The Holy Trinity

[B. W.]

No I am not saying that Jesus was empowered by God to have 'two sides — Deity by empowerment, and Human by nature'. He had one side, like all humans, because he was a human being (not a crossbreed)

I do not mean this in the Trinitarian concept. Deity empowered by Spirit power at the birth of Jesus thus making Jesus who is by nature a man to achieve goals as stated in the Bible that from this achievement of power/humanity He earned the right to rule and reign as described in Hebrews 2:7 “You made him a little lower than the angels; you crowned him with glory and honor, and set him over the works of your hands. You have put all things under his feet (NKJV)”

What do you mean by 'Deity empowered by Spirit power'? Why would 'Deity' need to be 'empowered'? I certainly agree with the passage in Hebrews here which says that Christ was exalted by the Father to a position which previously he did not hold. This is one of the passages which proves he was not God.

Hebrews 1:1-4 “In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs. (RSV)

If this is your position, or even close to it, that God empowered Jesus to rule and reign simply because of granting power to do so, then Jesus was a man with incredible powers to behave like Deity as scripture states?

I have already explained this more than once. Christ was a man empowered by God to do all that he did, and performed acts with the authority of God which God delegated to him.

What do you mean by 'Deity empowered by Spirit power'? Why would 'Deity' need to be 'empowered'?

What I mean by this is to clarify if you believe Jesus became Deity when he was begotten. Is this what you mean by your statement - Christ was a man empowered by God to do all that he did, and performed acts with the authority of God which God delegated to him.

-
-
-

[B. W.]

If you had read my post, you would have seen that I was in fact making my argument from the original text, not from the translations. I pointed out that modern translations have made the shift out of a recognition of the original text.

Mr. Fortigurn, you are predictable. Attempting to dissuade and silence the honest discourse concerning the doctrine of the Trinity by use of textual criticisms. You believe that the supposed 'older texts' are the only ones to adhere too. In doing so, you are denying the testimony of the historical record.

There is whole historical record prior — before the text were ever codified, before the New Testament letters were complied, and yes before the modern 'best' text. These came from the years 69 to 160 AD, the sub-apostolic age. How come the authors of these records never taught or believed as you nor did they affirm the modern day attacks on who Jesus is? These people were butchered and killed for their beliefs and yet the record stands on what they believed and taught.

In 325 the Council of Nicaea was assembled. Let's see, that was after 69 AD. Why was it held? A new doctrine came into vogue that attempted to overthrow the traditions handed down from Jesus, to the Apostles, to the sub-apostolic era and on up to the year 325. This debate was over the deity of Christ since Jesus was begotten by Mary did this mean he did not exist prior. Arius brought the debate front and center and this debate still continues.

Even during the Apostle Age, Paul battled the Gnostic's of his time that denied who Jesus was. Arius continued along a similar vein of thinking as the Gnostic's. This is historical record and should cause the human mind to question - modern 'best' theory.

Even Today, the fight still rages but more deviously, how — discredit the bible itself because the Bible can be only translated from fragments and that these Older Fragments don't have accepted text.

How can you or I prove that the older fragments were not Gnostic or from the Arius age? Can they be trusted? Should they be trusted only because these affirm that Jesus was not from everlasting, or promote Gnostic thought? Do those promoting acceptance of oldest text rule have an agenda based on discrediting for ego sake?

Neither of us really can prove what fragments are accurate. One side seeks discrediting and the other does not, but common sense tells us a different story. People hate Jesus as deity but like the thought of him as only a mere man. What do the apostolic and sub-apostolic records reveal? The record shows these people sure thought much different than the modern 'best' translation peoples propose.

Writings from the sub-apostolic age from 69-160 AD remain and boldly refute Gnostic and Arius claims. Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Letter to Diognetus, and Clement of Rome all wrote their writings much earlier than these modern textual scholars would like to admit.

What do the best text people do? Attack these writings! Just Like you will.

What did sub-apostolic era people believe, teach, and warn against and to the early Christians under there charge? In Ignatius of Antioch epistle to the Ephesians 1:7 “Very Flesh and Spirit too, Uncreated and yet born, God in one agreed, Very Life in Death indeed, Fruit of God, Mary's seed; At once impassible and torn, By pain and suffering here below, Jesus Christ — whom as our Lord we know.”

The epistle to Diognetus, Part two the Homily section 11 — speaking of Jesus, “He has existed since the beginning, He came as one appearing newly; though we know Him to be from old, He was born ever anew in the hearts of His saints. This is He who was from everlasting…”

Polycarp of Smyrna epistle to the Church at Philippi 1:7, “To deny Jesus Christ has come in the Flesh is to be anti-Christ. To contradict the evidence of the cross is to be of the devil. And to suit the Lord's words to suite our own wishes, by asserting that there is no such thing as resurrection or judgment, is to be the first begotten of Satan. So let us have no more of this nonsense from the gutter, and these lying doctrines, and turn back again to the Word originally delivered to us.”

Martyrdom of Polycarp 1:11 “But what you are unaware of are the flames of everlasting torment which are in store for the ungodly. Why do you go on wasting time? Bring out whatever you have a mind to do” These Quotes from “Early Christian Writings” Penguin Classics.

A man thrown to the lions and another burned alive, who taught that Jesus was God manifest in the Flesh, and was from everlasting, were brave men and to deny them their say because in is inconvenient is a gross injustice to the historical record.

This the modern best text hypothesis people do and then, like you — explains these records as never occurring or of a latter era because records from that era show Gnostic influence as well. Hmmm?? The Apostle Paul warned us about those people did he not??? Just for that reason alone — the best text theory should be called in suspect.

Polycarp was correct: “And to suit the Lord's words to suite our own wishes, by asserting that there is no such thing as resurrection or judgment, is to be the first begotten of Satan. So let us have no more of this nonsense from the gutter, and these lying doctrines, and turn back again to the Word originally delivered to us”

The question still stands — God manifest in the Flesh — How can this be?

-
-

[Fortigurn]

What do you mean by 'Deity empowered by Spirit power'? Why would 'Deity' need to be 'empowered'? I certainly agree with the passage in Hebrews here which says that Christ was exalted by the Father to a position which previously he did not hold. This is one of the passages which proves he was not God.

This most certainly does not prove Christ was just a man. What it does prove is that God sent his eternal Word to empower a human being, as evidenced by John 1, but we all know how you feel about that one.

The apostles do not say that 'God sent his eternal Word to empower a human being', they say that Jesus was a man appointed and empowered by God:

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

Acts 17:
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

1 Timothy 2:
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

I've showed you these quotes (and others), before.

Also in Hebrews 1:1-4 “ In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs. (RSV)”

It is simply amazing how you can quote the part that seems to bolster your case and at the same time totally skip over the part that does not. Well, I took the liberty of highlighting it for you above. But I'm sure you'll find some textual or linguistic reason why it does not say what it clearly and unequivocally says.

I hate to keep doing this to you, but your articulation of this pasage is actually nothing more than the Arian interpretation. It was the Arians who argued that Christ was the Divine being through whom God created all things. Christ, they argued (from passages such as these), was the instrument of God, the means by which He created all things - delegating His power and authority to an agent, rather than performing the work Himself.

This is not the trinity, and this argument was rejected by the trinitarians. Rightly so, because it contradicts the trinitarian doctrine - it makes God and Christ two separate beings. The moment you have Christ as the agent of God, then you acknowledge that Christ is not God, instead he is the one that God uses to perform His will. This makes for great Arianism, but poor trinitarianism.

The meaning of the phrase 'through whom He [God] created the world', is actually 'on account of whom He [God] created the world'. This was also the opinion of certain trinitarians, such as Grotius (16-17th centuries), Henry (1721), and Gill (1748), all of whom were staunch trinitarians, so please don't tell me it's something I invented to get out of a trinitarian application of this passage. This usage of the Greek here is found elsewhere in Paul.

That is exactly why I keep repeating that your arguments are old and tiring. It seems there is no longer a need to respond to your posts. Simply highlighting your errors is enough to refute your position.

The problem is that firstly you don't know the history of your own Christological position, secondly you don't understand the position of modern evangelical scholarship on this issue, and thirdly you don't actually have any answers for my arguments (which is why you dismiss them as 'old and boring', but don't actually reply to them).

One of the problems, as I'm sure you realise but prefer not to discuss, is the fact that standard orthodox trinitarian commentaries agree with my understanding of a number of these key passages - commentaries as early as Calvin and the other Reformers.

[Fortigurn]

Wallace is a professional Greek scholar who can articulate the rule in far better detail than myself. It is more important for you to read him than to read me. Anything I write will be dismissed as the view of a 'cultist' in any case. Having said which, I have already summed up in my own words how this rule applies. You just haven't read my post.

Yes I read your post - but for those who do not wish to read the enitre Wallace paper should heed his Conclusion on the matter stated in this source by Wallace, even you Mr. Fortigurn at the end of this page frame:

Not only did I heed his conclusion, but I recommended it to you, and summarised it for you.

In return, I'll invite you to heed his introduction:

Few today would take issue with Rudolf Bultmann's oft-quoted line that “In describing Christ as 'God' the New Testament still exercises great restraint.” [2]

The list of passages which seem explicitly to identify Christ with God varies from scholar to scholar, but the number is almost never more than a half dozen or so. [3]

As is well known, almost all of the texts are disputed as to their affirmation—due to textual or grammatical glitches—John 1:1 and 20:28 being the only two which are usually conceded without discussion.

Do you agree with him here? He is saying what I have said earlier - that over the years, the number of trinitarian 'proof texts' offered by trinitarian scholarship has diminished significantly, until now we are down to only half a dozen allegedly explicit texts.

[Fortigurn]

What I mean by this is to clarify if you believe Jesus became Deity when he was begotten. Is this what you mean by your statement - Christ was a man empowered by God to do all that he did, and performed acts with the authority of God which God delegated to him.

No I do not believe that Christ became Deity when he was begotten. Christ was a man empowered by God to do all that he did, and performed acts with the authority of God which God delegated to him. He was a man, not Deity.

[Fortigurn]

If you had read my post, you would have seen that I was in fact making my argument from the original text, not from the translations. I pointed out that modern translations have made the shift out of a recognition of the original text.

Mr. Fortigurn, you are predictable. Attempting to dissuade and silence the honest discourse concerning the doctrine of the Trinity by use of textual criticisms.

I am not doing any such thing. I am presenting you with the standard modern scholarship in this field, the same scholarship which is accepted as authoratative by standard trinitarian scholarship. If you want to put yourself out on the fring, feel free to disagree with it.

You believe that the supposed 'older texts' are the only ones to adhere too. In doing so, you are denying the testimony of the historical record.

Please do some study of the field of textual criticism, it is obvious from this that you don't understand it.

There is whole historical record prior — before the text were ever codified, before the New Testament letters were complied, and yes before the modern 'best' text. These came from the years 69 to 160 AD, the sub-apostolic age. How come the authors of these records never taught or believed as you nor did they affirm the modern day attacks on who Jesus is? These people were butchered and killed for their beliefs and yet the record stands on what they believed and taught.

Could you show me the evidence from these texts which you believe supports your view?

In 325 the Council of Nicaea was assembled. Let's see, that was after 69 AD.

Yes, a long time afterwards. So it's useless as a proof for what the 1st century Christians believed. It is very useful for indicating what the 4th century Christians still couldn't agree about.

Why was it held? A new doctrine came into vogue that attempted to overthrow the traditions handed down from Jesus, to the Apostles, to the sub-apostolic era and on up to the year 325. This debate was over the deity of Christ since Jesus was begotten by Mary did this mean he did not exist prior. Arius brought the debate front and center and this debate still continues.

This debate had in fact been raging since the late 1st century. It was not a new idea.

Even during the Apostle Age, Paul battled the Gnostic's of his time that denied who Jesus was. Arius continued along a similar vein of thinking as the Gnostic's. This is historical record and should cause the human mind to question - modern 'best' theory.

I am not an Arian, so this is irrelevant to me.

Even Today, the fight still rages but more deviously, how — discredit the bible itself because the Bible can be only translated from fragments and that these Older Fragments don't have accepted text.

I don't think you understand modern textual criticism at all. What you have written here is simply inaccurate.

How can you or I prove that the older fragments were not Gnostic or from the Arius age?

Because some of them were pre-Arian, some of them were post-Gnostic, and others of them were produced from within the post-Nicene Roman Catholic Church, which held to the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and the Councils of Chaldecon and Ephesus. They were indisputably trinitarian.

Can they be trusted? Should they be trusted only because these affirm that Jesus was not from everlasting, or promote Gnostic thought?

Do those promoting acceptance of oldest text rule have an agenda based on discrediting for ego sake?

You will have to ask the authoratative trinitarian scholars and the accepted modern textual critics these questions. I can direct you to a professional Bible translation list on which these questions will be answered for you by professional trinitarian Bible translators.

Are you prepared to have your questions answered by those who are qualified in this field?

Neither of us really can prove what fragments are accurate.

I can't, but I trust those who can. Do you?

One side seeks discrediting and the other does not, but common sense tells us a different story.

Could you explain this please?

People hate Jesus as deity but like the thought of him as only a mere man. What do the apostolic and sub-apostolic records reveal? The record shows these people sure thought much different than the modern 'best' translation peoples propose.

Please provide your evidence.

Writings from the sub-apostolic age from 69-160 AD remain and boldly refute Gnostic and Arius claims. Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Letter to Diognetus, and Clement of Rome all wrote their writings much earlier than these modern textual scholars would like to admit.

Earlier you claimed that Arianism was new to the 4th century, and now you claim that Arianism was being fought as early as 69 AD. Please make up your mind.

In any case, what yo have written here is irrelevant to me, because I am neither an Arian nor a Gnostic.

What do the best text people do? Attack these writings! Just Like you will.

I have no idea what you mean here.

What did sub-apostolic era people believe, teach, and warn against and to the early Christians under there charge? In Ignatius of Antioch epistle to the Ephesians 1:7 “Very Flesh and Spirit too, Uncreated and yet born, God in one agreed, Very Life in Death indeed, Fruit of God, Mary's seed; At once impassible and torn, By pain and suffering here below, Jesus Christ — whom as our Lord we know.”

The epistle to Diognetus, Part two the Homily section 11 — speaking of Jesus, “He has existed since the beginning, He came as one appearing newly; though we know Him to be from old, He was born ever anew in the hearts of His saints. This is He who was from everlasting…”

Polycarp of Smyrna epistle to the Church at Philippi 1:7, “To deny Jesus Christ has come in the Flesh is to be anti-Christ. To contradict the evidence of the cross is to be of the devil. And to suit the Lord's words to suite our own wishes, by asserting that there is no such thing as resurrection or judgment, is to be the first begotten of Satan. So let us have no more of this nonsense from the gutter, and these lying doctrines, and turn back again to the Word originally delivered to us.”

Martyrdom of Polycarp 1:11 “But what you are unaware of are the flames of everlasting torment which are in store for the ungodly. Why do you go on wasting time? Bring out whatever you have a mind to do” These Quotes from “Early Christian Writings” Penguin Classics.

A man thrown to the lions and another burned alive, who taught that Jesus was God manifest in the Flesh, and was from everlasting, were brave men and to deny them their say because in is inconvenient is a gross injustice to the historical record.

I'm afraid that none of these teach the trinity, and most of them don't have the same view of Christ as you do. In fact, only two of them make any reference to Christ as existing prior to his birth. If that's all you have, I'm not impressed.

[Byblos]

What do you mean by 'Deity empowered by Spirit power'? Why would 'Deity' need to be 'empowered'? I certainly agree with the passage in Hebrews here which says that Christ was exalted by the Father to a position which previously he did not hold. This is one of the passages which proves he was not God.

This most certainly does not prove Christ was just a man. What it does prove is that God sent his eternal Word to empower a human being, as evidenced by John 1, but we all know how you feel about that one.

The apostles do not say that 'God sent his eternal Word to empower a human being', they say that Jesus was a man appointed and empowered by God:

I refer you back to John 1:1. We've been thru this before many times but you tend to forget that which you do not like.

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

Acts 17:
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

1 Timothy 2:
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

I've showed you these quotes (and others), before.

Yet you still do not comprehend what they say. Tell me, what do you think is the difference between 'Son of man' and 'Son of God' and why is Jesus the only one to be called both?

Also in Hebrews 1:1-4 “ In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs. (RSV)”

It is simply amazing how you can quote the part that seems to bolster your case and at the same time totally skip over the part that does not. Well, I took the liberty of highlighting it for you above. But I'm sure you'll find some textual or linguistic reason why it does not say what it clearly and unequivocally says.

I hate to keep doing this to you, but your articulation of this pasage is actually nothing more than the Arian interpretation. It was the Arians who argued that Christ was the Divine being through whom God created all things. Christ, they argued (from passages such as these), was the instrument of God, the means by which He created all things - delegating His power and authority to an agent, rather than performing the work Himself.

Please do not concern yourself with my well-being. Whether or not Arians understood it to mean Jesus and God are separate beings is their business not mine. The fact that you attribute their postion to mine is questionable at best. The way I see it is exactly the way John wrote it:

1:1In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things came into being, not one thing came into being except through him.

This is not Arian, it is Christian, but I do not fault you for not comprehending it.

This is not the trinity, and this argument was rejected by the trinitarians. Rightly so, because it contradicts the trinitarian doctrine - it makes God and Christ two separate beings. The moment you have Christ as the agent of God, then you acknowledge that Christ is not God, instead he is the one that God uses to perform His will. This makes for great Arianism, but poor trinitarianism.

The meaning of the phrase 'through whom He [God] created the world', is actually 'on account of whom He [God] created the world'. This was also the opinion of certain trinitarians, such as Grotius (16-17th centuries), Henry (1721), and Gill (1748), all of whom were staunch trinitarians, so please don't tell me it's something I invented to get out of a trinitarian application of this passage. This usage of the Greek here is found elsewhere in Paul.

I didn't say you invented it. What I am saying is that I interpret it to mean exactly as John 1:1 is to be interpreted, not as the Arians saw it. So please do not tell me if I see it that way then I'm supporting an Arian view point, I'm not and you know it. I am merely disagreeing with you.

That is exactly why I keep repeating that your arguments are old and tiring. It seems there is no longer a need to respond to your posts. Simply highlighting your errors is enough to refute your position.

The problem is that firstly you don't know the history of your own Christological position, secondly you don't understand the position of modern evangelical scholarship on this issue, and thirdly you don't actually have any answers for my arguments (which is why you dismiss them as 'old and boring', but don't actually reply to them).

One of the problems, as I'm sure you realise but prefer not to discuss, is the fact that standard orthodox trinitarian commentaries agree with my understanding of a number of these key passages - commentaries as early as Calvin and the other Reformers.

And you are the one to tell me what my Christological position is? This is from a person who believes Jesus was just a man, professes both God and Jesus as his Lord and God (page 17 of this thread I believe) yet does not see how this is idolatry? By your own admission, not only are you not Christian, you don't even practice a monotheistic religion. Please, no lectures from you sir.

[B. W.]

Wallace is a professional Greek scholar who can articulate the rule in far better detail than myself. It is more important for you to read him than to read me. Anything I write will be dismissed as the view of a 'cultist' in any case. Having said which, I have already summed up in my own words how this rule applies. You just haven't read my post.

Yes I read your post - but for those who do not wish to read the enitre Wallace paper should heed his Conclusion on the matter stated in this source by Wallace, even you Mr. Fortigurn at the end of this page frame:

Not only did I heed his conclusion, but I recommended it to you, and summarised it for you.

In return, I'll invite you to heed his introduction:

Few today would take issue with Rudolf Bultmann's oft-quoted line that “In describing Christ as 'God' the New Testament still exercises great restraint.” [2]

The list of passages which seem explicitly to identify Christ with God varies from scholar to scholar, but the number is almost never more than a half dozen or so. [3]

As is well known, almost all of the texts are disputed as to their affirmation—due to textual or grammatical glitches—John 1:1 and 20:28 being the only two which are usually conceded without discussion.

Do you agree with him here? He is saying what I have said earlier - that over the years, the number of trinitarian 'proof texts' offered by trinitarian scholarship has diminished significantly, until now we are down to only half a dozen allegedly explicit texts.

Yes I do heed it - so what is the point? We both agree?

As for texts in question - you do not need Sharpes rule to see what the bible really says. 'God and our' says what it says with or without Sharpe's rule.

Is this why you brought up Greek Grammar?

[B. W.]

There is whole historical record prior — before the text were ever codified, before the New Testament letters were complied, and yes before the modern 'best' text. These came from the years 69 to 160 AD, the sub-apostolic age. How come the authors of these records never taught or believed as you nor did they affirm the modern day attacks on who Jesus is? These people were butchered and killed for their beliefs and yet the record stands on what they believed and taught.

Could you show me the evidence from these texts which you believe supports your view?

Answer:
I have done so and others on forum have posted it too. Please do your own research.

I am not doing any such thing. I am presenting you with the standard modern scholarship in this field, the same scholarship which is accepted as authoratative by standard trinitarian scholarship. If you want to put yourself out on the fring, feel free to disagree with it. Please do some study of the field of textual criticism, it is obvious from this that you don't understand it.

Here is good scientific answer for all:

Please do the following experiment as well as the audience reading this thread and you'll discover true textual criticism:

One last word on textual criticism argument: Here is a simple experiment one should do as long as they do not have a problem with writing or marking a bible. Go out a purchase a bible that has text notes that state — oldest text omit verse or word or translate word this way or that.

For example, in the NKJV or NIV etc., it states for John 7:53 through John 8:11 that these verses were not in the original text. Therefore, take a black magic marker and cross these verses out. Do this everywhere, where it says, not included in oldest text or the most reliable text. Where it says to add a word in exchange for another — blot out the typed word and write in the old text, most reliable word for it.

After doing this for the New Testament and do so for the old. Something amazing occurs after this. You see what is taken out! Then you discover that references to miracles in Mark 16:9-20 are gone, the woman caught in adultery story is gone showing Jesus forgiving sins, and in other passages you find the deity of Christ is called into question as well as also deleted. You will see other strange interpretations not seen before.

Rather strange in the light of what the Apostle Paul wrote in Colossians chapter two warning of a Gnostic version creeping into the church as well as other strange teachings. He warns of these things elsewhere too as does the Apostle Peter (2 Peter 2)

Next honestly examine, does this new, better, modern text version, with all the text and certain words blotted out in black marker and new words added teach any of the things the Apostles warn about?

The answer, I'll leave for you to decide. Truly, a tree is known by its fruit.
-
-

[B. W.]

What I mean by this is to clarify if you believe Jesus became Deity when he was begotten. Is this what you mean by your statement - Christ was a man empowered by God to do all that he did, and performed acts with the authority of God which God delegated to him.

No I do not believe that Christ became Deity when he was begotten. Christ was a man empowered by God to do all that he did, and performed acts with the authority of God which God delegated to him. He was a man, not Deity.

Thank you, I needed this clarification and again thank you for again proving that the Doctrine of the Trinity is reveled in the bible. The doctrine stands or falls on who Jesus is. Let's let the word speak:

It is amazing then that scripture, states in Hebrews 6:13 “For when God made a promise to Abraham, since He had no one greater by whom to swear, He swore by himself” (RSV)

And in context, Hebrews 6: 17-18 “Wherein God, willing to show more abundantly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of his purpose, intervened by an oath, that by two unchangeable things, in which it was impossible that God should lie, we might have a strong encouragement, who have fled for refuge to lay hold on the hope set before us (Darby)”

Mr. Fortigurn, I would like to thank you again for proving that Jesus Christ was God manifest in the Flesh and proving without doubt that Jesus is the second person of the trinity

because as it is written in Isaiah 48: 11 “For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another (RSV)”

God states clearly that He will not give His glory to another and that “God is not man, that he should lie, or 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 fulfill it?” Numbers 23:19 - RSV

Therefore the Messiah spoken of in Isaiah 42:1-8 “Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him, he will bring forth justice to the nations. He will not cry or lift up his voice, or make it heard in the street; a bruised reed he will not break, and a dimly burning wick he will not quench; he will faithfully bring forth justice. He will not fail or be discouraged till he has established justice in the earth; and the coastlands wait for his law. Thus says God, the LORD, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread forth the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath to the people upon it and spirit to those who walk in it: "I am the LORD, I have called you in righteousness, I have taken you by the hand and kept you; I have given you as a covenant to the people, a light to the nations, to open the eyes that are blind, to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon, from the prison those who sit in darkness. I am the LORD that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to graven images — RSV.”

Isaiah 43:11-14 — “I, I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior. I declared and saved and proclaimed, when there was no strange god among you; and you are my witnesses," says the LORD. "I am God, and also henceforth I am He; there is none who can deliver from my hand; I work and who can hinder it?" Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel.” RSV

Isaiah 44:6-7, 8 “Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and His Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god. Who is like me? Let him proclaim it, let him declare and set it forth before me. Who has announced from of old the things to come? Let them tell us what is yet to be… Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any."” RSV

Isaiah 45: 19-23I did not speak in secret, in a land of darkness; I did not say to the offspring of Jacob, 'Seek me in chaos.' I the LORD speak the truth, I declare what is right. "Assemble yourselves and come, draw near together, you survivors of the nations! They have no knowledge who carry about their wooden idols, and keep on praying to a god that cannot save. Declare and present your case; let them take counsel together! Who told this long ago? Who declared it of old? Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me. "Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other. By myself I have sworn, from my mouth has gone forth in righteousness a word that shall not return: 'To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. ” RSV

Philippians 2:9-11 “ Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

Revelations 1:7, 17-4-18 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty…17-18 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand upon me, saying, "Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one; I died, and behold I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades. ”

Hebrews 1:1-2 “ In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs. (RSV)”

Acts 4:8-12 — speaking in context of Jesus Christ, “ And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. ” KJV

1 Thessalonians 5:9 —“For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ” KJV

Yes, Mr. Fortigurn, you have done it again — proved that Jesus Christ was God truly manifest in the flesh. As the bible proclaims — We see that Jesus created the universe and worlds! That Salvation is by Jesus and no other! Jesus is the First and the Last! If not, Mr Fortigurn, GOD LIED!!!!

God cannot lie — Jesus is other than what you think him to be!

Can you join in and sing?

Revelation 19:1 — “After these things I heard a loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, saying, “Alleluia! Salvation and glory and power belong to our God.” NKJV

Oh, I forgot, your superior text omits 'belong to our God' in this verse!

Next Frame

[B. W.]

Mr. Fortigurn, if we listen to you then - GOD LIED!!! By having a mere man, no matter how empowered, to rule a reign as a god violates the 1'st Commandment:

Duet. 5:7-11 "'You shall have no other gods before me. 'You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. "'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain: for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.” RSV

Your doctrine — violates God's Law because a man, a man empowered as prophet or any manner, cannot save as Jesus did — only God can. If you declare that Jesus was a man — Jesus lied. If you say he was begotten to be empowered as a great man so He can rule like God or in God's Place — God Lied. If Jesus was the second person of the Trinity — HE DID NOT LIE!

If you think Jesus spoke in Isaiah — then He was not begotten or even if you claim Isaiah use of the word 'Lord' is wrong — you make both God and Jesus a lair. If you think this was empowered speech proclaiming Jesus as your doctrine makes him out to be — you make God a lair.

Thank You, Mr. Fortigurn, for proving the doctrine of the trinity so clearly!

[B. W.]

I am not doing any such thing. I am presenting you with the standard modern scholarship in this field, the same scholarship which is accepted as authoritative by standard Trinitarian scholarship. If you want to put yourself out on the fringe, feel free to disagree with it. Please do some study of the field of textual criticism, it is obvious from this that you don't understand it.

Here is good scientific answer for all:

Please do the following experiment as well as the audience reading this thread and you'll discover true textual criticism:

One last word on textual criticism argument: Here is a simple experiment one should do as long as they do not have a problem with writing or marking a bible. Go out a purchase a bible that has text notes that state — oldest text omit verse or word or translate word this way or that.

For example, in the NKJV or NIV etc., it states for John 7:53 through John 8:11 that these verses were not in the original text. Therefore, take a black magic marker and cross these verses out. Do this everywhere, where it says, not included in oldest text or the most reliable text. Where it says to add a word in exchange for another — blot out the typed word and write in the old text, most reliable word for it.

After doing this for the New Testament and do so for the old. Something amazing occurs after this. You see what is taken out! Then you discover that references to miracles in Mark 16:9-20 are gone, the woman caught in adultery story is gone showing Jesus forgiving sins, and in other passages you find the deity of Christ is called into question as well as also deleted. You will see other strange interpretations not seen before.

Rather strange in the light of what the Apostle Paul wrote in Colossians chapter two warning of a Gnostic version creeping into the church as well as other strange teachings. He warns of these things elsewhere too as does the Apostle Peter (2 Peter 2)

Next honestly examine, does this new, better, modern text version, with all the text and certain words blotted out in black marker and new words added teach any of the things the Apostles warn about?

The answer, I'll leave for you to decide. Truly, a tree is known by its fruit.

Continued by B. W.

I hereby call upon the readers of this thread and moderators to decide the manner on which to base Textual Criticism: Should it be deferred to experts and scholars, as Mr. Fortigurn claims we all should do, of either stripe, or rely on what the Bible scripture tells us to do? We can argue endlessly on this. I propose to settle this now by a simple test learned from college regarding the bible to test the critc's findings.

“Test all Things and hold fast what is good.” I Thessalonians 5:21 and be like those in Berea long ago searching the scriptures - Acts 17: 11. — NKJV this is not the fringe.

I proposed a simple test that anyone can do that lets you decide this matter on your own. It is a test for textual criticism based on scripture that anyone can do, expert or not.

It is not a fringe test and it tests the textual critic's legacy: should all scripture or just part of scripture be in the bible based on various factors. The Test I suggested is a test to test the expert's claim of either stripe.

Mr. Fortigurn states that we all should defer only to the judgment of experts/scholars of scripture, his own or Trinitarian, just trust the experts is the drumbeat reply.

The debate over what text to include or discard has been debated for years. We will not settle this issue on this thread but we can test the expert's results and findings own our own.

Nonetheless, there is a certain fact we all must face in this moral life and it is this, we will all die. Not one of us can escape this fate. The bible is a book left for us read. It has a goal and thus asks us all, where do we want to spend eternity? A Person can scoff this off as fable and myth and do as they please but the fact remains — this mortal life will cease. The questions remains, where do you or I want to spend eternity?

Therefore, with such an important decision to be made, should, You, the Reader, defer your fate to the experts and scholars either based on Trinitarian or anti-Trinitarian Textual Criticism? Or “Test all Things and hold fast what is good,” (I Thessalonians 5:21- NKJV) by a simple test.

This test is not fringe — it is something anyone can do. Your findings may concur with the experts of either stripe — but at least you are the Textual Critic on such an important fate as your own and not based on someone else's opinion.

All I proposed is a simple test that you, the reader, can do. The answer you discover will be your own.

Your eternal destiny is too important to defer to experts as I John 4:1-3 reveals, “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God…” - NKJV

Or as the RSV has it - I John 4: 1-6 “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already. Little children, you are of God, and have overcome them; for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. They are of the world, therefore what they say is of the world, and the world listens to them. We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.” — RSV

The best way to stop this endless debate over textual criticism is to become your own critic by testing the experts and where their findings lead.
-
-

[Fortigurn]

The apostles do not say that 'God sent his eternal Word to empower a human being', they say that Jesus was a man appointed and empowered by God:

I refer you back to John 1:1. We've been thru this before many times but you tend to forget that which you do not like.

I don't do anything of the kind. It was you who stopped replying on the issue of John 1:1. Can you honestly tell me that John 1:1 says 'God sent His eternal Word to empower a human being'? It says nothing of the kind.

Yet you still do not comprehend what they say.

They say, very clearly, that Jesus was a man who was appointed and authorised by God. The apostles never preached that Jesus was God, or a 'God-man', and you can search the entire book of Acts to see this.

Tell me, what do you think is the difference between 'Son of man' and 'Son of God' and why is Jesus the only one to be called both?

The phrase 'son of man' simply means 'a human being'. The phrase 'son of God' means 'caused to come into being by God'. We can see this from the fact that the only other person to be called 'son of God' is Adam, who was also a created being. The phrase 'son of God' does not mean 'God', any more than the phrase 'son of Byblos' means 'Byblos'.

Please do not concern yourself with my well-being. Whether or not Arians understood it to mean Jesus and God are separate beings is their business not mine. The fact that you attribute their postion to mine is questionable at best.

Well you're the one saying that God created through Christ. That's what the Arians believed, and that's what you say you believe. If you don't believe it, why did you say it?

The way I see it is exactly the way John wrote it:

1:1In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things came into being, not one thing came into being except through him.

This is not Arian, it is Christian, but I do not fault you for not comprehending it.

I do comprehend it, it's perfectly simple when you read the Old Testament first (the Old Testament is that big thick bit trinitarians skip on their way to the gospel of John).

I didn't say you invented it.

Of course you didnt. You couldn't say anything about it until I wrote it. I was simply pre-empting the usual response.

What I am saying is that I interpret it to mean exactly as John 1:1 is to be interpreted, not as the Arians saw it. So please do not tell me if I see it that way then I'm supporting an Arian view point, I'm not and you know it. I am merely disagreeing with you.

Well you're the one saying that God created through Christ. That's what the Arians believed, and that's what you say you believe. If you don't believe it, why did you say it?

And you are the one to tell me what my Christological position is?

No, I didn't say that, I referred to the history of your Christological position.

This is from a person who believes Jesus was just a man, professes both God and Jesus as his Lord and God (page 17 of this thread I believe) yet does not see how this is idolatry? By your own admission, not only are you not Christian, you don't even practice a monotheistic religion. Please, no lectures from you sir.

The problem is that you don't read what I write. I have no problem confessing Christ as KURIOS and THEOS in the sense of adonai and elohim, which would have been the words Thomas used. That is not idolatry, as I have shown previously.

[Fortigurn]

In return, I'll invite you to heed his introduction:

Few today would take issue with Rudolf Bultmann's oft-quoted line that “In describing Christ as 'God' the New Testament still exercises great restraint.” [2]

The list of passages which seem explicitly to identify Christ with God varies from scholar to scholar, but the number is almost never more than a half dozen or so. [3]

As is well known, almost all of the texts are disputed as to their affirmation—due to textual or grammatical glitches—John 1:1 and 20:28 being the only two which are usually conceded without discussion.

Do you agree with him here? He is saying what I have said earlier - that over the years, the number of trinitarian 'proof texts' offered by trinitarian scholarship has diminished significantly, until now we are down to only half a dozen allegedly explicit texts.

Yes I do heed it - so what is the point? We both agree?

Ah, so you agree that there are only half a dozen allegedly explicit texts which declare that Jesus is God?

As for texts in question - you do not need Sharpes rule to see what the bible really says. 'God and our' says what it says with or without Sharpe's rule.

In that case, there was no point in bringing up Sharp in the first place.

Is this why you brought up Greek Grammar?

I raised the issue of Greek grammar when you used an argument which demonstrated you didn't understand it.

[Fortigurn]

Mr. Fortigurn, if we listen to you then - GOD LIED!!! By having a mere man, no matter how empowered, to rule a reign as a god violates the 1'st Commandment:

Duet. 5:7-11 "'You shall have no other gods before me. 'You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. "'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain: for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.” RSV

I don't have 'a mere man to rule as a god', so I don't see what your issue is. Ruling as God's representative is another matter entirely, and that is what the annointed kings of Israel did (Solomonm, for example, sat on the throne of Yahweh).

Your doctrine — violates God's Law because a man, a man empowered as prophet or any manner, cannot save as Jesus did — only God can. If you declare that Jesus was a man — Jesus lied.

Only God can save as God did, and God saved using Christ as the means.

If you say he was begotten to be empowered as a great man so He can rule like God or in God's Place — God Lied.

Fortunately I'm not saying that.

If you think Jesus spoke in Isaiah — then He was not begotten or even if you claim Isaiah use of the word 'Lord' is wrong — you make both God and Jesus a lair. If you think this was empowered speech proclaiming Jesus as your doctrine makes him out to be — you make God a lair.

I don't understand what you are saying here.