Rejection of Jesus, why?
Comments
-
@reformed said:
One single being, yes. You, however, ignored the verse I spoke of. Let US make man in OUR own image. That is not speaking of one person.The point I think Wolfgang is making is that Genesis 1.27 basically restates Genesis 1.26. Were there any Godhead-defining significance to the plural pronoun in v.26, it's reasonable to believe we'd see a repetition of "us" in v.27... but we don't. Similarly, were there any defining significance to the "us" in Genesis 11.7, it's reasonable to assume we'd see the pronoun again in Genesis 11.9... but we don't. Why not?
The larger question: Why don't we see a plural pronoun in reference to God ANYWHERE else in the Old Testament other than those two locations, Genesis 3.22, and Isaiah 6.8? [NOTE: And as for the latter two verses, we encounter the same outcome: Genesis 3.23 does NOT repeat the plural pronoun of 3.22, and Isaiah 6.9 does NOT repeat the plural pronoun of 6.8.]
Given that singular pronoun references to God in the Old Testament by orders of magnitude outnumber its plural references, I contend that the most reasonable function of the plural pronouns in the cited verses is something other than to identify/quantify the Godhead.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
One single being, yes. You, however, ignored the verse I spoke of. Let US make man in OUR own image. That is not speaking of one person.The point I think Wolfgang is making is that Genesis 1.27 basically restates Genesis 1.26. Were there any Godhead-defining significance to the plural pronoun in v.26, it's reasonable to believe we'd see a repetition of "us" in v.27... but we don't. Similarly, were there any defining significance to the "us" in Genesis 11.7, it's reasonable to assume we'd see the pronoun again in Genesis 11.9... but we don't. Why not?
The larger question: Why don't we see a plural pronoun in reference to God ANYWHERE else in the Old Testament other than those two locations, Genesis 3.22, and Isaiah 6.8? [NOTE: And as for the latter two verses, we encounter the same outcome: Genesis 3.23 does NOT repeat the plural pronoun of 3.22, and Isaiah 6.9 does NOT repeat the plural pronoun of 6.8.]
Given that singular pronoun references to God in the Old Testament by orders of magnitude outnumber its plural references, I contend that the most reasonable function of the plural pronouns in the cited verses is something other than to identify/quantify the Godhead.
That would only be reasonable if you ignore the New Testament.
-
@reformed said:
@Bill_Coley said:
Given that singular pronoun references to God in the Old Testament by orders of magnitude outnumber its plural references, I contend that the most reasonable function of the plural pronouns in the cited verses is something other than to identify/quantify the Godhead.That would only be reasonable if you ignore the New Testament.
Your response doesn't address the question I posed in my previous post, so I'll ask it again: Why don't we see a plural pronoun in reference to God ANYWHERE else in the Old Testament other than in Genesis 1.26, Genesis 11.6, Genesis 3.22, and Isaiah 6.8? If the OT supports a Trinitarian theology, why do we find so many times more singular references to God in it than plural references?
As for the New Testament, we come to this dividing line again and again and again in these forums, a line which in my view, seems indelible. You read the NT and conclude beyond doubt that it confirms that Jesus WAS God. I read the NT and conclude beyond doubt that Jesus WAS NOT God. We disagree.
I encountered the latest passage supportive of my point of view in my daily devotional reading today. It's Hebrews 12.22-24, particularly the highlighted section:
22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, 23 and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Heb 12:22–24). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.
In my view, the writer there makes a clear and inarguable distinction between God and Jesus. I believe there is no sense in which those verses can be read to mean that the writer believes Jesus IS God.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
@Bill_Coley said:
Given that singular pronoun references to God in the Old Testament by orders of magnitude outnumber its plural references, I contend that the most reasonable function of the plural pronouns in the cited verses is something other than to identify/quantify the Godhead.That would only be reasonable if you ignore the New Testament.
Your response doesn't address the question I posed in my previous post, so I'll ask it again: Why don't we see a plural pronoun in reference to God ANYWHERE else in the Old Testament other than in Genesis 1.26, Genesis 11.6, Genesis 3.22, and Isaiah 6.8? If the OT supports a Trinitarian theology, why do we find so many times more singular references to God in it than plural references?
Because God the Father did the primary work in the OT.
As for the New Testament, we come to this dividing line again and again and again in these forums, a line which in my view, seems indelible. You read the NT and conclude beyond doubt that it confirms that Jesus WAS God. I read the NT and conclude beyond doubt that Jesus WAS NOT God. We disagree.
You have to ignore passages to say he was not God. You don't ignore anything to say he is.
I encountered the latest passage supportive of my point of view in my daily devotional reading today. It's Hebrews 12.22-24, particularly the highlighted section:
22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, 23 and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Heb 12:22–24). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.
In my view, the writer there makes a clear and inarguable distinction between God and Jesus. I believe there is no sense in which those verses can be read to mean that the writer believes Jesus IS God.
A distinction between the Father and the Son, yes.
-
@reformed said:
@Bill_Coley said:
Your response doesn't address the question I posed in my previous post, so I'll ask it again: Why don't we see a plural pronoun in reference to God ANYWHERE else in the Old Testament other than in Genesis 1.26, Genesis 11.6, Genesis 3.22, and Isaiah 6.8? If the OT supports a Trinitarian theology, why do we find so many times more singular references to God in it than plural references?
Because God the Father did the primary work in the OT.
This comes across to me as a rationalization, not an explanation. I know of no textual support for your suggestion. What about the Genesis and Isaiah passages previously cited? The dispositive value of each is severely diminished by the fact that the plural pronoun reference to God in each is followed, almost immediately, by a singular pronoun reference to God. The texts can't maintain a "Trinitarian" view of God for more than one verse?!
In your view, what explains the return to singular pronouns in reference to God in the next or following verse?
As for the New Testament, we come to this dividing line again and again and again in these forums, a line which in my view, seems indelible. You read the NT and conclude beyond doubt that it confirms that Jesus WAS God. I read the NT and conclude beyond doubt that Jesus WAS NOT God. We disagree.
You have to ignore passages to say he was not God. You don't ignore anything to say he is.
This is your view. Good. In my view, I don't ignore anything.
I encountered the latest passage supportive of my point of view in my daily devotional reading today. It's Hebrews 12.22-24, particularly the highlighted section:
In my view, the writer there makes a clear and inarguable distinction between God and Jesus. I believe there is no sense in which those verses can be read to mean that the writer believes Jesus IS God.A distinction between the Father and the Son, yes.
Where in the text of Hebrews do you find mention of a distinction between God the Father and God the Son? Please be specific when you cite verses/passages. The passage I cited makes NO mention of such a distinction. In fact, in Hebrews 1.5 the author of Hebrews says God said to Jesus "You are my Son, today I have begotten you.... "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son." [small "s"] AND, Hebrews 2.11 claims that Jesus and those he sanctifies have the same Father:
For the one who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one Father
The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version. (1989). (Heb 2:11). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.
I find NO Trinitarian-supportive reference to God the Father and God the Son in the epistle of Hebrews. I look forward to the verses/passages you will cite.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
@Bill_Coley said:
Your response doesn't address the question I posed in my previous post, so I'll ask it again: Why don't we see a plural pronoun in reference to God ANYWHERE else in the Old Testament other than in Genesis 1.26, Genesis 11.6, Genesis 3.22, and Isaiah 6.8? If the OT supports a Trinitarian theology, why do we find so many times more singular references to God in it than plural references?
Because God the Father did the primary work in the OT.
This comes across to me as a rationalization, not an explanation. I know of no textual support for your suggestion. What about the Genesis and Isaiah passages previously cited? The dispositive value of each is severely diminished by the fact that the plural pronoun reference to God in each is followed, almost immediately, by a singular pronoun reference to God. The texts can't maintain a "Trinitarian" view of God for more than one verse?!
On the contrary, it actually does maintain the Trinitarian view because God is one.
In your view, what explains the return to singular pronouns in reference to God in the next or following verse?
As for the New Testament, we come to this dividing line again and again and again in these forums, a line which in my view, seems indelible. You read the NT and conclude beyond doubt that it confirms that Jesus WAS God. I read the NT and conclude beyond doubt that Jesus WAS NOT God. We disagree.
You have to ignore passages to say he was not God. You don't ignore anything to say he is.
This is your view. Good. In my view, I don't ignore anything.
I encountered the latest passage supportive of my point of view in my daily devotional reading today. It's Hebrews 12.22-24, particularly the highlighted section:
In my view, the writer there makes a clear and inarguable distinction between God and Jesus. I believe there is no sense in which those verses can be read to mean that the writer believes Jesus IS God.A distinction between the Father and the Son, yes.
Where in the text of Hebrews do you find mention of a distinction between God the Father and God the Son? Please be specific when you cite verses/passages. The passage I cited makes NO mention of such a distinction. In fact, in Hebrews 1.5 the author of Hebrews says God said to Jesus "You are my Son, today I have begotten you.... "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son." [small "s"] AND, Hebrews 2.11 claims that Jesus and those he sanctifies have the same Father:
It's called the whole of Scripture. And yet, it is not a literal Father is it? So it must mean something else.
For the one who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one Father
The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version. (1989). (Heb 2:11). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.
I find NO Trinitarian-supportive reference to God the Father and God the Son in the epistle of Hebrews. I look forward to the verses/passages you will cite.
All the references you have cited thus far supports it.
-
@reformed said:
On the contrary, it actually does maintain the Trinitarian view because God is one.God is one WHAT? One trio? one family of three? one group or team of three? one something else? ???
Trinity followers always claim that "God is one ..." and never say what they mean as they never explain what kind of one. Sometimes, they dodge admitting their obvious error by claiming that God is one big unexplainable mystery. How Trinity folks know that God is supposedly THREE even though the Trinity is a mystery is perhaps an even bigger mystery.
Scripture however teaches that there is only ONE person -- the Father, the Creator, the Holy One of Israel, the Almighty, the Ancient of Days -- who ALONE is the true God. The most clear statement confirming this truth are Jesus' very own words (cp. John 17:3) ... which Trinity folks ignore, deny and flat out contradict in their insistence that they know better
Post edited by [Deleted User] on -
@reformed said:
...
On the contrary, it actually does maintain the Trinitarian view because God is one.
...
...
It's called the whole of Scripture. And yet, it is not a literal Father is it? So it must mean something else.
...
...
All the references you have cited thus far supports it.Your manner of replying by just making claims and blanket statements is quite revealing and makes one wonder why you even reply to posts in which Scripture references are provided and details given as support and proof and reason for the other person's understanding.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
On the contrary, it actually does maintain the Trinitarian view because God is one.God is one WHAT? One trio? one family of three? one group or team of three? one something else? ???
Trinity followers always claim that "God is one ..." and never say what they mean as they never explain what kind of one. Sometimes, they dodge admitting their obvious error by claiming that God is one big unexplainable mystery. How Trinity folks know that God is supposedly THREE even though the Trinity is a mystery is perhaps an even bigger mystery.
Scripture however teaches that there is only ONE person -- the Father, the Creator, the Holy One of Israel, the Almighty, the Ancient of Days -- who ALONE is the true God. The most clear statement confirming this truth are Jesus' very own words (cp. John 17:3) ... which Trinity folks ignore, deny and flat out contradict in their insistence that they know better
Three persons, one being/entity/essence.
-
@reformed said:
On the contrary, it actually does maintain the Trinitarian view because God is one.
I don't understand how this demonstrates the truth of your claim, or how it responds to the question I asked. It reads to me more as if you've created a sentence that employs two prominent terms in the Trinitarian debate, but also a sentence that has no substantive consequence and that stands alone, without supporting evidence.
From the WHOLE of the Old Testament, you can cite three verses which in your view support a Trinitarian theology. Yet IN EVERY CASE, those verses are followed, almost immediately, by a singular pronoun reference to God. So the VAST, VAST majority of references to God in the OT are singular, and the three you cite that aren't singular are immediately reoriented within two verses. That's simply not a compelling case for an OT that embraces Trinitarian theology.
Where in the text of Hebrews do you find mention of a distinction between God the Father and God the Son? Please be specific when you cite verses/passages. The passage I cited makes NO mention of such a distinction. In fact, in Hebrews 1.5 the author of Hebrews says God said to Jesus "You are my Son, today I have begotten you.... "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son." [small "s"] AND, Hebrews 2.11 claims that Jesus and those he sanctifies have the same Father:
I find NO Trinitarian-supportive reference to God the Father and God the Son in the epistle of Hebrews. I look forward to the verses/passages you will cite.All the references you have cited thus far supports it.
As I noted in my previous post, the passage I cited makes NO Trinitarian-supportive mention of God and Jesus. In fact, in Hebrews 1.5 the author says God said to Jesus "You are my Son, today I have begotten you.... "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son." [small "s"] AND, Hebrews 2.11 claims that Jesus and those he sanctifies have the same Father. Those verses do NOT support a Trinitarian view. In fact, I contend, they clearly dispute one.
-
No ... Scripture does not know anything about "three persons, one being/entity/essence" in reference to the one true God.
So you are now saying that "God" is an essence but not an acting Spirit "person"? "God" is the essence in which 3 persons exist? or what do you really mean to say? "God", being an essence, would actually be a thing, an "it" ...
Please, do't throw around senseless terms and phrases, and instead just answer the simple questions which help explain what you are actually talking about
Post edited by [Deleted User] on -
@Wolfgang said:
No ... Scripture does not know anything about "three persons, one being/entity/essence" in reference to the one true God.
So you are now saying that "God" is an essence but not an acting Spirit "person"? "God" is the essence in which 3 persons exist? or what do you really mean to say? "God", being an essence, would actually be a thing, an "it" ...
Please, do't throw around senseless terms and phrases, and instead just answer the simple questions which help explain what you are actually talking about
Already have. I can't help it if you refuse to even try to understand what the Bible says because it doesn't fit your worldview.
-
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
No ... Scripture does not know anything about "three persons, one being/entity/essence" in reference to the one true God.
So you are now saying that "God" is an essence but not an acting Spirit "person"? "God" is the essence in which 3 persons exist? or what do you really mean to say? "God", being an essence, would actually be a thing, an "it" ...
Please, don't throw around senseless terms and phrases, and instead just answer the simple questions which help explain what you are actually talking about
Already have.
Where have you explained what you are talking about?
And yes, you have thrown around phrases to no end which don't answer or explain anything.I can't help it if you refuse to even try to understand what the Bible says because it doesn't fit your worldview.
And another phrase accusing the other person ... is it because YOU - from the points raised and scriptures shown - are realizing the foolishness of the Trinity dogma and that this dogma is unbiblical ?
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
No ... Scripture does not know anything about "three persons, one being/entity/essence" in reference to the one true God.
So you are now saying that "God" is an essence but not an acting Spirit "person"? "God" is the essence in which 3 persons exist? or what do you really mean to say? "God", being an essence, would actually be a thing, an "it" ...
Please, don't throw around senseless terms and phrases, and instead just answer the simple questions which help explain what you are actually talking about
Already have.
Where have you explained what you are talking about?
And yes, you have thrown around phrases to no end which don't answer or explain anything.I can't help it if you refuse to even try to understand what the Bible says because it doesn't fit your worldview.
And another phrase accusing the other person ... is it because YOU - from the points raised and scriptures shown - are realizing the foolishness of the Trinity dogma and that this dogma is unbiblical ?
No, the Trinity is blatantly obvious in Scripture. How someone can miss it astounds me.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
As I noted in my previous post, the passage I cited makes NO Trinitarian-supportive mention of God and Jesus. In fact, in Hebrews 1.5 the author says God said to Jesus "You are my Son, today I have begotten you.... "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son." [small "s"] AND, Hebrews 2.11 claims that Jesus and those he sanctifies have the same Father. Those verses do NOT support a Trinitarian view. In fact, I contend, they clearly dispute one.Bill,
The cited texts may "NOT support a Trinitarian view" in one place, but Heb 2:11, reflects the Sonshow the same attributes who "sanctifies" as the Father (1 Thess. 5:23) and the Holy Spirit (1 Pet. 1:2).If you accept the Bible as a whole and the "inspired" word of God, I can share with for better understanding (not to convince you against your will) Scriptural proof for where the FATHER, SON, and HOLY SPIRIT possessed and manifested the same divine attributes:
- Called God
- Creator
- Resurrects
- Indwells
- Everywhere
- All knowing
- Sanctifies
- Life-giver
- Fellowship
- Eternal
- A Will
- Speaks
- Love
- Searches the heart
- We belong to
- Savior
- We serve
- Believe in
- Gives joy
- Judges
When one accepts the entire Bible, believe it or not, there are passages in the Old Testament that Teach Plurality in the Oneness of God. Let the Bible speak for itself and don't impose human limitations on it revelations. Keep reading, praying, trusting, and believing. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
The cited texts may "NOT support a Trinitarian view" in one place, but Heb 2:11, reflects the Sonshow the same attributes who "sanctifies" as the Father (1 Thess. 5:23) and the Holy Spirit (1 Pet. 1:2).I don't know what you mean by "the Sonshow," CM. Please say some more.
In my view, the significance of Hebrews 2.11 to the Trinity debate is that it seems clearly to place Jesus and those he sanctifies on the same plane, as "brothers" or children of the same "Father," depending on the translation employed. Notice also the fuller context of the verse, where the writer puts what I consider to be very non-Trinitarian language in the mouth of the glorified Jesus: (emphasis added)
11 For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers, 12 saying,
“I will tell of your name to my brothers;
in the midst of the congregation I will sing your praise.”
13 And again,
“I will put my trust in him.”
And again,
“Behold, I and the children God has given me.”The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Heb 2:11–13). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.
In my view, the writer depicts Jesus as a child of God - so, in league with or a "brother" to other children of God - and as one who praises and depends on God. I find no language at all sympathetic to Trinitarian thought in that description. In fact, I find that language specifically contrary to Trinitarian thought.
A critical issue for me with respect to this and every text relevant to the Trinity is what do the author's words tell us about what he believes regarding the relationship of God and Jesus? In my view, it's clear that the author does NOT believe Jesus is God, but rather is one of God's children.
If you accept the Bible as a whole and the "inspired" word of God, I can share with for better understanding (not to convince you against your will) Scriptural proof for where the FATHER, SON, and HOLY SPIRIT possessed and manifested the same divine attributes:
I accept the Bible inspired by God, but I do not accept your contentions about Jesus.
- Called God
There are a couple of verses that can be viewed to make this claim. But there are dozens and dozens of verses - many which quote Jesus himself - that declare a clear, inviolable distinction between God and Jesus. Perhaps the most powerful one is Luke 18.19... (emphasis added)
18 And a ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 19 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Lk 18:18–19). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.
The most common sensible reading of Jesus' question is that it is an objection to the man's making any reference to him that equates him with God.
- Creator
There are verses that make this claim. But Hebrews 2 says God is the one through whom all things were created, AND that God and Jesus are in no way the same entity.
- Resurrects
Jesus raises some from the dead, but it is God's power he uses to do so. Further, there are many verses that make clear that Jesus did not raise himself; God raised him (Romans 6.4; Romans 6.9; Romans 7.4; 1 Corinthians 6.14; Philippians 3.10; Colossians 2.12)
- Indwells
- Everywhere
- All knowing
- Sanctifies
- Life-giver
- Fellowship
- Eternal
- A Will
- Speaks
- Love
- Searches the heart
- We belong to
- Savior
- We serve
- Believe in
- Gives joy
- Judges
I don't have time to address all of these, CM. My apologies. The bottom line for me is that in my view, the overwhelming majority of NT verses (90%, perhaps?) make clear that Jesus is not God. In my view - and I respect that you disagree - it does not make sense that the vast majority of verses would interpret the relationship between Jesus in a manner contrary to the truth, which is in fact given by the distinct minority of verses.
When one accepts the entire Bible, believe it or not, there are passages in the Old Testament that Teach Plurality in the Oneness of God. Let the Bible speak for itself and don't impose human limitations on it revelations. Keep reading, praying, trusting, and believing. CM
I don't know which OT verses you're referring to, of course, but an issue similar to the one I just summarized arises in the Old Testament. The vast majority of verses (99%, perhaps?) declare God as one, a single entity, without "plurality" characteristics. How could the vast majority of verses depict God in a way contrary to the truth, given instead by the distinct minority of verses? [cf.. the Genesis and Isaiah verses I've addressed elsewhere in this thread, in which plural references to God are followed in the next or succeeding verses by singular references to God.]
-
@reformed said:
No, the Trinity is blatantly obvious in Scripture. How someone can miss it astounds me.
IF indeed the Trinity was that blatantly obvious in Scripture, I would think you could point out to me at least just one passage which is an OBVIOUS Trinity statement?
Since that should not be difficult according to your above statement, I am expecting your post with such one passage shortly.Please note:
Do NOT post passages which actually require complicate interpretations and which do NOT obviously have the Trinity in it. -
@C_M_ said:
If you accept the Bible as a whole and the "inspired" word of God, I can share with for better understanding (not to convince you against your will) Scriptural proof for where the FATHER, SON, and HOLY SPIRIT possessed and manifested the same divine attributes:Well, C_M I do accept the Bible as a whole and the inspired word of God ... but certainly disagree with your idea that your following list is Scriptural proof for a Trinity, because I deem it to be faulty.
- Called God
Jesus is not called "God" in the sense that he is the true God. Actually, Jesus himself in various statements makes clear that he and the true God - Whom Jesus considers to be his Father !! - are separate and distinct from each other.
- Creator
Jesus is not the Creator ... that Spirit (cp Jesus' words in Joh 4:24) Who is the Creator is Jesus' Father, but not Jesus himself
- Resurrects
Did Jesus raise himself from the dead?? Is Scripture not clear that God. his Father, raised him from the dead?
- Indwells
What do you mean with "indwells"? Where is Jesus said to indwell anybody?
- Everywhere
Jesus is not everywhere ... even the resurrected human being Jesus is in one place, that is, seated at the right hand of God.
- All knowing
Where does Scripture say anything about Jesus being all knowing? Jesus himself claimed only to know what God - his Father - had revealed and made known to him.
- Sanctifies
- Life-giver
Would Jesus' words about "of myself I can do nothing" shed some light on these points?
- Fellowship
Believers have fellowship with God ... are they also "God"?
- Eternal
Jesus is not eternal ... according to Mat 1:18 he had a "genesis / beginning", when Mary conceived by God working a miracle via His holy spirit power.
- A Will
Did Jesus not clearly distinguish that he had a separate will from God's (his Father's) will, when he spoke of "not mine, but thy will be done" ??
- Speaks
Many speak ... are all "God"?
- Love
Many love ... are all "God"?
- Searches the heart
God is said to search man's heart ... Jesus only knows what God (his Father) made known to him
- We belong to
??
- Savior
God is the ultimate Savior, in that He devised the plan of salvation which involved a man giving his life to redeem and save all who would believe on him.
Jesus is that man, whom God sent, and who became savior in the sense of mediator.- We serve
Since Jesus is God's Son and sent by God, when one serves him, one serves the One Who sent him.
- Believe in
Hopefully, we believe correctly in God and in His only begotten Son, the man Christ Jesus. Believing in Jesus being the almighty God however would be a grave error. The fact that people "believe in" does not make the person in whom they believe or trust to be God, does it?
- Gives joy
See No 18 ...
- Judges
Cp. Acts 17:31 - which clearly states that God (Jesus' Father) has appointed a day, in the which He will judge the world in righteousness by THE MAN [Jesus - God's only begotten Son] whom God ordained ...
Also, Jesus mentions that he did not of himself have the right to judge, but rather that such was given to him by God (his Father).When one accepts the entire Bible, believe it or not, there are passages in the Old Testament that Teach Plurality in the Oneness of God.
This is a false statement, which correctly would read "When one accepts the Trinity dogma, believe it or not, there are passages in the OT which are interpreted to teach a plurality in the oneness of God"
Let the Bible speak for itself and don't impose human limitations on it revelations. Keep reading, praying, trusting, and believing.
I wish, you would do so ... instead of posting what you posted and claimed was what the Bible teaches but which is a listing full of errors and not what the Bible teaches.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
No, the Trinity is blatantly obvious in Scripture. How someone can miss it astounds me.
IF indeed the Trinity was that blatantly obvious in Scripture, I would think you could point out to me at least just one passage which is an OBVIOUS Trinity statement?
Since that should not be difficult according to your above statement, I am expecting your post with such one passage shortly.Please note:
Do NOT post passages which actually require complicate interpretations and which do NOT obviously have the Trinity in it.Sorry I don't isolate Scripture. I look at the whole.
-
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
No, the Trinity is blatantly obvious in Scripture. How someone can miss it astounds me.
IF indeed the Trinity was that blatantly obvious in Scripture, I would think you could point out to me at least just one passage which is an OBVIOUS Trinity statement?
Since that should not be difficult according to your above statement, I am expecting your post with such one passage shortly.Please note:
Do NOT post passages which actually require complicate interpretations and which do NOT obviously have the Trinity in it.Sorry I don't isolate Scripture. I look at the whole.
From your one liner comments you are showing us that you appear to not look at Scripture at all. A rather sorry situation ...
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
No, the Trinity is blatantly obvious in Scripture. How someone can miss it astounds me.
IF indeed the Trinity was that blatantly obvious in Scripture, I would think you could point out to me at least just one passage which is an OBVIOUS Trinity statement?
Since that should not be difficult according to your above statement, I am expecting your post with such one passage shortly.Please note:
Do NOT post passages which actually require complicate interpretations and which do NOT obviously have the Trinity in it.Sorry I don't isolate Scripture. I look at the whole.
From your one liner comments you are showing us that you appear to not look at Scripture at all. A rather sorry situation ...
No, I'm just not interested in conversations that stupidly ask "Give me one passage to solidify this doctrine"
That's not how you interpret Scripture. You want to isolate, I take the whole. We have shown you more than enough references to prove the Trinity.
-
@reformed said:
No, I'm just not interested in conversations that stupidly ask "Give me one passage to solidify this doctrine"
That's not how you interpret Scripture. You want to isolate, I take the whole. We have shown you more than enough references to prove the Trinity.
No. You've given "more than enough references to prove the Trinity" IN YOUR VIEW. In my and Wolfgang's views, WE have given "more than enough references" to DISprove the Trinity.
And there's nothing "stupid" about either your view or ours.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@C_M_ said:
The cited texts may "NOT support a Trinitarian view" in one place, but Heb 2:11, reflects the Sonshow the same attributes who "sanctifies" as the Father (1 Thess. 5:23) and the Holy Spirit (1 Pet. 1:2).I don't know what you mean by "the Sonshow," CM. Please say some more.
Bill,
Thanks for your response. To clarify your concerns, I hoped to convey that Jesus manifested the same attributes as the Father. One of many attributes throughout Scripture appears in the above text (Heb 2:11). That is, "sanctifies" "set apart". See also Heb. 10:10. Do we agree to this much about Jesus?In my view, the significance of Hebrews 2.11 to the Trinity debate is that it seems clearly to place Jesus and those he sanctifies on the same plane, as "brothers" or children of the same "Father," depending on the translation employed. Notice also the fuller context of the verse, where the writer puts what I consider to be very non-Trinitarian language in the mouth of the glorified Jesus: (emphasis added)
Staying with the "fuller text, please read Hebrews 2:9, 10, really the whole chapter for context:
- Heb. 2:7 set him over the works of Your hands. One can see from Ps. 8:4–6 that God’s original purpose was to crown humans “with glory and honor” as rulers over creation.
- Heb. 2:8 we do not yet see. -- We have not yet seen the fulfillment of this plan (see v. 7). The readers of this book have experienced the opposite: persecution and shame (see Heb. 10:32–34; 12:2–3; 13:3, 13).
- Heb. 2:9 But we see Jesus. -- The plan is fulfilled in Jesus (see v. 7). He is the “man/son of man” who was “crowned with glory and honor.” In becoming human, Jesus was made “a little lower than the angels” so that He “might taste death for everyone” (vv. 6–9) and lead us to “glory” (v. 10). Thus, Jesus became both our representative/substitute and our example. He died “for everyone” (v. 9) and lived a perfect life (Heb. 4:15; 7:26).
- He endured suffering and shame so that we might “consider” Him and follow Him through suffering into glory (Heb. 3:1; 12:1–4).
Look again, Jesus was (Heb. 1:1–4) and is greater than the angels as He has been exalted above them (Heb. 1:5–14).
- Heb. 2:10 perfect through sufferings. -- Jesus' death on the cross enabled Jesus to become the Savior of His “brethren.” In this sense, His “sufferings” perfected or qualified Jesus to become our Savior.
- See Heb. 10:10 By that will. By God’s will. We are saved because of Jesus’ perfect obedience to God’s will (vv. 5–7). God and Jesus work together for our salvation (see above in 2:9; see Matt. 18:14; Gal. 1:4; Eph. 1:5).
11 For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers, 12 saying,
“I will tell of your name to my brothers;
in the midst of the congregation I will sing your praise.”
13 And again,
“I will put my trust in him.”
And again,
“Behold, I and the children God has given me.”The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Heb 2:11–13). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.
In my view, the writer depicts Jesus as a child of God - so, in league with or a "brother" to other children of God - and as one who praises and depends on God. I find no language at all sympathetic to Trinitarian thought in that description. In fact, I find that language specifically contrary to Trinitarian thought.
Once again, Heb. 2.10 = Jesus' death on the cross enabled Jesus to become the Savior of His “brethren.” He experienced suffering and death (vv. 14–16). He is not a sinner, however. The writer of Hebrews says that Jesus is “separate from sinners” because He did not sin (Heb. 7:26–28; also 4:15); otherwise, He could not have been a perfect sacrifice in our behalf (Heb. 9:14; 10:5–10).
A critical issue for me with respect to this and every text relevant to the Trinity is what do the author's words tell us about what he believes regarding the relationship of God and Jesus? In my view, it's clear that the author does NOT believe Jesus is God, but rather is one of God's children.
I can't agree with you on this. May I suggest you re-read the book of Hebrews again with much prayer, before and afterward.
@ CM said: If you accept the Bible as a whole and the "inspired" word of God, I can share with for better understanding (not to convince you against your will) Scriptural proof for where the FATHER, SON, and HOLY SPIRIT possessed and manifested the same divine attributes:
@ Bill said: I don't have time to address all of these, CM. My apologies. The bottom line for me is that in my view, the overwhelming majority of NT verses (90%, perhaps?) make clear that Jesus is not God. In my view - and I respect that you disagree - it does not make sense that the vast majority of verses would interpret the relationship between Jesus in a manner contrary to the truth, which is in fact given by the distinct minority of verses.
I don't know if it makes a difference, but I didn't expect you or Wolfgang to respond to
list because I haven't supplied the textual support I have in view. As you can see above I said:CM: If you accept the Bible as a whole and the "inspired" word of God...
CM: I can share... Scriptural proof for where the FATHER, SON, and HOLY SPIRIT possessed and manifested the same divine attributes:When one accepts the entire Bible, believe it or not, there are passages in the Old Testament that Teach Plurality in the Oneness of God. Let the Bible speak for itself and don't impose human limitations on it revelations. Keep reading, praying, trusting, and believing. CM
Furthermore, when you said:
@ Bill said: I don't know which OT verses you're referring to, of course, but an issue similar to the one I just summarized arises in the Old Testament. The vast majority of verses (99%, perhaps?) declare God as one, a single entity, without "plurality" characteristics. How could the vast majority of verses depict God in a way contrary to the truth, given instead by the distinct minority of verses? [cf.. the Genesis and Isaiah verses I've addressed elsewhere in this thread, in which plural references to God are followed in the next or succeeding verses by singular references to God.]
With your approach and conclusions, it appears that some truths will remain unearthed (whether for lack of time or hardened positions) for other or another to excavate with openness, prayer, and Bible study. CM
PS. I am not upset or trying to be judgmental, in any way. Time, regardless of delay, is a revealer of truth.
-
@C_M_ said:
I can't agree with you on this. May I suggest you re-read the book of Hebrews again with much prayer, before and afterward.Are you suggesting that with much prayer before and after reading Scripture one will believe in the Trinity doctrine?
I don't know if it makes a difference, but I didn't expect you or Wolfgang to respond to
list because I haven't supplied the textual support I have in view. As you can see above I said:CM: If you accept the Bible as a whole and the "inspired" word of God...
CM: I can share... Scriptural proof for where the FATHER, SON, and HOLY SPIRIT possessed and manifested the same divine attributes:In a previous post I did take the time and made the effort to reply in detail to your listing of what you provided as "Scriptural proof" ...
-
Nobody asked "give me one passage to solidify this doctrine", rather the request was if you would at least give on passage of Scripture instead of giving no Scripture at all and only your one-liner claim.
However, IF the doctrine is Scripture based one would expect that there would be at least one passage which would clearly provide evidence for it and teach it.
That's not how you interpret Scripture. You want to isolate, I take the whole.
But you haven't taken "the whole" and showed it to us ... you only make general claims and accusations of others, but we are still waiting for you to show your "passages as a whole" (or at least some of the major passages which make up your whole) and to tell us how those passages prove the Trinity dogma.
We have shown you more than enough references to prove the Trinity.
Really? I have replied to a number of posts with what you seem to think of as your "more than enough references" and have done so in detail ... showing straight from the texts of the passages that they do not prove a Trinity. You, however, have never done such going through texts in detail and showing the exact points why a passage proves the Trinity
-
@Wolfgang said:
Nobody asked "give me one passage to solidify this doctrine", rather the request was if you would at least give on passage of Scripture instead of giving no Scripture at all and only your one-liner claim.
However, IF the doctrine is Scripture based one would expect that there would be at least one passage which would clearly provide evidence for it and teach it.
That's not how you interpret Scripture. You want to isolate, I take the whole.
But you haven't taken "the whole" and showed it to us ... you only make general claims and accusations of others, but we are still waiting for you to show your "passages as a whole" (or at least some of the major passages which make up your whole) and to tell us how those passages prove the Trinity dogma.
We have shown you more than enough references to prove the Trinity.
Really? I have replied to a number of posts with what you seem to think of as your "more than enough references" and have done so in detail ... showing straight from the texts of the passages that they do not prove a Trinity. You, however, have never done such going through texts in detail and showing the exact points why a passage proves the Trinity
I've given so many it's not even funny. Others have as well. You just refuse to know Him.
-
@reformed said:
We have shown you more than enough references to prove the Trinity.
Really? I have replied to a number of posts with what you seem to think of as your "more than enough references" and have done so in detail ... showing straight from the texts of the passages that they do not prove a Trinity. You, however, have never done such going through texts in detail and showing the exact points why a passage proves the Trinity
I've given so many it's not even funny. Others have as well. You just refuse to know Him.
Indeed, I don't think it's funny anymore either ... You better point out where you have given so many passages with details, otherwise you would look like a liar.
Who are you to make a statement concerning me (or any other person) like "You just refuse to know Him" ??
-
@C_M_ said:
Thanks for your response. To clarify your concerns, I hoped to convey that Jesus manifested the same attributes as the Father.Thanks for the clarification.
One of many attributes throughout Scripture appears in the above text (Heb 2:11). That is, "sanctifies" "set apart". See also Heb. 10:10. Do we agree to this much about Jesus?
We seem to agree that Jesus is an agent of sanctification, yes. But the power and authority to sanctify does NOT necessarily confer divinity to Jesus. In my view, it simply confers to him authority and power FROM GOD to sanctify.
Staying with the "fuller text, please read Hebrews 2:9, 10, really the whole chapter for context:
In my view, Hebrews 2.9-10 makes a powerful non-Trinitarian statement.
- v.9: Jesus "was made lower than the angels." Someone other than Jesus - namely, God - made Jesus lower than the angels.
- v.9: Jesus is "crowned with glory and honor" by the suffering he endures "by the grace of God." Again Jesus is the object of God's actions, not the actor responsible for those actions. In my view, that denotes clear distinction.
- v.10: It is "fitting" that God is the one who made Jesus - "the founder of their salvation" - "perfect through suffering." Jesus is AGAIN the object of God's actions. More evidence of a clear distinction between subject (God) and object (Jesus).
- Heb. 2:7 set him over the works of Your hands. One can see from Ps. 8:4–6 that God’s original purpose was to crown humans “with glory and honor” as rulers over creation.
In vv.7-8, the ESV reads "you made him" lower than the angels, and "crowned him with glory and honor," and "(put) everything in subjection under his feet." It was GOD who did all those things to/for Jesus. Jesus did not do them to/for himself. Hence, more evidence of a distinction between God and Jesus.
- Heb. 2:8 we do not yet see. -- We have not yet seen the fulfillment of this plan (see v. 7). The readers of this book have experienced the opposite: persecution and shame (see Heb. 10:32–34; 12:2–3; 13:3, 13).
I don't understand how the state of the plan's fulfillment affects whether the text describes Jesus as God. Please help.
- Heb. 2:9 But we see Jesus. -- The plan is fulfilled in Jesus (see v. 7). He is the “man/son of man” who was “crowned with glory and honor.” In becoming human, Jesus was made “a little lower than the angels” so that He “might taste death for everyone” (vv. 6–9) and lead us to “glory” (v. 10). Thus, Jesus became both our representative/substitute and our example. He died “for everyone” (v. 9) and lived a perfect life (Heb. 4:15; 7:26).
Nothing in your explication of the verse says Jesus has to be God. Again I point out that the verse says things happened TO Jesus; they did not happen BECAUSE of Jesus.
Look again, Jesus was (Heb. 1:1–4) and is greater than the angels as He has been exalted above them (Heb. 1:5–14).
Notice what ELSE the opening verses of Hebrews say:
- Heb 1.2: "In these last days" God "has spoken to us by his Son, whom (God) appointed the heir of all things." God - not Jesus - has spoken to us. God - not Jesus - appointed Jesus "heir of all things."
- Heb 1.2: Jesus is the one "through whom also (God) created the world." God created the world; Jesus is the agent through whom God effected that creation. Yet another distinction between God and Jesus.
- Heb 1.3: Jesus is "the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature." This verse is a perfect setting in which to report that Jesus IS God, but that's NOT what the writer does. He reports that Jesus is the image of God; in my view, that's NOT the same as actually being God.
- Heb. 2:10 perfect through sufferings. -- Jesus' death on the cross enabled Jesus to become the Savior of His “brethren.” In this sense, His “sufferings” perfected or qualified Jesus to become our Savior.
Jesus is indeed our savior. But the text does NOT say Jesus is God.
- See Heb. 10:10 By that will. By God’s will. We are saved because of Jesus’ perfect obedience to God’s will (vv. 5–7). God and Jesus work together for our salvation (see above in 2:9; see Matt. 18:14; Gal. 1:4; Eph. 1:5).
In my view, the very structure of your claim - that God and Jesus "work together for our salvation" - declares that God and Jesus are separate identities, that Jesus is NOT God.
A critical issue for me with respect to this and every text relevant to the Trinity is what do the author's words tell us about what he believes regarding the relationship of God and Jesus? In my view, it's clear that the author does NOT believe Jesus is God, but rather is one of God's children.
I can't agree with you on this. May I suggest you re-read the book of Hebrews again with much prayer, before and afterward.I have read, re-read, and re-read Hebrews again multiple times, CM, as I'm sure have you. I have prayed before, during, and after my readings, as I'm sure have you before, during, and after yours. I remain convinced beyond reasonable doubt of my interpretation of the book, as I'm sure do you remain confident beyond reasonable doubt of your interpretation. We disagree.
With your approach and conclusions, it appears that some truths will remain unearthed (whether for lack of time or hardened positions) for other or another to excavate with openness, prayer, and Bible study. CM
I reject your suggestion that that my "approach and conclusions" leave "some truths... unearthed," and I offer no such speculation about your "approach and conclusions." Further, my approach and conclusions are the products of years of preparation and study. Any "harden(ing)" of my "positions" is the result of that preparation and study, which in my view, is a reasonable outcome.
PS. I am not upset or trying to be judgmental, in any way. Time, regardless of delay, is a revealer of truth.
In your view, you have discovered the "truth" about Jesus. Praise God! What I encourage you to accept is that in my view, I also have discovered the "truth" about Jesus. By all appearances, no further "delay" is needed for either of us to have that truth "reveale(d)" to us.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
- Heb 1.3: Jesus is "the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature." This verse is a perfect setting in which to report that Jesus IS God, but that's NOT what the writer does. He reports that Jesus is the image of God; in my view, that's NOT the same as actually being God.
Thanks again, Bill, for the time and your honest responses to my posts. For what it worth, I hope I conveyed that when it comes to the Bible, there is always something for us to learn with openness and humility.
I am not able to comment on all that you said above, but allow me to revisit one of the phrases you raise above:
@Bill_Coley said: "... Jesus is the image of God..."
This phrase has been dealt with in view of man [https://www.christiandiscourse.net/discussion/comment/4653#Comment_4653]. Regardless it worth a second look in hope to move the conversation forward on the Divinity, humanity, and incarnation of Jesus, the Christ.
Dave cites Michael Heiser's "Unseen Realm":
@ Dave said: ...The perfect image of God is seen in Jesus Christ, the second Adam.
2 Cor 4:4. Christ, who is the image of God.
Col 1:15. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. Heb 1:3. [Christ] is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature.
Van Dorn, D. (2015). The Unseen Realm: A Question & Answer Companion. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.@ Bill said: Heb 1.3: Jesus is "the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature."
This verse is a perfect setting in which to report that Jesus IS God, but that's NOT what the writer does. He reports that Jesus is the image of God; in my view, that's NOT the same as actually being God.Did you missed that Jesus is "...the exact imprint of his nature." Jesus is the image of God..." means, “to compare, liken” (Isa 40:18, 25; 46:5, 5) and “image” (Gen 1:26, 27; 5:3; 9:6).
Furthermore, in Heb. 1:3 ---
Brightness of His glory. Just as no one has seen the sun except through its “brightness,” it is only through Jesus that we have known the Father (John 1:18).
"Express image of His person".
- The original refers to an exact representation—like the impress a seal leaves on an object—of the essence or very being of a person.
- Jesus is an exact representation of who God is because He is God (Heb. 1:3–4, 8, 10–12).
For more on the WORK OF CHRIST in revealing the Father, see John 14:9.
Don't forget, the messages of the prophets of the OT were like pieces of a puzzle—all fragmentary and diverse—whose assemblage into the full description of God was only possible when the Son came (Heb. 1:3). CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@ Bill said: Heb 1.3: Jesus is "the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature."
This verse is a perfect setting in which to report that Jesus IS God, but that's NOT what the writer does. He reports that Jesus is the image of God; in my view, that's NOT the same as actually being God.Did you missed that Jesus is "...the exact imprint of his nature." Jesus is the image of God..." means, “to compare, liken” (Isa 40:18, 25; 46:5, 5) and “image” (Gen 1:26, 27; 5:3; 9:6).
I doubt Bill missed that, and I did not miss it either ... What you mention only further supports our view that an "image" or an "imprint" (even an "exact" one) is NOT that person of whom it is the image.
I still know from observation the old fashioned type writers, and I have been in Mainz at the Gutenberg museum where visitors can print a page of the Bible with John 1 using a replica of the print machine used by Gutenberg in his day. And, let me tell you, from observing how the letters as an "exact imprint" end up on the page, it is clear to any person that the imprint on the page is NOT the metal letter of which it is an imprint, no matter how exact the imprint is.
Furthermore, in Heb. 1:3 ---
- Brightness of His glory. Just as no one has seen the sun except through its “brightness,” it is only through Jesus that we have known the Father (John 1:18).
And yet, the "brightness" of the sun is NOT the sun, or are you telling us that it is ?
- "Express image of His person".
- The original refers to an exact representation—like the impress a seal leaves on an object—of the essence or very being of a person.
- Jesus is an exact representation of who God is because He is God (Heb. 1:3–4, 8, 10–12).
See above ... an "exact representation" is NOT that person which is being represented. When I take photo of you with my smartphone camera (or any other camera), you do NOT enter into my camera, rather an "exact representation" is made by the camera and stored in my phone ... This picture is an image of you, but it is NOT actually you.
Don't forget, the messages of the prophets of the OT were like pieces of a puzzle—all fragmentary and diverse—whose assemblage into the full description of God was only possible when the Son came (Heb. 1:3). CM
See above ... the complete puzzle picture is the image of but NOT that "original person or thing, etc" of which it is the picture.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
