More Trinity stuff

[Fortigurn]

Trust:

Ephesians 1
12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
1 Timothy 4:10
For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

To be saved we must trust Christ, but it also says we must trust God.
If Christ is a Man then we are trusting Man to save us. Should we trust both man and God? No, or else we might as well be trusting ourselves.

That says nothing about trusting man to save us, or even trusting Christ to save us. In fact 'trust' doesn't even appear in the text of verses 12 or 13:

Ephesians 1:
2 so that we, who were the first to set our hope on Christ, would be to the praise of his glory.
13 And when you heard the word of truth (the gospel of your salvation) — when you believed in Christ — you were marked with the seal of the promised Holy Spirit,

That's from the NET, and plenty of other modern translations say the same.

Grace:
We are saved by Grace through faith.
These verese show that Grace comes from Jesus and from God:

2 Corinthians 13:14
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.
Galatians 1:3
Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,
Ephesians 1:2
Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
Philippians 1:2
Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Here you misunderstand the use of the word 'grace' here'. It is being used as a greeting, not as a theological statement. It isn't talking about saving grace.

All Grace comes from God.

1 Peter 5:10
But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you.

If Grace comes from Jesus and from God and all Grace come from God, then Jesus is God along with the Father.

That verse does not say that all grace comes from God. It's simply saying that God is gracious. Men can be gracious to each other. Once more you're committing the logical fallacy of the undistributed middle.

Preexistence:

John 6:61
But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? 62Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?

If Jesus was only a man, where did he ascend to that he was once there before?

Before when?

And PL beat me to the punch for

...a verse which says nothing about the trinity. Here's a verse you should be reading:

John 17:
3 Now this is eternal life — that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you sent.

Isn't it interesting that this is the exact opposite of what you claim?

Fortigurn ,
I tried to find you post where you answered my question, but I do not see it.

Not only did you read it, but you quoted it. I've shown you.

[B. W.]

Let me describe in the briefest of terms how and why the doctrine of the Trinity came into beginning. The doctrine of the trinity came as a response to fight against heresy and false doctrine. It came as a response to safe guard the teachings of the bible handed down from the Christ to the Apostles and etc, to combat those bent on corrupting and destroying the Church from within the Church itself. It was designed in such manner that it could be easily memorized in order for any Christian to know and identify what the spirit of truth is verses the spirit of error.

It was used as a guide to combat heresy by mapping certain themes that the bible teaches with such clearness that heresy cannot stand long in its light. If someone's doctrine did not line up with these themes, it was false. It contains the summation of whom and what God is as how he chooses to reveal himself expressed in the simplest terms. It was intended as a guide for reading the scripture and as a gauge to keep one from straying away from truth, which is Christ. To grasp what I mean better and its use, think of a bulleted document that is commonly used today which only expresses main points or the heart and meat of a matter in summery. It is what the bible teaches about God and how to correctly identify him and compare this to what false teachers teach.

The doctrine of the Trinity is the summation of the main points of Christian doctrine as the bible reveals. It leaves an imprint — a mark — identifying the handiwork of God. Through it, God alone is glorified: not man, not beast, not angel, not creature — all Glory goes to God. Salvation shouts God's glory as only it should and no one else is glorified except God as he reveals himself: One as three and three as one — the undivided Trinity - Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

This is clearly brought out in the first chapters of Genesis when God said, “Let Us make man in Our image [reflection] and Our likeness [of excellent character]. So that man and woman can govern what God assigned them correctly, governing as God would as an extension 'image', 'likeness' of his will. With this came a test of responsibility and loyalty.

If a false teachers comes along and tries to convince us that Jesus was only a man and nothing more and not divine, or if one tries to claim that the Us and Our refers to an angelic being, or that God is angel, then the Doctrine of the trinity comes in pointing out such heresy. How?

By One simple scripture that states the profound:

Isaiah 45:5-6, “I am Jehovah, and there is none else; there is no God except Me. I will clothe you, though you do not know Me, 6 that they may know from the rising of the sun, and to its going down, that there is none besides Me; I am Jehovah, and there is none else.” LITV

There is none else. If there is none else how can God say that 'Us' and 'Our' in the Genesis account and mean someone other than himself? If one tries to claim that Us and Our cannot mean God, how could God relate to a creature he made as Us and Our since there in none else besides God? In fact, who else clothed Adam and Eve as well as provides the salvation that came upon the cross that so clothes his children today that so many still refuse to acknowledge Him? Yes, there must be more to one that a lump! Three make one: Father Son, and Holy Spirit!

No angel or creature God was referring too when he spake 'Us and Our' as that would make God the same as an angel which is false as there is none else but He! Genesis 1:2 desribes him alone as there is none else but He that can speak and create something out of nothing. He cannot be referring to an angelic host as that reduces God to the stature of creature too. No matter how a false doctrine is used to justify its corruption it cannot get around this central truth brought out in so few scriptures with such force.

No lengthy diatribes needed, no long winded exposé, no contorting of scriptures to see the truth contained in the simplicity of the scripture as it reveals the Lord in all his glory! Scripture needs none of man's words to intervene to reveal the truth:

Hebrews 1:2, “but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world” ESV

Colossians 2:6-10, “Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving. 8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily 10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.” ESV

Isaiah 45:21-25, “, And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me. 22 "Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other. 23 By Myself I have sworn, My mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before Me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear. 24 They will say of Me, 'In the LORD alone are righteousness and strength.' "All who have raged against Him will come to Him and be put to shame. 25 But in the LORD all the descendants of Israel will be found righteous and will exult.” NIV

Philippians 2:5-11, “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” ESV

Only God can save — who then is Jesus? Who was he that clothed Adam and Eve — guess it — guess his name?

One closing comment:

False teachers are describe in the bible as using great swelling words of emptiness and twisting of scripture to derive a false truth. Yet the Doctrine of the Trinity when employed shatters such destructive stupidity and publicly makes an open display of it. Since there is none else and there is no God except God as he is, then the only conclusion is that the 'Us' and 'Our' God spoke too is none other himself the essences of his very divinity: Three is one and one as three — Father, Son, Holy Spirit divine!
-
-
-

[Fortigurn]

Let me describe in the briefest of terms how and why the doctrine of the Trinity came into beginning.

It's ok, I'm very well familiar with the history. If you look at the teaching statements in the Acts of the Apostles, and compare it with the 1st century 'Apostles' Creed' and 'Didache' (both extra-Biblical Christian texts belonging to the early Christian community), you'll see just how simple the original gospel message was.

You will also note there the complete absence of the trinity. The earliest Christian creedal statements preserved this original message, for the most part, insisting that there was one God, who was one person (the Father), and that Jesus Christ is His son.

If you look at the 'official' faith statements put together over the centuries by Christian groups, you will be able to see how the original 1st century teachings were gradually diffused, diluted, and finally abandoned. By the 5th century there's almost nothing left of the original creedal statement, and the trinity has become fully formed.

Then there's the fact that the trinity was developed by Christians who enjoyed the support of the state, and who were able to enforce their beliefs by state legislation and violence as they developed them. Here's the quick version:

* 4th century: Emperor Constantine supports the Nicene version of Christianity over the other versions

* 4th century: Emperor Theodosius I makes the Nicene version of Christianity the official state religion, and creates laws punishing those who believe otherwise (it is now illegal to deny the trinity, among other doctrines)

* 5th century: Roman empire collapses under repeated invasions from surrounding tribes and states, and the so called 'barbarian kings' take over, with Italy itself being made a vassal state to the Goths, who belonged to the Arian version of Christianity (which had spread rapidly throughout the Roman empire prior to the rise of the Nicene version, and had remained unaffected by the decrees of Constantine and Theodosius)

* 5th-6th century: Emperor Justinian I, ruler of the Eastern Roman empire, flies to the defence of the beleagured Nicene Christians in Italy, at the behest of the Bishop of Rome. In a series of devastating and bloody wars, he subdues the invading barbarians and reasserts the primacy of Nicene Christianity. He passes new laws condemning all other versions of Christianity as heresy, as well as laws persecuting the pagans and the Jews.

* Early 7th century: Boniface I, Bishop of Rome, successfully appoints himself 'Universal Father', head of all Christian churches everywhere, claiming temporal power over all Christians such that they must all submit to his decrees. The term 'pope' is used in its conventionally understood sense. He has the support of the emperor, and the mighty weight of the Codex Justinian (the laws passed by Justinian I), to support his authority.

By the time Western Europe entered the medieval era, the so called 'Catholic Church' was the dominant form of Christianity, and had been so for at least 200 years. With each development from Constantine's era onwards, one version of Christianity gained supremacy, not by theological discussion but by force of arms and legal coercion. Other forms of Christianity were marginalised by physical persecution and legal restriction. Precious few alternative Christian sects arose over the next few centuries up to the Reformation, and those which did were hunted down mercilessly.

The Reformation successfully overturned many of the old ideas, but was not wholly unshackled by dogma. The vast majority of the early Reformers differed very little theologically from the Roman Church from which they had come out, and because they dared not challenge the early church councils, they were not prepared to call into question doctrines such as the trinity. Sharing the Aristotleian epistemology with the Roman Church, they found much of the Roman Catholic exposition still valid, and so failed to reform completely.

There is a history of non-trinitarian Christianity which is centuries old. I won't bore you with statistics or lengthy descriptions, I'll just throw out a couple of the big names (Michael Servetus, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Faustus Socinus, Sir Isaac Newton, Joseph Priestley), and that discussion can be picked up in another thread if necessary.

The doctrine of the trinity came as a response to fight against heresy and false doctrine.

Actually it came as a result of years of bickering over the identity and relationship of God and Christ, with the victory going to those who were able to exert the greatest physical and political force.

It was designed in such manner that it could be easily memorized in order for any Christian to know and identify what the spirit of truth is verses the spirit of error.

This is laughable since the trinity was not 'designed', and it was certainly neither easy to remember or know or identify. To this day if you ask three trinitarians to explain the trinity you'll get four different answers.

By One simple scripture that states the profound:

Isaiah 45:5-6, “I am Jehovah, and there is none else; there is no God except Me. I will clothe you, though you do not know Me, 6 that they may know from the rising of the sun, and to its going down, that there is none besides Me; I am Jehovah, and there is none else.” LITV

You don't believe this, because it says that there is one person who is God, and no one else. You claim that there are three persons who are God. Clearly you don't believe this.

The rest of what you wrote is simply a repeat of what has already been answered more than once.

[B. W.]

Question: The Composition of the Atom: is one Atom one or comprised of uniquely differentiated parts? Is one atom really one, or is a single atom comprised of differentiated parts that make the Atom One?

Question: Is a grain of sand only one substance? Answer: Sand Composition is made up of various uniquely different substances that make it one grain of sand.

Question: Is just one small grain of soil comprised of only one substance? Answer: The Composition of soil is made up of various uniquely different substances that make it one grain of soil.

Question: Is Moon a solid Mass of one substance? Answer: The Composition of the Moon is more than one substance yet it is one Moon.

Question: Is the Composition of Jupiter just one substance? Answer: No, one mass is comprised of many different unique substances that make it One Mass.

Question: Is the Composition of Earth just one mass or is it also comprised of many varied and distinctly different substances? Answer: the earth one mass is comprised of many different unique substances that make it One Earth.

Conclusion- Romans 1:19-20 is true:

Romans 1:19-20, “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” ESV

It is written:

Isaiah 45:5-6, “I am Jehovah, and there is none else; there is no God except Me. I will clothe you, though you do not know Me, 6 that they may know from the rising of the sun, and to its going down, that there is none besides Me; I am Jehovah, and there is none else.” LITV

There is none else. If there is none else how can God say that 'Us' and 'Our' in the Genesis 1:26-27 and mean someone other than himself? If one tries to claim that Us and Our cannot mean God, how could God relate to a creature he made as Us and Our since there is none else besides God? In fact, who else clothed Adam and Eve as well as provides the salvation that came upon the cross that so clothes his children today that so many still refuse to acknowledge Him? Yes, there must be more to one that a lump! Three make one: Father Son, and Holy Spirit!

God was not speaking to an angel or another creature when he spoke 'Us and Our' as that would make God the same as an angel which is false as there is none else but He! Genesis 1:2 describes him alone as there is none else but He that can speak and create something out of nothing. He cannot be referring to an angelic host as that reduces God to the stature of creature.

Even the handiwork of creation itself gives evidence that One grain of sand, soil, or even one lone Atom is comprised of different parts that make it One grain of sand, one grain of soil, and one atom. How about the one Moon, One Earth, One Sun, One Jupiter? Is not these One's not also comprised of many varied exclusively differentiated substances that make each uniquely One? No matter how a false doctrine is used to justify its corrupting beliefs such teachers cannot get around this central truth brought out in so few scriptures with such force verified even by the handiwork of creation.

Romans 1:19-20 shouts out with great force: “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” ESV

Even the universe and what God created shouts that One is more than a single lump and the One is made up of many unique substances that make One truly a One. God in three persons — the blessed Trinity! One is three and the Three are One! Father, Son, Holy Spirit!
-
-
-
To be continued right below Jac's Post

[Jac3510]

I still can't believe anybody would vote "yes" to the question

[B. W.]

Continued...

Scientist state in this article [See Link] that the earth is basically made of two parts which make one Earth. These two parts consist of Solid and Gas. The main liquid of the earth, water, is classed as a solid; yet, this liquid is not a solid but a different substance than the other parts of earth. This main liquid is classed as solid because it can be frozen and thus form a solid mass. Yet liquid, despite this, is still a different substance than solid as it is by nature and natural state on earth a liquid.

What this liquid demonstrates is that one substance can be transformed from one substance into another substance. A liquid can be transformed into a solid mass by being frozen, or by evaporation, or into steam by heat. Raw petroleum, a liquid, can be made into solid plastic material by human means of applying heat, pressures, etc. Also solids themselves can be transformed into different substances such as Glass by the means of heat.

Some, such as liquid H2O, water, can freeze, or turn into vapor, and then return back into its original state. Hence you have empirical data that supports that one substance can transform into another different state and then return to its original state. Therefore, one substance made of many independent attributes that define its person can be transformed into another state.

From this we again discover that: Romans 1:19-20 shouts out with great force a profound truth: “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” ESV

If a substance in the natural world can be transformed from one state into another, what does this say about God whose invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature can be perceived within his creation? This is not only possible but also very probable as all things are possible with God!

The doctrine of the trinity supports that God can do as he so wills, yet, the false heretical doctrines states that God cannot and such doctrine uses much wasted verbiage of words, written or spoken, to support their twisted denial of God.

This very method is described in Romans1:21-25: “For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.” ESV

False heretical doctrine exchanges the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and serves the creature rather than the Creator — that is the main point of such teachings. Under the doctrine that Fortigrun and Pierac has written about, claims that one worships Christ as only a mere mortal man because God anointed him worthy to be worshiped. Yet one cannot worship a mere mortal man because the scriptures tell us that only God alone can be worshiped, Deuteronomy 5:8-9, and
Deuteronomy 6:13, Deuteronomy 8:19.

For a person to worship a mere mortal man because one is led to believe [through twisting of scripture] that God says this is okay to do so, in reality causes one to worship and serve the creature rather than the Creator, which is forbidden by God Himself. That is what false teaching does, no matter how wise it is portrayed, it leads one away from the true Christ to another who is false and into perdition.

Amazingly, the doctrine of the Trinity, in fact, does not contradict scripture, nor violates the commands concerning whom we are to worship, as the Doctrine of the Trinity in reality preserves the integrity of God's nature — His essence — His Oneness that is clearly perceived within his creation and within his word.

Isaiah 42:5-8, "Thus saith God the LORD, He that created the heavens, and stretched them forth…8 I am the LORD, that is My name; and My glory will I not give to another, neither My praise to graven images." JPS --- This Glory and praise is God's work of salvation, righteousness, etc, alone which means His servant, the Messiah is Himself, as He Himself became that very servant which is the theme prophesized in this text of Isaiah 42. The true Messiah and God are indeed one.

As it is written:

Philippians 2:5-11, “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” ESV

As well in…

Colossians 2:6-10, “Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving. 8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily 10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.” ESV

Isaiah 45:21-25, “, And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me. 22 "Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other. 23 By Myself I have sworn, My mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before Me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear. 24 They will say of Me, 'In the LORD alone are righteousness and strength.' "All who have raged against Him will come to Him and be put to shame. 25 But in the LORD all the descendants of Israel will be found righteous and will exult.” NIV

1 John 5:3, 20, “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life… 20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.” ESV

Please read this scripture: Isaiah 48:11-13.

Notes Below:

The last part of 1 John 5:20 reads like this from the NA-26/27, “οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἥκει καὶ δέδωκεν ἡμῖν διάνοιαν ἵνα γινώσκωμεν τὸν ἀληθινόν· καὶ ἐσμὲν ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὁτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ. οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς Θεὸς καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος [We know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding that we may know the true, and we are in the true, in the son of Him, Jesus Christ. This one is true God and life eternal].

Romans 1:19-25, Philippians 2:5-11, Colossians 2:6-10
-
-
-

[Pierac]

You guys have been busy while I was away!

Where to start?

YLTYLT wrote:
Additinoally in reference to your understanding of Phil 2:6 , and i'll also indlude 7-9.

6 WHO, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a SERVANT, and was made in the likeness of men:
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:


This word (being) is the Greek word (huparchon). It means “to exist or subsist” and denotes pre-existent deity (previous to His birth - Jn 1:2 and Colo 1:16-17). To know CHRIST is to know God (Jn 14:9).

This word (form) is the Greek word (morphe). It means “exact image or impress” and denotes the Divine nature or essence actually and inseparably subsisting in the Person of CHRIST. This word has no reference to the shape of a physical object, but instead refers to the expression of being. To give expression to the essence of deity implies the possession of deity. CHRIST is not merely like God; He is God

Up until the final moments on the cross when JESUS cried out, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” CHRIST had always been in total equality with the other two Persons of the Triune Godhead in every aspect . However, since the price tag for Hell was eternal, CHRIST (because of His love for humanity) was willing to surrender certain aspects of His eternal authority with the other two persons of Deity

How did Jesus Empty Himself?

Now it is the second phrase in Philippians 2 that causes a question to come to your mind. It is the one that says Jesus Christ "did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself (v. 6-7). It is unfortunate that the Old King James version of the Bible translated this verse completely wrong. It reads that Jesus "thought it not robbery to be equal with God" and gives the impression that as the preexistent God, Jesus did not think there was anything wrong in being considered equal with God.

It ought to be clear by now that this is the exact opposite of what is meant. The whole context of the passage is about being humble, putting God's will and glory first, and serving others' interest above one's own interest. Although he was in "the form of God" Jesus did not reckon his God-given status as something to be exploited.

This meaning contrast well with the conduct of Adam who unfortunately did consider equality with God anything to be grasped at. Adam wanted to be like God as Genesis 3:5 teaches. Adam tried to grasp at equality with God. But Jesus would not usurp God's authority for selfish advantage. He said, "I came to serve" (Matt. 20:28), not to snatch! At his arrest in the garden, he said, "Do you not think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and He will at once put at my disposal more than 12 legions of angels?" (Matthew 26:53). As the Messiah, God's appointed King, he had every right to call for divine protection. He "emptied himself" of all such Messianic privileges.

Therefore, it can be categorically stated that Philippians 2: 5-11 has nothing to do with Jesus Christ being God in a preexistence state. The importance is really very simple and very practical: how are Christians to conduct themselves in this world? Not by imitating the man Adam who forfeited everything by a grab for power and glory, but by imitating Jesus the Messiah (v.5) who through humility and obedience to God gained it all and more. After all, if Jesus was already God, then verses 9 to 11 are nonsensical. There is no "Therefore also God highly exalted him, and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth." If he was already God, he had this before his birth! No. It is clear that God has given him a new position, a new name (authority), and a new rank that he did not previously possess. The Greek is very clear here: dio kai means (as in Luke 1:35) "for this reason precisely." Why has God exalted Jesus to His right hand? "Therefore, God has highly exalted him and given him the name above every other name because he is back where he was before as God"? Not at all! He is given the status as a reward for the precise reason that he humbled himself and died. His exalted status is a reward. If we follow the last Adam's pattern, we too will be exalted by God when Christ returns. It is evident, then, that "this hymn does not contained what numerous interpreters seek and find in it: an independent statement about preexistence or even a Christology preexistence… No preexistence of Christ before the world with an independent significance can be recognized even in Philippians 2.

[Pierac]

B.W. wrote:
The context of the Genesis account itself refutes this ideology without taking any rabbit trials through 1 Kings, Job 1,2, and Isaiah 6 and bible as well as men's opinions which your doctrine takes in vain attempt to prove God had a heavenly court nearby, or at least friendly cherubim or seraphim nearby to confer with to explain away the 'Us' and 'Our' of Genesis.

Let's leave the rabbit trail and look at the words of Jesus. Here is our Lord Jesus own commentary on Genesis 1:26. He will settle this issue for us.
In Matthew 19:4 and Mark 13:19 Jesus tells us…
Mat 19:4 He answered, "Have you not read that he (God) who created them from the beginning made them male and female,

Mark 13:19 For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be.

According to Jesus himself the creator God was not "We who made them from the beginning" but a single person He! Jesus does not include himself in the Genesis 1 creation of Adam, and He is also telling us that God (the Father) Created all from the beginning.

Please explain Matthew 19:4 and Mark 13:19? Because there is no we or us in these verses!


Fortigurn is correct in his explanation of the “US” in Genesis

When God says "let us make man in our image" are we being taught that the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit are together creating human beings? How is it that when some read this statement their minds immediately think of "let us three"? The verse says nothing about God speaking to the Son or to the Holy Spirit. It simply says that God addressed someone else or some others than Himself. The “us” could refer to just one other, or to many others. But who is this someone or who are these others to whom God speaks here?

The Hebrews understood that God addressed His heavenly court, the angelic host and that He allowed them to watch his master-work in creating mankind unfold. This is quite reasonable, for there are other times when God involves the angels in His work. In Isaiah 6, God is seen in His Heavenly temple with the cherubs and all the heavenly court. There God asks, "Whom shall I send, and whom will go for us?" (v.8 ). It is certainly the case in 1 Kings 22:19-20 where the Lord is seen "sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by Him on His right and on His left" and he asked the heavenly court '“who will entice Ahab to go up and fall at Ramoth-Gilead?' And one said this while the other said that."

Let's return to Genesis 1:26. It is reasonable to suggest then that God in some way took the angels into confidence with Himself when he created Adam? This is collaborated in Job 38:4, 7 where God says that when He laid the foundations of the earth "all the sons of God shouted for joy." The sons of God are of course the angels as Job 1:6 and 2:1 confirm. God's own testimony is that the work of creation, "the heavens," "the earth" and "all things" were His work alone. This fact is established right away at the very outset of Genesis 1 where we are first introduced to God (elohim) the Creator. It is also clear that when he came to create Adam and Eve he told the angels to watch in awe. In this way the heavenly hosts participated as spectators of the miracle of man's creation.

The Hebrew Bible is the first 75% of God's revealed word. There is no Trinity in the Hebrew concept of God! Jesus confirms this in Matthew 19:4 and Mark 13:19.

[Fortigurn]

Question: The Composition of the Atom: is one Atom one or comprised of uniquely differentiated parts? Is one atom really one, or is a single atom comprised of differentiated parts that make the Atom One?

This, and all your other examples, are not analogous to the trinity. You've given a list of things which are made up of different parts, which in turn consist of different substances. This is not analogous to the trinity, which is supposed to comprise three persons of one nature and substance.

Scientist state in this article [See Link] that the earth is basically made of two parts which make one Earth.

Actually the link you provided didn't even say that.

Some, such as liquid H2O, water, can freeze, or turn into vapor, and then return back into its original state. Hence you have empirical data that supports that one substance can transform into another different state and then return to its original state.

It has never been contested that 'one substance can transform into another different state and then return to its original state'. This has nothing to do with the trinity.

The doctrine of the trinity supports that God can do as he so wills, yet, the false heretical doctrines states that God cannot and such doctrine uses much wasted verbiage of words, written or spoken, to support their twisted denial of God.

I agree with you, the doctrine which says that God cannot do as He so wills is certainly false.

[YLTYLT]

Fortigurn ,
I tried to find you post where you answered my question, but I do not see it.

Not only did you read it, but you quoted it. I've shown you.

All you did was to tell me to read your previous post. I did not know if you meant the immediately previous post or some other previous post. I also could not tell at the time you asked me to read you post to which subject you were referring. Besides if you knew I quoted it why did you ask me to read. Or the least you could have done was identify it by asking me to reread the part that I quoted from you.

Sorry for the misunderstanding...

[YLTYLT]

Preexistence:

John 6:61
But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, "Do you take offense at this?
62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?


If Jesus was only a man, where did he ascend to that he was once there before?

Before when?

Does it really matter when "before" was. Its saying the that where ever it is that he is going to ascend to, he was there at some time before that moment in which he was speaking. Is he not referring to ascending to the Father in Heaven? If so, he was once there before. If he was there before did this happen during the Life of Jesus? Or did it happen before the birth of Jesus?

I think this would be a pretty solid indication of the preexistence of Christ, unless we can find a verse that indicates that at some point before His resurrection, during His life, Jesus ascended to the Father and came back down.

[Pierac]

B.W. wrote:
Let me describe in the briefest of terms how and why the doctrine of the Trinity came into beginning. The doctrine of the trinity came as a response to fight against heresy and false doctrine. It came as a response to safe guard the teachings of the bible handed down from the Christ to the Apostles and etc, to combat those bent on corrupting and destroying the Church from within the Church itself. It was designed in such manner that it could be easily memorized in order for any Christian to know and identify what the spirit of truth is verses the spirit of error.

An excellent proof that the Doctrine of the Trinity was not an established teaching of the early Christians is in a letter by one of the trinity's greatest exponents, Tertullian of Carthage. Even though his understanding of it was that the Son was subordinate to the Father, which is contrary to today's Doctrine of the Trinity, his writings were unfortunately, very influential in the development of this doctrine. He wrote about it profusely.

The fact that he believed the Son to be inferior to the Father can be easily seen in his letter Against Praxeas. In it, he states:

Tertullian wrote:
Chap. IX. "Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son."

Tertullian wrote:
Chap. VII. "And while I recognize the Son, I assert his distinction as second to the Father."

Again, ask yourself why was his view of the trinity different from today's view if it has always been taught by the church? The reason is because it was a developing idea.

Tertullian himself gives us the greatest proof of the fact that it was a developing idea in the same letter. He states:

Tertullian wrote:
Chap. III. vv. 1. "The majority of believers, are STARTLED at the Dispensation (of the Three in One)...They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods...While the Greeks actually REFUSE to understand the oikonomia, or Dispensation" (of the Three in One).

These are incredible statements! Tertullian is acknowledging that the majority of believers did not agree with the Doctrine of the Trinity. They accused him of being a polytheist. The Greeks (either Greek Christians or Christians that spoke Greek in different lands) refused altogether to believe him. These statements are probably the best proofs that the Doctrine of the Trinity was not taught by the Apostles. If it had been taught by them, the majority of believers would have known about the Dispensation and would not have been startled by it, neither would they have accused him of worshipping two gods. This doctrine was something new, it was not the established belief of Christianity as you can see. It was starting to work itself out and trying to gain popularity, especially with Hellenized Christians. But it was not in the majority. In fact, it was very much in the minority.

Jac3510 wrote:
I still can't believe anybody would vote "yes" to the question

Jac3510 you are in good company! Tertullian could not believe it either!

Let's continue…..

THE JUSTINIAN CODE

The Council of Nicaea is best remembered for its introduction of the first version of the Nicaean Creed, which was written in an attempt to resolve the
Arian controversy. However, it was also the source of another less known, but amazing development in the history of the Church! For the first three
centuries of its existence, the Church had endured regular outbreaks of fierce persecution for its faith. At Nicaea it gained a measure of political
influence, (and a seared conscience!) which allowed it to employ "legal" persecution as a measure to protect the "faith" -- such as it had become.
Down through the centuries countless thousands have been persecuted and martyred, for their refusal to pay dishonest lip service to the Creeds of
the Mainstream Church.

Despite vigorous attempts to eliminate them, Arian beliefs survived, mainly in the northern regions of the Empire, for several centuries afterwards.
They were still a force to be reckoned with, when the Emperor Justinian came to the throne in the sixth century AD.

It is not surprising therefore, that when Justinian commissioned a review of Roman Law, harsh measures against anti-trinitarianism came to be written
into the Civil Laws of the Empire.

In the interest of accuracy, it should be recognized that the Code of Justinian was NOT primarily written for this reason. Its major purpose was
a massive overhaul of the Roman Civil Law, which at that time it was in a very disorganized condition. It was so costly to reproduce the entire mass
of laws promulgated over previous centuries, that even public libraries did not contain complete collections.

Justinian appointed a Commission of 16 eminent lawyers to undertake the task of compiling, clarifying and simplifying. The results were published
in 533AD in 50 books. Over the following years, until his death in 565AD, Justinian issued a great number of new ordinances, some of which seriously
altered previous laws. All of this work is collectively known as the "Corpus Juris Civilus". (Source Encyclopedia Britannica 1999, CD-ROM Standard Version.)

Although enforcing Christianity as the State Religion was not the only concern, "heresy" did appear high on the list of "crimes" which incurred
severe penalties, and Church authorities were not slow to invoke them. These same attitudes were also adopted into the laws of other countries. In
England, the last public execution for anti-trinitarianism took place in Edinburgh, in 1697.
__________________________________________________________________________
**************************************************************************
"The Imperial law code from Justinian's time (A.D. 529) on, made rebaptism one of the two heresies penalized by death, the other being Anti-Trinitarianism." Quoted from - http://www.anabaptists.org/history/mennoen1.html (From the Mennonite Encyclopedia)
__________________________________________________________________________
**************************************************************************

The following extracts are taken from Book 1 of the Justinian Code. They reveal the hearts of men who thought Religious Conviction could be imposed by force! But, how very far they are from the heart of the Jesus revealed in the Gospels, whose teaching made obedience conditional on LOVE! (John
14:15) They can be found on-line at - http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/jus-code.htm

QUOTE_____________________________________________________________________

"We desire that all peoples subject to Our benign Empire shall live under the same religion that the Divine Peter, the Apostle, gave to the Romans,
and which the said religion declares was introduced by himself, and which it is well known that the Pontiff Damascus, and Peter, Bishop of
Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity, embraced; that is to say, in accordance with the rules of apostolic discipline and the evangelical
doctrine, we should believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit constitute a single Deity, endowed with equal majesty, and united in the
Holy Trinity."

"We order all those who follow this law to assume the name of Catholic Christians, and considering others as demented and insane, We order that
they shall bear the infamy of heresy; and when the Divine vengeance which they merit has been appeased, they shall afterwards be punished in
accordance with Our resentment, which we have acquired from the judgment of Heaven."

"Let no place be afforded to heretics for the conduct of their ceremonies, and let no occasion be offered for them to display the insanity of their
obstinate minds. Let all persons know that if any privilege has been fraudulently obtained by means of any rescript whatsoever, by persons of
this kind, it will not be valid. Let all bodies of heretics be prevented from holding unlawful assemblies, and let the name of the only and the
greatest God be celebrated everywhere, and let the observance of the Nicene Creed, recently transmitted to Our ancestors, and firmly established by the
testimony and practice of Divine Religion, always remain secure."

"Moreover, he who is an adherent of the Nicene Faith, and a true believer in the Catholic religion, should be understood to be one who believes that
Almighty God and Christ, the son of God, are one person, God of God, Light of Light; and let no one, by rejection, dishonor the Holy Spirit, whom we
expect, and have received from the Supreme Parent of all things, in whom the sentiment of a pure and undefiled faith flourishes, as well as the
belief in the undivided substance of a Holy Trinity, which true believers indicate by the Greek word amounsios. These things, indeed do not require
further proof, and should be respected."

"Let those who do not accept those doctrines cease to apply the name of true religion to their fraudulent belief; and let them be branded with
their open crimes, and, having been removed from the threshold of all churches, be utterly excluded from them, as We forbid all heretics to hold
unlawful assemblies within cities. If, however, any seditious outbreak should be attempted, We order them to be driven outside the walls of the
City, with relentless violence, and We direct that all Catholic Churches, throughout the entire world, shall be placed under the control of the
orthodox bishops who have embraced the Nicene Creed."

"Source: Corpus Juris Civilis (The Civil Law, the Code of Justinian), by S.P. Scott, A.M., published by the Central Trust Company, Cincinnati,
copyright 1932, Volume 12 [of 17], pages 9-12, 125."

END QUOTE_________________________________________________________________


The Doctrine of the Trinity was not an established teaching of the early Christians. It was a doctrine that developed and spread throughout Christianity between the 3rd and 4th centuries. There was much resistance to it from the majority of believers as Tertullian himself admits. But in the end, with the might of the Roman state to back up the state held Councils and the state imposed articles of faith, this new doctrine became the orthodox position of the church. Many thousands of people were killed by the state in the following centuries for their refusal to accept this doctrine as Biblical. Even as late as the 1700's, people were still being burned at the stake for their denial of this man-made doctrine (Servetus was burned at the stake by Calvin for this reason). Does that sound like something that Jesus and his apostles would approve of? * Did Jesus ever say,

"believe what I say or I will have you killed?" Of course not! But this was the only way to enforce this most unbiblical and most illogical pagan belief. If this doctrine is not the great apostasy that Jesus warned us about, then I do not know what else it could be.

This is an unpalatable aspect of history which is largely unknown, or ignored, by the current generation of the Christians.

The Trinity has lasted as long as it has because of oppression. The church with the state to back it up obliterated anyone who had opposing views to any so-called Orthodox doctrines. They also destroyed any writings or books that opposed their views.

Three other reasons have helped to keep this unbiblical belief as a cornerstone in mainstream Christianity. The first is the fact that most people until the middle of the 19th century could not read. There was no way for the average person to verify what his priest was telling him as fact. The second reason is the fact that Bibles until the 17th century were too expensive and too rare for the average person to own, again making it very difficult for the average person to see through the mistake. The third reason is that until it was changed in 1962 at the Second Vatican Council, it was considered a sin for Catholics to read the Bible. So by the time that the Protestant Reformation occurred which allowed people to finally be able to read the Bible, the Trinity had already had 1200 years to entrench itself. That, coupled with the simple fact that Catholics today still account for 85% of Christians worldwide completes the picture of why it is still here today.

Someday it will be known for what it is, a pagan belief that worked its way into Christianity in the early years of the church when it was reaching out to pagans all over the world.

Search the Scriptures for the word of God. Do not accept man's word of tradition. Remember what Jesus thinks of man's traditions:

Mark 7:7— "You disregard God's commandment but cling to human tradition."

[B. W.]

Concerning your comments on:

Deuteronomy 6:4-5, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. 5 You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.” ESV

This passage is widely quoted amongst those that oppose the Trinity as the ultimate proof text against the triune nature of God. These claims have been written at length by Fortigrun and Pierac here on this thread in many ways. The use of the Hebrew word Elohim and Echad use in the Shema has been amply describe by the opponents of the Trinity as meaning that God is only a single entity and no other and that equates the God is One to mean that God is singular.

This brings on much confusion because the bible describes God as having a Heart, A Soul, A Mind, and that God is Spirit.

++God has a Heart++

Genesis 6:6, “And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.” ESV

++God has a Soul++

Isaiah 1:14, “Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates; they have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them.”

++God has wisdom, understanding, knowledge, and has thoughts — He has intelligence: a real mind++

Proverbs 3:19, “The LORD by wisdom founded the earth; by understanding he established the heavens; 20 by his knowledge the deeps broke open, and the clouds drop down the dew.”

Isaiah 55:8, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.” ESV

++God is Spirit++

John 4:24, “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

Which is it? According to Fortigrun and his cohorts, the anti-trinity crowd, God is singular. They point this out in their lengthy diatribes.

Is God only all Heart? Is God only all Soul? Is God only all Mind? Is God only all Spirit?

Wow, I am confused? Since God is One which One is he? All Heart, All Soul, All Mind, or All Spirit? He cannot be but one singular Entity, therefore, which part can God be if only One; therefore, Which Lump is He? Heart? Soul? Mind? Spirit? Love?

I almost forgot that God is also Love? So Is God a big splotch of gooey Love? A globule of Heart? A big bead of Soul? A big bubble of Mind? A huge blob of Spirit? He can only be One -- He cannot be anything else if what Fortigrun writes about the Shema is true that Elohim and Echad refers to only a singular One: Oh My Soul Bless The Holy Blob, God is One Blob!

If the Shema is to be interpreted as Fortigrun stated before and as he is in agreement with the anti-trinity crowd, then God can only be singular and nothing more due to grammar construct; however, there is more to God than being classed as one Lump. If the grammar construct and word meanings of the shema are as Fortigrun believes then God is just one lump consisting either of heart, or soul, or mind, or spirit as He cannot be a unity in any degree - Elohim...Echad!!!

Now if You, Fortigrun or Pierac, try to say that, NO, that God has these others attributes as well and is still One, you will contradict yourself and will be agreeing with the Trinitarians as well as what the Shema really means regarding its use of the words Elohim and Echad. Echad means Unity and Elohim means God in plural form; thus, God is a unity of Love, Heart, Soul, Mind, Spirit and this is brought out in the Shema in the verse so rarely quoted by the opponents of the Trinity and that verse is verse Five:

Deuteronomy 6:5, "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.” ESV

The Shema points out that human heart, soul, and strength needs to be in unity to Love God. Jesus in Matthew 22:36-40 points this out in more detail: "36 Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" 37 And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets." ESV [Also Note-Jesus was in unity with the Father and Holy Spirit as well as without sin denoting relationship…]

What is being stressed in the Shema is that God's Oneness does not mean singular of number but rather a United One United with all his many attributes that make Him a True One and not just a number. This was pointed out in last post written by me concerning how God's creation points out that One is made of many varied individual parts revealing the divine essence of God's divine nature. We have this thought brought out in the Shema — the real grammar of the text will line up with the rest of the Bible not the twisting of it as is the tactic of the Anti-Trinity crowd.

Remember Fortigrun, Pierac, if you disagree and say that God has a heart, soul, mind, spirit, and remains One then you will be agreeing with how the Trinitarians interpret the Trinity!

A non-Trinitarian Rabbi had this to say about the Word Elohim. This is quoted from web link list at end of this quote: "Rabbi Simeon ben Joachi, commenting on the word Elohim: “Come and see the mystery of the word Elohim; there are three degrees, and each degree by itself alone, and yet notwithstanding they are all one, and joined together in one, and are not divided from each other.” Clarke adds: “He must be strangely prejudiced indeed who cannot see that the doctrine of a Trinity, and of a Trinity in unity, is expressed in the above words.” Quoted From this web Link

As for Echad See this Quote From web Link: “iv. The very first use of echad in the Bible is in Genesis 1:5: So the evening and the morning were the first day. Even here, we see a unity (one day) with the idea of plurality (made up of evening and morning). Genesis 2:24 uses echad in saying the two shall become one flesh. Again, the idea of a unity (one flesh), making a plurality (the two). In Exodus 26:6 and 11, the fifty gold clasps are used to hold the curtains together so the tent would be one (echad) - a unity (one) made up of a plurality (the many parts of the tabernacle). In Ezekiel 37:17 the Lord tells Ezekiel to join together two sticks (prophetically representing Ephraim and Judah) into one (echad), speaking again of a unity (one stick) made up of a plurality (the two sticks). There is no way that echad has the exclusive idea of an absolute singularity; the idea of One God in Three Persons fits just fine with the term echad.” End Quote

Yes, one must be strangely prejudiced indeed who cannot see the doctrine of the Trinity as:

++God has a Heart++

Psalms 78:72, “With upright heart he shepherded them and guided them with his skillful hand.” ESV

Job 34:14-15. “If he should set his heart to it and gather to himself his spirit and his breath, 15 all flesh would perish together, and man would return to dust.” ESV

Genesis 6:6, “And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.” ESV

++God has a Soul++

Isaiah 1:14, “Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates; they have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them.”

Isaiah 42:1, “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.

Jeremiah 51:14, “The LORD of hosts has sworn by -himself [his soul]:Surely I will fill you with men, as many as locusts, and they shall raise the shout of victory over you.”

++God has wisdom, understanding, knowledge, and has thoughts — He has intelligence: a mind++

Proverbs 3:19, “The LORD by wisdom founded the earth; by understanding he established the heavens; 20 by his knowledge the deeps broke open, and the clouds drop down the dew.”

Romans 11:33, “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! 34 "For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?" ESV

Isaiah 55:8, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.” ESV

++God is Spirit++

John 4:24, “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

Genesis 1:2, “The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.” ESV

Remember Fortigrun and Pierac, if you disagree and say that God has a heart, soul, mind, spirit, and is One then you will be agreeing with how the Trinitarians really interpret the Trinity. This you both cannot do as you so stated in all your post's thesis which argues that God is One as a singular number 1 and not united with himself in any degree at all. For you then, God can only be just all heart, or just all soul, or just all mind, or just all spirit, as he cannot be any combination other than a singular one. The bible ,as well as the Shema, disagrees with your thesis concerning God, as there is more to God than a single lump.

Romans 11:33, “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! 34 "…For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?" ESV

I see by all your writings that you deem yourself wiser than God and are his counselor as he can only be one way. However, God states in the Bible:

Isaiah 55:8, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.” ESV

His ways are much higher! Who are you to say what God can be and not be? Trinitarians do not — we agree with God as he is and not how we want him to be based on prejudice. We see His many attributes that makes His essence One — that Make Him God unlike any god, gods, angels or creature. We know that nothing is impossible-too difficult for Him - We know that only He can save by His Arm, His Hand, and that the true Messaih is both God and man as only God alone can save.

We see the innermost being of God where all the issues of life come from, the Father, We see the arm of the Lord - the one that expresses and creates that Life the Father desires issued forth — the Son, and we see the one who gives power and strength to live what the Father issues forth — the Holy Spirit. We see God as He reveals Himself: Elohim- Echad: Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

We see God as One and not as three separate gods as you falsely assert we believe nor do we worship three separate gods either as you slanderously claim. We worship One God whose essence is three and these three are one essence. If you state that the God has heart, soul, mind, spirit, love, all encompassed in One being, then you, yourself, are beginning to become a Trinitarian.

Who then is Jesus if God only saves? Whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? Isaiah 53:1.
-
-
-

[Pierac]

Is God the only Savior?

I imagine by now B.W. you may “STILL” be arguing with me and saying something like this: Well, if Jesus is not God in human flesh what you do say to the Scriptures that say only God can save? After all, God says, "I, even I, am the LORD; and there is no Savior besides me" (Isaiah 40 3:11). If Jesus is not God and there are two saviors! And this is something the Bible here clearly excludes.

We have already seen a strong argument against the idea that God became man in order to redeem us is that there is not one single O.T. prophecy that supports it. Not one verse foretells that God himself was going to become a man in order to save us. The opposite is the case. The prophets predicted a human being who would under God's anointing Spirit rescue us.

Wherein lies the solution? Ah, let's now read this through a Hebrew understanding and see what a difference it makes. Remember that dictum the Jews had about the law of agency where "the agent is as the principal himself"? It applies right here.

Let's go back to Exodus 23. Remember that I used this chapter earlier to illustrate the Hebrew law of agency. We saw that the angel of the Lord acted in God's stead. What the angel did and said was really what God himself did and said, for "My name is in him" (v. 21). In verse 23 Jehovah explained, "For My angel will go before you and bring you into the land of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Canaanites, the Hivities and the Jebusites; and I will completely destroy them." The angel was the instrument through whom God destroyed the enemies.

Now let's proceed on in the chapter. God says to the Israelites, "I will send my terror ahead of you… I will make all your enemies turn their backs to you. And I will send hornets ahead of you, that they may drive out the Hivities, the Canaanites, and the Hittites before you" (v. 27-28).

To our understanding this sounds as if the LORD himself is going to do the work. But when we come to verse 31: "I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you will drive them out before you." So God expects the Israelites to drive their enemies out. Is there a contradiction here? Will God Himself drive out their enemies or will the Israelites do it? We note the principle again and again. Got says He will act when in fact He is going to empower his angels and his people to do the work.

This kind of talk has a thorough Hebrew feel about it. Actions that are directly ascribed to God are in fact carried out by his commissioned agents. Take another instance: "in the LORD… he saved them by the hand of Jeroboam" (2 Kings 14:27).
Once again we observe the clear distinction between God who is the ultimate Author of deliverance and his appointed agent who in this case was King Jeroboam. Or take this verse: "therefore you did deliver them into the hands of the oppressors who oppressed them. But when they cry to You in the time of their distress, You did hear from heaven, and according to Your great compassion You did give them deliverers who delivered them from the hand of their it oppressors" (Nehemiah 9:27).

Graeser, the author of One God and One Lord, p.363. Writes:

God, Christ and others are referred to as "saviors," but that clearly does not make them identical. The term "Savior" is used of many people in the Bible. This is hard to see in the English versions because, when it is used of men, the translators almost always translated as "deliverer." This in and of itself shows that modern translators have a Trinitarian bias that was not in the original languages. The only reason to translate the same word as "Savior" when it applies to God or Christ, but as "deliverer" when it applies to men, is to make the terms seem unique to God and Jesus when in fact it is not. This is a good example of how the actual meaning of Scriptures can be obscured if the translators are not careful or if they are theologically biased.

Is often been argued that the very name Jesus, which means "Yahweh saves," prove Jesus is Jehovah because "he will save his people from their sins" (Matt 1:21). But the logic is not consistently applied because the O.T. name Joshua means "Yahweh saves." I have never yet heard someone who believes in the deity of Christ argue that Joshua was God in the flesh. We know that the O.T. Joshua was God appointed man to deliver Israel. As Joshua and Israel went forth in obedience to his word God save them. Just so, in the matter of our salvation, God sent forth his son into battle. Through Jesus God has saved us. This is why both God and Jesus are called Savior. But the Bible never loses sight of the fact that God the Father is the ultimate Author of our salvation through (dia) his son.

This same line of reasoning applies to the healing of the paralytic in Mark 2. This is one of the most commonly appealed to Scriptures that allegedly proves that Jesus must be God, because "only God can forgive sins" (v.7). When Jesus pronounced the man forgiven/healed, the Pharisees say that Jesus is "blaspheming" because he is claiming to be God. But a little careful attention to detail will show that Jesus is not claiming deity. He is rather claiming "authority." He says, "But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…" (v.10). The parallel account in Matthew's report is that once the people saw Jesus healed a paralytic, "they were filled with awe, and glorified God,who had given such authority to men" ( Matt 9:8). We note that Jesus is claiming to be "the Son of Man," that is, the human Messiah, with a God given right to pronounce forgiveness. Not too much later Jesus invested other men-his apostles-with the same authority to forgive sins: "If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; he to retain the sins of any, they have been retained" (John 20:23). If only God can forgive sins, then God and Jesus and the apostles are all God! Besides, there is no teaching anywhere in the Bible that says only God can forgive. Even Christians are commanded to forgive each other sin (Eph. 4:32; Col. 3:13). The fact that the Pharisees say that only God can forgive sins does not make this an established Biblical doctrine. The Pharisees often had wrong doctrine and were often corrected by our Lord Jesus. This was one such occasion.

Those who believe that Jesus can only be our Savior if he is God sometimes appeal to the prophecy from Jeremiah 23: (In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely; and this is his name by which he will be called, 'The LORD our righteousness'" (Jer. 23:6).
Does this not say that the coming Savior will be "The LORD our righteousness," that is, God himself? This is easily answered when we note that a few chapters later we have this prophecy in Jeremiah 33: "in those days Judah shall be saved and Jerusalem shall dwell in safety; and this is the name by which she shall be called: the LORD is our righteousness' (v.16). Here the city of Jerusalem is given the very same title as the coming redeemer earlier. I have never yet heard anyone argue that the city of Jerusalem must also be God himself because it bears the same title as Jehovah. Hebrew understanding is needed to avoid the confusion.

This is why it is fallacious to reason that because Jesus is called the "king of kings and the Lord of Lords" (Rev. 19:16) he must necessarily be Almighty God Himself. The fact that Artaxerxes is called "king of kings" and that God himself calls Nebuchadnezzar "king of kings" does not put these men in the same league as Messiah Jesus, nor mean they have the same nature as him. The designation "king of kings" is obviously a very Hebrew way of speaking that has nothing to do with the equivalency of nature. The Hebrews could also speak of a "servant of servants," which simply means to the lowest of the low (Gen 9:25). In the book of Daniel God addresses Nebuchadnezzar: "You, O king, are the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, the strength, and the glory" (Dan. 2:37).

In the same Hebrew fashion, when Scriptures designate Jesus Christ as "the king of kings, and the Lord of Lords" the message conveyed is that God has also given him the Kingdom, the power, the strength, and the glory of the Age to Come. Equality of being with the God who gives the Kingdom does not come into the equation, for either Nebuchadnezzar or Jesus. If, as already noted, to share the same nomenclature as God does not prove literal identity with God himself, the same holds true for the sharing of the same titles. Whilst Jesus may share the title "king of kings and Lord of Lords" with God his Father, there is one title reserved uniquely for the Father God. No other individual, including the Lord Jesus, is ever called by the title "God of gods" (Deut. 10:17). This title, as well as "the Lord God" (Rev. 1:8), is always reserved for the one true God, who is the Father.

[Fortigurn]

All you did was to tell me to read your previous post. I did not know if you meant the immediately previous post or some other previous post.

Then you should have just looked at my previous posts, to find out which one it was. It was only a couple of posts back. And remember, you had already read it.

I also could not tell at the time you asked me to read you post to which subject you were referring.

Why couldn't you, since I was answering your question about grace, the question you were repeating?

Besides if you knew I quoted it why did you ask me to read.

Because you clearly hadn't read it properly.

Or the least you could have done was identify it by asking me to reread the part that I quoted from you.

I finally had to do that, because you wouldn't look back at my previous posts.

Does it really matter when "before" was.

Of course it does. You read it as saying 'In heaven before he was born'.

Is he not referring to ascending to the Father in Heaven? If so, he was once there before. If he was there before did this happen during the Life of Jesus? Or did it happen before the birth of Jesus?

That's for you to tell me. Do make sure you provide plenty of Scriptural passages to support your interpretation.