage to royalty or God).
Here are the various ways it was translated in the KJV; bow (self) down, crouch, fall down (flat), humbly beseech, do (make) obeisance, do reverence, make to stoop, worship.
An example of “shachah” from one man to another is found in Genesis 23:7;
And Abraham stood up, and bowed himself (shachah) to the people of the land, even to the children of Heth.
In the previous chapter, we see Abraham going to “worship” YHWH.
And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship (shachah), and come again to you. Genesis 22:5
The same Hebrew word is used in two different ways. Abraham “bowed” himself to men, but was going to “worship” YHWH.
In Gen 33:3, Jacob bowed down to Esau;
But he himself passed on ahead of them and bowed down to the ground seven times, until he came near to his brother.
What if “shachah” was translated “worship” here instead of “bowed down”? Would that make Esau “God”? Of course not. Neither does Yeshua receiving “worship” make him “God”.
The translators of the Old Testament made a distinction in the words they chose to translate “shachah” based on who was receiving the action. If men were the recipients, then words like bow (self) down, crouch, fall down (flat), humbly beseech, do (make) obeisance, etc. were chosen. When the recipient was YHWH, they chose the word “worship”.
The New Testament Greek word translated “worship” is “proskuneo” (meaning; to kiss, like a dog licking his master’s hand); to fawn or crouch to, that is, (literally or figuratively) prostrate oneself in homage (do reverence to, adore). Strong’s Lexicon.
Here is the definition from Thayer’s Lexicon:
1) to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence
2) among the Orientals, especially the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence
3) in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication
3a) used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank
Proskuneo is the same word used in Exodus 34:14 in the Greek Septuagint for the worship of YHWH.2) among the Orientals, especially the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence
3) in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication
3a) used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank
3a1) to the Jewish high priests
3a2) to God
3a3) to Christ
3a4) to heavenly beings
3a5) to demons
3a2) to God
3a3) to Christ
3a4) to heavenly beings
3a5) to demons
The translators of the New Testament were not as selective as the translators of the Old Testament. They translated all occurrences of “proskuneo” as “worship”. Here are two important examples that will help understand the NT usage of “worship”. The first is the worship of the Son.
Then they that were in the ship came and worshiped (proskuneo) him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God. Matthew 14:33
Here is how they translated “proskuneo” when the recipients were men;
Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship (proskuneo) before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. Revelation 3:9
This is being said by Yeshua to the believers comprising the Philadelphia church. A time will come in the future when Yeshua will command his followers to be “worshiped” as well. Now, should we consider these men to be “Gods” simply because they are worshiped? No. Neither should we consider the Son to be “God” simply because he was worshiped.
Yeshua and the believers in the Philadelphia church are not being worshipped as YHWH (God), but as YHWH’s representatives. They are being bowed down to and given honor as such.
Yeshua is deserving of our “worship” as we bow down to him, honor him, and adore him. However, it is Almighty YHWH alone that we are to worship as the one and only true God (John 17:3).
gadar perets
Well-Known Member
My post explains how. Read it.
The author of the Greek grammar I cited is a trinitarian. He is not trying to cast doubt on the Word. He is simply being honest and unbiased.
gadar perets
Well-Known Member
According to the Concordant Literal Version (CLV) used in the Interlinear Scripture Analyzer, the verse should be translated, "...through the blood of his own." According to the American Bible Society and the Institute For New Testament Research in Germany (which produces the Nestle-Aland Greek text) agree that the manuscript evidence supports the reading tou haimatios tou idiou, literally, the blood of His own (Son), and not idiou haimatios, “his own blood.” God paid for our salvation with the blood of His own Son. The text note at the bottom of the Trinitarian NIV Study Bible gets the meaning of the verse correct: “his own blood. Lit. ‘the blood of his own one,’ a term of endearment (such as ‘his own dear one’) referring to His own Son.”
However, another way to understand it, if the KJV translation is correct, is as follows. I can say that my son is my own flesh and blood. Obviously I am not speaking literally, but by way of an idiom. The same can hold true in this verse. Yeshua is YHWH's own flesh and blood idiomatically speaking.
gadar perets
Well-Known Member
Gadar,
Why is it that all of your posts seem to be you proselytizing for YOUR beliefs. And who cares about all your rambling about your "Concordant Literal Version (CLV) used in the Interlinear Scripture Analyzer and all of you "according to's According to the American Bible Society and the Institute For New Testament Research in Germany And, according to this or that reference or man.
Reference materials have their place, yes. But they can NEVER take the place of our Master Teacher-The Holy Spirit. And, He sure does have a way with showing things in very delightfully surprising ways when one is sincerely seeking truth not their need to be "right". So, you need not "give me a "lesson", as I see you have written to another on here. And, when you have prayed for discernment for as long as I have, oh boy does He ever answer that prayer! The Gospel is to be simple, man just cannot help but complicate such a beautiful thing with big words and concordances, and lex. I hope God will remove any obstacles that would hinder His truth and that you would be blessed with the humility to accept TRUTH even if you do not like it. I would hope everybody on here would not be so stiff-necked, as to think they are always right and the other is wrong. Those convos. go nowhere fast and do NOT glorify God.
In His Name
I read it, and I still don't see how it changes the meaning.
Something you should look at:
Jun 22, 2017#71
Jun 22, 2017#81
If the first post is too much for you the second one is most important for you concerning the issue at hand.
Last edited:
Taken
Well-Known Member
Hi friend, thank you and same to you.
I spoke specifically of the Catholic symbol, called the Trinity Shield, and my disagreement with what "their" words say the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are NOT.
JESUS, God WITH us...is revealed to mankind, HE IS the WORD of God.
Logos? I didn't mention Logos, nor believe the "written Word of God came forth out of God".
Again, I do believe we are in agreement.
I do not favor, the terms agent or instrument.
I get your point.
When discussion God appearing in the Flesh, I do not consider the "logos"....and not sure how that became the subject.
Somewhat agree. Christ IS the Power of God.
Yes.
No.
No clue what those terms mean, so can't say.
Not sure which statement you are speaking of....
I believe....
Jesus is Thee "Lord"
Heavenly Father is Thee "God"
Power is Thee "Almighty"
And THEY ARE "THEE" "Lord God Almighty"..
Rev 15:3
All the Same One Lord, One God, One Almighty.... They ARE He,
Isa 48: 12
John 8:24
Who WAS, IS, and SHALL Be....
REV 4:8
and WHOSE NAME SHALL REVEALED and BE ONE...
Zech 14:9
Yes, that was my POINT...:)
Yes.
Eph 1:9
All this typing (which I post from my phone)....and conclude we are in agreement!!
Need a cup of coffee....LOL
God Bless,
Taken
TheHolyBookEnds
Well-Known Member
Whom do you personally think Moses was worshipping here (Exo. 34:5-8)?
Exo 34:5 And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD.
Exo 34:6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,
Exo 34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.
Exo 34:8 And Moses made haste, and bowed his head toward the earth, and worshipped.
Also, whom do you personally think is being worshipped here?
Heb_1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
gadar perets
Well-Known Member
I was simply replying to another person's misunderstanding about the word "worship". That is my job as a true believer (to correct those overtaken in a fault - Galatians 6:1). Such leaven is infecting the entire body of believers whom I love and desire to protect by teaching the correct understanding of Scripture so they can turn from their faults. Sadly, there are those who do not wish to be corrected.
Yes, Nancy, the Gospel is very simple; "For God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son ...". That is NOT what you and others are preaching. Here is your complicated Gospel; "For God so loved the world that He sent Himself who is really not Himself, but only an incarnation of Himself ...". Since you keep "liking" jfb's posts, then you are in agreement with him as he preaches this false Gospel.
gadar perets
Well-Known Member
I read them both. His teaching is founded upon the false premise that the "logos" (which he capitalizes as "Logos") was a being/person rather than a thing (the Father's thoughts, plans, and spoken words). He also assumes the "Angel of Jehovah" (the false name he uses in place of YHWH) is a deity rather than simply an angelic messenger. As long as you all assume whatever you want and read whatever you want into Scripture you will never come to a knowledge of the truth on this subject.
gadar perets
Well-Known Member
He is worshiping Yeshua's Father, Almighty YHWH, the only true God.
YHWH's Son, Messiah Yeshua, is being worshiped here. YHWH commanded His Son to be "worshiped". However, He does not command us or angels to worship His Son AS THOUGH he is YHWH or AS THOUGH he is the "only true God" or AS THOUGH he is our Heavenly Father. We are to "worship" him as YHWH's Son, as the "Son of God" and in the sense of "to kiss, like a dog licking his master’s hand); to fawn or crouch to, that is, (literally or figuratively) prostrate oneself in homage (do reverence to, adore)" (Strong's definition of "proskuneo"/worship).
There was no misunderstanding on my part, except in your mind.
You think I am denying that Jesus is the Son of God? I am not...I am merely saying that the definition of Jesus as the Son of God is shown forth in Isaiah 9:6. Therefore "the son that was given" has the name "The everlasting Father" and "The Mighty God" (or, Jehovah, compare Psalms 50:1).
I did not direct you to his post so that you might either believe or critique his teaching...if you will, look past his teaching and understand what he was saying is actually borne out by the Greek in John 1:1.
As anyone can see that is COMPLETELY NONSENSICAL.
There is not a single translation which does not have "his own blood".
As usual, you refuse to acknowledge the truth and resist it daily. You have no idea what a huge problem you have created for yourself.
gadar perets
Well-Known Member
No, you are not denying the Son. I never said you were.
He wrote;
3. By writing it: και θεος ην ο λογος, John does two critical things.
a. He leaves the article off of θεος indicating that the Word is not the same individual as the father.
b. He places θεος to the front of the clause, giving extra emphasis to that word. By doing that, he makes it clear by the increase in emphasis that the absence of the article does not mean “lesser.” Since the absence of the article does not mean “lesser god,” it leaves us only one choice as to what it can mean: Not exactly the same individual as the “τον θεον” (the God) of the second clause, but every bit as much God as the “τον θεον” of the second clause. Thus, the absence of the article tells us that the θεος of the third clause is not the same individual as the τον θεον of the second clause. The position tells us that the absence of the article does not mean “lesser.” By placing θεος in a position of emphasis, John is doing the equivalent of bolding it, underlining it, and adding an exclamation point: “The Word was God!” (Red mine)
Two different Gods; polytheism. And he does not address the "quality" that Mounce wrote of.a. He leaves the article off of θεος indicating that the Word is not the same individual as the father.
b. He places θεος to the front of the clause, giving extra emphasis to that word. By doing that, he makes it clear by the increase in emphasis that the absence of the article does not mean “lesser.” Since the absence of the article does not mean “lesser god,” it leaves us only one choice as to what it can mean: Not exactly the same individual as the “τον θεον” (the God) of the second clause, but every bit as much God as the “τον θεον” of the second clause. Thus, the absence of the article tells us that the θεος of the third clause is not the same individual as the τον θεον of the second clause. The position tells us that the absence of the article does not mean “lesser.” By placing θεος in a position of emphasis, John is doing the equivalent of bolding it, underlining it, and adding an exclamation point: “The Word was God!” (Red mine)
- Status
Similar threads
