The elephant named Trinity.~

[Mr GLee]

Clue #1:

And Jesus blessed him for the "blasphemy."

Go figure. . .

No he forgave Peter of his blasphemy against the Son of man. Jesus, dying mankind over and over .Seven times seventy

In John 21 He informs the believer that if every time he had to dispel the oral traditons of dying mankind we would need a bigger planet to hold the volumes that could be written .You would think one warning would be enough . . . . all for short of His unseen glory .

John 21:23-25 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

 

[Arial]

If words have meaning and God said He is the only God then that is explicit. This isn't a conditional statement where somehow or another someone can also be God by virtue of their attributes. It means God is a singular being.

No it means there is only one God, not many gods. That is exactly what He is comparing Himself to as opposed to the many gods of all the nations surrounding Israel. He is revealing Himself as the only God to Israel, and a witness to that many gods worshiping Egypt through action and word, when He first said it. It is not even discussing His manner of being.

In Romans 10:11-13 various passages from the Old Testament are referenced. I would encourage you to look those up because in one of them, Isaiah 28:16 is clear that God (YHWH) and Jesus (the cornerstone) are not the same person.

Isaiah 28
16Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

You avoid what @Eleanor said when she quoted the passage. The Romans passage merely identifies the cornerstone as Jesus.

2) Ro 10:9, 13 (Joel 2:32) - Joel prophesies that "everyone who calls on the name of YHWH will be saved," which Paul quotes and applies to Jesus. . .making Jesus the YHWH of Joel 2:32.

 

[Runningman]

So you make such claims, and you haven't even read the whole Bible; e.g., the Gospel of John (Jn 1:1, 14), the apostle whom Jesus loved (Jn 11:3, 5), whose apostolic teaching is authoritative to the church, and rejection of which is rejection of Jesus (Lk 10:16).

But then we all knew that. . .thanks for removing all doubt.

I've already read the whole bible. John 1:1 said the "Word was God" in the beginning which refers to the past tense and doesn't imply the Word if God in the present tense. God doesn't stop being God one moment because if He did then He isn't God, but rather someone else. Someone who isn't God is not God. Therefore, John 1:1 is about a Word (logos) not literally being God. It's easy to see how words are intuitive not a real person when in the beginning from Genesis to Revelation there was never a mention of someone named the Word saying or doing anything.

Yes I recommend you listen to the apostolic teachings and meditate on them and try to understand what he meant by looking into what the apostles actually believed. For example, you referred to apostle John, yet John and Peter were clear in Acts 4:24-27 that they don't believe Jesus is God the Creator, but actually God's servant.

 

[Runningman]

No it means there is only one God, not many gods.

Correct. His name is YHWH.

That is exactly what He is comparing Himself to as opposed to the many gods of all the nations surrounding Israel. He is revealing Himself as the only God to Israel, and a witness to that many gods worshiping Egypt through action and word, when He first said it. It is not even discussing His manner of being.

And YHWH is the only God according to YHWH. Jesus isn't YHWH. Check Psalm 2:7, Psalm 110, and many others.

You avoid what @Eleanor said when she quoted the passage. The Romans passage merely identifies the cornerstone as Jesus.

I poked a hole in what @Eleanor 's comment was about to demonstrate it's wrong. I don't need to go after every point if the premise is false according to Scripture. Eleanor should learn Scripture from this, not learn how to argue more.

 

[Arial]

And YHWH is the only God according to YHWH. Jesus isn't YHWH. Check Psalm 2:7, Psalm 110, and many others.

Did you understand a single thing I said, or are you ignoring it? There is only One God does not mean He is not a triune being, when Scripture clearly shows Him to be triune. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit all all presented as of same essence, all three directly connected in the process of salvation. Jesus is presented as having two natures, distinct and not mixed together, and for the sole PURPOSE of the work of redemption (obedience, death, resurrection, ascension) and of necessity. See thread on Trinity board, "Why Must our Redeemer Be Both God and Man." He is never presented in Trinitarianism as another God.

Psalm 2:7 Begotten: brought into existence (Webster)
Psalm 110 Where does it imply that Jesus is not God?

 

[Runningman]

Did you understand a single thing I said, or are you ignoring it?

I may ask you the same thing.

There is only One God does not mean He is not a triune being, when Scripture clearly shows Him to be triune. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit all all presented as of same essence, all three directly connected in the process of salvation. Jesus is presented as having two natures, distinct and not mixed together, and for the sole PURPOSE of the work of redemption (obedience, death, resurrection, ascension) and of necessity. See thread on Trinity board, "Why Must our Redeemer Be Both God and Man." He is never presented in Trinitarianism as another God.

Does not mean He is a triune being especially when He never said He is. The people who were adherents to the things God was revealing to the prophets at the time the writings being produced do not agree with what you're saying about God.

Psalm 2:7 Begotten: brought into existence (Webster)

Oh, so the Son was brought into existence? see that? He isn't an eternal being. Only God is eternal.

Psalm 110 Where does it imply that Jesus is not God?

The LORD speaking to a different Lord is an indicator of separation of persons in common sense and sane reasoning.

 

[Arial]

I may ask you the same thing.

You certainly may. Let me know when you are ready.

Does not mean He is a triune being especially when He never said He is. The people who were adherents to the things God was revealing to the prophets at the time the writings being produced do not agree with what you're saying about God.

How would you know what they would agree to?

Oh, so the Son was brought into existence? see that? He isn't an eternal being. Only God is eternal.

Well, let me see. Scripture identified that Son as Jesus who came into our world through Mary. The point is---begotten does not mean Jesus was created as you say. He came forth FROM the Father. The very way in which Luke tells us.

The LORD speaking to a different Lord is an indicator of separation of persons in common sense and sane reasoning.

Still calls Him Lord though doesn't he? Is there more than one Lord?

 

[Runningman]

How would you know what they would agree to?

They didn't say what you're saying about God.

Well, let me see. Scripture identified that Son as Jesus who came into our world through Mary. The point is---begotten does not mean Jesus was created as you say. He came forth FROM the Father. The very way in which Luke tells us.

According to Scripture Jesus isn't eternal though. See this? He is the "image" of the invisible God. The invisible God is the only God. Images are not invisible, therefore Jesus is not the only God. Simple reasoning is that Jesus is not God.

Colossians 1
15The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

1 Timothy 1
17Now to the King eternal, immortal, and invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

Still calls Him Lord though doesn't he? Is there more than one Lord?

In the Old Testament Hebrew, it isn't really like that exactly. The word we see as LORD is actually YHWH and that is a name, not a word that translates into LORD in English. So Psalm 110:1 basically says that YHWH spoke to David's Lord. And yes there is a hierarchy of lords.

 

[Rella]

@Soldier of Christ 1516, @grace2, @Runningman and anyone I don't have listed.

​

Alright boys and girls..... I think it is time for all good men to come to the aid of their party.... or better phrased to the aid of their beliefs....

All you anti-trins out there who hyperventilate that trinity believers believe such when the actual word trinity is not in the bible...

I want to start a new thread as a carry over from my elephant named trinity one to show you that there are other omissions from the Holy Scriptures that are common beliefs among those who heave a belief of YHWH God, and the one that is called His Son, Jesus that might lead you to tell people if you were asked that your religion... your faith... is Christian.

And then tell us how you are going to back that up when.....................................................................................

Looking at these following and tell me how you are going to change the way you describe things or your talk when you cannot lead a person to a verse to prove what YOU are saying.


Go to here, if interested. https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/if-it-is-not-in-the-bible-why-do-you-believe.1935/

 

[Eleanor]

No he forgave Peter of his blasphemy

And yet he blessed Peter for the "blasphemy" God revealed to him?. . .NOT!

In my Bible, Mt 16:17 reads:
"But what about you? he asked, Who do you say that I am?"
Simon Peter answered, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven."

DIstortion of Scripture is your demonstrated modus operandi. . .which leaves us no basis for discussion.

 

[Eleanor]

I've already read the whole bible. John 1:1 said the "Word was God" in the beginning which refers to the past tense and doesn't imply the Word if God in the present tense. God doesn't stop being God one moment because if He did then He isn't God, but rather someone else. Someone who isn't God is not God. Therefore, John 1:1 is about a Word (logos) not literally being God. It's easy to see how words are intuitive not a real person when in the beginning from Genesis to Revelation there was never a mention of someone named the Word saying or doing anything.
Yes I recommend you listen to the apostolic teachings and meditate on them and try to understand what he meant by looking into what the apostles actually believed. For example, you referred to apostle John, yet John and Peter were clear in Acts 4:24-27 that
they don't believe Jesus is God the Creator, but actually God's servant.

Misrepresentation. . .Jesus is both (Col 2:16-20).

Such ignorance of Scripture is telling. . .of so much.

 

[Eleanor]

I've already read the whole bible. John 1:1 said the "Word was God" in the beginning which refers to the past tense and doesn't imply the Word if God in the present tense.

Nor does it disallow that he was (before Creation), is (in the time of John). and always will be (never ending).

 

[Runningman]

Misrepresentation. . .Jesus is both (Col 2:16-20).

I believe you probably meant Colossians 1:15-20 and no that doesn't say what you do.

According to the passage you quoted, Jesus isn't God. See this? He is the "image" of the invisible God. The invisible God is the only God. Images are not invisible, therefore Jesus is not the only God. Simple reasoning is that Jesus is not God. Read Col. 1:16-20 now. You should be able to plainly see that the context is of God creating the church through Jesus.

Colossians 1
15The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

1 Timothy 1
17Now to the King eternal, immortal, and invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

Such ignorance of Scripture is telling. . .of so much.

Speaking of stunning ignorance. Your undeserved confidence is telling. You simply don't know enough to know what you do not know. The Dunning–Kruger effect.

 

[Runningman]

Nor does it disallow that he was (before Creation), is (in the time of John). and always will be (never ending).

There aren't any verses about what God was saying and doing before creation. Some Trinitarians have suggested God was idling. What do you say?

 

[Soldier of Christ1516]

No it means there is only one God, not many gods.

This is where Trinitarian dogma really fall into the trap of their own nonsense.

Several years ago the verse of the year for me was Psalm 82:6. It was the verse that our lord invoked to defend himself against the charge of calling himself god. (Jesus denied that he was claiming to be God.) I thought deeply about this Psalm and verse 6, in particular, that year. The conclusion is inescapable.

God has taken his place in the divine council;​

in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:​

2 “How long will you judge unjustly​

and show partiality to the wicked? Selah​

3 Give justice to the weak and the fatherless;​

maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.​

4 Rescue the weak and the needy;​

deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”​

5 They have neither knowledge nor understanding,​

they walk about in darkness;​

all the foundations of the earth are shaken.​

6 I said, “You are gods,​

sons of the Most High, all of you​

The verse reveals that once again, Trinitarianism goes against explicit Scripture. YHWH does not make decisions in a vacuum; he consults the REAL and many lowercase gods in the divine council. And on Earth all (those in position of authority that YHWH gave) are also gods, YHWH's sons-plural. It's easier to understand once you begin calling Jesus' God by his divine name, YHWH.

Satan is also called the god of this world. And I'm sure you know the verse.

To understand Jesus invoking this verse, you need to open your mind to the error of your dogma. There is more than one sense of many words, including god. (Abuse of Language, capitalization changes nothing.) In one sense, Jesus is one of many masters or lords but in another, he is never referred to as capital-LORD, God or YHWH.

There are many lords in the Bible and many real lowercase gods. To clarify, this is why 1 COR 8:6 begins with "For us, there is only one." To continue the clarification, IF the trinity was Biblical, it would be right there. But it is not. "For us, there is only one God, the Father." A more powerful anti-trinitarian verse is hard to conceive.

This is how you know Jesus is not capital-G, God. Only the Father is God per Scripture and this is stated in every epistle. A point, only a trinitarian could miss. Would you like me to paste where this is stated in each and every Epistle? Would that help you?

 

[Soldier of Christ1516]

Therefore, John 1:1 is about a Word (logos) not literally being God

Absolutely correct.

I've come to the conclusion that the Gospel of John is the most anti-trinitarian book of the whole Bible. If the trinitarian take on 1:1 was correct, it would have been explicitly stated in John's purpose statement. Imagine the divine gift that John spelled out his purpose for writing his account to resolve debates such as this! Imagine if he wrote the whole purpose of it was to claim the man-is-god thesis? Trinitarians would invoke that verse more than any other. But that is obviously not his purpose.

These are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.​

John 20:31​

I believe what John wrote his purpose to be; All 4 Gospels testify that Jesus is the Christ. None claim Jesus is God incarnate. Supposing so is just extreme trinitarian eisegesis.

A little use of logic would light our way. How can a thing be with something and that be that something at the same time? Figurative use of language. The intent, voice, reason, words of a person in authority have authority. Calling this authority god is true in that sense. However, as I've pointed out to our trinitarian friends many times, words are WHAT's not WHO's.

Therefore, their question is invalid as it contains an invalid premise. They ask who is the Word. The word is what, not you. And it is YHWH's authoritative intent, voice, reason, words, logos, etc.

 

[Soldier of Christ1516]

I poked a hole in what @Eleanor 's comment was about to demonstrate it's wrong. I don't need to go after every point if the premise is false according to Scripture. Eleanor should learn Scripture from this, not learn how to argue more.

@grace2 pointed out the trinitarian tendency to be excessively argumentative, never conceding a point.

I personally would not mind delving into the other 9 false things they wrote or implied if they acknowledged how the one thing I responded to was false. They don't. The reason they don't is IDOLATRY. This is what it looks like. They don't have eyes to see or ears to hear.

 

[Runningman]

Absolutely correct.

I've come to the conclusion that the Gospel of John is the most anti-trinitarian book of the whole Bible. If the trinitarian take on 1:1 was correct, it would have been explicitly stated in John's purpose statement. Imagine the divine gift that John spelled out his purpose for writing his account to resolve debates such as this! Imagine if he wrote the whole purpose of it was to claim the man-is-god thesis? Trinitarians would invoke that verse more than any other. But that is obviously not his purpose.

These are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.​

John 20:31​

I believe what John wrote his purpose to be; All 4 Gospels testify that Jesus is the Christ. None claim Jesus is God incarnate. Supposing so is just extreme trinitarian eisegesis.

A little use of logic would light our way. How can a thing be with something and that be that something at the same time? Figurative use of language. The intent, voice, reason, words of a person in authority have authority. Calling this authority god is true in that sense. However, as I've pointed out to our trinitarian friends many times, words are WHAT's not WHO's.

Therefore, their question is invalid as it contains an invalid premise. They ask who is the Word. The word is what, not you. And it is YHWH's authoritative intent, voice, reason, words, logos, etc.

I agree with all of that. To me, the plain reading with of John 1:1, if all context and exegesis is disregarded, reads like two Gods, i.e., "the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Wait a minute, that's called polytheism and we Christians are not polytheists!

So when the context doesn't support an interpretation, we may see this as a clue that we are going the wrong direction. Since there aren't two Gods then we must rightly divide the Scripture by reading more of the context to come to the right understanding.

I would also say much of John 1 parallels with 1 John 1 where apostle John wrote about the Word (Logos) of Life being a that, which, and it; that's a thing, an it, a non-person.

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 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; ) 3That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

 

[Mr GLee]

The verse reveals that once again, Trinitarianism goes against explicit Scripture. YHWH does not make decisions in a vacuum; he consults the REAL and many lowercase gods in the divine council. And on Earth all (those in position of authority that YHWH gave) are also gods, YHWH's sons-plural. It's easier to understand once you begin calling Jesus' God by his divine name, YHWH.

I would offer.

The first loving commandment. Have no other gods (to include oneself) before our invisible head. . Christ.

God is of one mind and always does whatsoever his soul desires .He with the water of his living word it can make our hard hearts soft . (Job 23)

He is not served by councils of dying mankind . . gods (legion).as that what Catholics must call that legion of patron saints, disembodied workers with a familiar spirit gods.

Josiah meaning "to support a woman. . . . his bride" is given the honor of a king like never before and neither after him arose one greater until Jesus the Son of man . The fulfillment of prophecy that prophesied of Jesus the Son of man a suffering savior .

Christ as Josiah protecting his bride the church . Adam fell head over heel . . . failed

2 Kings 23:23 But in the eighteenth year of king Josiah, wherein this passover was holden to the Lord in Jerusalem. Moreover the workers with familiar spirits, and the wizards, and the images, and the idols, and all the abominations that were spied in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, did Josiah put away, that he might perform the words of the law which were written in the book that Hilkiah the priest found in the house of the Lord. And like unto him was there no king before him, that turned to the Lord with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; neither after him arose there any like him.

(Sola scriptura) the sword of the Spirit of Christ


Beautiful gospel parable.

 

[Soldier of Christ1516]

The LORD speaking to a different Lord is an indicator of separation of persons in common sense and sane reasoning.

Juxtaposition. The strongest argument that Jesus is not God and it is everywhere in the Bible. The separation of God (not "the Father") from Jesus tells you these are not one in the same persons (or Beings, if you prefer).

Is John 3:16 true? Did God send Jesus? NOTE: The verse does not say God sent himself. This is not how language is used. And it does not say God came incarnate. Juxtaposition.