Featured Trinity

Greetings again Yeshua1, steaver and The Biblicist,

I appreciate the affirmation of your belief. I believe Jesus was begotten by God the Father by means of the power of the Holy Spirit at the time of his conception and birth. Refer Matthew 1:18-21 – Note: KJV “conceived” has the marginal note “Gr: begotten” and note that this Greek word S#1080 is the same as used approximately 40 times throughout Matthew 1:1-16 and translated “begat”; Luke 1:26-38, note especially v35; John 1:14, 3:16.

I appreciate your testimony and concern. Over the years I have gradually come to appreciate Romans chapters 6-8. My favourite verses are:
Romans 8:1-3 (KJV): 1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
These verses are pivotal to these three chapters, but a correct understanding on chapters 6-8 is also necessary. I hope you grow in understanding of these chapters in the coming years.

I used to attend a lunchtime Bible meeting at work before I retired, and one member was a Baptist who during the wave of division in our local Baptist communities turned Pentecostal. My closest Baptist friend who went the other way and had to leave his Church and joined a conservative Baptist Church said to me concerning the open display of tongues, healing and falling backwards: “that is NOT the Holy Spirit”. The ex-Baptist Pentecostal used to say that the Spirit guided him. I gained the impression that this slightly tipped the balance against the need to be continually renewed and edified by the Word of God, that is, the written Word assimilated and digested, so that the Word becomes a light to our path. I am not sure where you are positioned, steaver, in this spectrum of differing beliefs.

The following gives some encouragement in what I consider the correct direction and could rectify some of the imbalance:
2 Timothy 3:13-17 (KJV): 13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, andis profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Concerning your thoughts, The Biblicist, on Acts 2 and Exodus 3:14 I will defer any further response. I also have not responded to your Isaiah quotations and Revelation 1 quotation. I am content with what I have written on the subject of God the Father and Jesus Christ as the Son of God. I have not responded to every Scripture that is sometimes used to support the Trinity. I prefer to try to understand some of the Scriptures more thoroughly and gradually try to understand others.

For example, I was invited to attend a Seminar series on Daniel at a local SDA Church. The first night on Daniel 1 went off reasonably well, the second on Daniel 2 seemed to clash with my understanding of Daniel 2:35, 44 and when I mentioned this in conversation I also mentioned Acts 3:19-21. A few weeks later when some were away they issued seminar notes on the Trinity. It was a more relaxed evening and more conversation, and the majority voiced their consent to the Trinity and one after another suggested John 10:30 as proof. I stated that I believed that this only taught that Jesus was the Son of God and met with some opposition as a result. I did not attend again, but over the years I gradually tried to understand John 10:30 and some of my Posts in this thread reflect what I have concluded on this subject as a result.

After the holiday break our Senior Sunday School class is going to start on the Book of Revelation and this should take some years – us oldies move slowly but hopefully carefully. One item on my learning agenda is to understand more fully the Vision of Jesus in glory in Revelation 1.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

What you mean is that you cannot answer them and so you need more time to gain some kind argument that can explain them away.

There can be no valid response to Isaiah. Isaiah clearly identifies different Persons within the Godhead who all equally share the same name "Yahweh." The Son of God is identified as "Yahweh of hosts" and "The Holy One Of Israel" and the "Great God" of Israel. Yahweh plainly and unequivocally states that He will not share His glory with another, meaning his unique Personal name "Yahew" and yet The Son of God expressly claims that He in fact did share the glory of the Father "before" coming into the world.

A Spiritualized personification cannot possess creative power and yet the Word, which is identified as the Pre-incarnate Son of God is said to have created all things,, and without him nothing that was made came into being.

Acts 2 has David speaking "concerning" the preincarnate Person of the Christ identifying WHO He is prior to his incarnation and WHAT He will do during His incarnation.

Trevor, you preach "another Jesus" and you definitely preach "another gospel" and you are definitely following "another spirit."

One reason I do not write as much as I used to on this forum, is that I just got tired of dealing with people like you who could care less about truth or objectivity in dealing with the scriptures. You make it quite obvious that you are not even open or objective but are "content" with your own vain imaginations.

 

Greetings again The Biblicist and steaver,

Yesterday I was not prepared to spend much time, and felt weighed down by all that was outstanding to answer from what you have raised. It was also quite evident that we were not agreeing on anything that had been discussed. I also felt like having a quiet time to unwind after our Sunday morning meeting. For me the morning is a time of reflection and rededication, and I prefer to have a quiet time in the afternoon. I was also a bit stressed as our five musicians who accompany the hymns on organ or piano were away on holidays and one at work at the hospital. I had the responsibility of selecting the hymns and meditation portions, and play them via my computer from pre-recorded piano hymns. I selected the first taken from Psalm 145:1-3 “I will extol Thee” by WB Bradbury 1816-68 – I prefer this to “How Great Thou Art” also based in part on Psalm 145. The second a fairly new hymn to us, from Psalm 1 “Blessed are they” by John Barnard. The third and fourth “Beyond where Kedron’s waters flow” and “We shall be like him”. All of them had Scriptural substance and pleasant music, not like some of the one line repetitive modern music with plenty of noise and beat.

To discuss properly and if necessary to answer another person’s view of a Scripture requires firstly a correct and simple (in the sense of uncomplicated) understanding of the passage. There is also a need to try to understand the other person’s explanation and importantly how he really thinks upon a particular verse or passage. If I take for instance the next part of your Post, there is a weaving together of a number of passages and ideas, and some of these ideas I may accept, some ideas may need qualification, and some ideas may need to be disagreed with if necessary.

I assume the above is an accumulation of ideas that I have not answered from your earlier Posts plus possibly a few minor additions. I will list the ones that you have quoted in Post #273: Isaiah 40:3, Mark 1:1, Isaiah 44:6, 41:4, Revelation 1:11, Isaiah 41:17, 43:3, 47:4, 49:7, 48:12,16, 42:8.

I can partly appreciate your perspective on these, but you may not realise that I am not uncomfortable with these verses, but find it difficult to fully explain my overall view to your satisfaction. Taking the last of these, I attempted to show the correct relationship between bowing the knee to Jesus and to God the Father to whom the glory redounds when I considered Philippians 2. I will simply add the verses, and note that in Isaiah 45 all knees will bow to Yahweh, but in Philippians all knees will bow to Jesus to the glory of God the Father. This shows a development and although the ultimate glory goes to the Father, Jesus is also honoured by this obeisance. To use Isaiah 42:8 to exclude Jesus or to try to prove the Trinity in my opinion is missing the true import of these passages.
Isaiah 42:8 (KJV): I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.
Isaiah 45:21-25 (KJV): 21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. 22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. 23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. 24 Surely, shall one say, in the LORD have I righteousness and strength: even to him shall men come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed. 25 In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory.
Philippians 2:8-11 (KJV): 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

One brief initial comment on all the other Isaiah passages is that most of them are similar in kind. There is a development. God has raised up a Saviour, Jesus, to accomplish his purpose and Salvation.
Matthew 1:21 (KJV): 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

This is an example of how you misunderstand my point of view. You are still looking for a literal person called Wisdom or the Word, not a personification or a simile. I believe that God the Father is the Creator. It was God the Father’s Wisdom, God the Father’s Word that created all things.
Psalm 33:6-9 (KJV): 6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. 7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. 8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. 9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

I have read again Proverbs 8 and I question whether you believe that all of Proverbs 8, the woman called “Wisdom” is the pre-incarnate Jesus.
Proverbs 8:1-4 (KJV): 1 Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice? 2 She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths. 3 She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors. 4 Unto you, O men, I call; and my voice is to the sons of man.
Now you say that in the time of David or sometime before, Jesus had been standing. Then God the Father who was seated on his throne invited Jesus to sit on his right hand. Could you tell me what prompted God to invite him in the time of David? What was the special occasion? Did God the Holy Spirit also sit down in the throne, perhaps on the left side of God? Now in the time of Solomon did Jesus dress up and appear as a wise woman, standing in the top of high places, and did he (she in Proverbs 8) cry aloud at the gates?

I can almost appreciate what you are claiming, but my mind cannot stretch that far to accept this explanation. Another example of where David spoke a Psalm probably when he was in severe trial is Psalm 22, but the words of the Psalm are much more actually the words of Christ in his trial and crucifixion. This is the spirit of Christ in the Psalms.

I appreciate your response steaver, and I hope I have not offended you when I mentioned a few of my experiences with people who claimed to have the “spirit”. I hope this does not further upset you, but my daughter told me that when they were in a country region for a while they decided to attend a Baptist Church because they were to some extent isolated and needed company. They did not last long because well-meaning members, who stated that they had a message for them, continually harassed them. They claimed that the “spirit” gave them this message. The report I heard was that some of these messages were rather ridiculous. Both my daughter who is a High School science teacher, and my son-in-law who is a University Lecturer would not be altogether confused as to whether the messages were sensible or not. They also are fairly spiritually discerning. I do not know whether this is widespread amongst the Baptists, or if it was only the flavour of the month in this particular Church.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

What you have done is simply ignore the quotations in Isaiah that really repudiate your whole position. Your problem is that the texts you have ignored demand the preexistence of the Son of God AT THE TIME OF ISAIAH as Yahweh of hosts and the Holy One of Israel. Anyone who has even done a cursury study of the Old Testament knows these two designations are not merely the terms descriptive of the God of Israel at the time of Isaiah but throughout the Old Testament Scriptures. So you have ignored the most potent scriptures that expose your error and settled on scriptures that you can deflect to a later time than Isaiah as predictive fulfillment with the incarnate aspect of the Son of God. Very clever.

One breif response - you are telling a lie! They are not "similar in kind" at all!

Isa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and HIS redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Note the present tense "saith" but TWO different Persons are speaking the same thing (1) The LORD the king of Israel (2) AND HIS REDEEMER the Lord of Hosts. What they both say in unison is "I am the first,and I am the last; beside me there is no God."

Thus there are TWO Persons claiming to be Yahweh and TWO PERSONS claiming to be the first and last and TWO PERSONS claiming there is no other "elohim" (plural) God but the singular "me"

This is said in present tense at the time of Isaiah BEFORE the incarnation.

Thus if there are TWO Persons claiming to be the first and last than both are sharing this title and so we read:


Isa 41:4 Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and WITH the last; I am he.

The word "WITH" shows CO-EXISTENCE prior to the incarnation. Again, TWO Persons claiming to be Yahweh at the time of Isaiah. The post resurrected Son of God also claims the very same titles:

Rev. 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man,

This language defies your explanations. Two Persons claiming to be "the first"! No created being would dare make such an assertion of equality with Yahweh as by nature any created being is not "the first". Your view that the Son of God had no existence prior to the incarnation does not make the Son of God "first" even as a creature as all the creatures prior to the incarnation preexisted the Son of God according to your view. To claim he is the "first" in regard to exalted post-resurrection position is equally erroneous as Christ himself claims that his post-resurrected postion is NOTHING MORE THAN WHAT HE FORMERLY shared with the Father prior to coming to earth.

Moreover, the fact that Isaiah in THE PRESENT TENSE distinguishes Yahweh the King of Israel from Yahweh the Lord of Host and yet reverses these titles showing each title is applicable to all Persons in the Godhead - thus CO-EQUAL in titles completely destroys your whole theology. For example:

Isa 49:7 Thus saith the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel, AND his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the LORD that is faithful, AND the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee.

The conjunction with the pronoun "and HIS" demands two different Persons are being described AT THE TIME OF ISAIAH because of the PRESENT TENSE "saith." Hence, no honest exegete can project this to a post-incarnate time. Moreover, the title "the Holy One" is repeatedly described by Isaiah in PRESENT TENSE to be "the Holy One OF ISRAEL".

Isa 47:4 As for our redeemer, the LORD of hosts is his name, the Holy One of Israel.

Isaiah is claiming "the LORD of hosts" IS (present tense) His name not SHALL BE His name. The designation "The LORD of Hosts" has already been distinguished from "The LORD the King of Isael" by Isaiah

Isa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

To claim that these verses are "similar" to the prophetic fulfillment of post-resurrected texts is a huge deception.

You seem to be unable to grasp that Jesus Christ explicitly states over and over that he shared the glory with the Father BEFORE coming to earth and that the same glory will be restored after He leaves earth. So simple, so clearly stated and yet you are so spiritually blind you cannot even recognize the most simple clearly stated truths.

Joh 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Joh 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Jesus is declaring in the PRESENT TENSE ("which is") that He exists in heaven with the Father simeltaneous while existing on earth in a human body. However, on earth he simply emptied himself of the visible glory that belongs to God and concealed it on earth by the human body.

First, a simile demands language to show it is a simile and that requires the words "as" or "like". Second, a "simile" shows comparison between two literal things and provides no basis for spiritualizing either. For example the people of God are compared to sheep "We are AS sheep." Both are to be understood in their literal sense or you have nonsense. Go back to school and learn the basics.

In regard to personifications. Personifications cannot be intended in John 1:1-18 as "the word" actually "became" flesh and dwelt among us. Personifications are merely abstract ideas described in the form of a person but ideas do not become actual beings or persons but "the Word BECAME flesh." Second, The Word is still the name given to the Post-resurrected Son of God and he is not a personification but actual Person:

And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. - Rev. 19:13

That is "HIS NAME" not a personification of an abstract idea. He is called "The Word" in distinction to the Father prior to the incaranation because each Person in the Godhead has a distinctive role in their relationship with each other and with creation. In John 1:1-3 it is the distinctive role of the Son of God in creation that is in view. Words reveal invisible thoughts and thus express the will of God the Father, whereas the Holy Spirit's relationship to creation is POWER of the Word. All three Persons and their distinctive roles in regard to creation are spelled out clearly in the Scriptures and all three are equally identified as the Creator, Yahweh and God.

Third, Wisdom in Proverbs 8 is not an abstract idea but an actual attribute of God which without God would not be God. Paul makes it clear that the PERSON of Christ personifies that attribute -

1 Cor. 1:24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

The reason He is the "power" and "wisdom" of God is because he is the "word" of God and he is the "fullness" of the Godhead bodily. The Greek term translated "fullness" was a common term used by the gnostics to describe the full attributes that belonged to the true God and Paul was responding to Jewish gnostics.

You have been led astray 50 years ago. You have departed from the faith and erred and need to repent and return to the most important truth of God's Word - the true nature of God as you are worshipping in idolatry - "another Jesus" and preaching "another gospel" under the leadership of "another spirit."

 

IF you believe in the truth of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and that God gave unto us a flawless scripture....

The Gospel of John, in the original Greek texts, MUST mean that Jesus was eternally God, that He was always with the Father, was also God, same and exactly as God, and that he also was though NOT the father, but God the Son!

John wrote this to express and declare that Jesus is God, same as the father, yrt also distinct from Him, another person within the Godhead!

 

Greetings again steaver, Yeshua1 and The Biblicist,

I appreciate your response. I agree that you have never given a “spirit” message in the manner that I referred to in my previous Post. I was only trying to give my impression of the range of people, including Baptists or ex-Baptists who claim to have the “Spirit” in one form or another. I find it extremely difficult to say to any of this whole range of believers who claim “spirit” possession, that I do not think that such claims endorse their particular view of doctrine, especially a doctrine that I disagree with. I suggest that throughout you have used the claim that the “spirit” within you confirms that Jesus is God. When you make a statement to this effect do you claim that the “spirit” has spoken? For example, is the following a product of your general understanding of this subject, or is this prompted by the “spirit” within?

When I read this I was confused if you meant that “LORD God Jehovah” is a title or name of Jesus Christ, or whether you meant “he is LORD”, “he is God” and “he is Jehovah”. For my part I acknowledge that Jesus is Lord, he is Yahweh, he is God, but you would most probably disagree with how I view these terms and Name. Also I do not think that the word “Jehovah” is a correct representation of the Name of God, please refer Rotherham’s introduction in his Bible.

The same as I said to steaver above, I question when you speak in the following terms Yeshua1, whether you are giving your own general impression, or if you claim that you are guided or prompted by the “spirit” within to say the following:

For my part I believe John gives us his own summary of the purpose of his Gospel record:
John 20:30-31 (KJV): 30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

What I see is part of our essential difference in Isaiah is whenever you see a reference to Christ in Isaiah and you see some of the Divine titles and Name and functions applied to him, you then state that this proves that Jesus preexisted in the time of Isaiah and that he must also be the second person of the Trinity. When I see the same I see the development of the Name of God, and that Jesus will be the median of God’s revelation to man in the future at his first and second coming. You have not mentioned this, but Isaiah 6 is a major vision in Isaiah and I believe that this is a vision of Jesus as King-Priest enthroned in the age to come, but it has an interactive present with Isaiah himself. In this vision there are all the elements of glory of the king enthroned and praise to Yahweh of armies, seraphim and other layers of detail. There is also some detail of Jesus’ preaching at his first advent. But I do not see any proof that Jesus was then enthroned in Isaiah’s time.

I do not read Isaiah 44:6 the same way. There is only one speaker, Yahweh who is King of Israel and Yahweh is also Israel’s redeemer. Similarly with Isaiah 49:7, it is Yahweh, God the Father who is Israel’s redeemer and is also Israel’s Holy One. I can accept a plurality for Elohim in some contexts, but this is not in support of the Trinity.

I have not answered all that you have raised, especially Revelation 1. My only comment at this time on John 17:5 Jesus shared the glory with God in prospect. I do not agree with you on “Wisdom” and “The Word”.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

First, no one has claimed that Christ has been enthroned as Messiah. That is a figment of your imagination and attempt to avoid the evidence of His Preincaranate State.

Second, the grammar cannot be manipulated and ignored as you have done. What I have stated stands regardless of your inability to "see"!

Third, it is obvious no amount of evidence will change you because you really don't care what the Bible actually states.

I wipe the dust from my shoes as you are an obvious heretic. Goodbye and may God have mercy on your soul.

 

Jesus was and is God the Son, he was and is God, do you hold to that?

The contex and use of the term by John is far more than say a JW view of jesus, it goes back to his prologue, in that Jesus was and is God Himself walking around here in human flesh/form!

 

Trevor,
And admission of "the Son of God" to the Jews was an admission of blasphemy, that is, an admission of deity. On this was Jesus charged and crucified.

Luke 22:70-71 Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am. And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.

They had the admission that he was the "Son of God." And on that admission they took him and crucified him. For it was an admission of deity--blasphemy.

Verse 71 is the last verse in chapter 22, so the next verse says:
Luke 23:1-3 And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King. And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest it.

On the charge that He is the "Son of God," they proclaimed that he is "Christ, a King" or Messiah, a King."

His was a claim to deity and the Jews knew it well.
How do you explain this?

 

:laugh:

Sorry. I know this is a serious subject. but I just had to laugh.

I wish I had a dollar for every time I have heard this when one is presented with clear biblical evidence that contradicts their thinking.

All unbelievers, without exception, do the same thing. It just sound funny coming from a believer.

 

It is not a laughing matter. The additions made to 1 John 5:7 and 8 are indeed spurious. The additions were not found in any Greek manuscripts before the 14th century.

I am certainly a believer in the Deity of Christ and the Trinity. There is plenty of scriptural evidence for their support. But I will not support something bogus to buttress my argument.

 

I have to close this thread seeing it is now 30 pages and over its limit.
But the point is that for someone who uses the KJV, and possibly the KJV only, then he shouldn't be rejecting 1John 5:7. He should be accepting it as part and parcel of the Bible that he puts his faith in. Otherwise how can he have faith in the Word, since by his own admission he has not much knowledge of the Greek.
Either way, it states a truth, that even outside of the MSS that don't contain it, that has been accepted by orthodox Christianity throughout the centuries. The fact that such a verse got into the Bible and has not been edited out speak to its veracity.