PDA

View Full Version : The Trinity [split from the Zechariah 14:1-2 thread]



TheForgiven
08-22-2011, 06:27 PM
Deuteronomy 6:4
'Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!

Notice that it did not say "three". It said one.

The Holy Spirit descended upon Mary, and she became pregnant. Does this make the Holy Spirit the Father of Jesus? :lol: Is Father and Son sitting up in heaven, upon a throne, with the Father in the middle, the Son on His right, and the Holy Spirit on the left?

God is one being; not three distinct entities. One God, period. "Here O' Israel, for the Lord our God is One".

I worship One God, and one God alone. Jesus is the Everlasting Father, wonderful Counselor, Prince of Peace....Isaiah.

One God, One Faith, One Baptism.

Joe

gregoryfl
08-22-2011, 07:56 PM
Deuteronomy 6:4
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!

Notice that it did not say "three". It said one.

Joe
She'ma Yis'ra'eyl Yhwh e'lo'hey'nu Yhwh e'hhad.

Aleph Hhet Dalet

Indeed, Yhwh is e'hhad, or one.

wai'hi e'rev wai'hi vo'qer yom e'hhad.
and there was evening, and there was morning, day one.

The evening and the morning, 2 periods of time, make up e'hhad, or one, day.

we'hai'u le'va'sar e'hhad.
and they become one flesh.

So too are the husband and wife to become e'hhad, or one, flesh.

Related to this word by marriage root is the word Ya'hhad.

Yod Hhet Dalet

This is a verbal form expressing the action of making a unit out of more than one. For example:

we'lo yakh'lu la'she'vet yahh'daw.
and they cannot dwell together.

Lot's group and Abram's group could not dwell together as one group.

I agree that Yhwh being one, or e'hhad, does not mean he is three. Nor however, does this verse teach that he is one being, (at least getting that meaning from this verse) for he is not speaking of his essence at all, but of his character.

Everything that exists is of him, and is e'hhad to him, although to us things appear very disjointed in our existence.

That, to me, my brother, is the beauty of our Creator, that he is indeed e'hhad, and as such, is demonstrating himself as being all in all in every single conceivable circumstance, both good and evil.

Would I be accurately describing what you are sharing if I were to say that Jesus, by being called Everlasting Father, is the one God manifested as the Father, but also manifested as the Son, not as 2 persons in one God, but as one God manifesting himself as Father and Son?

Ron

Brother Les
08-23-2011, 06:25 AM
Ram is replying to Henry[/COLOR in this statement:]
Ram
So you are of the opinion that God the Father and God the Spirit are both Spirit and "come in the spirit" but that Jesus is physical and so must always "come" in his physical body? I don't see any justification for that idea at all. Jesus "comes" whenever two or three are gathered in his name, and besides, is there really a difference between Christ and the Spirit? What then does the Bible mean when it talks of the "Spirit of Christ" in parallel with the "Spirit of God?"
Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

I think it is an error of the first order to attempt to base your doctrines on distinctions between the Persons of the Godhead. Especially when debating things that are rich in symbolic content like "coming on clouds" and "stars falling" and all that jazz.
__________________


The human form of Jesus Christ (yes, He physically bodily died on The Cross and physically bodily arose three full days and nights later) was not His eternal natural form. John puts the bodily physical of Jesus Christ as a manifestation of what He really is. We can not discard the manifestation of Angels and always believe that how they are seen as humans is really their true forms in the eternal.


1 John 1
1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the[COLOR="Red"] Word of life;

2(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us)



1 John 3:
5And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

8He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

TheForgiven
08-23-2011, 12:29 PM
Would I be accurately describing what you are sharing if I were to say that Jesus, by being called Everlasting Father, is the one God manifested as the Father, but also manifested as the Son, not as 2 persons in one God, but as one God manifesting himself as Father and Son?

Ron

That is correct my brother. Jesus was God manifested as a Son; hence, the Son begotten of God. There are many sons (male child) on this earth, but there was only one Son who was directly begotten of God. The Father was manifested in the person given the earthly name Jesus.

Isaiah states:

Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

The Name (Reputation) of God was completed with the everlasting establishment of Jesus, who is the Father, the Counselor (Holy Spirit), Prince of Peace, and God All Mighty.

When Jesus died on the cross, this wasn't just a separate entity of a so called "Trinity" who died; this was God dying on the cross, so He sacrificed Himself, through the man (flesh) we call Jesus.

This is why I believe God's love is so manifested, that He gave His own life in exchange for ours, to win our hearts by choice (not mandate), and through His gracious act, we might become children of God.

I know there's confusion when Jesus said while dying on the cross, "Father! Why have you forsaken Me"? I believe this was flesh talking to Spirit. Spirits cannot feel discomfort or bodily pain, but the body of Jesus experienced horrible anguish and pain.

God is One, and there is no other.

Is this what you believe as well?

Joe

Richard Amiel McGough
08-23-2011, 01:37 PM
She'ma Yis'ra'eyl Yhwh e'lo'hey'nu Yhwh e'hhad.

Aleph Hhet Dalet

Indeed, Yhwh is e'hhad, or one.

wai'hi e'rev wai'hi vo'qer yom e'hhad.
and there was evening, and there was morning, day one.

The evening and the morning, 2 periods of time, make up e'hhad, or one, day.

we'hai'u le'va'sar e'hhad.
and they become one flesh.

So too are the husband and wife to become e'hhad, or one, flesh.

Related to this word by marriage root is the word Ya'hhad.

Yod Hhet Dalet

This is a verbal form expressing the action of making a unit out of more than one. For example:

we'lo yakh'lu la'she'vet yahh'daw.
and they cannot dwell together.

Lot's group and Abram's group could not dwell together as one group.

I agree that Yhwh being one, or e'hhad, does not mean he is three. Nor however, does this verse teach that he is one being, (at least getting that meaning from this verse) for he is not speaking of his essence at all, but of his character.

It is true indeed that the word echad can refer to "compound unities" and does not, therefore, contradict the doctrine of the Trinity. But neither does it imply it. It simply says nothing about the nature of the thing that is "one." It could be a group, like "the people are one (echad)" or it could be a statement of uniqueness, like there is "one rock" as opposed to two. Nothing about the nature of the thing that is "one" can be derived from that word in a strict sense, but there are many "hints" that do suggest the Trinity, as I explain in my article on the Unity Holograph (http://biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Unity.asp). Specifically, the word "echad" sums to 13, a One and a Three. An echo of the Trinity? And then the phrase "Yahweh echad" (the Lord is one) sums to 39 = 3 x 13, but 13 = echad = one, so we have another echo: The Lord is one = 3 x One. And then we look at the sum of the entire Shema and find it reiterates the central message of the Unity of God:

Sum of Shema = 1118 = 13 (one) x 86 (Elohim/God) = ONE x GOD

And there is more of course, as discussed in my article on the Trinity Shield (http://biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Unity_Shield.asp). These facts strongly reinforced the traditional doctrine of the Trinity in my mind.



Everything that exists is of him, and is e'hhad to him, although to us things appear very disjointed in our existence.

That, to me, my brother, is the beauty of our Creator, that he is indeed e'hhad, and as such, is demonstrating himself as being all in all in every single conceivable circumstance, both good and evil.

How is God demonstrating himself as "being all in all?" I think that is an excellent concept of God, but it is not the traditional Christian concept at all, despite a few Biblical references that support it. It has been rejected by traditional Christian theology because they reject panthesism and panenthesism.



Would I be accurately describing what you are sharing if I were to say that Jesus, by being called Everlasting Father, is the one God manifested as the Father, but also manifested as the Son, not as 2 persons in one God, but as one God manifesting himself as Father and Son?

Ron
I think there are huge problems with the traditional theological categories of "persons" used to define the Trinity. It leads to confusion. And it was enforced by brute force as explained in the book The Jesus Wars that talks about how people were killed for holding to "wrong" ideas about the nature of God and the Trinity.

gregoryfl
08-23-2011, 06:11 PM
That is correct my brother. Jesus was God manifested as a Son; hence, the Son begotten of God. There are many sons (male child) on this earth, but there was only one Son who was directly begotten of God. The Father was manifested in the person given the earthly name Jesus.

Isaiah states:

Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

The Name (Reputation) of God was completed with the everlasting establishment of Jesus, who is the Father, the Counselor (Holy Spirit), Prince of Peace, and God All Mighty.

When Jesus died on the cross, this wasn't just a separate entity of a so called "Trinity" who died; this was God dying on the cross, so He sacrificed Himself, through the man (flesh) we call Jesus.

This is why I believe God's love is so manifested, that He gave His own life in exchange for ours, to win our hearts by choice (not mandate), and through His gracious act, we might become children of God.

I know there's confusion when Jesus said while dying on the cross, "Father! Why have you forsaken Me"? I believe this was flesh talking to Spirit. Spirits cannot feel discomfort or bodily pain, but the body of Jesus experienced horrible anguish and pain.

God is One, and there is no other.

Is this what you believe as well?

JoeThank you for your confirming statements. There are similarities that I can see from what you have written to what I understand. I believe some call it 'modalism'. There might be some points of difference with parts of it and what I believe, but that would take going point by point through various scriptures, etc, to see if that is the case.

I just wanted to make sure I understood what you wrote, and you kindly confirmed it for me.

Shalom my brother,

Ron

gregoryfl
08-23-2011, 06:43 PM
How is God demonstrating himself as "being all in all?" I think that is an excellent concept of God, but it is not the traditional Christian concept at all, despite a few Biblical references that support it. It has been rejected by traditional Christian theology because they reject panthesism and panenthesism.Whatever the traditional concepts are (of which there are more than one depending on one's school of thought) I do not hold to traditional Christian thoughtform, nor do I consider myself a Christian. I am simply a believer in Messiah who is being awakened to what is reality, a journey I believe we all are on, although each in our own unique set of circumstances and struggles.

It is in those unique circumstances and struggles, both individually and collectively, that I believe scripture accurately portrays a God that takes responsibility for his creation, both the good and the evil which he brings and/or allows; and furthermore, and most importantly that, according to his written torah, he will right every wrong, bring ultimate goodness (functionality) out of everything evil (shatttered). It is in this way he demonstrates that he is all and in all.

Shalom brother,

Ron

TheForgiven
08-24-2011, 08:28 AM
Thank you for your confirming statements. There are similarities that I can see from what you have written to what I understand. I believe some call it 'modalism'. There might be some points of difference with parts of it and what I believe, but that would take going point by point through various scriptures, etc, to see if that is the case.

I just wanted to make sure I understood what you wrote, and you kindly confirmed it for me.

Shalom my brother,

Ron

You are very welcome my brother.

I do not believe in a God-in-three theology. There's no proof that the early church taught and believed this. It wasn't until the 3rd century that this doctrine was forced into the church. The Trinity doctrine was one that resulted in death to those who refused to accept this.

God is a Spirit that cannot be seen. Physically seeing God only comes by His diverse manifestations. As the author of Hebrew states in his opening passage:

1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself[a] purged our[b] sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

God appeared in the form of a burning bush, a fiery tornado in the desert, and so on. But during the days of the Apostles, God appeared to man in His intended form; in the man/son named Jesus.

God did not just send His Son to die on the cross; He sent Himself in the form of a Son. The Son beheld the Father's glory, not in image, but in Mind and Spirit. God is omnipotent, and so although the Son possessed the glory of the Father within Him, we cannot think of this in terms as God not being able to be in all places at the same time. All around us is God, and we communicate with God through how we've come to know God; through Jesus.

Some picture God as being the Father, with His Son sitting next to Him, and the Holy Spirit on the other side. God the Father came down in the form of the Holy Spirit upon the man Jesus. God the Father came down in the form of the Holy Spirit and impregnated Mary. Thus, as you can see, God is not three entities, but one God alone.

God is one, and there is no other. We do not worship God in three; we worship One God who manifested Himself in diverse ways, but his final manifestation was in the man called Jesus, who was begotten of God. When the Apostles saw Jesus after the resurrection, they said, "my Lord and my God...." They understood that God had appeared to them.

There is no Trinity.....There is only God; One God, who's name is Jesus by reputation, or Jehovah in the Old Testament. One God, one faith, one baptism.

Joe

Richard Amiel McGough
08-24-2011, 11:27 AM
You are very welcome my brother.

I do not believe in a God-in-three theology. There's no proof that the early church taught and believed this. It wasn't until the 3rd century that this doctrine was forced into the church. The Trinity doctrine was one that resulted in death to those who refused to accept this.

God is a Spirit that cannot be seen. Physically seeing God only comes by His diverse manifestations. As the author of Hebrew states in his opening passage:

1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself[a] purged our[b] sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

God appeared in the form of a burning bush, a fiery tornado in the desert, and so on. But during the days of the Apostles, God appeared to man in His intended form; in the man/son named Jesus.

God did not just send His Son to die on the cross; He sent Himself in the form of a Son. The Son beheld the Father's glory, not in image, but in Mind and Spirit. God is omnipotent, and so although the Son possessed the glory of the Father within Him, we cannot think of this in terms as God not being able to be in all places at the same time. All around us is God, and we communicate with God through how we've come to know God; through Jesus.

Some picture God as being the Father, with His Son sitting next to Him, and the Holy Spirit on the other side. God the Father came down in the form of the Holy Spirit upon the man Jesus. God the Father came down in the form of the Holy Spirit and impregnated Mary. Thus, as you can see, God is not three entities, but one God alone.

God is one, and there is no other. We do not worship God in three; we worship One God who manifested Himself in diverse ways, but his final manifestation was in the man called Jesus, who was begotten of God. When the Apostles saw Jesus after the resurrection, they said, "my Lord and my God...." They understood that God had appeared to them.

There is no Trinity.....There is only God; One God, who's name is Jesus by reputation, or Jehovah in the Old Testament. One God, one faith, one baptism.

Joe
Ha! That sounds just like the ancient heresy of Modalism, aka Sabellianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism). Nothing new under the sun, eh?

Don't get me wrong Joe, I'm not saying you're a heretic ... or at least I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being one! :hysterical:

It seems like discussions about the meaning of the Trinity are the fast track to heresy. And that's what's so very strange about orthodox Christianity which makes this inscrutable doctrine, which no one can actually understand, the very touchstone of orthodoxy! Ha! This looks almost like it was designed to exclude any rational person from the faith.

TheForgiven
08-24-2011, 01:02 PM
Ha! That sounds just like the ancient heresy of Modalism, aka Sabellianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism). Nothing new under the sun, eh?

Don't get me wrong Joe, I'm not saying you're a heretic ... or at least I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being one! :hysterical:

It seems like discussions about the meaning of the Trinity are the fast track to heresy. And that's what's so very strange about orthodox Christianity which makes this inscrutable doctrine, which no one can actually understand, the very touchstone of orthodoxy! Ha! This looks almost like it was designed to exclude any rational person from the faith.

I haven't done a great deal of research on this subject. But what I did learn is that a great deal of early church fathers from the 2nd century accused others of heresy for denying the Trinity. However, I believe it was Turtelliun that taught of the Trinity; I'll have to dig up some of those writings.

Matthew records the great commission which reads:

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you

The Apostles did just that. To this day, the Catholic Church, when baptizing someone, recites, "In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit". But is this what the Apostles recited as they baptized anyone? Acts 2:38 reads:

Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins

In the name of Jesus. So how come they didn't recite the traditional recital during baptism as we see in today's Churches? Because of confusion.

When Matthew records the Great Commission and commandment to baptize in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the Holy Spirit, coupled with the fact that the early church baptized in Jesus name, this proves my point.

Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is attested in Isaiah's Prophesy:

Isaiah 9:6:

For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace

Jesus is the one begotten of God, with the government (Church) upon His shoulders, and given the names, "Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, and Prince of Peace..." So Matthew rightly records the Great commission for all to become disciplines through being baptized in the name of Jesus (Father, Son, Holy Spirit), for the remission of all sins, and we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit; the Divine word of Inspiration who lives within our hearts (only known through and by faith), so that instead of learning the ways of righteousness through stone tablets (or paper) with the 10 commandments written, we learn from the very command Himself, through His Spirit that indwells us.

Baptism in Jesus name was the early church practice. Somewhere along the line, because of the confusion of the Trinity doctrine, those performing the act of baptism has since recited, "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" in complete ignorance, not knowing that the name of Jesus is the same as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, for He is all of them.

God bless.

Joe

Beck
08-24-2011, 02:59 PM
Ha! That sounds just like the ancient heresy of Modalism, aka Sabellianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism). Nothing new under the sun, eh?

Don't get me wrong Joe, I'm not saying you're a heretic ... or at least I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being one! :hysterical:

It seems like discussions about the meaning of the Trinity are the fast track to heresy. And that's what's so very strange about orthodox Christianity which makes this inscrutable doctrine, which no one can actually understand, the very touchstone of orthodoxy! Ha! This looks almost like it was designed to exclude any rational person from the faith.


That's exactly how I feel...I can't understand it nor even express the thought behind the Trinity. :thumb: Neither do I accept Sabellianism, but I do believe Jesus as a man was the Anointed of God.

Richard Amiel McGough
08-24-2011, 05:07 PM
That's exactly how I feel...I can't understand it nor even express the thought behind the Trinity. :thumb: Neither do I accept Sabellianism, but I do believe Jesus as a man was the Anointed of God.
Yeah ... or why not a man who attained cosmic consciousness as suggested by Richard Bucke in his book of that title?

TheForgiven
08-25-2011, 08:18 AM
If I'm not mistaken, the Trinity doctrine was strictly enforced by Constantine, which led to some being persecuted for rejecting the Trinity doctrine. The Trinity doctrine has its influences in Babylonian and Greek mythology. Zeus as the Father, and his two sons Apollos and Hercules. Even though Constantine is taught as being one of the leading Popes of Rome, I have much reason to doubt if the man was ever saved. It's my opinion that he mixed Christianity with pagan ideology, thus explaining their insistence on the Trinity belief.

Jesus as a physical man was Anointed by the Holy Spirit at His baptism; this was done to fulfill Daniel's Prophesy of the Messiah being declared through His anointment, and of course, later being cut-off. Although we know Jesus as a physical man who was born of the Holy Spirit (the same Spirit that anointed Him at His baptism), we should know in truth that Jesus was God manifested in the flesh. Yet Jesus never wanted anyone to identify Him as God from the fleshly point-of-view. That's why He sometimes told the Jews, "Why do you call me good? There is no one good except God". We are not to worship Jesus's body, but rather understand that His body (the Son) served as a sacrifice; a lamb offering for the sins of the world. But the true essence of God dwelt in bodily form, and it's that essence that we are to worship; the essence is His Spirit, which we partake in. It is the Spirit of Jesus (called the Holy Spirit) who dwells within our hearts to teach us the ways of righteousness.

God bless.

Joe

Richard Amiel McGough
08-25-2011, 10:05 AM
If I'm not mistaken, the Trinity doctrine was strictly enforced by Constantine, which led to some being persecuted for rejecting the Trinity doctrine. The Trinity doctrine has its influences in Babylonian and Greek mythology. Zeus as the Father, and his two sons Apollos and Hercules. Even though Constantine is taught as being one of the leading Popes of Rome, I have much reason to doubt if the man was ever saved. It's my opinion that he mixed Christianity with pagan ideology, thus explaining their insistence on the Trinity belief.

I'm glad you qualified your comments with "If I'm not mistaken" because mistaken you are, and that to a rather significant degree. Constantine was the emperor who ended persecution of Christians and made Christianity legal after it had been outlawed by previous emperors. Then there was a big "Arian" controversy amongst Christians over the nature of Christ. This threatened the peace of Constantine's empire so he called for 300 Christian bishops from all over the empire to settle the dispute. The Christian bishops did not appeal to pagan mythology to settle the issue and Constantine had no say in the matter. It was a dispute amongst Christian leaders concerning the nature of Christ. Their arguments were based entirely on Scripture, Christian tradition, and were centered on the difference of the Greek word "homoousious" as opposed to "homoiousious." It was very technical. Those words differ by the single letter iota, which is rather ironic since it is the smallest of the Greek letters. The fundamental question about the "orthodox" teaching of the nature of Christ hung upon an iota!

There is no reason to think that Zeus or any other pagan diety had anything at all to do with this controversy. The problem originated in the Bible itself because it contains an extreme tension that presents Christ as both Man and God. Colossians 1 and John 1 present him as Creator, but other passages present him as a man and "less" than the Father. This led some folks to emphasize his humanity and others his divinity. And he prayed to the father so obviously he wasn't the father. The question about how to reconcile these apparently contradictory attributes led to the doctrine of the Trinity. Again, it had absolutely nothing to do with "trinities" of pagan gods at all, at least not directly. The idea of Christ as a "God/Man" certainly did had precedents amongst the pagans, and we know there are many other pagan elements in the Bible. So though the doctrine of the Trinity per se was derived from the Bible and Christian tradition, we do see a pagan influence in the Bible which was the Christian source-book that ultimately led to the doctrine. Also, the pagan trinities could have served as an unconscious influence that made the solution of the Trinity seem viable, and they may well have made it easier for the general populace to accept the Christian Trinity. But I know of no evidence to suggest any direct link from the pagan trinities to the Christian version.



Jesus as a physical man was Anointed by the Holy Spirit at His baptism; this was done to fulfill Daniel's Prophesy of the Messiah being declared through His anointment, and of course, later being cut-off. Although we know Jesus as a physical man who was born of the Holy Spirit (the same Spirit that anointed Him at His baptism), we should know in truth that Jesus was God manifested in the flesh. Yet Jesus never wanted anyone to identify Him as God from the fleshly point-of-view. That's why He sometimes told the Jews, "Why do you call me good? There is no one good except God". We are not to worship Jesus's body, but rather understand that His body (the Son) served as a sacrifice; a lamb offering for the sins of the world. But the true essence of God dwelt in bodily form, and it's that essence that we are to worship; the essence is His Spirit, which we partake in. It is the Spirit of Jesus (called the Holy Spirit) who dwells within our hearts to teach us the ways of righteousness.

God bless.

Joe
So how do you explain that Jesus prayed to his father? Was he talking to himself? How is it that he and the father constituted "two witnesses" in John 5? And what did he mean when he said that he had glory with the father before he was born? And what about the fact that he is called Creator but he is different than God the Father as creator? And why is he called the "image of God" if he is really God incarnate? As you can see, the Bible does not allow an easy answer to these questions. That's why the early Christians were forced to develop the doctrine of the Trinity. It was developed in response to tensions within the Bible.

Great chatting!

Beck
08-25-2011, 12:08 PM
Yeah ... or why not a man who attained cosmic consciousness as suggested by Richard Bucke in his book of that title?

In simple terms what is cosmic consciousness? Would it be the higher understanding or being inlighten to a higher degree? I would say Jesus as a young boy had an higher understanding more so than those that studied the scriptures. Even before his baptism and anointing by the Holy Spirit. I beleive Jesus to be chosen and anointed to be the savior of all would believe in his redemption. That's not to say that other's in past times was not chosen nor anointed. David was one chosen and anointed also Moses, Hezekiah, Josiah, Cyrus. All of these would be types of the Messiah or the Anointed One.

But getting back to topic, Jesus said in the early times of his life that his time had not come it wasn't until John baptism him and the Holy Spirit anointing him for service. That he then went out and preached. Was it something about the Holy Spirit anointing him that gave him the ability to teach?

Richard Amiel McGough
08-25-2011, 01:19 PM
In simple terms what is cosmic consciousness? Would it be the higher understanding or being inlighten to a higher degree?

Bucke defined three kinds of consciousness:


Simple Consciousness is the conscious of our surroundings. It is shared by most mammals like horses, dogs, and humans.
Self-Consciousness is the awareness peculiar to normal humans. We recognize ourselves in a mirror, we know we are one amongst others, and so forth. This kind of consciousness probably never occurs amongst other mammals, though there is some dispute concerning higher primates and dolphins.
Cosmic Consciousness is the awareness of the entire interconnected network of conscious beings. It is the consciousness of the unity of all life and the cosmos in general. It could be called "God-consciousness."

Each state of consciousness includes that which precedes it. A person who is self-conscious also possesses simple consciousness, and a person with cosmic consciousness has both self- and simple consciousness.

Bucke's book reviews the lives of 36 historical figures in whom he saw evidence of cosmic consciousness such as Buddha, Jesus, Paul, Plotinus, Walt Whitman, and so on.



I would say Jesus as a young boy had an higher understanding more so than those that studied the scriptures. Even before his baptism and anointing by the Holy Spirit. I beleive Jesus to be chosen and anointed to be the savior of all would believe in his redemption. That's not to say that other's in past times was not chosen nor anointed. David was one chosen and anointed also Moses, Hezekiah, Josiah, Cyrus. All of these would be types of the Messiah or the Anointed One.

Yes, the Bible certainly makes it clear that the 12 year old Jesus had advanced knowledge of Scripture. But then again, that's what we would expect in a story about the young savior, isn't it? So I have no idea if I should think it is historically accurate.



But getting back to topic, Jesus said in the early times of his life that his time had not come it wasn't until John baptism him and the Holy Spirit anointing him for service. That he then went out and preached. Was it something about the Holy Spirit anointing him that gave him the ability to teach?
Some people teach that Jesus "became" the Christ when he was baptized. But others argue that he was Christ from birth, since Luke 2:11 says "For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord." And this fits with the whole "virgin birth" narrative which presents Christ as God incarnate - so there never would have been a time when he was not God. And this fits with his prophetic name "Immanuel" or "God with us." I think that is the "orthodox" doctrine taught by the vast majority of churches. But it leads pretty quickly to something like the doctrine of the Trinity which tries to unify the idea that Christ was simultaneously Man and God and distinct from God the Father.

Beck
08-25-2011, 02:05 PM
Bucke defined three kinds of consciousness:


Simple Consciousness is the conscious of our surroundings. It is shared by most mammals like horses, dogs, and humans.
Self-Consciousness is the awareness peculiar to normal humans. We recognize ourselves in a mirror, we know we are one amongst others, and so forth. This kind of consciousness probably never occurs amongst other mammals, though there is some dispute concerning higher primates and dolphins.
Cosmic Consciousness is the awareness of the entire interconnected network of conscious beings. It is the consciousness of the unity of all life and the cosmos in general. It could be called "God-consciousness."

Each state of consciousness includes that which precedes it. A person who is self-conscious also possesses simple consciousness, and a person with cosmic consciousness has both self- and simple consciousness.

Bucke's book reviews the lives of 36 historical figures in whom he saw evidence of cosmic consciousness such as Buddha, Jesus, Paul, Plotinus, Walt Whitman, and so on.

Richard, I did take a quick look at the link you provided, so thanks for given that information. Although I still don't quiet get the cosmic awardness. Maybe it just the term that don't convey the correct idea to me or maybe I don't have that cosmic consciousness to understand the concept.



Yes, the Bible certainly makes it clear that the 12 year old Jesus had advanced knowledge of Scripture. But then again, that's what we would expect in a story about the young savior, isn't it? So I have no idea if I should think it is historically accurate. I never thought other wise. Are you indicating that the writer may have been building his image up to portray a savior or even fulfill scripture concerning the Messiah?

I think what is evident is that Jesus was a son of a woodworker and how was he to learn the Sacred Scriptures. The Jews were astonished and said, “How is it that this Man is so well versed in the Sacred Scriptures when He has never studied?’” (John 7:15 AMP) I think that's protray Jesus as the 'Word' of God that was make flesh.



Some people teach that Jesus "became" the Christ when he was baptized. But others argue that he was Christ from birth, since Luke 2:11 says "For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord." And this fits with the whole "virgin birth" narrative which presents Christ as God incarnate - so there never would have been a time when he was not God. And this fits with his prophetic name "Immanuel" or "God with us." I think that is the "orthodox" doctrine taught by the vast majority of churches. But it leads pretty quickly to something like the doctrine of the Trinity which tries to unify the idea that Christ was simultaneously Man and God and distinct from God the Father.

Yes I see the dilemma.

TheForgiven
08-25-2011, 02:06 PM
There is no reason to think that Zeus or any other pagan diety had anything at all to do with this controversy. The problem originated in the Bible itself because it contains an extreme tension that presents Christ as both Man and God. Colossians 1 and John 1 present him as Creator, but other passages present him as a man and "less" than the Father. This led some folks to emphasize his humanity and others his divinity. And he prayed to the father so obviously he wasn't the father. The question about how to reconcile these apparently contradictory attributes led to the doctrine of the Trinity. Again, it had absolutely nothing to do with "trinities" of pagan gods at all, at least not directly. The idea of Christ as a "God/Man" certainly did had precedents amongst the pagans, and we know there are many other pagan elements in the Bible. So though the doctrine of the Trinity per se was derived from the Bible and Christian tradition, we do see a pagan influence in the Bible which was the Christian source-book that ultimately led to the doctrine. Also, the pagan trinities could have served as an unconscious influence that made the solution of the Trinity seem viable, and they may well have made it easier for the general populace to accept the Christian Trinity. But I know of no evidence to suggest any direct link from the pagan trinities to the Christian version.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheForgiven
Jesus as a physical man was Anointed by the Holy Spirit at His baptism; this was done to fulfill Daniel's Prophesy of the Messiah being declared through His anointment, and of course, later being cut-off. Although we know Jesus as a physical man who was born of the Holy Spirit (the same Spirit that anointed Him at His baptism), we should know in truth that Jesus was God manifested in the flesh. Yet Jesus never wanted anyone to identify Him as God from the fleshly point-of-view. That's why He sometimes told the Jews, "Why do you call me good? There is no one good except God". We are not to worship Jesus's body, but rather understand that His body (the Son) served as a sacrifice; a lamb offering for the sins of the world. But the true essence of God dwelt in bodily form, and it's that essence that we are to worship; the essence is His Spirit, which we partake in. It is the Spirit of Jesus (called the Holy Spirit) who dwells within our hearts to teach us the ways of righteousness.

God bless.

Joe
So how do you explain that Jesus prayed to his father? Was he talking to himself? How is it that he and the father constituted "two witnesses" in John 5? And what did he mean when he said that he had glory with the father before he was born? And what about the fact that he is called Creator but he is different than God the Father as creator? And why is he called the "image of God" if he is really God incarnate? As you can see, the Bible does not allow an easy answer to these questions. That's why the early Christians were forced to develop the doctrine of the Trinity. It was developed in response to tensions within the Bible.

Jesus was a man who had the Spirit of God within Him. When one understands that when we ourselves groan, is it from the spirit or the flesh? As Paul states, the flesh sets itself against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh. So on the one hand, we have Jesus known by His fleshly existence. But His true existence was from within, just as our are from within.

Jesus became a son because of His birth as a son. But prior to that, there was no "son" so-to-speak. There was only God. The same God that created the heavens and earth, led the Hebrews out of Egypt, is the very same God that died on the cross.

You'll find there's no teaching from the early church about the Trinity. This issue wasn't an issue until after the 2nd century. And so because it was not taught by the early church in the first century, I must therefore reject it as a man-made doctrine. Not even the New Testament is there any reference to the "Trinity". So why would I embrace something that is so unscripted?

Now with regards to Constantine enforcing the Trinity doctrine, here's where I got this information:

http://www.angelfire.com/pa/greywlf/trinity.html

I know this is from a modern day source. But I believe that the Trinity belief is a man made doctrine trying to explain God's nature. He does not have a triple personality or entity; He's God. And besides, anyone who accepts the Trinity doctrine are in disagreement with the scriptures. Isaiah 9:6 states that Jesus is the Father, the Counselor, the Prince of Peace, etc. Although we learn of Jesus as He was in the flesh, we no longer embrace Him as such; we embrace Him as God; the All Mighty.

Joe

Richard Amiel McGough
08-25-2011, 06:46 PM
Jesus was a man who had the Spirit of God within Him. When one understands that when we ourselves groan, is it from the spirit or the flesh? As Paul states, the flesh sets itself against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh. So on the one hand, we have Jesus known by His fleshly existence. But His true existence was from within, just as our are from within.

Jesus became a son because of His birth as a son. But prior to that, there was no "son" so-to-speak. There was only God. The same God that created the heavens and earth, led the Hebrews out of Egypt, is the very same God that died on the cross.

Those are some strange doctrines (relative to orthodox Christianity). How do you answer the questions I asked? What was Jesus talking about when he said "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." You say there was no "son" before Jesus was born. The Bible seems to disagree. And what about Colossians 1 which says Jesus Christ is the creator? And what does John 1:1 mean when it says the that Word (which became flesh) was both "with God" and "God?" There are many questions that your position seems unable to answer.



You'll find there's no teaching from the early church about the Trinity. This issue wasn't an issue until after the 2nd century. And so because it was not taught by the early church in the first century, I must therefore reject it as a man-made doctrine. Not even the New Testament is there any reference to the "Trinity". So why would I embrace something that is so unscripted?

It is true that the word "Trinity" did not appear until the third century, the idea of the divinity of Christ appears in all early Christian writings. We don't have any writings from the first century other than the Bible, so your comment about first century writings is moot. It took time to figure out how to express this, and that led to the development of the formal doctrine of the Trinity.

As for why you should believe it, the answer is pretty obvious. If you claim to believe the Bible, then you believe that Jesus is God and the Father is God and Jesus is not the Father. This leads to something like the Trinity, or if not, then you need to invent some other doctrine that fits the facts.



Now with regards to Constantine enforcing the Trinity doctrine, here's where I got this information:

http://www.angelfire.com/pa/greywlf/trinity.html

I know this is from a modern day source.
I checked your source, and his info seems pretty much correct except the final sentence highlight red:



Flavius Valerius Constantius (c. 285-337 AD), Constantine the Great, was the son of Emperor Constantius I. When his father died in 306 AD, Constantine became emperor of Britain, Gaul (now France), and Spain. Gradually he gained control of the entire Roman empire.

Theological differences regarding Jesus Christ began to manifest in Constantine's empire when two major opponents surfaced and debated whether Christ was a created being (Arius doctrine) or not created but rather coequal and coeternal to God his father (Athanasius doctrine).

The theological warfare between the Arius and Athanasius doctrinal camps became intense. Constantine realized that the his empire was being threatened by the doctrinal rift. Constantine began to pressure the church to come to terms with its differences before the results became disastrous to his empire. Finally the emperor called a council at Nicea in 325 AD to resolve the dispute.

Only a fraction of existing bishops, 318, attended. This equated to about 18% of all the bishops in the empire. Of the 318, approximately 10 were from the Western part of Constantine's empire, making the voting lopsided at best. The emperor manipulated, coerced and threatened the council to be sure it voted for what he believed rather than an actual consensus of the bishops.
Where did that information come from? I don't know, and I find it highly suspect. We should look into it and determine the truth.



But I believe that the Trinity belief is a man made doctrine trying to explain God's nature. He does not have a triple personality or entity; He's God. And besides, anyone who accepts the Trinity doctrine are in disagreement with the scriptures. Isaiah 9:6 states that Jesus is the Father, the Counselor, the Prince of Peace, etc. Although we learn of Jesus as He was in the flesh, we no longer embrace Him as such; we embrace Him as God; the All Mighty.

Joe

It's not merely an attempt to "explain God's nature" - it is an attempt to explain the contradictory things that the Bible says about Jesus and God.

The fact that the word "Trinity" is not in the Bible is utterly irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of the doctrine. The are not asserting that "Trinity" is a Biblical word, they are asserting the the doctrine labeled as "The Doctrine of the Trinity" is a doctrine necessitated by what the Bible states.

Great chatting!

Richard

PS: How's your foot? Healing up OK?

TheForgiven
08-26-2011, 10:05 AM
I've indicated a few times before that you are a very tough opponent to debate. :lol:

To answer your question, when Jesus (the man) spoke to the Father (within Him), this is what I believe as flesh talking to Spirit.

Who knows? I honestly do not have all the answers. But one might be prone to ask why God has a Son, and not a daughter? I simply believe that God is the perfect family, possessing all the qualities of a family structure; Father, Son, Daughter, you name it. But God is God, neither possessing male nor female physical characteristics.

What defines a son? A son is known for his male-birth possessing male genitals. If God the Father always had a Son, then what defines Him as a Son? Why not a daughter? Does this also mean that Jesus had a mother (I'm referring to his existence as you maintain prior to His birth from Mary)?

When we try attempting to define God's existence from a human stand-point, we end up with man-made doctrines called the Trinity. Yet when using human understanding, we see that it was not the Father aspect that impregnated Mary; it was the Holy Spirit. Thus from human standards, this would make the Holy Spirit the Father of Jesus.

John says in chapter 1, "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, AND THE WORD WAS GOD".

The word is Jesus, and Jesus is God.

How can we justify a God with three distinct existences, yet co-existing as one? This makes no sense, and would ultimately serve no purpose. A son cannot be a son unless he is born as a male-child. If Jesus was God's Son even prior to being born into the flesh, then this redefines what a son is, and throws the discussion into further confusion.

So do you believe that right now, at this very moment, Jesus sits as God's Son, and so both Father and Son are up there, in heaven, ruling the universe as a family? So who do you pray to? The Father, or the Son?

God is God and He revealed Himself in many different ways. Remember that God is in truth, a Spirit. Jesus is the revelation of that Spirit, in the flesh. So flesh was talking to Spirit.

The Father, the Holy Spirit, and the Son are all One God; not three separate entities, but the very same God possessing all family qualities. We do not worship the man Jesus; we worship Him as God, as Isaiah 9:6 shows. Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, for there is no other name under heaven by which we can be saved:

Acts 4:12
Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.'

We are not supposed to be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We are supposed to be baptized into the name of Jesus, who is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Hope this answers your question. Oh, and I would agree about learning the source of the article in claiming that the Emperor forced the counsel to accept the Trinity. I'll have to dig through Constantine's writings where he speaks of the Trinity.

In summary, Jesus is the very word of God, and God is the invisible Spirit that cannot be seen. He can be manifested based on His choosing, and He has since chose to reveal Himself through His Son; the man named Jesus. That is why Jesus said, "To tell you the truth, I AM before Adam...." That's because God has always existed. The "Us" in Genesis, I believe, refers to God and the Angels He created before the world began.

Joe

Richard Amiel McGough
08-26-2011, 12:57 PM
I've indicated a few times before that you are a very tough opponent to debate. :lol:

Well, I hope that doesn't discourage you from trying!

You and I are exploring new territory. Almost all your debates on this forum have been centered on Preterism and so you and I have never had much reason to cross swords. But now that I'm not a Christian and you are not a Trinitarian Christian, we see that there is much for us to disagree about! Let the battle begin!

Joe ..... vs. .... Richard
:sFi_machine3: :sFi_machinegunnest:



To answer your question, when Jesus (the man) spoke to the Father (within Him), this is what I believe as flesh talking to Spirit.

That doesn't work. Jesus the Man was talking "as flesh" to the "Spirit" Father God within him about the glory that he - Jesus the Man - had with the Father before the creation of the world? You really gotta try harder than this, or I will have to wonder if you are really a Christian at all. I mean, do you ever read the Bible? Do the words have meaning to you? If so, what do they mean?



Who knows? I honestly do not have all the answers. But one might be prone to ask why God has a Son, and not a daughter? I simply believe that God is the perfect family, possessing all the qualities of a family structure; Father, Son, Daughter, you name it. But God is God, neither possessing male nor female physical characteristics.

What defines a son? A son is known for his male-birth possessing male genitals. If God the Father always had a Son, then what defines Him as a Son? Why not a daughter? Does this also mean that Jesus had a mother (I'm referring to his existence as you maintain prior to His birth from Mary)?

Feel that rumble? That's ten thousand Christian theologians rolling over in their graves. No offense intended, but it just seems like you really haven't thought about these questions much, have you? :p



When we try attempting to define God's existence from a human stand-point, we end up with man-made doctrines called the Trinity. Yet when using human understanding, we see that it was not the Father aspect that impregnated Mary; it was the Holy Spirit. Thus from human standards, this would make the Holy Spirit the Father of Jesus.

Yes, in the sense of the "father" of Jesus the man. But the Christian doctrine is that Jesus Christ is the Eternal Son of God. The term "begotten" is a biblical metaphor for his relation to the "Father." These are the terms used in Scripture, so they are the terms the theologians have used. But it gets confusing and nonsensical quickly if you are not careful to define your terms. Of course, it probably becomes nonsensical even if you are careful with your terms ... it just takes a little longer! :lmbo:



John says in chapter 1, "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, AND THE WORD WAS GOD".

The word is Jesus, and Jesus is God.

How can we justify a God with three distinct existences, yet co-existing as one? This makes no sense, and would ultimately serve no purpose. A son cannot be a son unless he is born as a male-child. If Jesus was God's Son even prior to being born into the flesh, then this redefines what a son is, and throws the discussion into further confusion.

Aha! I can spot your error. Do you not understand that the term "son" can mean "of the quality of" as in the phrase "son of man" (meaning mortal, or human) or "son of perdition" (meaning wicked) and so on? To assert that "son" must always and only refer to a physical person born with XY chromosomes is to miss the way that word is used in many Scriptures.



So do you believe that right now, at this very moment, Jesus sits as God's Son, and so both Father and Son are up there, in heaven, ruling the universe as a family? So who do you pray to? The Father, or the Son?

It doesn't matter what I believe in that regard since I am not a Christian. But more to the point, even when I was a Christian, I didn't believe that the Father and the Spirit were embodied in any way. I didn't really know what to think of Jesus. Since he "ascended" bodily to heaven it seemed possible that there was a "place" where he was literally hanging out in his resurrected body. But I was never to sure about that since it involved many things of which all people are ignorant.

As for "who do you pray to" - Ha! That was always a problem. And not just for me, but for most other Christians struggling to make sense out of the Trinity. I usually would "pray to the Father in the name of Jesus and the power of the Spirit" or something like that. It "covered all the bases" even as it avoided dealing with the real problem.

And what is that problem? The Trinity is logically incoherent. Hanky Panky (aka Hanegraaff the Bible Answer Man) likes to declare that there is no contradiction because the Doctrine of the Trinity says there is "one what" (God) and "three whos" (Father, Son, Spirit). And he explicitly says that it would be a contradiction to assert that there is "one who" and "three whos." But the joke is on Hanky Panky who has hung himself on his own petard. The Bible almost always speaks of God as "one who." It says "he" did this and "he" did that. Singular who. So there is "one who" and "three whos" and that's a logical contradiction. QED.



God is God and He revealed Himself in many different ways. Remember that God is in truth, a Spirit. Jesus is the revelation of that Spirit, in the flesh. So flesh was talking to Spirit.

The Father, the Holy Spirit, and the Son are all One God; not three separate entities, but the very same God possessing all family qualities. We do not worship the man Jesus; we worship Him as God, as Isaiah 9:6 shows. Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, for there is no other name under heaven by which we can be saved:

Acts 4:12
Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.'

We are not supposed to be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We are supposed to be baptized into the name of Jesus, who is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Hope this answers your question. Oh, and I would agree about learning the source of the article in claiming that the Emperor forced the counsel to accept the Trinity. I'll have to dig through Constantine's writings where he speaks of the Trinity.

In summary, Jesus is the very word of God, and God is the invisible Spirit that cannot be seen. He can be manifested based on His choosing, and He has since chose to reveal Himself through His Son; the man named Jesus. That is why Jesus said, "To tell you the truth, I AM before Adam...." That's because God has always existed. The "Us" in Genesis, I believe, refers to God and the Angels He created before the world began.

Joe
Well, I can't say that you really "answered" my questions, but thanks for trying! I find it fascinating that the Doctrine of the Trinity is the very "touchstone" of orthodox Christianity, but no one knows what it really means, and many don't even believe it even as they claim to be Christian. Add that to the fact that most Christians are Futurists, and we see that the whole idea of Christianity is a pile of unbiblical confusion. And worse, the major claims of the Bible, like "God answers prayers" and "God created the world in six days," are not true so it seems to me that there is nothing left to "believe" at all. It's just the empty shell of an old superstition. I trust you can see why I cannot claim membership any more.

Great chatting!

Richard

TheForgiven
08-26-2011, 06:18 PM
You win Richard. I told you that you were a tough debater. I know right now you claim you're not a Christian. But I believe you are what most Southern Baptists refer to as Backslidden. In time, I believe that will change.

Although you win the debate, that is only because I've conceded to you. However, I still reject the Trinity doctrine because it is not taught in scripture; this is a belief formulated on how we interpret scripture.

God said that there is no other besides Him, and so on that premises alone, I must therefore accept God at His own word. Did God have a Son before the creation of the world? I suppose that He did. But then how does this make Jesus His Son before the foundation of the world if there was no physical aspects of Jesus to define Him as a son. What about the Angels? Are they not considered as sons as well? If we are considered sons (and women His daughters), then in what way did God have a son who existed with Him before the world began? Get my point?

You are a spirit abiding within your flesh; your flesh serves as a temple for your spirit. If you step on a nail, is it your spirit that says, "OUCH!" No, it's your flesh reacting to pain, and sending a signal to your brain to react. Your spirit does not do this. So when I say "flesh talking to Spirit", that is how I explain Jesus talking to the Father. Jesus the man in the flesh, was reacting to fear and pain; fear prior to His betrayal, and pain after being flogged, and crucified. Hence the saying, flesh talking to spirit. This is how the First United Pentecostal Christians explains the Oneness of God.

Here is what God says:

Isaiah 44:6:

6 ' Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel,
And his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts:

‘ I am the First and I am the Last;
Besides Me there is no God.

Here that Richard? There is no other God besides Him. Notice that He does not say "Us" as we read in Genesis. There is no other God besides Him; He is the First and the Last. Not "We" are the first and the last.

The Trinity doctrine teaches in a God consisting of "Us", while the Oneness of God teaches only in "Him".

We may be confused at Jesus speaking and praying to God. But remember that while He did all this, He was in the flesh; He did not count Himself to be God, nor equal to God. He was living in humility. But with the Apostles, I believe He revealed Himself to them. They said, "Show us the Father..." and He replied, "How can you say show us the Father? Have I not been with you? Anyone who sees Me (flesh) sees the Father (Spirit).

THE ONENESS OF GOD; and there is no other. Believe it, or not.

If you reject Jesus, you also reject God, because they are one.

Other than that, I concede to you. I believe when you discover this truth, you will have tears of joy as I did when I first learned of Jesus, and how He revealed this truth to me while I was in Korea. I cried for hours.

May God bless you Richard, through and through, so that you may return to Him.

Joe

Richard Amiel McGough
08-27-2011, 08:48 AM
You win Richard. I told you that you were a tough debater. I know right now you claim you're not a Christian. But I believe you are what most Southern Baptists refer to as Backslidden. In time, I believe that will change.

Although you win the debate, that is only because I've conceded to you. However, I still reject the Trinity doctrine because it is not taught in scripture; this is a belief formulated on how we interpret scripture.

I win? :dontknow: That's no fun. We had just barely begun the conversation.

As for being backslidden - that's not really an accurate description. I'm not merely backslidden, I'm a different person. The bubble has burst and the spell has been broken. It's like a kid who catches his dad putting the presents under the tree. He can't go back to believing in Santa Claus ever again. And besides, what is there for me to return to? I used to be a Trinitarian Christian, but you wouldn't want me to return to that, would you? I mean, you don't even think it is true! And I never was able to accept the doctrine of eternal conscious torment in Hell even in my days as a very fundamentalist Christian. After exploring all the possibilities, I came to believe that Christian Universalism was the only solution. But the vast majority of churches would say that's a heresy! CARM won't even allow it to be discussed on their forums. They allow everything to be discussed except Satanism and Universalism! Ha! And to top it off, I had become a Preterist Christian, and again, many if not most churches would call that bordering on heresy, especially Full Preterism. So what do you think I should return to? A Full Preterist Universalist form of Trinitarian Christianity? You gotta be kidding! If anyone ever takes time to really think about Christianity, they soon learn that there ain't no such thing. There is no single religion called "Christianity." It's just a massive incoherent collection of confusing and conflicting concepts in which each person makes up their own ideas or buys into some traditions someone else invented. It seems obvious that it is entirely irrelevant to life and reality.



God said that there is no other besides Him, and so on that premises alone, I must therefore accept God at His own word.

That's circular reasoning. Do you have any reason to think the Bible accurately reports what God said?



Did God have a Son before the creation of the world? I suppose that He did. But then how does this make Jesus His Son before the foundation of the world if there was no physical aspects of Jesus to define Him as a son. What about the Angels? Are they not considered as sons as well? If we are considered sons (and women His daughters), then in what way did God have a son who existed with Him before the world began? Get my point?

Yes, I get your point. But I don't think it presents any problem for Christian theology because the words "Father" and "Son" are understood as metaphors speaking of relationship. But then again, it looks a little funny when this metaphor is forced to be literal in the stories of the virgin birth. It makes it look like the theologians were just making up a bunch of incoherent philosophical BS when they made up their idea that the Son was "begotten by father from all eternity" but still was "co-eternal" with him! Say what? First, Jesus was literally begotten in time (that's where the word came from) and then they take it as some sort of metaphor of relations within the eternal and unchanging Godhead? Give me a break! :dizzy:

So this is what you want me to "return to?" This mass of confusion? It's not just a problem with the Trinity - this kind of confusion saturates all forms of Christianity. It is "unbelievable" in the most literal sense, meaning, no one is able to actually believe it because there is no coherent set of doctrines to be believed!



You are a spirit abiding within your flesh; your flesh serves as a temple for your spirit. If you step on a nail, is it your spirit that says, "OUCH!" No, it's your flesh reacting to pain, and sending a signal to your brain to react. Your spirit does not do this. So when I say "flesh talking to Spirit", that is how I explain Jesus talking to the Father. Jesus the man in the flesh, was reacting to fear and pain; fear prior to His betrayal, and pain after being flogged, and crucified. Hence the saying, flesh talking to spirit. This is how the First United Pentecostal Christians explains the Oneness of God.

I wasn't talking about his prayer in the Garden. I was talking about his prayer in John 17 in which he spoke to God his father about the glory that he, Jesus, had with his Father before the world began. Your explanation doesn't explain that.



Here is what God says:

Isaiah 44:6:

6 “ Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel,
And his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts:

‘ I am the First and I am the Last;
Besides Me there is no God.

Here that Richard? There is no other God besides Him. Notice that He does not say "Us" as we read in Genesis. There is no other God besides Him; He is the First and the Last. Not "We" are the first and the last.

The Trinity doctrine teaches in a God consisting of "Us", while the Oneness of God teaches only in "Him".

I already know all that Joe. Like I said in my last post, the Trinity is logically incoherent because it says that God is "three whos" but the Bible says that God is "one who."



We may be confused at Jesus speaking and praying to God. But remember that while He did all this, He was in the flesh; He did not count Himself to be God, nor equal to God. He was living in humility. But with the Apostles, I believe He revealed Himself to them. They said, "Show us the Father..." and He replied, "How can you say show us the Father? Have I not been with you? Anyone who sees Me (flesh) sees the Father (Spirit).

THE ONENESS OF GOD; and there is no other. Believe it, or not.

If I were still a Christian, I would wipe the floor with our arguments. But I have no motivation to do that right now.



Other than that, I concede to you. I believe when you discover this truth, you will have tears of joy as I did when I first learned of Jesus, and how He revealed this truth to me while I was in Korea. I cried for hours.

May God bless you Richard, through and through, so that you may return to Him.

Joe
Believe me Joe, I know what you are talking about. I had many tearful moments over the years that I interpreted as God interacting with me. But so have Muslims, and Hindus, and everyone else with their own versions of religion. I think the reason for this universal phenomenon is pretty simple and clear. We all have "numinous" experiences in which we become aware of a "greater reality" and we map those feelings onto what ever our culture has given us as representing that greater reality. God, Allah, Buddha, Brahma, Cosmic Consciousness, the Goddess, our Higher Self, or whatever.

Great chatting!

Richard

TheForgiven
08-27-2011, 05:58 PM
My dearest friend Richard. It's not that I cannot debate this subject with you, as though I would lose. It's I cannot debate what I honestly cannot explain. I do not believe in the Trinity doctrine, yet I'm well aware of the difficulties in trying to explain Jesus praying with God the Father. This would seem that God is more than one being. Perhaps God is not just a singular God; it's a family of God's; The invisible Father, and the revealed Son. But what about the Holy Spirit? Well we know from scripture that the Holy Spirit is both Jesus and the Father. It was the Holy Spirit that inpregnated Mary, and it was the Holy Spirit that was breathed on the Apostles after His resurrection. Yet again, it was the Holy Spirit that descended upon them all on Pentecost. And the New Testament confirms that the Holy Spirit they received on Pentecost was the Spirit of Jesus.

Wow! Talk about confusion. So who is the Holy Spirit? The Father or Jesus, or both? Ah, but then shouldn't that explain it all? Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is of the Father, and yet the same Holy Spirit they received on Pentecost is that of Jesus. This must mean that God is the same Spirit in all of them, and that Spirit was given his birth-right name, "Jesus".

God was/is Jesus manifested in the flesh. It was the Holy Spirit that became a living fleshly being, and it was the Holy Spirit that descended upon them as tongues of fire. So as you can see, they are not three separate beings, but one and the same; they are all one and come from the same source.

You are Richard the man, but within you is Richard the spirit. Your flesh as a man is not your true identity; your spirit gives life to your temporary flesh as a temple for your spirit. But we know you on this earth as Richard the man. Yet after death, when you have passed on, the true Richard within you abides forever, and if accepted in Heaven, will be given a new temple; Richard the resurrected temple. :winking0071:

When Jesus prayed to be glorified as in the days before the world began, I believe that was Jesus the man praying to the Holy Spirit from within Him, to be glorified; this was after His resurrection. God was returning to His throne, and Jesus is a manifestation of God's "right hand".

In heaven, at this very moment, I do not picture a literal Father sitting at the center of the Throne, with His Son on the right side, and the Holy Spirit on the left; this is the Trinitarian belief, which I insist is false. Consider Revelation my friend. We know that Jesus was seen as a lamb as if it were slain, yet even before that, there was a king who sat upon the throne. Was this the Father? Perhaps, but does this mean that the lamb (Jesus) was a separate identity? Not necessarily my friend.

Have you ever seen the movie "Nutty Professor"? Eddie Murphy played the grandmother, mother, father, the Professor, and his brother. Does this mean that Eddie Murphy should be considered 4 separate people? No; the same man played all four identities. I believe this is the same way with God. God's abode was/is heaven. He left His abode (yes still abiding in His abode), and took on flesh. Knowing that God is omnipotent, God existed in heaven, just as He existed on earth as the man Jesus.

I know...a mass of confusion. But sense God said that there is no other besides Him, and that He also stated that He is One, that is what I believe. I do not believe in a Triad based God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). Furthermore, if it is God that loved the world so much, why would He send His only Son to die for the world, and not Himself? Seems to me that more would be prone to worshiping Jesus, and not the Father. At the same time, we have the picture of Abraham being commanded to offer his son on the alter; perhaps that was a picture of what God was going to do in offering His own Son on the alter. Still though, this wouldn't seem natural. "I love you all so much, so here's my son; take His life in exchange for yours". How could this be considered courageous? Not that I'm questioning God.

I honestly cannot say for sure. But if Jesus is able to reside within me, while also reside within Heaven, then this alone should explain everything. God is omnipotent, and is able to be everywhere at any time, at the same time.

Lastly, perhaps Jesus was praying to the Holy Spirit to show that He did not want man worshiping His temple (Body). Remember the Samaritan woman at the well? Jesus said that God was seeking for those to worship in Spirit, and in Truth. Jesus may have been trying to hide His identity (God) so that man would not be prone to worshiping outside of the Spirit; this is somewhat borderline idolatry.

I don't know Richard. I know you do not have a heart of belief right now (I'm not referring to our current debate). My prayer is that you will return to God, and listen to Jesus within your heart. This is the righteousness that is based on faith. Without faith, knowing that God speaks to you from within, it is impossible to obtain any answers. Then again, there are some answers we were not meant to receive. I wonder why the Apostles never discussed the identity of God (Trinity or Oneness). It wasn't an issue until they all passed on. Then by the 3rd century, it became an issue.

Perhaps one day we will know together.

Joe

Richard Amiel McGough
08-27-2011, 11:02 PM
My dearest friend Richard. It's not that I cannot debate this subject with you, as though I would lose. It's I cannot debate what I honestly cannot explain. I do not believe in the Trinity doctrine, yet I'm well aware of the difficulties in trying to explain Jesus praying with God the Father.

Perhaps we should call this a discussion rather than a debate. We can work together to see if we can articulate the problem if not the solution.



This would seem that God is more than one being. Perhaps God is not just a singular God; it's a family of God's; The invisible Father, and the revealed Son. But what about the Holy Spirit? Well we know from scripture that the Holy Spirit is both Jesus and the Father.

That's not how Christians talk about God. The persons of the Trinity are related as follows:


"The Father is God"
"The Son is God"
"The Holy Spirit is God"
"God is the Father"
"God is the Son"
"God is the Holy Spirit"
"The Father is not the Son"
"The Son is not the Father"
"The Father is not the Holy Spirit"
"The Holy Spirit is not the Father"
"The Son is not the Holy Spirit"
"The Holy Spirit is not the Son"

These relations have been graphically represented by the Trinity Shield for many centuries:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-compact.svg/260px-Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-compact.svg.png

It's rather odd for you to reject this doctrine before you even understand what it is.



It was the Holy Spirit that inpregnated Mary, and it was the Holy Spirit that was breathed on the Apostles after His resurrection. Yet again, it was the Holy Spirit that descended upon them all on Pentecost. And the New Testament confirms that the Holy Spirit they received on Pentecost was the Spirit of Jesus.

Wow! Talk about confusion. So who is the Holy Spirit? The Father or Jesus, or both? Ah, but then shouldn't that explain it all? Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is of the Father, and yet the same Holy Spirit they received on Pentecost is that of Jesus. This must mean that God is the same Spirit in all of them, and that Spirit was given his birth-right name, "Jesus".

Your logic might sound OK until you remember that Jesus is not the Father - he prayed to the Father, and he and the Father made two witness. And there is only one Creator, but Jesus and the Father are both called the Creator but Jesus is not the Father. There are many issues like this that your "oneness" doctrine does not seem to be able to answer.



God was/is Jesus manifested in the flesh. It was the Holy Spirit that became a living fleshly being, and it was the Holy Spirit that descended upon them as tongues of fire. So as you can see, they are not three separate beings, but one and the same; they are all one and come from the same source.

Why did you say "So as you can see?" The conclusion does not follow from the preceding statements. The Father, Jesus, and the Spirit are not one and the same. That's why orthodox Christianity invented the doctrine of the Trinity.



When Jesus prayed to be glorified as in the days before the world began, I believe that was Jesus the man praying to the Holy Spirit from within Him, to be glorified; this was after His resurrection. God was returning to His throne, and Jesus is a manifestation of God's "right hand".

No - Jesus prayed before the crucifixion in John 17.



In heaven, at this very moment, I do not picture a literal Father sitting at the center of the Throne, with His Son on the right side, and the Holy Spirit on the left; this is the Trinitarian belief, which I insist is false.

That is not the Trinitarian belief. You are rejecting something you don't even understand.



Have you ever seen the movie "Nutty Professor"? Eddie Murphy played the grandmother, mother, father, the Professor, and his brother. Does this mean that Eddie Murphy should be considered 4 separate people? No; the same man played all four identities. I believe this is the same way with God. God's abode was/is heaven. He left His abode (yes still abiding in His abode), and took on flesh. Knowing that God is omnipotent, God existed in heaven, just as He existed on earth as the man Jesus.

That is modalism again. It was rejected as a heresy fifteen hundred years ago. It does not account for the Biblical facts. That's the problem. First you need to establish what the Bible actually states about the Father, Son, and Spirit, and then invent a theory to account for those seemingly contradictory facts.



I know...a mass of confusion. But sense God said that there is no other besides Him, and that He also stated that He is One, that is what I believe. I do not believe in a Triad based God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).

Again, you do not have an accurate understanding of the doctrine that you think you are rejecting.



I don't know Richard. I know you do not have a heart of belief right now (I'm not referring to our current debate). My prayer is that you will return to God, and listen to Jesus within your heart. This is the righteousness that is based on faith. Without faith, knowing that God speaks to you from within, it is impossible to obtain any answers. Then again, there are some answers we were not meant to receive. I wonder why the Apostles never discussed the identity of God (Trinity or Oneness). It wasn't an issue until they all passed on. Then by the 3rd century, it became an issue.

No one has all the answers - especially on the question of the Trinity.

You keep saying I should return to Christianity, but you don't seem to remember that I was a Trinitarian Christian. You don't want me to return to that do you? Like I explained in my last post, there is no such thing as "Christianity" for me to return to. There is no single religion called "Christianity." It's just a massive incoherent collection of confusing and conflicting concepts in which each person makes up their own ideas or buys into some traditions someone else invented.

Great chatting,

Richard

TheForgiven
08-28-2011, 02:50 PM
Well it was fun debating with you via phone conversation. I now understand why sister Rose hates men so much. :D Just kidding of course.

Debating Christian topics from an intellectual perception can be misleading though. For instance, intellectually, it makes no sense for Christ to have to sacrifice Himself for the sins of all. Why not just merely say forgiven? Why does blood have to be shed for God to forgive us our sins? Intellectually, this makes no sense. That's because what Christ did was not necessarily an intellectual decision; it was a compassionate decision which not only shows His love for mankind, but that we would choose God and to believe in Him, not because of our intellect, nor His, but because of the love He showed us. As the saying goes, actions speak louder than words, and intelligence, although fine during debates and discussions, is not always good. Ones intelligence over another may cause factions and divisions, and does not edify the Church. That's one reason why God chose the small creatures of the world; the foolish over the intelligent. Of course, this doesn't mean that Christians are to be ignorant of His word.

In debating the identity of God (Trinity or Oneness), I came to the conclusion many years ago that it's difficult to answer what we do not understand. One reason why Jews of the first century rejected Christ is because He made Himself equal to God in that He forgave sins. They were not looking for a Messiah who would declare equality with God; they were looking for a Messiah who would rule Israel to restore the days of fortune, wealth, and glory as it was in the days of David, and Solomon.

I honestly cannot explain Oneness with certain passages found in the New Testament, which would seem to indicate two separate people (God the Father listening to the prayers of God the Son). From a human perspective, it would certainly seem like that God exists as a Father, and that the Father always had a Son. This is difficult to accept considering the accounts of the Old Testament never mentioned anything of a Messiah who was to be God's Son. And when we read passages denoting God is the only God, then which one?

Perhaps you could explain how you interpret the Trinity. I've always been taught that the Trinity is one God having three entities; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In 1997, I changed from that position to One God possessing all three entities, but not separate; the same God playing Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; hence the teaching, The Oneness of God.

The only Christian Church Denomination I know of who teaches the Oneness of God is the First United Pentecostal Church (UPC). I'm unaware of any other denomination teaching God's oneness.

Despite our slightly heated discussion on the phone, I hope you do realize and understand that although discussions can sometimes be hampered by human emotion, my love for you and sister Rose is still firm. I love you both.

Finally, as for your question of what to return to? I don't know; only you can decide that. There are indeed many different doctrines out there, but still, I believe God judges us by our heart and intent, and not necessarily by eschatology, although our current discussion is on the identity of God. Perhaps Trinity is correct, but then again it may not be correct. I only wish God would have been more direct and said, "I'm God, but I'm setting my Son as the Lord of all the earth. So worship US and all well be well". Unfortunately, this isn't exactly literally written in scripture EXCEPT where we read, "anyone who sees the father, sees the son" and again, "anyone who rejects me, rejects the one who sent me", etc.

God bless you all, and may God help us find the truth.

Joe

Beck
08-28-2011, 03:11 PM
I've being putting off responsing to this thread due to the lack of my understanding and on the other side enjoying the battle :fencing: going on. :lol:

So I was wanting to start with some 'strong holds' to the Trinity. The first one that comes to my mind is John 1:1. In this verse it would be that the 'Word' was a reference to Jesus as the Word of God. This of course would place Jesus at the beginning of creation.



John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


But can we truely deduce that Strong's G3056 - logos is to mean Jesus as the person? When the Bible uses gives a long list: Blue Letter Bible (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3056&t=KJV) More in line with that it was God's 'plan, decree, sayings' in the beginning.

TheForgiven
08-28-2011, 07:53 PM
Good point brother Beck. I'm not sure, but when John says, "In the beginning was the word", I believe "word" means command. In Genesis, God commanded that their be light, and there was light. Thus, the command is in essence, the word. Jesus is the word becoming flesh.

So my view is that the word, which is of God, became flesh. Thus the word, being from God, is in fact God, thus denoting that the word that became flesh, is still God; the same God or of God. That is why modern English Bibles that use the phrase "born of God" is not entirely accurate. The correct translation should read, "Begotten of God", meaning that what (or who) was born (Jesus) came from Father God. And the word becoming flesh, thus makes the Begotten creation of God to be the Son begotten of God.

Jesus is the express image (Divine nature) of God. They are not separate beings, but one being manifested in in the flesh. In times past, God manifested Himself in the form of a burning bush, the fiery glory, and the dove that descended upon Jesus. I believe that Jesus was/is the final manifestation of God, and through Him, we worship God. God is an invisible Spirit that cannot be seen or touched UNLESS He were manifested in a way that our earthly standards are able to see.

I could be wrong, but that is my opinion. The idea of a 3 in 1 God just doesn't add up to me.

Joe

throwback
08-29-2011, 08:56 AM
John 1 as well as 1 John 1 are in fact a great starting points when discussing Jesus, his origin, and his very purpose. The key word is in fact the word, 'word' that is of course derived from the Greek 'Logos'.
It's interesting that the translators didn't just transliterate the word logos in these instances (they certainly transliterate at other times when does so helped advice a church dogma) rather than translating them into words that do not fully capture the meaning of the Greek logos. When one considers the time John is said to have lived and the Hellenist world that the Jews of the day were a part of, it is quite reasonable to conclude that his rendering of the word logos meant the same as others of his time like Philo of Alexandria who saw it as God's "blueprint for the world", His "Vision" even, that was a sort of a governing plan that proceeded directly from the mind of God. It was considered as God's REASON and PURPOSE for His creation. In English, we know that "logos" is the root of the word "logic," and of the "-logy" suffix. The fact that the translators used the English term "word" really fails in capturing the meaning of the term. Plus them using the pronoun "He" as opposed to "it" is somewhat questionable as well. (Can someone say Trinity bias?)
Regardless, whatever the logos actually was, the text definately tells readers that it was of God and that Jesus was the imbodiment of it. Some have concluded that it means Jesus was the embodiment of God while others have concluded that it meant that Jesus was the embodiment of God's Reason and Purpose for creation as opposed to God, Himself. The second understanding seems to be more in line with the monotheistic declaration that the scriptures and the NT repeats and thus makes more sense in light of the overall scriptural narrative. However, for readers today to say with definity one group is right and the other is wrong is a bit too dogmatic, for neither opinion can be completely verified. One just happens to fit a bit better than the other.

TheForgiven
08-29-2011, 11:30 AM
John 1 as well as 1 John 1 are in fact a great starting points when discussing Jesus, his origin, and his very purpose. The key word is in fact the word, 'word' that is of course derived from the Greek 'Logos'.
It's interesting that the translators didn't just transliterate the word logos in these instances (they certainly transliterate at other times when does so helped advice a church dogma) rather than translating them into words that do not fully capture the meaning of the Greek logos. When one considers the time John is said to have lived and the Hellenist world that the Jews of the day were a part of, it is quite reasonable to conclude that his rendering of the word logos meant the same as others of his time like Philo of Alexandria who saw it as God's "blueprint for the world", His "Vision" even, that was a sort of a governing plan that proceeded directly from the mind of God. It was considered as God's REASON and PURPOSE for His creation. In English, we know that "logos" is the root of the word "logic," and of the "-logy" suffix. The fact that the translators used the English term "word" really fails in capturing the meaning of the term. Plus them using the pronoun "He" as opposed to "it" is somewhat questionable as well. (Can someone say Trinity bias?)
Regardless, whatever the logos actually was, the text definately tells readers that it was of God and that Jesus was the imbodiment of it. Some have concluded that it means Jesus was the embodiment of God while others have concluded that it meant that Jesus was the embodiment of God's Reason and Purpose for creation as opposed to God, Himself. The second understanding seems to be more in line with the monotheistic declaration that the scriptures and the NT repeats and thus makes more sense in light of the overall scriptural narrative. However, for readers today to say with definity one group is right and the other is wrong is a bit too dogmatic, for neither opinion can be completely verified. One just happens to fit a bit better than the other.

Thanks for your post Throwback. I liked what you have to say. I'm a little confused though. Do you believe the Trinity doctrine to be correct? Or do you believe in the Oneness of God?

I personally do not know which side is right on this issue. So I hope that you do not consider me to be too dogmatic. :winking0071: I've admitted a few times now that I'm uncertain on this issue. But when we study the Old Testament, there's no indication of a 3 in 1 God. God said that there is no other besides Him (not Us). So that's how I interpret it.

I'm also rather intrigued with your interpretation of the word "logos". I too believe that the English translation used "word" is too weak for John 1. To me, it must mean something like "command", but I liked your explanation much better. So instead of reading, "In the beginning was the word.." it should read, "In the beginning was the plan [or command]". We read in Genesis that God, in each day that something or someone was being created, He said, "Let there be...", hence the word "command". That is how I tend to view it.

Jesus is the embodiment of God's command that became flesh.

Was there always a Father / Son relationship with God (The Triad)? I just have a very difficult time believing this. Before anything was created, there was God's Spirit; an invisible Spirit. And the Spirit became flesh, known as Jesus. It's the same Spirit that caused Mary to get pregnant. This remains to be my opinion.

Joe

Beck
08-29-2011, 02:11 PM
So my view is that the word, which is of God, became flesh. Thus the word, being from God, is in fact God, thus denoting that the word that became flesh, is still God; the same God or of God.


That is why modern English Bibles that use the phrase "born of God" is not entirely accurate. The correct translation should read, "Begotten of God", meaning that what (or who) was born (Jesus) came from Father God. And the word becoming flesh, thus makes the Begotten creation of God to be the Son begotten of God.

Hi Joe, I'm glad you clarified your first statement with that of the second one. It would also be 'only' begotten or offspring of God. Simply it would be the plan or purpose of God to have his 'word' become flesh or as a man so that mankind maybe redeemed back to God through the anointed one. As it is written the Son of God, but it shouldn't denote that Jesus was God in the flesh only that Jesus was God's plan for salvation in the flesh. Would we not also be called the sons of God? And I'm sure I wasn't born as having God as my father. That terminology of abba The Father is the understanding of the Hebrew nation of the whom they call God. It is one of many names that they give God.




Jesus is the express image (Divine nature) of God. They are not separate beings, but one being manifested in in the flesh. In times past, God manifested Himself in the form of a burning bush, the fiery glory, and the dove that descended upon Jesus. I believe that Jesus was/is the final manifestation of God, and through Him, we worship God. God is an invisible Spirit that cannot be seen or touched UNLESS He were manifested in a way that our earthly standards are able to see.

So what of the Holy Spirit was it not a manifestion ?

TheForgiven
08-29-2011, 06:15 PM
Hi Beck. Thanks for your question about the Holy Spirit being manifested.

I believe God is the Spirit; He is also the Holy God of the universe. Thus, the Holy Spirit is God; the same God that impregnated Mary; the same God that begat Jesus through Mary; the same God who became flesh, having been born of the Holy Spirit, and who also anointed Jesus at His baptism having descended upon Him as a dove; this was done to identify who the Messiah was.

Jesus, in the book of John, tells them that "in that day" they would know what is meant by "I and the Father are one". He was referring to the day of Pentecost, when more than 3,000 were saved by the power and grace of the Holy Spirit. Who is this Holy Spirit? Jesus said, "I will be in you..." according to the account recorded in the Gospel of John.

So in all this, Jesus being born of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit descending upon the Apostles at Pentecost, which also points to Jesus sense Jesus said that He would be in them, all means one thing; God is the Holy Spirit; God is Jesus; God is the Father; God is the Prince of Peace; God is the Wonderful Counselor (Isaiah 9:6).

God manifested Himself within the temple/body of Jesus, and then again beginning on Pentecost to the rest of the world.

The Spirit you have within you right now, assuming that you are a child of God being sanctified into perfection, is that of Jesus. Paul says that Christ is in you (us), and through that faith and our belief, we learn from the mind of Christ who resides within our hearts. This means that the Holy Spirit that abides within us (Acts 2:38) is none other than Jesus. And Jesus is God, just as the Apostles declared when He appeared to them, "my Lord and my God".

In summary, God is God, and He manifests Himself within us by the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is the mind of Christ.

Joe

throwback
09-06-2011, 08:35 AM
Thanks for your post Throwback. I liked what you have to say. I'm a little confused though. Do you believe the Trinity doctrine to be correct? Or do you believe in the Oneness of God?

I personally do not know which side is right on this issue. So I hope that you do not consider me to be too dogmatic. :winking0071: I've admitted a few times now that I'm uncertain on this issue. But when we study the Old Testament, there's no indication of a 3 in 1 God. God said that there is no other besides Him (not Us). So that's how I interpret it.

I'm also rather intrigued with your interpretation of the word "logos". I too believe that the English translation used "word" is too weak for John 1. To me, it must mean something like "command", but I liked your explanation much better. So instead of reading, "In the beginning was the word.." it should read, "In the beginning was the plan [or command]". We read in Genesis that God, in each day that something or someone was being created, He said, "Let there be...", hence the word "command". That is how I tend to view it.

Jesus is the embodiment of God's command that became flesh.

Was there always a Father / Son relationship with God (The Triad)? I just have a very difficult time believing this. Before anything was created, there was God's Spirit; an invisible Spirit. And the Spirit became flesh, known as Jesus. It's the same Spirit that caused Mary to get pregnant. This remains to be my opinion.

Joe


Joe I actually find the Trinity Doctrine to be full of wholes and am thus, not an advocate of it. Even if the scriptures supported the Son as being God, the Son, we still have an issue with the supposed 3rd party of the "Holy Trinity".

In scripture, I see no deistic Father/Son relationship in existence at all unless one includes the sons of God mentioned in Job and perhaps referenced in Psalms 82 as being gods.
The first son of God in the scriptures was of course Adam, he was followed by the nation of Israel, and then there is Jesus, God's only begotten/generated Son. In all of the above instances we can reasonably conclude that the "sons" were anointed by God to have certain roles of both preimmenance and authority, but only one lived up to the high calling and was thus given a name above all others. Remember that the NT tells us that it was because of Jesus' obedience even unto death that he was exalted. Many use the text in Philipians 2:5-11 to speak of Jesus' deity, but in doing so perhaps miss the point as it in a way contrasts Jesus with Adam who's wife and apparently him as well were tempted by the idea of "grasping" equality with God as opposed to being obedient.

Richard Amiel McGough
09-06-2011, 11:20 AM
Joe I actually find the Trinity Doctrine to be full of wholes and am thus, not an advocate of it. Even if the scriptures supported the Son as being God, the Son, we still have an issue with the supposed 3rd party of the "Holy Trinity".

In scripture, I see no deistic Father/Son relationship in existence at all unless one includes the sons of God mentioned in Job and perhaps referenced in Psalms 82 as being gods.
The first son of God in the scriptures was of course Adam, he was followed by the nation of Israel, and then there is Jesus, God's only begotten/generated Son. In all of the above instances we can reasonably conclude that the "sons" were anointed by God to have certain roles of both preimmenance and authority, but only one lived up to the high calling and was thus given a name above all others. Remember that the NT tells us that it was because of Jesus' obedience even unto death that he was exalted. Many use the text in Philipians 2:5-11 to speak of Jesus' deity, but in doing so perhaps miss the point as it in a way contrasts Jesus with Adam who's wife and apparently him as well were tempted by the idea of "grasping" equality with God as opposed to being obedient.
How then do you understand this passage that says Jesus Christ is the creator?


14 in whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins: 15 who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him; 17 and he is before all things, and in him all things consist. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

What does it mean when it says that the Son (Christ) existed before all things? Or that "all things" were created "in" or "by" him?

throwback
09-06-2011, 01:05 PM
How then do you understand this passage that says Jesus Christ is the creator?


14 in whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins: 15 who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him; 17 and he is before all things, and in him all things consist. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

What does it mean when it says that the Son (Christ) existed before all things? Or that "all things" were created "in" or "by" him?

Great question RAM. This passage in a way appears to be self-contradictory as it seems to speak of Jesus as being both the creator of all and the firstborn of said creation.
How can this be properly reconsiled? I honest do not know with any degree of certainty, but at this point I believe it to be a reference to Jesus' preimmenance and of him being the embodiment of God's reason for all of creation. In that sense Jesus did in fact exist before all things as all things were made with him in mind.

TheForgiven
09-09-2011, 11:01 AM
Great question RAM. This passage in a way appears to be self-contradictory as it seems to speak of Jesus as being both the creator of all and the firstborn of said creation.
How can this be properly reconsiled? I honest do not know with any degree of certainty, but at this point I believe it to be a reference to Jesus' preimmenance and of him being the embodiment of God's reason for all of creation. In that sense Jesus did in fact exist before all things as all things were made with him in mind.

That's a good point Throwback. But then wouldn't this seem to suggest that the "Son" did not yet exist except in the mind of God who planned all of this before the beginning of time? I ask if I understood you correctly, or please correct me if I'm wrong.

Jesus, in my opinion, did not consider Himself to be God; He did this, again in my opinion, to show that it was not His temple/body that He wanted mankind to worship; it's God He wanted everyone to worship.

Jesus is God's manifestation; God's voice manifested in the flesh. The Holy Spirit is not a 3rd Entity and some teach with regards to the Trinity. It was the Holy Spirit that enabled the pregnancy of Mary; Not the Father. Yet it was the Father who descended upon Jesus in the form of the Holy Spirit. God is the Holy Spirit, or the mind of God; not the literal mind, but His very conscious. What's so unique about Jesus is that the mind of Jesus, which came from the Holy Spirit, of which He was also born, lived a life among humanity. And so taking from that which lived among humanity (His lessons, and experiences) is that which we are filled with which began at Pentecost.

God is God; He is the Holy Spirit; He is the Father, He is the Prince of Peace; He is the Wonderful Counselor, and most importantly, He is the Son of man. Isaiah 9:6 teaches this so very plainly, and easily defeats the Roman idea of a Trinity. The Trinity formula or belief was not something taught by the early church; this was taught by the Catholic Church and enforced quite harshly. This is one reason why I reject it, while at the same time, I understand why people accept this.

Right now, up in heaven, I do not believe that the world is being ruled by Father and Son, with the Holy Spirit as the brother/sister of Jesus. :lol: God exists in the Holy Spirit, and also in the Son. There is only one God, and Him alone do we worship. Jesus is how we worship God, who is forevermore God.

Joe