The Trinity

[ppierac]

Part 2

Sometimes this concept of agency has caused the translators of our Bible difficulties. The Hebrew word for “God”(elohim) has a wide range of meanings. Depending on context, it can mean the Supreme Deity, or “a god” or “gods” or even “angels” or human “judges.” This difficulty is reflected in verses like Exodus 21:6

The KJV reads… “Then his master shall bring him unto the judges;”

The NIV reads… “then his master must take him before the judges.”

But

The NASB reads… “then his master shall bring him to God”

So too the RSV… “then his master shall bring him to God”

Clearly, because the judges of Israel represented God as His agents, they are called “God,” elohim. As the slave gave his vow before these representatives of God, he was in fact making a binding vow before Jehovah. The agents were as God.

Another example that we have time for in this brief overview, is in Judges 6:11-22. “The angel of the LORD came and sat under the oak tree while Gideon was threshing wheat”. As ‘the angel of the LORD appeared to him,’ he greeted Gideon with the words, “The LORD is with you, O valiant warrior.” We can hear Gideon's disbelief when he says to the angel, “Oh my lord, if the LORD is with us, why then has all this happened to us?” Now notice a change in the text at Judges 6:14: “And the LORD looked at him and said, ‘Go in this your strength and deliver Israel from the hand of Midian. Have not I sent you?” At this point Gideon murmurs and throws up excuses as to why he could not rescue Israel from their enemies. “But the LORD said to him, ‘Surely I will be with you, and you shall defeat Midian as one man.’” Notice how the angel who is speaking on God's behalf actually uses the first person personal pronoun. And the text clearly says that when the angel looked at Gideon it was God himself who looked at him: And the LORD looked at him.” Gideon is not confused regarding who he is looking at or who is speaking to him. For as “the angel of the LORD vanished from his site,” he exclaimed, “I have seen the angel of the LORD face-to-face.” (V.22). We know that the angel of the LORD is the agent and not literally God, because the Scriptures are absolutely clear that no one has ever seen God himself (John 1:18; 1 Tim 6:16; 1 John 4:12). Many scholars have failed to take this very Hebrew way of looking at things into account. They have literally identified the angel of the LORD with God Himself. All confusion is dissipated when we understand the Jewish law of agency: “a person’s agent is regarded as the person himself.” So was this “Angel of the Lord” actually “the Lord” — that is, Yahweh himself? The answer is no! This angelic personality appeared only “in the name” of Yahweh (as he had done to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob); He was simply acting with power of attorney to carry out the commands of Yahweh. The Jews have long recognized this fact. Jewish authorities record in their Mishnah of the third century that “a man’s agent is as himself” (Berekoth 6:6). And this same principle of interpretation applied to matters dealing with God.

There is one very clear OT example of Hebrew Principle of Agency. It comes from Deuteronomy 29. Moses summons all of Israel and says to them, "You have seen all that the Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh and all his servants and all his land; the great trials which your eyes have seen, those great signs and wonders" (v.2-3). Moses continues to recite for the people all that God has done for them. But notice that in verse 6, while still reciting all God's wonders, Moses suddenly changes to the first person and says, "You have not eaten bread, nor have you drunk wine or strong drink, in order that you might know that I am the LORD your God." It is obvious that God himself is not personally speaking to the people. Moses is preaching. But Moses as the agent of God can speak as though he is the Lord himself. What is happening here? God is speaking through His man, His appointed representative. Therefore, he can move from speaking in the third person, “the LORD did this and that for you" to the first person: "I am the LORD your God doing this and that."

Knowing this principle helps us with other apparent difficulties, even seeming contradictions through the Scriptures. Lets look at one New Testament example. The story that has created a problem to many minds is the one concerning the healing of the Centurion’s servant. In Matthew's account (Matt 8:5-13), it is the Centurion himself who comes to Jesus and begs him to heal his servant. The Centurion himself says, "Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering great pain" (v.6).

However, the parallel account in Luke (Luke 7:1-10) states that the Centurion did not personally go and speak to Jesus. He actually sent or commissioned as his agents “some Jewish elders.” These Jewish elders pleaded with Jesus on behalf of the Centurion saying, "He is worthy for you to grant this to him; for he loves our nation, and it was he who built us our synagogue" (v.4-5)

So who actually went to Jesus here? Did these gospel writers get confused? Are the detractors perhaps right to say that the Bible is full of errors and contradictions? Not at all! The difficulty is cleared up when we understand the Hebrew mind behind these Scriptures. The answer to who actually stood before Jesus is the elders. They had been sent by the Centurion. Matthew in typical Hebrew idiom has the Centurion himself there and speaking in the first person before Jesus. The agent is as the principal himself.

Jesus claimed to represent God like no other before or after him. He claimed to be the unique spokesman for God his Father and to speak the ultimate words of God. He claimed to act in total accord and harmony with God like no other. He claimed to be the Son of God, the Christ or Messiah, and the agent of the Father. The NT claims that he who sees Jesus sees the Father. He who hears Jesus the Son hears the words of God Himself.

The New Testament puts this theory about the angel of the Lord being Jesus in his preexistence to rest in Hebrews 1: “God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son” (v 1-2).

So, the Son of God “did not speak” in the Old Testament days! Back in those days God spoke in various ways and only in “portions,” whether by vision or by prophet or by angel. It is only since Jesus Christ was brought into existence at birth and appeared “in these last days” that we have heard God speak “in his Son.” This is axiomatic. Jesus Christ was not God's messenger before his appearance as a man, born of Mary in history. Look at the scriptures:

Act 7:53 you who received the law as ordained by angels, and yet did not keep it."

Gal 3:19 Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.

Heb 2:2 For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty,


Now let's review one last example and look at Exodus 23:20-23. Notice 'my name is in him!' (agency)

"Behold, I send an angel before thee, to keep thee by the way ... Take ye heed of him, and hearken unto his voice; provoke him not (be not rebellious against him): for he will not pardon your transgression; for my name is in him" "But if you truly obey his voice and do all that I say, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries. "For My angel will go before you… (Exodus 23:20-23).

In this passage the angel was to be for Israel in the place of God; he was to speak God's words, and judge them. In fact the angel expressed God's name; he was God for them. Now if this was true of an angel of the Lord, how much more of the Son of God himself? Hence these sayings:

"This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent ... I (Jesus) have manifested thy name unto (the disciples) ... Holy Father, keep in thy name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one" (John 17:3,6,11).

"I and my Father are one" (John 10:30).

Jesus, then, enjoyed a unity of mind and Spirit with the Father, so that he could say, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14:9). For the disciples Jesus was in the place of God; he spoke God's words, proclaimed God's truth, and pronounced His judgements.

Hebrews 1:1 makes more sense now:
God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world (ages).

[The Net bible adds… The temporal (ages) came to be used of the spatial (what exists in those time periods). See Heb_11:3 for the same usage.]

Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds (ages) were prepared by the word (ρημα G4487) of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

Jesus had every right to claim to be God because God was in Him doing His works.

"Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which god performed through him in your midst" (Acts 2:22).

Hope this helps....
Paul

 

[Fred]

Silly Child....

Silly heretic.

You dodged what "my God" means when a believer uses this expression.
You didn't like that it always refers to the Almighty. (cf. John 20:28).

 

[Fred]

"Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which god performed through him in your midst" (Acts 2:22).

Hope this helps....
Paul

It does help, because in Acts 2:21, Peter (recorded by Luke) applies YHWH ('kyrios' in the Septuagint) from Joel 2:32 (3:5 LXX) in reference to Jesus being the "Lord".
Thus, Jesus is YHWH.

Jesus is YHWH (Acts 2:21)
Jesus is a man (Acts 2:22)

Both are true.

 

[ppierac]

Silly heretic.

You dodged what "my God" means when a believer uses this expression.
You didn't like that it always refers to the Almighty. (cf. John 20:28).

Try actually reading a post before replying.... 7 min between replys tells me you did not take the time to read my post much less get permission on how to reply from your pastor....

Please don't post unless you have a reply to something specific to say against what was written... Given you took a min or so to reply, that puts you at under 5 min to read about 20,000 words.....

It makes you look stupid... Like a 4 year old saying my dad is bigger than your dad...

SO..... Take some time and actually read the response to your post.... before making a comment...
Report me.... the moderator will agree... You should read before responding....
Paul

 

[ppierac]

It does help, because in Acts 2:21, Peter (recorded by Luke) applies YHWH ('kyrios' in the Septuagint) from Joel 2:32 (3:5 LXX) in reference to Jesus being the "Lord".
Thus, Jesus is YHWH.

Jesus is YHWH (Acts 2:21)
Jesus is a man (Acts 2:22)

Both are true.

Jesus is still a Man!!!

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

God is not!!! nor Son of man!!!

Num 23:19 "God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

Both are scriptual and true!!!
Paul

 

[Fred]

Try actually reading a post before replying

I'm not going through and reading your entire longwinded ransom note like posts that are full of heresy.

So far you have ignored what "my God" means when used by believers, and you did not (because you could not) counter the evidence I provided in post 39 concerning the prayer to the Lord Jesus in Acts 1:24-25.

Report me

No need to. It is much easier refuting you.

 

[Fred]

Jesus is still a Man!!!

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

Jesus is still Man and God!!!

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus..

Titus 2:13
looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus.


The above agrees with Acts 2:21 and Acts 2:22 in post 43.
Pointing out that He is a Man does not erase the passages that teach He is God.

 

[Fred]

Num 23:19 "God is not a man, that He should lie,

Jesus never lied.
Thus, He is not a man that He should lie.


In accordance with Numbers 23:19, see this:
1 Samuel 16:7
God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.

Since Jesus fully knows the hearts of all (Acts 1:24; Rev. 2:23) demonstrates He is YHWH. In fact, 1 Kings 8:39 teaches that this knowledge belongs to God alone.

 

[Binyawmene]

Pointing out that He is a Man does not erase the passages that teach He is God.

Yes. Adding a few thoughts.

In the Unitarian camp are people who hold to the position of "Man-Only" doctrine and anything about Christ's deity is automatically ruled-out. While the "only" part in the phrase is philosophical based since Jesus Christ never claim, "I am not God." And there is also a certain line of illogical reasoning when it comes to Jesus Christ is "man-only" versus Jesus Christ is "also-God." So, the Man-Only advocates will ride with a negation that "It's not the case that Jesus Christ is God" argument in spite what the Bible may teaches. And the majority of the time they aren't arguing from the Hypostatic Union position. But rather a denial of what the position declares while you are reinforcing the positive claim. Even when Scriptures are presented, they either ignore or stand in their denial that "Jesus Christ is not God." Some might provide a misrepresentation for an alternative interpretation and their straw men leading to contradictory notions. It's easier for them to take such position.

Logically, they cannot argue from the Hypostatic Union doctrinal position that "Jesus Christ is Man." Because they would be affirming and adding support to what we already believe about Jesus Christ. However, the common theme is demonstrated by pointing out Bible verses that Jesus Christ has claimed to be "a man." Or pointing out attributes of his "humanity" like being hungry, weeping, and lacking knowledge, etc. Or Jesus Christ has a God and I worship the same God of Jesus. Then make bare assertions that he never claims to be "God." From their mindset its assumed that Jesus Christ being a man negates over him being God. Unfortunately, there would be no argument between both Hypostatic Unionists and Man-Only advocates in that particular regard. Even at the most basic level fundamentally. Since ultimately there would be a passable or just good enough acceptable agreement about Jesus Christ's humanity.

 

[Carbon]

Jesus never lied.
Thus, He is not a man that He should lie.


In accordance with Numbers 23:19, see this:
1 Samuel 16:7
God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.

Since Jesus fully knows the hearts of all (Acts 1:24; Rev. 2:23) demonstrates He is YHWH. In fact, 1 Kings 8:39 teaches that this knowledge belongs to God alone.

have you noticed some people just cant stay away?

 

[ppierac]

I'm not going through and reading your entire longwinded ransom note like posts that are full of heresy.

So far you have ignored what "my God" means when used by believers, and you did not (because you could not) counter the evidence I provided in post 39 concerning the prayer to the Lord Jesus in Acts 1:24-25.


No need to. It is much easier refuting you.

Your not refuting me... Your teaching against Scripture... Something your going to have to address at the Judgement...

Jesus is going to ask.... Why did you not take the time to read his post... yet responded as if you knew all the facts....

Mat 7:23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'

WE have no idea what's being written in the Book of life.... But you better know your stuff before you reply and choose not to read and then post some truth you thing is true with out even reading the topic.... WE will all give account...

Prehaps you should take the 30 min to read what you will NOW have to give an answer to at your/mine Judgement...

Words and Scripture matter.... Will you Learn or Burn.... or will you???


I bet you study these verses.......

NASB Act 2:39 "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."

CEV Act 2:39 This promise is for you and your children. It is for everyone our Lord God will choose, no matter where they live."


NASB Act 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

CEV Act 13:48 This message made the Gentiles glad, and they praised what they had heard about the Lord. Everyone who had been chosen for eternal life then put their faith in the Lord.


Net Eph 1:11 In Christ28 we too have been claimed as God's own possession,29(G280) since we were predestined (G4309) according to the one purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will

29 tn Grk "we were appointed by lot." The notion of the verb κληρόω (klēroō) in the OT was to "appoint a portion by lot" (the more frequent cognate verb κληρονομέω [klēronomeō] meant "obtain a portion by lot"). In the passive, as here, the idea is that "we were appointed [as a portion] by lot" (BDAG 548 s.v. κληρόω 1). The words "God's own" have been supplied in the translation to clarify this sense of the verb. An alternative interpretation is that believers receive a portion as an inheritance: "In Christ we too have been appointed a portion of the inheritance." See H. W. Hoehner, Ephesians, 226-27, for discussion on this interpretive issue.

Guess it's just not your Lot in Life!!!

God is Love Fred.... You just need to read your Scriptures and stop letting other tell you what to believe....

Study the verses above... and then know...

1Ti 4:10 For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.

LOL....

You are sooo Clueless!!!!
Paul

 

[Fred]

I bet you study these verses.......
NASB Act 2:39 "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."

Thanks for quoting a passage that demonstrates Jesus is "the Lord our God."

Joel 2:32 (3:5 in the LXX)
And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the LORD has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the LORD calls.

Peter applies YHWH ('kyrios' in Greek) in reference to Jesus being the Lord in Acts 2:21.
Acts 2:21
And it shall be that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
Acts 2:38
Peter said to them, Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 4:12
And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.


Peter again quotes from Joel 2:32 (3:5 in the LXX) in Acts 2:39.
And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the LORD has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the LORD calls.

The Lord in Acts 2:21 refers to the same Lord in Acts 2:39 -- > Jesus!

Thus, demonstrating for Peter (recorded by Luke) that Jesus is "the Lord our God."
He calls us in order for us to call on Him.

 

[Rev. Man Ron]

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.

I just explained the trinity in full, you either grasp it or you don't. Jesus was both human and God the Redeemer. He was tried via the same trials we are, and had a human mother so he felt all the things we do, but his Father was God thus he knew no sin. The fulness of God can never live in a man, the essence of God can (Holy Spirit).

Trying to overanalyze God never works, just simplify the process. Aa a preacher of 40 years I see those like the Pharisees and those like the Disciples as a key, God shows us His grand glory in simple ways, not in complex configurations.

 

[Binyawmene]

I just explained the trinity in full,

I have no idea what you were explaining. I been doing Trinity and Hypostatic Union apologetics for over 20 years. This is what you said:

"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.​

And I demonstrated Scripturally that the Persons in the Trinity is inseparable, and Jesus wasn't alone on the cross. Reread post 23.

 

[ppierac]

Thanks for quoting a passage that demonstrates Jesus is "the Lord our God."

Joel 2:32 (3:5 in the LXX)
And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved. For me in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the LORD has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the LORD calls.

Peter applies YHWH ('kyrios' in Greek) in reference to Jesus being the Lord in Acts 2:21.
Acts 2:21
And it shall be that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
Acts 2:38
Peter said to them, Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 4:12
And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.


Peter again quotes from Joel 2:32 (3:5 in the LXX) in Acts 2:39.
And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the LORD has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the LORD calls.

The Lord in Acts 2:21 refers to the same Lord in Acts 2:39 -- > Jesus!

Thus, demonstrating for Peter (recorded by Luke) that Jesus is "the Lord our God."
He calls us in order for us to call on Him.

Edit my Admin


To be a Christian means you know that our Lord Jesus is the diameter, the purpose of the universe. His kingdom is coming! This is God's purpose and it will not be frustrated.
Another verse saying the same thing is Hebrews 1:2. It says God has “appointed” His son to be the “heir of all things” and that it was “through him that he made the world'(s). Here our translations are not quite accurate, what the author wrote was not that through Jesus God made
the world(s) but ages. God planned to complete His purpose for all creation through the agency of his son Jesus. The preposition that is used in relation to Jesus and the world, or the ages, is “through” (Greek dia from which you will see comes our English word diameter).

Dia is the “preposition of attendant circumstances" and signifies instrumental agency. Put simply, this means that dia denotes the means by which an action is accomplished. And Scripture tells us that God the originator is bringing His purpose, His logos to fulfillment through Jesus
Christ. Jesus is the Agent, the Mediator of God's master plan. Jesus is always seen as secondary, or subordinate to the Father. There are occasional exceptions to this general use of the preposition dia. Sometimes blessings are said to come to us through God (e.g. 1 Cor 1:9; Heb.2: 10). But usually there is a clear distinction made between God’s initiating activity and the means through which God brings that activity to pass. The prepositions used of God's action are hypo and ek which point to primary causation or origin.

Let's cement this idea in our minds by looking at one or two verses that highlight the difference: “yet for us there is but one God, the father, from [ek, ‘out from’ ] whom are all things, and we exist for [ eis, ‘to’ ] Him; and one lord, Jesus Christ, through [dia] him” (1Cor.8:6).

Prepositions are the signposts that point out the direction of a passage. Ek indicates something coming out from its source or origin, and indicates motion from the interior. In other words, all things came out from the loving heart of God, or God's “interior”, so to speak.

This agrees with Genesis 1:1 which says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”. Both verses say that the source of “all things” is the one true God, the Creator of the heavens and the earth and the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. In contradistinction to this "one
God and Father" out of Whom all things originate, the "one Lord, Jesus Messiah” is giving the preposition dia which means "through." In other words, Jesus is God's agent through whom God accomplishes His plan for our lives. This is a consistent pattern all the way through the N.T. God the Father is the source, the origin of all blessings, and Jesus His Son brings those blessings of salvation to us:

"Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ" (2 Cor.5:18).

"God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ… has blessed us… in Christ. He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to himself” (Eph.1:3-5).

"For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Thess.5:9).

"God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus” (Rom. 2:16).

"For God… has saved us, and called us... according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity" (2 Tim 1:9).

"Blessed be God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has caused us to be born-again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" (1 Peter 1:3).

"To the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen" (Jude 25).

"Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which god performed through him in your midst" (Acts 2:22).

Joh 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

Paul tell us in 1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through (dia) whom we exist.

Always God the Father is the source and origin of all works, deeds and salvation which come to us through the mediatorship of his son. From Him comes all to us through our Lord Jesus Christ so that to God the Father made all the praise be directed. The Father is the sole origin and Creator of "all things." In contrast, Jesus is the Father's commissioned Lord Messiah through whom God's plan for the world is coming to completion. The whole Bible from cover to cover categorically states that God created the universe and all the ages with Jesus Christ at the center of his eternal purpose. Jesus is the diameter running all the way through.

You can stand up and repent now... Fred
Paul

 

[ppierac]

When was the Trinity established... At Jesus' birth... No... At Jesus' baptism... No... At Jesus's death... No... At Jesus' ressurection... NO!!!

Then When???

Let documented history tell us...

"The Jews conceive God as an absolutely simple unity (inferring absolutely no constituent divisions)." (Jewish Thought 6/12/96)

When Christianity started spreading, the leaders of the churches were now Gentiles who had converted to Christianity. These people, for the most part, had been educated in Greek philosophies in their schools and universities. As educated persons, they of course wanted to find a place for their new religious beliefs within the philosophical framework they had already acquired. So when they read Hebrew Scriptures, they could not help injecting Greek philosophical meanings into them. The Encyclopedia Britannica says concerning Christian Platonist:

"They did not believe that truth could conflict with truth and were confident that all that was rationally certain in Platonic speculation would prove to be in perfect accordance with the Christian revelation. Their unhistorical approach and unscholarly methods of exegesis of texts, both pagan and Christian, facilitated this confidence."

There was also the felt need of some Christians with Greek philosophical training to express Christianity in those terms, both for their own intellectual satisfaction and in order to convert educated pagans.

What is needed today is to remove all the Greek influence from what is called modern day Christianity, and return to the Christianity that was preached by Jesus and his Apostles.

The Council of Nicaea, in 325 AD., made "Jesus of the same substance as God." This is not the Trinitarian doctrine we know of today, but it was a start. Fifty-six years later, at the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD., the Holy Spirit was added to the formula, bringing to life the modern day Trinity. One can easily see that even at Nicaea the Trinity was not an established doctrine by the absence of the Holy Spirit. Trinitarians will argue that the belief in a triune God was there from the Apostles, and that it was formalized as dogma at Nicaea and Constantinople. But the fact is that the New Testament does not anywhere teach the doctrine of the Trinity. The Doctrine of the Trinity, was not an established doctrine from Apostolic times, but a slowly developing idea that took over three hundred years to formalize.

325 AD - Constantine convenes the Council of Nicaea in order to develop a statement of faith that can unify the church. The Nicene Creed is written, declaring that "the Father and the Son are of the same substance" (homoousios). Emperor Constantine who was also the high priest of the pagan religion of the Unconquered Sun presided over this council. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions and personally proposed the crucial formula expressing the relationship of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council. "of one substance with the Father."

The American Academic Encyclopedia states:

"Although this was not Constantine’s first attempt to reconcile factions in Christianity, it was the first time he had used the imperial office to IMPOSE a settlement."

At the end of this council, Constantine sided with Athanasius over Arius and exiled Arius to Illyria.

328 AD - Athanasius becomes bishop of Alexandria.

328 AD - Constantine recalls Arius from Illyria.

335 AD - Constantine now sides with Arius and exiles Athanasius to Trier.

337 AD - A new emperor, Contantius, orders the return of Athanasius to Alexandria.

339 AD - Athanasius flees Alexandria in anticipation of being expelled.

341 AD - Two councils are held in Antioch this year. During this council, the First, Second, and Third Arian Confessions are written, thereby beginning the attempt to produce a formal doctrine of faith to oppose the Nicene Creed.

343 AD - At the Council of Sardica, Eastern Bishops demand the removal of Athanasius.

346 AD - Athanasius is restored to Alexandria.

351 AD - A second anti - Nicene council is held in Sirmium.

353 AD - A council is held at Aries during Autumn that is directed against Athanasius.

355 AD - A council is held in Milan. Athanasius is again condemned.

356 AD - Athanasius is deposed on February 8th, beginning his third exile.

357 AD - Third Council of Sirmium is convened... Both homoousios and homoiousios are avoided as unbiblical, and it is agreed that the Father is greater than His subordinate Son.

359 AD - The Synod of Seleucia is held which affirms that Christ is "like the Father," It does not however, specify how the Son is like the Father.

361 AD - A council is held in Antioch to affirm Arius’ positions.

380 AD - Emperor Theodosius the Great declares Christianity the official state religion of the empire.

381 AD - The First Council of Constantinople is held to review the controversy since Nicaea. Emperor Theodosius the Great establishes the creed of Nicaea as the standard for his realm. The Nicene Creed is re-evaluated and accepted with the addition of clauses on the Holy Spirit and other matters. (History of Arian Controversy)

If you believe that Nicaea just formalized the prevalent teaching of the church, then there really should not have been any conflicts. Why should there be? If it were the established teaching of the church, then you would expect people to either accept it, or not be Christians. It would be like me being a member of the Communist Party. I would join it knowing that they do not believe in the ownership of private property, no conflict. But now, say after I have been a member of the party for a few years, someone decides to introduce a proposal that we allow the ownership of private property, not everyone in the party is going to agree, the result is conflict. This is similar to what happened in the church. It was not the established teaching, and when some faction of the church tried to make it official, the result was major conflict.

It was mainly a theological power grab by certain factions of the church. The major complication throughout all this was that the emperors were involved. At Nicaea it was Constantine that decided the outcome. Then as you can see, we have the flip-flopping of opinion with the result that Athanasius is exiled and recalled depending on who is in power. We even have in 357 AD the declaration that homoousios and homoiousios are unbiblical, and that the Father is greater than His subordinate Son. This is 180 degrees from Nicaea. It is definitely not the Trinitarian formula.

In 380 AD Emperor Thedosius declares Christianity the state religion. One can come to the conclusion that whichever way Theodosius favors, is the way in which it is going to end. This is exactly what happened next. In 381 AD the struggle was finally ended by the current emperor, Theodosius the Great, who favored the Nicene position. Just like at Nicaea, the EMPEROR again decided it. The emperors were dictating the theology of the church. The big difference now was that there was not going to be any more changing sides. It was now the state religion. You cannot make Christianity the state religion and then change its beliefs every few years, it would undermine its credibility as the true faith. The Trinity was now the orthodox position, and the state was willing to back it up. Debates however, would continue for years to come.

 

[ppierac]

This idea of the Holy Spirit being the third member of a triune God was the outcome of the Council of Constantinople in the year 381 AD. This is about three hundred and forty five years after the death of Christ. Before this council nobody ever though of the Holy Spirit as the third member of a triune God called "God the Holy Spirit." If we use the Bible as our guide (which we always should) we will find that nobody in the Bible thought this way of the Holy Spirit either. Nobody in the Bible ever prays to it, nobody ever talks to it, none of the New Testament writers ever send greetings from the Holy Spirit. This is definitely different from some of today's Trinitarian preachers such as the well-known Benny Hinn, who tells us to pray and talk to the Holy Spirit. Are we to believe that Benny Hinn knows something that Jesus and the Apostles did not? When we as Christians stop using the Bible as our guide is when we run the risk of following false teachings. If there was one individual praying to the Holy Spirit, then you would see me doing the same. But there isn’t. Theologians decided that Jesus was God in the year 325 AD at the Council of Nicaea. But even when they decided that Jesus was God in 325 AD they did not include the Holy Spirit in this formula until fifty-six years later in 381 AD. One must ask, why not? If this was a central concept of Christianity from the beginning (as Trinitarians claim), then why was the Holy Spirit not included in the formula until 381 AD? The reason is because it was not a teaching of Christianity from the beginning. It was an idea which was developed by men who were educated in Greek philosophies such as Origen and Tertullian to name a few, who tried to interpret the Old and New Testaments within the framework of their Greek philosophical beliefs. This idea came out of the great city of Alexandria and started to gain popularity around the year 250 AD. It came to the forefront in the year 325 AD at the council of Nicaea. But it was a developing idea, which is why the Holy Spirit was not include or considered in the Council of Nicaea.

Tertullian writing around the year 200 AD to a friend of his called Praxeas states:

Chap. III. vv. 1. "The majority of believers, are STARTLED at the Dispensation (of the Three in One)...

They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods...

While the Greeks actually REFUSE to understand the oikonomia, or Dispensation" (of the Three in One)."

This is an incredible statement. Tertullian himself states that the majority of believers are startled when he tells them of the dispensation of the three in one. Why are believers startled at this teaching if it is supposed to be the core of Christianity from the beginning? Because it was not! This is why they are startled. The Greeks (Greek Christians) refused to accept this idea at all and accused him of worshipping two and three gods. Why would they refuse to accept their own Christian Doctrine of the Trinity?


History... will not be silent!!!
Paul

 

[ppierac]

Just what does the Old Testament teach us about who and what God is?

Shema Yisrael! Hear, O Israel!

Deu 6:4 "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!

This is one of the very first Bible verse that most Jewish boys and girls learn. It binds the Jewish life and community together. Every devout Jew recited it daily and even utter the Shema when dying. This is the one belief that distinguished Israel from all the surrounding nations that had multiple gods. “The Lord is one Lord” is thus Israel's classic statement of monotheism, Judaism's highest confession of Faith. It speaks of Yahweh's uniqueness and exclusiveness, that he is one single integral person, not divisible.

The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible tells us that there are two valid ways of interpreting the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4. It is possible to translate, "Yahweh, our God, is one Yahweh"- in which case the Shema affirms that Yahweh can not be divided into several Yahweh manifestations (poly-Yahwism), like the Baals of different sanctuaries [or we might add the Trinity of later Nicene Christianity]. Or we may translate: "Yahweh is our God, Yahweh alone"-in which case the Shema affirms that Yahweh is the only and the unique God [we will soon see that Jesus affirmed this creed and John 17:3].

Both of these nuances are given in other Old Testament passages. The person of God is indivisible and he has no other in His class for He is alone and unique. He is a single divine individual.

Deu 4:35 "To you it was shown that you might know that the LORD, He is God; there is no other besides Him….39 "Know therefore today, and take it to your heart, that the LORD, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other.

Deu 32:39 'See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me; It is I who put to death and give life. I have wounded and it is I who heal, And there is no one who can deliver from My hand.

Isa 44:6 "Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me.

The New Testament clearly states Jesus has a God and Father, both before and after his resurrection. We know the Bible does not contradict.

 

[ppierac]

“Christ” God or title?

Dr. Hugh Schonfield, in his book the Passover Plot. Reported that many Christians he spoke with were not even aware that the term "Christ" was simply a Greek translation of the Hebrew title "Messiah", and thought somehow that it referred to the Second Person of the Trinity. "So connected had the word ‘Christ’ become with the idea of Jesus as God incarnate that the title ‘Messiah’ was treated as something curiously Jewish and not associated.”

N.T. Write, the Bishop of Litchfield, agrees: “One of the most persistent mistakes throughout the literature on Jesus and the last hundred years is to use the word ‘Christ,’ which simply means ‘Messiah’, as though it was a ‘divine’ title.” Who was Jesus? p.57.

According to its OT usage, the term Messiah, the Anointed One, indicates a call to office.

Most certainly, it was not the title of an aspect of the Godhead. This is a later Gentile invention that came about by ignoring Jesus’ Jewish context and inventing a doctrine called the Incarnation- the idea that a second member of the Trinity, God the son, became a human being. As Lockhart says, in Jesus the Heretic, p.137. “Christianity ignored the ‘Messiah’ and theologically worked the ‘Christ’ up into the ‘God-Man.’ Jesus as the ‘Messiah’ is a human being; Jesus as the ‘Christ’ is something entirely different.”

Jesus calls himself "a man" (John 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. and the apostles call him "a man" (Acts 2: 22; 1 Tim. 2:5). Act 2:22 "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know-- 1Ti 2:5 For there is one

God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, He is constantly contrasted with and distinguished from God, his Father.

The Hebrew Bible or OT, predicted Jesus would be a man (Is.53:3). But never does the scriptures use the term "God-Man" to tell us who Jesus is. The Greek language of the day had a perfectly good word for “God-Man” (theios aner) but it never appears in the New Testament. So why do you persist with these extra-biblical terms? Why do you continue to employ non-biblical (i.e. unbiblical) language to describe Jesus?

The Bible verse saying is true which says that we are very quick to spot the speck in the eye of another's theology, but how blind we are to the beam in our own. Mary is not the mother of God, according to the scriptures. And neither is Jesus God the Son, nor is he the "God-Man" according to the Bible. And he is nowhere called "God of from God" as the later Nicene Creed called him. Protestants, people of the Bible ought to know that the contentious extra-biblical word used at Nicea, homoousios, meaning ‘of equal substance,’ “did not come from Scripture but, of all things, from Gnostic systems.” Quote from Born Before All-Time? p. 500. Kuschel.

The result was that such terminology introduced alien notions into Christian understanding of God. In other words, "an epoch-making paradigm shift has taken place between Scriptures and Nicea.” Born Before All-Time? p. 503. Kuschel

To the Jewish mind, accustomed to Old Testament teaching on the principles of agency and representation by which God appoints a man to speak or act on his behalf, such a concept was both familiar and acceptable. Whilst it is true that some of Christ's enemies believed him to be
usurping or laying claim unlawfully to certain Divine rights or powers, not a single Jew ever thought that the miracles performed by Christ proved that he was a Divine being, and the gospel record indicates that many recognised that he was a man Divinely appointed to exercise power and authority on God's behalf. You should know this!!!

 

[ppierac]

Christ the First-born of all the creation

The word “first-born” comes to the New Testament with a rich Hebrew heritage. The Hebrews had a custom of conferring special birthright privileges on their oldest sons. The eldest son of a father would receive the double portion of the family's inheritance. The well-known story of Jacob tricking his father Isaac into conferring on him - rather than on the first-born-Esau all the family blessing is typical of this culture (Gen 27:32). There is a deeper nuance to the meaning of this word “first-born.” The Greek word for “first” can mean either a first in time or first in status, regardless of birth position. The “first-born” may designate one who is given the honor of chief rank, that is, the first place. This usage can also be found in the Hebrew Bible, as when Jacob summons his son to bequeath his patriarchal blessing on them, he designates Reuben as “my first-born”… preeminent in dignity and preeminent in power. (Gen 49:3)

Although Reubin is “first-born” in time, the prominent idea is his status in dignity. This is clearly the meaning in Jeremiah 31:9 where God calls Ephraim his “first-born” even though Ephraim’s brother, Manasseh, was the elder of the two. Or when God calls Israel his first-born son in Exodus 4:22 and commands Pharaoh to “let my son go that he may worship me.” (v.23) The concept has to do with Israel's precedence in importance over Egypt as far as God's plans were concerned. The classic instance of this idea of pre-eminence of rank is in the Messianic Psalms 89 where God, in glowing words, speaks of the coming promise Davidic king, the Lord Messiah:

Psa 89:26 He shall cry to me, 'You are my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation.' 27 And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth. 28 My steadfast love I will keep for him forever, and my covenant will stand firm for him. 29 I will establish his offspring forever and his throne as the days of the heavens.

In the spirit of prophecy, God announces that this king’s superior position is a matter of appointment, not the time of birth. Furthermore, God makes his appointed king "the highest [in status and rank] of the kings of the earth." Thus, when the apostle applies the term “first-born” to the son of God in Colossians 1, he is using a well-known OT Messianic description. In fact, the expression is repeated a few verses later, where Paul writes, “He is also head of the body, the church; and he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead” (v.18). The different qualifier here is noteworthy. Whereas in verse 15 the Son is the “first-born” of all creation,” here the Son is the "first-born from the dead.” If we take into account the Hebrew literary style of parallelism, where the same idea is repeated but in slightly modified form, it is quite reasonable to suggest that the qualifiers "of all creation" and "from the dead" means the same thing.

The thought is clearly that Jesus the son of God is the first man of God's new creation, because he is the first man ever to be raised to immortality. Christ returned is the beginning of the eschatological resurrection. His resurrection is the promise and the guarantee that God's new order of reality has begun. The church is that new community in prospect. This confirms that the subject matter under discussion is not the Genesis creation of the heavens and the earth, but rather the creation of the church, the body of believers who constitute God's new humanity, the New Man(kind). For this reason, he is the beginning (arche which has an ambivalence, and can mean either the ruler or chief, or origin or beginning, v. 18) Either way, Jesus as the first-raised from the dead is the origin of God's new creation, and he is in consequence of this priority and resurrection also the highest in rank "so that he himself might come to have first place in everything" (v.18). However, whether we take the term firstborn to mean first in relation to time or first in relation to rank, this much is at least clear, that taken in its natural sense, the expression and firstborn excludes the notion of an uncreated, eternal being.
To be born requires a beginning. In order to verify our findings so far, we must look at the second part of the phrase that the son is "the first-born of all creation."

Mark 16:15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.