• **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 Trinity

Many Blessings to you.


Genesis 1:1 In the beginning "God" (Elohim) "im" being plural. In Hebrew there is single, couple, Plural begin at 3 not 2. The word Trinity may not be in the Bible but it is right there in the fourth word being Elohim... any time an "im" is used it refers to a plural word.
Example: Seraphim, Cherubim etc...

And of course there is our Lord Jesus (the Logos) right there with God at the very beginning.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

John 1:1 - Jesus is the Word of God, and then we see God, God mention two more times and in verse 2 the Trinity as a whole- The verses describing the Trinity are all over the Bible from beginning to end. You just need to dig for that treasure. :)

Proverbs 2:1-6
My son, if thou wilt receive my words, and hide my commandments with thee; 2 So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding; 3 Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; 4 If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; 5 Then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God. 6 For the Lord giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.

No one needs to prove the Trinity God does it for us.
Psalm 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

Praise His Holy name !!!
Maranatha
Amen
 
One God, 3 Persons- The Father, Son and Holy Spirit all each called God
Its easier to just give a demonstration of why they are the same and different.

God the Father, God the Redeemer (Jesus), God the Helpmate (Holy Spirit). So, what did Jesus mean by I and the Father are one? Because there are differences so he was not speaking about that, he did pray unto the Father and said "Not my will, but thy will be done" so they are the same and different. Lets demonstrate why !!

Lets take a three (3) trillion gallon reservoir of water, in it every ounce has the exact same "chemical make-up" or PHD in its three trillion gallons. Now, take 100 gallons (Jesus) of that water and pour it over your head and you will not doubt be soaking wet, but you will indeed be A-OK. Now take another 100 gallons (Holy Spirit) of water and pour it over your head, again you will be soaked, but you will not be harmed to any degree. Now finally, take the whole three trillions gallons (God the Father) and pour that over your head, you will surely die !! God the Father has the abundance of the Glory, no man can look upon Him lest they die, the 70 that opened the Ark of the Covenant all died, Moses glowed because he caught the hinder-parts of God. We have the Holy Spirit living in us, men talked unto Jesus both before he was raised and after he returned 8 days later (John 20) with the gift of the Holy Spirit for the Church.

So, how are all tree the same? Well, just like the three trillion gallons, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have the exact same makeup or essence throughout (in Spirit), they are love, joy, peace, hope, longsuffering, kind, forgiving, just in all judgment, honest, not capable of lying etc. etc. etc. That is what Jesus meant by were are one and the same, they have the same "Essence" just like the anti-christ spirit (which is eternal like God) is just the opposite of God and is what seduced Lucifer. So, thy are all three e same in Spirit, but the Father has the abundance of the Glory. If God lived n our hearts we would BLOW UP, but the Holy Spirit can live in our hearts, and we still have God's essence (likeness) living in us. Now we can understand Jesus utterance on the cross.

"My God, my God why have you forsaken (left) me?

When all of our sins was upon Jesus on that cross, God the Father had to leave his presence God can not abide sin because. So, Jesus was all alone on that cross bearing our sins without the God's presence.
 
"My God, my God why have you forsaken (left) me?

When all of our sins was upon Jesus on that cross, God the Father had to leave his presence God can not abide sin because. So, Jesus was all alone on that cross bearing our sins without the God's presence.

Does Jesus Christ have two natures?

1). The Trinity framework for Inseparability: “just as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are inseparable, so they also work inseparably”. And just because the Holy Spirit wasn't mentioned in those two verses (John 8:29, 5:19) . That doesn't mean the Holy Spirit is separated or not working with both the Father and the Son. Also, this does not mean that the three persons act in “cooperation” or “harmony” with one another like musicians in an orchestra. What it means that the persons act according to the Divine Nature. If the persons do not partition the Divine Nature, but are identical to its very substance, then it follows that they do not work as separate causes in the economy.

John 8:29 The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him.​

The Divine Nature is automatically present in the union to the human nature by the logical conjunction of the Son-Person. Which he is in presence of both natures simultaneously without the Divine Nature being physically birth. The Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the human nature. That doesn't mean both the Father and the Holy Spirit are in the human nature too. If that was the case, then the distinction here is Son's person is existing in two distinct ways simultaneously. The Father and the Holy Spirit doesn't exist in two distinct ways with the Son. And that both the Father and the Holy Spirit doesn't have that personal underlying existence in the human nature while the Son does by the Hypostatic Union. Because all three persons are subsisting in the Divine Nature and in each other. The Father would automatically be inseparably present with the Son during his incarnation according to the Divine Nature. And they are functioning or working together through the Divine Nature based on the perichoresis.

Just like the Two-sided Coin analogy that both sides are inseparable to each other. Where ever one side goes, the other side is automatically present. Let's say this two-sided coin went through many circumstances. If you throw a two-sided coin in a cup of water and it land on tails side. Then no matter what circumstances that the tails side of the coin goes through (like: placed in a cash register at Wal-Mart, laying on the sidewalk for many days, and picked up and put into your pocket, etc.) the heads side is automatically present there too since its a Two-Sided Coin. You can say a penny has a "tails" side and is true without qualification. And you can also qualify another statement by saying its true that a penny has a "heads" side too. So, every time you look at a penny, you don't say, "Tails-Only" because the penny also has another side called "heads" since there is an extensional context. You could point-out by referencing only one side of the penny, but that won't rule out that there is also another side to the penny itself. Heads incidentally accompanies tails (or vice versa), even if heads wasn't mentioned in context, its automatically present and self-evident too.​

2). The two natures cannot be separated from one another in their union. This can be understood by the Divine Nature always having 'constant' and 'continuous' inseparable presence with the human nature. The Divine Nature will always undergo any form of circumstances together with the human nature in all aspects without being subjected or under the control to what is occurring in the human nature itself because the Divine Nature is impassible. While the human nature doesn't function independently without the Divine Nature being present. And the Divine Nature itself is never present anywhere in isolation and in separation from the human nature. Because the two natures cannot be disjoined from their union since there is a conjunction between both natures, Son's person, which is an equivalent to the present of both in all circumstances.

a). The Divine Nature is always subjectively undergoing all "situations" and "circumstances" with the human nature without being subjected to what is occurring in the human nature. The Divine Nature cannot be placed in separation and isolated position outside the human nature's surrounding circumstances. The Divine Nature doesn't depart from the union every time the human nature encounters a situation then function as an independently outside the human nature's circumstance.

b). For instant the Divine Nature is always present and positionally placed in a particular circumstance (like physical death; esp) during Jesus's crucifixion on the cross. Since the Divine Nature is always present (without segregation) and cannot be dissociated from the human nature circumstance. Then this means that the Divine Nature is actively present and undergoing any form of circumstances as being with the human nature. But the Divine Nature undergoes this circumstance of the crucifixion without suffering death too.

c). After all the Divine Nature is immortal and impassible and cannot suffer death by any logical means. Therefore, the standpoint of "undergoing all circumstances together" is with the accordance to the human nature and not vice versa according to the Divine Nature. The human nature is locally restricted and cannot be ubiquitous by undergoing all circumstance with the omnipresent Divine Nature. So the Divine Nature must always be inseparably present and undergoes all circumstances together with the human nature and not vice versa.

Matthew 26:56 But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled." Then all the disciples deserted him and fled.

John 16:32 A time is coming and in fact has come when you will be scattered, each to your own home. You will leave me all alone. Yet I am not alone, for my Father is with me.​

He was alone in the sense that his disciples left him (Matthew 26:56), but the Father was always there inseparably present according to the Divine Nature that is in union to the human nature by the Son. And according to the human nature, the son was " crucified in weakness" (2 Corinthians 13:4) and the father "condemned sin in the flesh," (Romans 8:3). I am sure we could give a list of how many weaknesses he was experiencing while on the cross. One of them was psychological weakness "a feeling as if he was being forsaken" not that he was literally forsaken nor did the father forsaken him (John 16:32). He was literally feeling despair in the midst of suffering, he cried out "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me," but yet, through all of this suffering the Father was still there and have not forsaken him.

Psalms 22:24 For he has not despised or scorned the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help.

Hebrews 5:7-8 During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered.​
 
Does Jesus Christ have two natures?

1). The Trinity framework for Inseparability: “just as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are inseparable, so they also work inseparably”. And just because the Holy Spirit wasn't mentioned in those two verses (John 8:29, 5:19) . That doesn't mean the Holy Spirit is separated or not working with both the Father and the Son. Also, this does not mean that the three persons act in “cooperation” or “harmony” with one another like musicians in an orchestra. What it means that the persons act according to the Divine Nature. If the persons do not partition the Divine Nature, but are identical to its very substance, then it follows that they do not work as separate causes in the economy.

John 8:29 The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him.​

The Divine Nature is automatically present in the union to the human nature by the logical conjunction of the Son-Person. Which he is in presence of both natures simultaneously without the Divine Nature being physically birth. The Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the human nature. That doesn't mean both the Father and the Holy Spirit are in the human nature too. If that was the case, then the distinction here is Son's person is existing in two distinct ways simultaneously. The Father and the Holy Spirit doesn't exist in two distinct ways with the Son. And that both the Father and the Holy Spirit doesn't have that personal underlying existence in the human nature while the Son does by the Hypostatic Union. Because all three persons are subsisting in the Divine Nature and in each other. The Father would automatically be inseparably present with the Son during his incarnation according to the Divine Nature. And they are functioning or working together through the Divine Nature based on the perichoresis.

Just like the Two-sided Coin analogy that both sides are inseparable to each other. Where ever one side goes, the other side is automatically present. Let's say this two-sided coin went through many circumstances. If you throw a two-sided coin in a cup of water and it land on tails side. Then no matter what circumstances that the tails side of the coin goes through (like: placed in a cash register at Wal-Mart, laying on the sidewalk for many days, and picked up and put into your pocket, etc.) the heads side is automatically present there too since its a Two-Sided Coin. You can say a penny has a "tails" side and is true without qualification. And you can also qualify another statement by saying its true that a penny has a "heads" side too. So, every time you look at a penny, you don't say, "Tails-Only" because the penny also has another side called "heads" since there is an extensional context. You could point-out by referencing only one side of the penny, but that won't rule out that there is also another side to the penny itself. Heads incidentally accompanies tails (or vice versa), even if heads wasn't mentioned in context, its automatically present and self-evident too.​

2). The two natures cannot be separated from one another in their union. This can be understood by the Divine Nature always having 'constant' and 'continuous' inseparable presence with the human nature. The Divine Nature will always undergo any form of circumstances together with the human nature in all aspects without being subjected or under the control to what is occurring in the human nature itself because the Divine Nature is impassible. While the human nature doesn't function independently without the Divine Nature being present. And the Divine Nature itself is never present anywhere in isolation and in separation from the human nature. Because the two natures cannot be disjoined from their union since there is a conjunction between both natures, Son's person, which is an equivalent to the present of both in all circumstances.

a). The Divine Nature is always subjectively undergoing all "situations" and "circumstances" with the human nature without being subjected to what is occurring in the human nature. The Divine Nature cannot be placed in separation and isolated position outside the human nature's surrounding circumstances. The Divine Nature doesn't depart from the union every time the human nature encounters a situation then function as an independently outside the human nature's circumstance.​
b). For instant the Divine Nature is always present and positionally placed in a particular circumstance (like physical death; esp) during Jesus's crucifixion on the cross. Since the Divine Nature is always present (without segregation) and cannot be dissociated from the human nature circumstance. Then this means that the Divine Nature is actively present and undergoing any form of circumstances as being with the human nature. But the Divine Nature undergoes this circumstance of the crucifixion without suffering death too.
c). After all the Divine Nature is immortal and impassible and cannot suffer death by any logical means. Therefore, the standpoint of "undergoing all circumstances together" is with the accordance to the human nature and not vice versa according to the Divine Nature. The human nature is locally restricted and cannot be ubiquitous by undergoing all circumstance with the omnipresent Divine Nature. So the Divine Nature must always be inseparably present and undergoes all circumstances together with the human nature and not vice versa.​
Matthew 26:56 But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled." Then all the disciples deserted him and fled.​
John 16:32 A time is coming and in fact has come when you will be scattered, each to your own home. You will leave me all alone. Yet I am not alone, for my Father is with me.​

He was alone in the sense that his disciples left him (Matthew 26:56), but the Father was always there inseparably present according to the Divine Nature that is in union to the human nature by the Son. And according to the human nature, the son was " crucified in weakness" (2 Corinthians 13:4) and the father "condemned sin in the flesh," (Romans 8:3). I am sure we could give a list of how many weaknesses he was experiencing while on the cross. One of them was psychological weakness "a feeling as if he was being forsaken" not that he was literally forsaken nor did the father forsaken him (John 16:32). He was literally feeling despair in the midst of suffering, he cried out "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me," but yet, through all of this suffering the Father was still there and have not forsaken him.

Psalms 22:24 For he has not despised or scorned the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help.​
Hebrews 5:7-8 During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered.​
What is going on brother good to see you !

And btw we are on the same page :)
 
What is going on brother good to see you !

And btw we are on the same page :)

Thanks. Good to see you too. I been mostly focusing my time writing my book.
 
Thanks. Good to see you too. I been mostly focusing my time writing my book.
Maybe I can review your book like you did my paper on the old forum . I enjoyed that discussion I tagged you , laymen and praise yeshua in last year . I’ve had several updates on mine . We pretty much see eye to eye :) on all things Trinity , HU and the atonement. I miss those kinds of well thought out discussions deep diving into them .
 
Some very good thoughts there civic and others.

Just a quick add the 3 persons of the Godhead are - equal, in unity, and of the same mind, however, when functioning there is divine procession.

Divine Procession.


Godhead
- At the source there is the provision by the whole Godhead,


Father - with the initial movement of the Father;


Son - the administration of the Son;


Holy Spirit - and the direct agency of the Holy Spirit.
 
Some very good thoughts there civic and others.

Just a quick add the 3 persons of the Godhead are - equal, in unity, and of the same mind, however, when functioning there is divine procession.

Divine Procession.


Godhead
- At the source there is the provision by the whole Godhead,


Father - with the initial movement of the Father;


Son - the administration of the Son;


Holy Spirit - and the direct agency of the Holy Spirit.
Yes the study on the roles/relationships within the Trinity and how they function/minister in the church is a great study.
 
Some very good thoughts there civic and others.

Just a quick add the 3 persons of the Godhead are - equal, in unity, and of the same mind, however, when functioning there is divine procession.

Divine Procession.


Godhead
- At the source there is the provision by the whole Godhead,


Father - with the initial movement of the Father;


Son - the administration of the Son;


Holy Spirit - and the direct agency of the Holy Spirit.
The false god of the unitarians cannot know or experience love as a solitary person. That is impossible. It is an oxymoron. The only viable answer to Gods love and that He is love is for God to be Triune in nature which would explain why and how God is love. A false god who is only a solitary person cannot know what love is as there is no one to love. That god is void of love by nature.

God is a personal, relational being by His very essence or nature. There are roles within the Godhead that have to do with the tri-personal nature of His being. The Father sends the Son, The Son submits to the Father. The Holy Spirit speaks of and honors the Father and the Son. Jesus said I and the Father are one. We clearly see the relationship of the Triune Godhead in the 14th-16th chapters of John.

Now it is very interesting that when we begin with God(Trinity) we see that He has designed not only man, but the family and the Church to represent and reflect His very own nature. God has designed this order and is clearly seen back in Genesis 1-2.

When God created the first 6 days He declared everything "was good". We read the only time in creation where God said otherwise was when He created man (who was made in His very own image). He used the plural form by saying LET US make man in OUR image after OUR likeness.

But God did not stop there. He said it was NOT GOOD for man to be alone. Why did God say this ? Man was created to be a relational being just like God (trinity). God created woman so that man would not be alone as God is not alone. The two would become ONE just as the Father and the Son are ONE.

Man was to procreate and have a family. Within the family unit Man is the head of the woman. The woman submits to the man. The Son submits to the Father. The Holy Spirit honors both the Father and the Son. The children are to honor their Mother and their Father. This reflects the very nature of God.

Now the same is true of the Church. Christ is the Head of the body. The body consists of Leaders(elder, pastors, teachers etc...)and the flock. The leaders submit to Christ and the flock is to submit to the leaders.

In the above we see the family(husband, wife and children) and the Church(Christ,leaders and the flock) are all designed to reflect the triune nature of God by the relationships and order of these institutions.

God is love because He loves within His own nature. God could not love if He was only one person. God would be contradicting Himself if He was not self sufficient. God is Love means that He has this ability to love within Himself. This is only possible if He is a tri-personal God.


hope this helps,
 
Correct but the concept is there for those with eyes to see.

1-God is One
2-The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are each identified as God.
3- Tri ( 3 ) Unity (1)- Tri-Unity, Trinity
Then why does Jesus have a God.... eyes to see...

Wow the very first words of Rev should open those eyes....

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him....

Who Gave him???

I'm going to tell you something important.... for your eyes only... Jesus was a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him.... God not Jesus did the works!!!

Do you believe me?
Paul
 
Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him....

Who Gave him???

The Father always works through the Son.
Jump down 5 verses and you have the Lord Jesus being rendered a doxology. (Revelation 1:6)

Jesus was a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him.... God not Jesus did the works!!!

Which does nothing to refute the passages which teach He is also God.
Don't read the Bible with one eye open and the other eye closed.
 
Then why does Jesus have a God.... eyes to see...

Right. Unitarians commonly ask: How can Jesus Christ "be God" (Matthew 1:16, John 1:1, 18, 20:28, Romans 9:5, Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, Hebrews 1:8) and "have a God" (Matthew 27:46, John 20:17, Romans 15:6, 2 Corinthians 1:3, 11:31, Ephesians 1:3, 17, 1 Peter 1:3) at the same time and in the same sense? Then claim there is a contradiction G ^ ~G or God and not-God. Well, scriptures don't contradict each other but rather harmonize, Jesus Christ is both God and Man. And the Scriptural framework is not teaching that Jesus Christ "being God" and "having a God" in the same sense. Rather, the standpoint of Jesus Christ 'has a God (called the Father) is according to the Human Nature as Man' and not at the standpoint of 'having a God' while 'being God' according to the Divine Nature'.
 
Maybe I can review your book like you did my paper on the old forum . I enjoyed that discussion I tagged you , laymen and praise yeshua in last year . I’ve had several updates on mine . We pretty much see eye to eye :) on all things Trinity , HU and the atonement. I miss those kinds of well thought out discussions deep diving into them .

Sure. It's based on the Hypostatic Union framework with Propositional Logic and Scriptures.
 
One God, 3 Persons- The Father, Son and Holy Spirit all each called God


All called God
The Father- Psalm 89:26, 1Corinthians 8:6, Galalatians 1:1, Colossians 1:3
The Son- 1 Timothy 1:16-17,John 20:28,Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, 1 John 5:20
The Holy Spirit- Acts 5:3-4, Acts 28:25, cf Isaiah 6:8

All Creator
The Father- Isaiah 44:24, 1 Corinthians 8:6
The Son - Colossians 1:16; John 1:3
The Holy Spirit- Job 33:4, Psalms 104:30, Genesis 1:2

All Raised Jesus
The Father- 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10
The Son- John 2:19-21
The Holy Spirit- Romans 8:11

All Eternal
The Father- Psalm 93:2
The Son- Jesus Isaiah 9:6
The Holy Spirit- Hebrews 9:14

All Omniscient
The Father- Psalm 147:5
The Son -John 2:24-25
The Holy Spirit- Isaiah 40:13-14

All Omnipresent
The Father- Jeremiah 23:24
The Son - Matthew 28:18:20
The Holy Spirit- Psalm 139:7-10

All Omnipotent
The Father- Revelation 4:8
The Son- Matthew 28:18, Revelation 5:13
The Holy Spirit- Romans 15:19
Yep!
You get a visual of all 3 in action in
Matthew 3
16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

A beautiful interwoven braid of GLORY! This is OUR GOD! 😍
 
The Father always works through the Son.
Jump down 5 verses and you have the Lord Jesus being rendered a doxology. (Revelation 1:6)



Which does nothing to refute the passages which teach He is also God.
Don't read the Bible with one eye open and the other eye closed.
You can not be God and then claim to have one....

Joh 8:40 "But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do.

Fred, Jesus is the Christ..... Christ is a man annointed by God.... Not God annointing Himself!!!

On the authority of Jesus himself we know that the categories of "flesh" and "spirit" are never to be confused or intermingled, though the course of God's Spirit can impact our world. Jesus said, "That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit" (John 3:6). And "God is Spirit." The doctrine of the incarnation confuses these categories. What God has separated man has joined together! One of the charges that the apostle Paul levels at simple man is that we have "exchange the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man" (Romans 1:23). Has it ever dawned on you as you sit in church listening to how the glorious Creator made Himself into a man that you could be guilty of this very same thing? The doctrine of the incarnation has reduced the incorruptible God to our own corruptible image. We are made in God's image, not the other way around. It would be more appropriate to put this contrast in starker terms. The defining characteristic of the Creator God is his absolute holiness. God is utterly different from and so utterly transcendent over His creation that any confusion is forbidden!

Jesus... Has a God!!!

Mat 27:46 About the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?" that is, "MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?"

Joh 8:42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He (GOD) sent Me.

Explain this verse in Context!!!!

Joh 20:17 Jesus *said to her, "Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'"

Wake Up...


Rev 3:2 'Wake up, and strengthen the things that remain, which were about to die; for I have not found your deeds completed in the sight of My God.


Fred.... are you reading scripture or following the teachings of men???

Just asking...
Paul
 
You can not be God and then claim to have one....

Says who?

Joh 8:40 "But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do.

Fred, Jesus is the Christ..... Christ is a man annointed by God.... Not God annointing Himself!!!

Jesus is God (John 20:28).


Explain this verse in Context!!!!


Joh 20:17 Jesus *said to her, "Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'"

Wake Up...

See above (John 20:28).

The Father is God (John 20:17)
The Lord Jesus is God (John 20:28).

You need to wake up.


Rev 3:2 'Wake up, and strengthen the things that remain, which were about to die; for I have not found your deeds completed in the sight of My God.

You can cite dozens of more examples, but this is precisely what Thomas referred to the Lord Jesus as in John 20:28.

Fred.... are you reading scripture or following the teachings of men???

Just asking...
Paul

You are a man, so if I were to follow what you are asserting then I would be following the teachings of man.

Is the Lord Jesus the proper recipient of prayer?
 
My Lord and my God.

There you go, an Apostle refers to Jesus as God. When you look at some verses in the Old and New Testament you have to remember to look at them with a Hebrew or Greek mind of that period, and not a 20th century mind. Some language can mean something to us that it did not mean back then. For example, if an Englishman says, "I am mad about my flat" he means that he is exited about his apartment. To an American, that same phrase means that he is angry about his flat tire. The word "God" for example, means to us in the 20th century "The Almighty God." To a Jew it did not necessarily mean "Almighty God." In Psalms 82: 1 & 6 God refers to earthly rulers as gods. This is the same passage that Jesus quotes to the Jews when they accuse him of saying that he is God. Paraphrasing Jesus, he says to them; "If it is okay to call men gods, why is it blasphemous for me to say that I am the Son of God"(John 10: 33 - 38). Notice how when Jesus is accused of being God, he quickly corrects them that he is not God, but the Son of God. In 2 Corinthians 4: 4 Satan is also called the "god of this age." Does that mean that he is God Almighty? Of course not!

John even tells us just 3 verses later why he wrote about Thomas story… In John 20:31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. If Thomas was really calling Jesus GOD almighty then John just contradicted why he wrote his writings.

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church points out what an early Christian father, Origen (185-254 AD) says about the word "God." "The Son is theos (God), but only the Father is autotheos" (absolute God, God in himself).

This is the reason there is an Almighty God or a Most High God, in order to differentiate the only true God from the others. Another fact to consider when approaching this verse is to understand whom John believes God and Jesus to be.

John wrote his gospel to testify that Jesus is the Son of God, not God the Son. Let us take a look again at what John believes in order to not take one verse and unjustly imply a certain belief on John.

John 17:3

"Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

Revelation 1:6

"Who (Jesus) has made us into a kingdom, priests for his God and Father"

John 20:17

"But go to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am going to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’"

Remember that John’s whole purpose for writing his Gospel is to prove that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, not God.

"But these are written that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God" (John 20: 31).

We must keep John's reason for writing his gospel fresh in our minds as we try to understand this verse. In his gospel, John distinguishes completely between the only true God and Jesus Christ To imply that John believed in a three in one God would be to do a terrible injustice to John.

So what does Thomas mean? To us in the modern world it might at first seem odd, but when you put yourself in Thomas’s place as a Jew in Jesus’ day, it will make all the sense in the world.

The Catholic New American Bible defines this usage of the word god:

"The king, in courtly language is called god, representing God to the people."

Aspects of Monotheism states: "god" is an allegorical equivalent for "king."

This is the definition of the Messiah. The Messiah is the king of Israel who represents God to the people (John 1:49). Thomas was just stating that fact. When he saw Jesus resurrected, it proved to him that He was indeed the Messiah. Thomas’ statement is the equivalent of saying, My Lord and my king. This is not just my opinion; it is easily verified in the Old Testament. Remember, God = king = Messiah.

This kind of language was common in those days. Let’s look at a similar verse.

1 Samuel 24:9 states:

"David also stepped out of the cave, calling to Saul, "My lord and my king."

My lord and my God = My lord and my king.

This verse mean the same thing. Thomas is addressing the king of Israel in exactly the same way that David did. You just have to speak like a first century Jew.

Luke 2:11 states:

"A savior has been born for you who is Messiah and Lord."

Acts 2:36 states:

"God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified."

Lord and Messiah = Lord and king = Lord and God.

There is one great proof that Thomas did not say Jesus is Almighty God when he called Jesus God. When Thomas called Jesus "My lord and my God " all the Apostles were in the room. If this statement is true, then it is logical to assume that from now on, all the Apostles know that Jesus is really God. So from that point onward Jesus should be addressed as God. But as you can see in all the writings of the New Testament, none of the Apostles ever refer to Jesus as Almighty God or YHWH . Not once in the entire New Testament do they ever pray to Jesus. They make clear distinctions between the two. They in fact write about the God of Jesus Christ (John 20:17).

Remember, "No one has ever seen God" (1 John 4: 12). Same author.

How many saw Jesus!!!!

Your following the traditions of men...
Paul
 
My Lord and my God.

There you go, an Apostle refers to Jesus as God. When you look at some verses in the Old and New Testament you have to remember to look at them with a Hebrew or Greek mind of that period, and not a 20th century mind. Some language can mean something to us that it did not mean back then. For example, if an Englishman says, "I am mad about my flat" he means that he is exited about his apartment. To an American, that same phrase means that he is angry about his flat tire. The word "God" for example, means to us in the 20th century "The Almighty God." To a Jew it did not necessarily mean "Almighty God."


It does when "my God" is used. In fact, whenever "my God" is used in the OT by a believer it ALWAYS refers to the Almighty.
Thomas said the same in reference to the Lord Jesus.

Thus, the Son of God in reference to Jesus (John 20:31) demonstrates He is God (John 20:28).

Remember, "No one has ever seen God" (1 John 4: 12). Same author.

Thanks for citing another passage that refutes your false teaching. No one has ever seen the Father (John 6:46), but yet "they saw God" (Exodus 24:11).

Since no one has ever seen the Father, but God was seen, then who did they see?
 
Last edited:
Not once in the entire New Testament do they ever pray to Jesus.



Acts 1:24-25
(24) And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen
(25) to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.”

When the appellation "Lord" appears without reading "Lord Jesus" in Acts 1:24 it is important to keep in mind that whenever the following keys words from this prayer are found elsewhere in Scripture in association with the "Lord" then the "Lord" always refers to the Lord Jesus.

The passages in boldface are from the same author (Luke).
1. The "Lord" occurs along with the same Greek word for "show" (anadeiknymi) in Acts 1:24 - in reference to the Lord Jesus (Luke 10:1).
2. The "Lord" occurs along with the same Greek word for "chosen" (eklegomai) in Acts 1:24 - in reference to the Lord Jesus (Acts 1:2; cf. v. 6; Luke 6:13; cf. vv. 5, 46; John 6:70; cf. v. 68 and John 13:18; cf. vv. 13-14).
3. The "Lord" occurs along with the same Greek word for "ministry" (diakonia) in Acts 1:25 - in reference to the Lord Jesus (Acts 1:17; cf. v. 21; 20:24; 1 Corinthians 12:5; Ephesians 4:12; cf. Ephesians 4:5; Colossians 4:17; 1 Timothy 1:12).
4. The "Lord" occurs along the same Greek word for "apostleship" (apostolē) in Acts 1:25 - in reference to the Lord Jesus (Romans 1:5; cf. Romans 1:4; 1 Corinthians 9:2).

Your turn.
 
It does when "my God" is used. In fact, whenever "my God" is used in the OT by a believer it ALWAYS refers to the Almighty.
Thomas said the same in reference to the Lord Jesus.



Thanks for citing another passage that refutes your false teaching. No one has ever seen the Father (John 6:46), but yet "they saw God" (Exodus 24:11).

Since no one has ever seen the Father, but God was seen, then who did they see?
Silly Child.... You need to understand the Hebrew culture.... You make John into a liar!!!! He was not!!! No one saw God in Exodus!!!!

Going to take 2 post to show everyone here how very wrong you are.... Teacher of men....


The foundation of our Bible is the OT. It contains the first three-quarters of our Bible. It stands to reason that if we misunderstand this Hebrew foundation then we construct a system of error. The art of successful reading is generally to let the last quarter of a book agree with the first three-quarters. As the grand finale of the Bible, the NT agrees with and is consistent with its OT heritage. It might sound like an over-simplification to say that the Bible is a Hebrew book and must be approached through “Hebrew eyes;” however, it was written within the culture and thought-forms of the Middle East. In order to understand its message we must become familiar with the thought-forms, the idioms, the culture and the customs of those who lived in Biblical times. Every sincere reader of the Bible understands this. Doing it is the challenge.

H. N. Snaith in his book, “The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament,” writes “Christianity itself has tended to suffer from a translation out of the Prophets and into Plato.” (p161) “Our position is that the reinterpretation of Biblical theology in terms of the ideas of the Greek philosophers has been both a widespread throughout the centuries and everywhere destructive to the essence of the Christian faith.” (p187.). Snaith also makes this remark that if his “thesis” is correct:… “then neither Catholic nor Protestant theology is based on Biblical theology. In each case we have a denomination of Christian theology by Greek thought… We hold that there can be no right (theology) until we have come to a clear view of the distinctive ideas of both Old and New Testaments and their differences from the pagan ideas which have so largely dominated Christian thought.” (p188.).

With the passing of many centuries since Scriptures were written much of the original intent has been buried under the accretions of generations of human tradition. According to some scholars a lot of Bible confusion can be cleared up by understanding “The Principle of Agency.”

A common feature of the Hebrew Bible is the concept (some even call it the “law”) of Jewish agency. All Old Testament scholars and commentators recognize that in Jewish custom whenever a superior commissioned an agent to act on his behalf, the agent was regarded as the person himself. This is well expressed in the Encyclopedia of the Jewish religion.
Thus in Hebrew custom whenever an agent was sent to act for his master it was as though that lord himself was acting and speaking. An equivalent in our culture to the Jewish custom of agency would be one who is authorized to act as Power of Attorney, or more strongly one who is given Enduring Power of Attorney. Such an agent has virtually unlimited powers to act on behalf of the one who appointed him.

Let's look at one of the stories in the Old Testament with this new mindset. In the story of Moses and the burning bush in Exodus 3, “who” is it who appears to Moses and talked to him? My answer once was typical of the vast majority in the Church. Of course it was God himself, Yahweh, who spoke to Moses. After all, the text states that “’God’ called to him from the midst of the bush and ‘said’, ‘Moses, Moses!’” (v4).

Verse 6 is even more convincing when the same speaker says, “’I am’ the ‘God’ of your father, ‘the God’ of Abraham, ‘the God’ of Isaac, and ‘the God’ of Jacob.’ Then Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at ‘God’.” Surely it was Jehovah God himself who appear to Moses and who personally spoke? But what do we make of verse 2 that prefaces this narrative by stating that “’the angel of the LORD’ appeared” to Moses from the midst of the bush? Many scholars have declared this angel to be God himself, even the pre-existing Christ. They make much of the definitive article and point out that this was a particular angel not just any angel.
This is a fancy bit of footwork that disregards the Hebrew text as we shall see. If we turn to the New Testament’s commentary on this incident, we will see how Hebrews understood their own Scriptures.

Let us now turn to answer our question: Who is it who appears to Moses and talks to him? The martyr Stephen was a man “filled with the Holy Spirit.” Let's listen to his commentary on the burning bush incident. He clearly states that it was “an angel who appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in the flame of a burning bush” (Acts 7:30) As Moses approached this phenomenon, “there came the voice of the Lord: I am the God of your father. The Lord said to him, ‘Take off the sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground. (31-33).

Quite clearly this is an example of agency. It is an angel who appears to Moses and it is the angel who speaks. But note that this angel evens speaks for God in the first person. The angel of the Lord says, “I am God.” The angel is distinguished from God yet identified with him. In Hebrew eyes, it is perfectly natural to consider the agent as the person himself. In Hebrew thought, homage given to God's agent or representative is homage ultimately given to God Himself.

Let's look at just one more example. In Acts 12, the apostle Peter is in jail about to be executed. But while he was asleep, “behold, an angel of the Lord suddenly appeared, and a light shone in the cell; and he struck Peter’s side and roused him, saying, ‘Get up quickly.’ And his chains fell off his hands. And the angel said to him, ‘Gird yourself and put on your sandals… and follow me’” (Acts 12:7-8). Peter thought he was dreaming. As he followed the angel past the guards, out through the iron gate which “opened for them by itself,” Peter “did not know what was being ‘done by the “angel”’ was real, but thought he was seeing a vision”(v.9).

Now the Church was meeting in a house and praying for Peter's release. Peter started banging on the house door and Rhoda, the servant girl went to open the door… Once Peter was eventually inside you can imagine the stir in that place. Peter motions with his hand for everyone to be quiet. He told them his incredible story. And what did he say? “He described to them how ‘the LORD’ had led him out of prison” (v.17).

So who really did get Peter out of jail? The angel or the Lord? The text says both did. But we know that the Lord sent the angel to do the actual work. To the Hebrew mind, it was really the Lord who rescued Peter.

There are many such OT examples. An agent of God is actually referred to as God, or the Lord himself. In Genesis 31:11-13 Jacobs said to his wives, “’The angel’ of God ‘said’ to me in a dream…’I am the God’ of Bethel.” Here is an angel speaking as though he was God Himself. He speaks in the first person: “I am the God of Bethel.” Jacob was comfortable with this concept of agency.

In the next chapter, Jacob wrestled with “a man” until dawn, but he says he had “seen God face to face” (Gen 32:24-30). So was at this time when God appear to Jacob as a man? Perhaps as some have suggested it was actually the Lord Jesus himself, as the second member of the triune God, who wrestled with Jacob.

Not at all according to Hosea 12:3-4 which says, “As a man he [Jacob] struggled with God; he struggled with “the angel” and overcame him. So the one who is called both “a man” and “God” in Genesis is identified as an angel in Hosea. This is a perfect example of Jewish agency where the agent is considered as the principal.

There is another instance of agency in Exodus 7. God tells Moses he will make him “God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet” (Exodus 7:1). Moses is to stand before the king of Egypt with the full authority and backing of heaven itself. Then God says, By this you shall know that I am the LORD: behold, I will strike the water that is in the Nile with the staff that is in “My hand”, and it shall be turned to blood” (v.17). But observe carefully that just two verses later the LORD says to Moses, “Say to Aaron, take your staff and stretch out your hand over the waters of Egypt… that they may become blood” (v.19). God says He Himself will strike the waters with the staff in His own hand. Yet, it was Aaron’s hand that actually held the rod. Aaron is standing as God's agent in the very place of God himself. There is identification of the agent with his Principle. In Biblical terms, Moses and Aaron are “God” (Heb. elohim) to Pharaoh!

Part 1
Paul
 
Back
Top