• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

The elephant named Trinity.~

God is of one mind
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

LANGUAGE USAGE. The expression "of one mind" is a phrase that refers to the thinking of different persons or Being, if you will, and their separate minds. It is NOT an expression that means one persons or Being, if you will, has conflicting thoughts.

Using myself as an example, I can recognize there are pros and cons to various options WHILE ALSO coming to one (final) decision as to what is best. No one calls this being "of one mind" with oneself as if there is otherwise some kind of psychological disfunction.
 
I would also say much of John 1 parallels
There is a great vid by Brother Kel that explains John 1 is also meant to deliberately parallel Genesis 1. The key mistake Trinitarians make here is denying 2 creations. There is the original Creation in Genesis and there is the Kingdom Come (born again) re-creation through Christ, which is what Jesus' entire ministry is about.
 
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.
Who ever said they were the same person?
 
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.
It is not true that when Jesus quoted Psalm 82:6 He was not defending himself against the charge of calling himself God. He was not denying that he was claiming to be God. As we shall see when I give an exposition taken from enduringword.com. (Credit given where credit is due.) Jesus was not "proof texting" when He quoted that as you are, but was using it in its proper place in the entire Psalm.
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.
YHWH is not used in that Psalm. Elohim is. Even though it was written by a covenant member (Asaph) and YHWH is a covenant name for Elohim. Elohim is also translated gods in the Psalm. There is a reason for that, and there is also a reason behind YHWH being the covenant name for God for Israel---and the same reason Father is given as the covenant name of God in the new covenant, but long posts stress you out, so I won't make this one even longer.
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.
The different uses of elohim is not denied or ignored by Trinitarians. It is the meaning behind LORD and Lord and lord that need exploring here to support or deny this claim you make concerning Jesus. Not capitalizing Lord when speaking of Jesus in no less a bias than capitalizing it. The difference is that one, L, is based on the whole counsel of God, and l is based on something a religion wants to deny. The first is based on a search for who Jesus is, the second a way of defining who He isn't, at the sacrifice of who God is and who the Redeemer must be that is given in the full counsel of God. Which results in proof texting one's way through the Bible, rather than treating it with honor and reverence.

The rest of your post completely sidestepped any effort to actually exposit the Psalm or John 10 where it is quoted. That is what I mean by not taking into consideration the full counsel of God and proof texting ones way to their beliefs. So let's look at what enduringword.com has to say as one example of doing what needs to be done and we will see that your first premise of what Jesus was doing is wrong. First a simple quote from Derek Kidner.


“It takes us in a few words behind and beyond our present wrongs, to portray God’s unbounded jurisdiction, his delegation of power, his diagnosis of our condition and his drastic intentions.” (Derek Kidner)



A. God summons the judges.​

1. (1-2) God questions the unjust judges.​

God stands in the congregation of the mighty;
He judges among the gods.
How long will you judge unjustly,
And show partiality to the wicked? Selah


a. God stands in the congregation of the mighty: Asaph gives us the picture of God in the midst of the mighty, standing in authority.

i. “Standeth, as a judge, diligently to observe all that is said or done there; and to give sentence accordingly. The judge sits when he heareth causes, but standeth up when he giveth sentence.” (Poole)

b. He judges among the gods: God’s standing in the midst of these mighty ones is to bring judgment among them. The word gods here is Elohim, the plural for the generic word for god in Hebrew.



· Elohim is here best taken as a reference to human judges, who stand in the place of God in their ability to determine the fate of others.

i. “Gathered around Him is an assembly of judges who are called elohim, because they are His delegates; they administer His will; they are His executive agents.” (Morgan)

ii. “The judges and magistrates are compared in this psalm to God, because they exercise something of His power in the right ordering of human society.” (Meyer)

iii. Martin Luther “pointed out that Psalm 82:1, 6 both establishes and limits the authority of princes. It establishes it, because it is God who appoints the authorities; it is he who calls them ‘gods.’ It limits their authority because they are accountable to him, as the psalm shows.” (Boice)


v. “Our Lord’s reference to Psalm 82:6 in John 10:34-38 is, by the present writer, accepted as authoritatively settling both the meaning and the ground of the remarkable name of ‘gods’ for human judges.” (Maclaren)



c. How long will you judge unjustly? As God calls together this assembly of judges, He did not do it to compliment them or pay them honor. He did it to confront them for judging unjustly and for showing partiality to the wicked. This confrontation shows that God Himself is the Judge at the ultimate Supreme Court.



3. (5) God exposes the weakness of the unjust judges.​

They do not know, nor do they understand;
They walk about in darkness;
All the foundations of the earth are unstable.

b. All the foundations of the earth are unstable: When judges walk in the darkness of their arrogant pride, the lives of everyday people are uncertain and unstable, as if the ground that should be firm under their feet is shaking.



B. God sentences the judges.​

1. (6-7) God pronounces judgment on the unjust judges.​

I said, “You are gods,
And all of you are children of the Most High.
But you shall die like men,
And fall like one of the princes.”


a. You are gods: These human judges stood in the place of the gods above other people. They had the opportunity and the authority to change people’s lives with a word, or sometimes even to end a life.

i. In John 10:34-39 Jesus quoted Psalm 82:6 in a debate with religious leaders when they accused Him of claiming to be God in a sinful, wrong way. Jesus reasoned, “If God gave these unjust judges the title ‘gods’ because of their office, why do you consider it blasphemy that I call Myself the ‘Son of God’ in light of the testimony of Me and My works?”

John 10:34-39

34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken— 36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; 38 but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” 39 Again they sought to arrest him, but he escaped from their hands.

Don't cut the verse short by stopping before Jesus declares that the Father is in Him and He is in the Faher. It would be one thing to say that the Father is in Him is merely the Father directing and empowering Him as was the case with other representatives of God, but that is not all that Jesus says. He also says that He is in the Father. And take into consideration too, the entire chapter 10 before Jesus even gets to this part. Particularly what immediately preceded Jesus quoting Psalm 82.



24 So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” 25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me,[a] is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”

The only way that verse 30 can be construed in any way other than Jesus is making himself equal to God, is if you want it to.

The full exposition of Psalm 82 can be found at
enduringword.com/bible-commentary/psalm-82/
 
It is not true that when Jesus quoted Psalm 82:6 He was not defending himself against the charge of calling himself God. He was not denying that he was claiming to be God.
It is totally true! In fact, Jesus denied being God every time he was so accused of making such a ridiculous claim.

 
It is totally true! In fact, Jesus denied being God every time he was so accused of making such a ridiculous claim.

:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO: Amazing how one is unable to spot logical fallacies and a straw man presentation.

1. The first part of the video (which is the only part I watched as the whole thing begins with a straw man fallacy and proceed accordingly I am sure) ignores the Trinity doctrine that states that Jesus is both 100% God in nature and 100% man in nature. And since they do that, they understand when Jesus is speaking as a man in His incarnation. From His position of man.

2.He presumes to interpret the Trinitarian view from the singular perspective of his view. As though they were one and the same iow. WHich is the only way a Unitarian ever makes an attempt at refuting the Trinity. It is really bad hermeneutics and an even worse presentation. But---people are easily swayed, so it works.
 
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

LANGUAGE USAGE. The expression "of one mind" is a phrase that refers to the thinking of different persons or Being, if you will, and their separate minds. It is NOT an expression that means one persons or Being, if you will, has conflicting thoughts.

Using myself as an example, I can recognize there are pros and cons to various options WHILE ALSO coming to one (final) decision as to what is best. No one calls this being "of one mind" with oneself as if there is otherwise some kind of psychological disfunction.

Hi I would offer.

Its more than thinking. It is thinking and doing, hearing and obeying, to will and to perform as one thing.
It is the spiritual unseen food the disciples knew not of at first. Food to both understand and empower mankind to do the will of the father the invisible head Christ

Job 23:11-16 My foot hath held his steps, his way have I kept, and not declined. Neither have I gone back from the commandment of his lips; I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary (Literal) food. But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth. For he performeth the thing that is appointed for me: and many such things are with him Therefore am I troubled at his presence: when I consider, I am afraid of him. For God maketh my heart soft, and the Almighty troubleth me:

Who is that makes your heart soft?
 
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.
Except that a "that" cannot be seen, looked upon, handled with our hands. In verse 3 you also make Jesus Christ an "it." What John is talking about just as he was in John 1 when he used the "word" to identify Jesus, is this Word of God, which is God and nothing less, became manifest, in the flesh---and therefore could be seen, looked upon, handled with their (the twelve and Paul are bearing witness of Him) hands.
 
Did you even watch the vid I posted?

No one can understand the trinity, let alone explain it. Theologians have long admitted this. No one has any business teaching as valid what they don't even understand.

And why no one can understand the trinity is the same reason no one can understand nonsense. Compare to square circles.
 
@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.
Indeed, but no one thinks it's themselves who are the problem, but rather always someone else who disagrees with them. Trins and Unis cannot both be correct. I am putting my money on the Father being the Only True God (John 17:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 4:6, 1 John 5:20, etc).
 
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.
Amen. It's everywhere really and when people finally see I think it can't be unseen.

Many years ago, I hadn't read the books of Acts yet, but I wanted to dive into it in a group discussion. One person said something to the effect of, "ah, we can skip Acts because it's a transitionary book." I thought nothing of it at the time because I figured he was probably right. For some reason I never forgot that. Well, eventually I read the book of Acts and you know what I started seeing? I started seeing no one in the early church believed Jesus is God. Now I know why they wanted to skip it.

Acts 2
22Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

Acts 3
13The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus;

Acts 4
30By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus.
 
Last edited:
Acts 2
22Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

Acts 3
13The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus;
Acts 4
30By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus.
There are many more like these verses everywhere in the NT.
 
There is the original Creation in Genesis and there is the Kingdom Come (born again) re-creation through Christ, which is what Jesus' entire ministry is about.
Exactly! Not many people catch this I've noticed. A closer look at the context confirms this. For example, John the Baptist was sent by God to bear witness of the Light which would place John at approximately the same age as Jesus which would be about 30 years (Luke 3:23). Yet the true Light was coming into the world in the present tense 30 years after Jesus was born. Therefore, Jesus isn't the true Light. The context is about Jesus' earthly ministry even though it parallels Genesis 1.

John 1
6There came a man who was sent from God. His name was John. 7He came as a witness to testify about the Light, so that through him everyone might believe. 8He himself was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light.

9The true Light who gives light to every man was coming into the world.
 
Trins and Unis cannot both be correct. I am putting my money on the Father being the Only True God (John 17:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 4:6, 1 John 5:20, etc).
The trinitarian position is that just because Scripture says over and over again only the Father is the true God does not mean there aren't also at least 2 other's if you read between the lines. It's so ridiculous that they take their dogma as the central message of Scripture even though it is completely absent!

The mental gymnastics they invent is hilarious. Various lines of rationalization expand to far more than 3. And our friend @Rella tried yet another back door approach in the side thread on why do we believe other things not in Scripture. Blatant Appeal to Ignorance. And @Ariel pretending we ought to accept a proposition on the grounds that there is no evidence AGAINST it. 1st, that's another illogical Appeal to Ignorance. 2nd, there are mountains of evidence against it.

Some are so petty as to say NOT all the verses that say God is the Father use "alone" or "true" AS IF it is required. Language usage.
  • I have $1 left. (The Bible has only "God the Father" verses which implies this is the only one since it is stated over and over again that there is only one God.)
  • I have only $1 left.
  • I truly have $1 left.
  • I truly have only $1 left.
These sentences say the same EXACT thing. The only difference is emphasis. A fact is a fact even if there are not as many exclamation points after it to satisfy trinitarians who do not want to be satisfied.
 
Back
Top