In a well written article concerning the Trinity, the comments were divided between being respectful, antagonistic and divisive. I was waiting for someone to point out that the concept of the Trinity was debated by our founding fathers:
Faith of the Founders #8: Jefferson, the Trinity, Faith, and the Occult
In a letter to his fellow revolutionary and former President, John Adams, dated August 22, 1813, Thomas Jefferson made clear that he rejected the Trinity, and the Christian concept of Faith, and thereby the very idea of revelation itself.
The historical background of Jefferson’s letter is the Council of Nicaea in AD 325, which, in laymen’s terms, defined that Jesus Christ was the Son of God from all eternity. This was done to refute a new heresy called Arianism, named after the Egyptian priest, Arius, who taught that Jesus Christ was not the Son from all eternity, but had been endowed with “divinity” at a point after his creation. In other words, he had become the Son of God. He was not the Son of God by nature. Arius’ teaching thus contradicted the Christian belief in the Trinity—that there is one God in three Persons from all eternity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
While I encourage you to read the entire letter, here is the portion to which the above referenced:
I remember to have heard Dr. Priestley say that if all England would candidly examine themselves, & confess, they would find that Unitarianism was really the religion of all: and I observe a bill is now depending in parliament for the relief of Anti-Trinitarians. it is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, & one is three; & yet the one is not three, and the three are not one: to divide mankind by a single letter into ὁμοουςιans, and ὁμοιουςιans. but this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests. sweep away their gossamer fabrics of factitious religion, and they would catch no more flies. we should all then, like the quakers, live without an order of priests, moralise for ourselves, follow the oracle of conscience, and say nothing about what no man can understand, nor therefore believe; for I suppose belief to be the assent of the mind to an intelligible proposition.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is easy to pick verses from the Bible to provide “evidence” of your viewpoint. I wonder how many people actually read Malachi’s article and did more research on the Trinity? How many people thought about why asking a question would have the consequences that resulted in the termination of his ordination?
Here is another article to consider:
Ten Ways the Bible Disproves the Trinity
1. God does not change.
A key element of the Trinity is the incarnation. This teaches that the second person of the Trinity, God the Son, took on human flesh in the bodily form of Jesus. Thus when Mary gave birth to Jesus, God entered into the creation as a human being:
However such beliefs contradict what the Bible teaches about God’s nature:
Your throne is established from of old; you are from everlasting. [Psalm 93:2]
Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. [James 1:17]
The Bible defines God’s nature as eternal and unchanging; indeed, God cannot change, because He transcends time. So the claim that God became flesh is a contradiction.
Trinitarians try to get around this problem by arguing that when God became man, a human nature was merely added to God’s existing divine nature. Since the two natures did not mix, the divine nature did not change at all and so God remained the same.
Can this be considered valid reasoning? Well, if God ‘added’ a new nature to Himself, then that is a change in state. Was God always a man? He was not. Did God become a man? According to Trinitarians, he did. So to claim that God did not change is nothing more than philosophical wordplay.
To illustrate this, let’s take the example of a man called John. Consider a situation where God grants John a divine nature. Even if John’s original nature, humanity, remains unchanged and separate from his divinity, would you ever conclude that John has not changed at all?
Would any reasonable person argue, “well, John hasn’t really changed in nature, his original finite human nature is only being complemented by an additional infinite nature”. To claim that John, going from mere mortal to master of the universe, has undergone no change would be absurd.
Clearly, John has changed from one state, not being God, to another, being God. This mirrors the Trinitarian claim that God became flesh, which also entails a change from one state, not being human, to another, being human. The end result for Jesus and John is the same; they’ve both become God-men.
We must conclude that the doctrine of the Trinity involves a change in the nature of God. This directly contradicts the Bible’s statements that God is eternal and unchanging.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This article’s purpose is to show that the Trinity is a controversial subject. So controversial that many people will not discuss or debate it. What do I believe? Or I should say what I know:
The topic of the Trinity is a good example of how Men of God should get together and discuss the Bible. In that discussion, I would ask why churches have a difficult time defining the Holy Spirit. Most churches today concentrate on the New Testament and Jesus. I believe the entire Bible is the Word of God. I believe the Lord wants us to debate the Word so that we can temper and refine our faith. I believe that task cannot be completed in a lifetime: the point is to always question, debate and grow spiritually.
David DeGerolamo
Gen 32:22 to 32: 32 Jacob wrestles with God. God himself has appeared in human form.
I was pondering this the other day.
“And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” Matt 28:18
If Jesus was God, he would not need to be “given” authority, as he should already have it. Wouldn’t that seem logical? Or did I miss something?
Yep, spot on.
Well, Bible version selection is key and that is where the article falls flat on its face. If the version is not based on Textus Receptus there is a huge problem. Glaringly obvious in the Johanian example that was provided. This premise is basically a reversion to not only Arianism but the Marconian heresy that the Church Fathers fought against. Guess then that the Mormon’s and JW’s are just fine? This is a dead horse and I don’t know why at a time like this NC renegade wants to dive into this rabbit hole. Gen 1:1 Bereshith bara Elohim (In the beginning God(s) ) and then “let us make man in OUR image”.
And here we go, my way or the highway according to you. My point is that every topic can be discussed, debated and a consensus found for most topics. Did I say that I believe in or disbelieve in the Trinity? Or did I say that God’s ways are not man’s ways? How many people knew that this was a topic that was discussed centuries ago? And yet, our founding fathers overcame this question and the vitriol associated with the different Christian denominations to unite and eventually write the Constitution to form the Republic.
There is no rabbit hole: we should be discussing and studying the Bible not to tear it down but to edify it and strengthen our faith. Or we can continue to divide ourselves upon our own conceptions and egos.
There are many points in the Bible that I do not understand and would like to be discussed but the bottom line is that we will never completely understand the Word of God. That does nothing in my mind to degrade or diminish my devotion and worshipping of the Lord.
And thank you for not addressing my personal viewpoint on this issue in the above article.
Iron sharpens Iron.
You are welcome, I would not attack you personally. I have read too many of your entries to not respect you. My point was that this debate is 2 millennia old and has, in my mind, long since been settled. Most assuredly not “my way” I rest on the work of those far superior in understanding. HOWEVER my main point is that if a tainted bible version is used, inaccurate results will occur. That is glaringly obvious in the second article (Ten ways to disprove the Trinity). Calling John 5:7 a “fabrication” is either ignorant in the extreme or deliberately evil. Both the NIV and the ESV are deliberate frauds being the handiwork of messrs Hort and Westcott in the19th century. You can do the research on those guys or perhaps read what has already been do: “New Age Bible Versions” G.A. Riplinger Updated version 2021, A.V Publications, Ararat Va. 742 pages.
The article for disproving the Trinity that was referenced was only incorporated to show this is not a settled question. I did not read the other nine points because it is not important for me. I will never have an answer on the Trinity because it is not important to me. That is not meant to cause alarm, I only mean it is one of the Lord’s mysteries that I do not feel a need to explore. I would rather explore why the church does not preach about the Holy Spirit.
Until we start using our critical thinking skills on issues that we can make an impact, we will continue to lose this war against evil.
David -- your patience is amazing
Before I was Christian, I was trained as a scientist and worked as an engineer. My inquiries were guided by philosophical tenets of Ontology and Epistemology … what can we know, and how can we know it.
As people of Faith, we face the same problem … what can we know, and how can we know it? We can acquire certain knowledge about the world because it is available to us (revealed) and other knowledge about the world is unavailable to us (divine).
Revealed knowledge is never complete (whether through science or scripture) and divine knowledge is beyond human ability to acquire or understand. Does this make revealed knowledge unuseful or unhelpful? Not in the least.
Throughout human history, economic development depended upon the revealed knowledge of technology and engineering. Social development depended upon the revealed knowledge of our theology and civility. In my experience, the boundary between “revealed” vs “divine” is personal.
Early on I discovered limits to my scientific understanding, and hence a boundary beyond which I could not acquire additional engineering knowledge. I know this boundary is personal because (1) over time this boundary has moved, and (2) I observe others who have advanced beyond my limitations.
I face similar issues on my journey of Faith and I suspect this is a truth common to all. I am not embarrassed by the current limits of my revealed knowledge, nor do I believe these limitations will always be what they are now.
Many commenters claim to be more knowledgeable, more “advanced” in their understanding of revealed spiritual knowledge. Their posts appear to me as prideful attempts to shame me into adopting their perspective.
That is not how knowledge is taught or acquired … in science or faith. Your approach is refreshing. Thanks.
I think one of the worst things that can happen to someone is to become intolerant of knowledge and other people’s viewpoints. I wonder what would happen if I started a discussion on whether Paul was an apostle? Many founding fathers did not believe that. Imagine stopping the New Testament after the four gospels.
many of our founding fathers were deists, so they were biblically ignorant of the word of God and their faith was weak. The first thirteen colonies were set up as a Christian nation only and not a Judeo type which is all we ever hear from so called Christians; this is false in itself. even the founding fathers never taught this nor believed in it. there is only one way to the father and that is thru Jesus Christ only and none other.
Judeo and Christian together is an oxymoron because the so-called Jewish peoples to this day hate Christ and the Christians vehemently, the same way they did when Christ walked the earth, nothing has changed in over two thousand years with these stiff-necked people, and nothing will.
You will never have a definitive answer from anyone concerning the Trinity, because our minds our finite and we cannot grasp the three persons in one as the Bible states. Only having Faith of what is written for our instruction will you find the answer about our Marvelous God, and the Trinity. sometimes you cannot prove things out and you just have to let your faith guide you. Faith is the substance of things hoped for and not seeing, but believing in them.
You understand the corruption which has occurred within the manuscripts, as I have read Gail Riplinger’s books -- extensive study required. Just as the serpent attacked the offspring of Adam and Eve -- study what occurred in the garden and the lines of Cain and Abel, Satan has used at his disposal the good “godly” lines of scholarly men and perverted the word. You don’t believe me? Example, look at what your elected officials have done through none other than the Department of Education. I could go on. I’m Isaiah 14, the anointed cherub (another name for Satan) said five “I Will’s”. I’m the Book of Daniel, Satan is said to be wiser than the prophet. More folks don’t understand what they’re up against. Satan has used his minions to corrupt all that God created. As Solomon stated 39 times in the KJV, “there is nothing new under the sun”. Man just can’t come to terms in our feeble minds, that Satan has corrupted all -- even your church and if he gets half a chance, he’ll destroy and corrupt even your loved ones.
And this was the beginning of the New Age Bibles.
Facts about Westcott and Hort
Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) were the two English scholars who produced the corrupt Greek text of the modern perversions. Their dominating influence on the revision committee of 1871-1881 accounts for most of the corruption that we have today in modern translations. The Bible believer should keep several points in mind when discussing these two men. The following information is well documented in Final Authority, by William Grady, and in Riplinger’s New Age Bible Versions:
1. Together, the Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott and the Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort run over 1,800 pages. A personal salvation testimony is not given once for either man, and the name “Jesus” is found only nine times!
2. Westcott was a firm believer in Mary worship, and Hort claimed that Mary worship had a lot in common with Jesus worship.
3. Hort believed in keeping Roman Catholic sacraments.
4. Hort believed in baptismal regeneration as taught in the Catholic church.
5. Hort rejected the infallibility of Scripture.
6. Hort took great interest in the works of Charles Darwin, while both he and Westcott rejected the literal account of Creation.
7. Westcott did not believe in the Second Coming of Christ, the Millennium, or a literal Heaven.
8. Both men rejected the doctrine of a literal Hell, and they supported prayers for the dead in purgatory.
9. Hort refused to believe in the Trinity.
10. Hort refused to believe in angels.
11. Westcott confessed that he was a communist by nature.
12. Westcott also did his share of beer drinking. In fact, only twelve years after the Revised Version was published, Westcott was a spokesman for a brewery.
13. While working on their Greek text (1851-1871), and while working on the Revision Committee for the Revised Version (1871-1881), Westcott and Hort were also keeping company with “seducing spirits and doctrines of devils” (I Tim. 4:1). Both men took great interest in occult practices and clubs. They started the Hermes Club in 1845, the Ghostly Guild in 1851, and Hort joined a secret club called The Apostles in the same year. They also started the Eranus Club in 1872. These were spiritualists groups which believed in such unscriptural practices as communicating with the dead (necromancy).
14. The Westcott and Hort Greek text was secretly given to the Revision Committee.
15. The members of the Revision Committee of 1881 were sworn to a pledge of secrecy in regard to the new Greek text being used, and they met in silence for ten years.
16. The corrupt Greek text of Westcott and Hort was not released to the public until just five days before the debut of the Revised Version. This prevented Bible-believing scholars like Dean Burgon from reviewing and exposing it.
No matter how many facts and truths are available and logically presented there are many who will not listen. “It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled” -- Mark twain. .We are living through the “Strong delusion” long ago foretold. ,
Sad to say, many will indeed follow the “imposter”. He’s the great copycat. I’m referencing that “god” mentioned in 2 Corinthians 4:4. The first thing he did in Genesis was made the woman question “God’s” word. Read it closely, Eve added to and subtracted from scripture. The road to Hell is be paved with good intentions…
https://ncrenegade.com/transfer-and-focus-your-anger-where-it-deserves-to-be/
David, thanks for bringing this to light. As for me I had been too concerned in the ways of the world and man that I had been neglecting Gods word, this was a great break. There are estimated over 200 Christian denominations, each one teaching the prejudices and biases that were taught them by their particular teachers. You are right that we will never learn it all in a lifetime. I believe God was purposely cryptic, to promote discussion and thought. He wants us to read study and question His book. We have to unite in God He alone is going to save us. No matter where anyone’s personal interpretation lies, you have opened minds to Him this morning, keep it up.
Bible version selection is critical. Either it is written from the Textus Receptus -- Byzantine text or the corrupted Alexandrian type text -- found in the Vaticanus manuscript -- Aleph (Sinaiticus) and B (Vaticanus). I’ll give you one example and ask does your Bible read as such -- He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and the have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God. That’s only one example of the thousands the “godly” scholars decided to change. Something that reads differently ain’t the same! Try this one -- Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Exactly so.
The “JW’s” you reference assert that Jesus was said to be the “first born of creation”, and likely involved in all subsequent creation… hence “our”.
By definition, there is only one reality. We have no direct access to truth. We have only our limited perceptions, from which we imagine what reality must be to produce those perceptions. With scientific method, we have only successive approximation of truth at best.
Sometimes thing seem clear and simple only because you have not looked at them closely enough, or long enough.
“Things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.”
“The universe is not stranger than you think it is, it is stranger than you *can* think it is.”
Gen 1:26-28
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Psalm 110:1
The Lord says to my lord:[a]
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.”
You send forth Your Spirit, they [living creatures] are created; and You renew the face of the earth (Ps. 104:30).
Come near to Me, hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, I was there. And now the Lord Gᴏᴅ and His Spirit have sent Me (Isa. 48:16).
A few examples from the Old Covenant showing the plurality of the Living God.
Some scholars argue that Melchizidek, whom Abraham gave a tenth of his entire fortune to, was in fact, the pre-incarnate Jesus. While i do not have definitive proof of that claim, I do believe it.
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/genesis/1-26.htm.
Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Not plural but not an issue for me. Thank you for finally bringing Melchizidek into this discussion.
Yes, in our image, not my image.
The only reason the “trinity ” as you guys call it is controversial is the same reason homosexuality or adultery or sunday sabbath are controversial. Christianity is an abomination! A discusting thing brimming with total ignorance and miseducation. I believe that soon enough the entirety of organized Christianity will be part of the Gay pride movement. Then people seeking Elohim will be left with nothing but these toxic little home bible groups .which are increasingly cultish in nature and full of rebellious weirdos..so after 20 years of experience with this sunday demonic cult my outlook for your religious future is not great.
Where would satan place himself? In the church, among the many false doctrines of man. One of the deadly sins is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Anything to say about the synagogue of satan while you are talking about abominations.
Yes I do. Judism has been gone for 2000 years. They are so lost only God could reach them. The reason I’ve even been willing to discuss Christianity is because I think some people trapped in it can still escape. I don’t discuss the synagogue because its gone! Not one of them will listen to even a Rabbi. They only want evil constantly.
Yes man loves the darkness, rather than the light.
OK, Rabbi. You invited me back, so here goes. I didn’t intend to open a can of worms. I have reread my post multiple times and fail to see where I attacked anyone, anyone’s faith, or made any personal attacks. I will continue to take the high road here. I would ask you to reread your posts and apply the same courtesies. Judaism belongs to the Jews. Yahweh is the god of Israel. I have not attacked you or your religion, yet you suggest I and others here worship demons and you denounce Christians. You claim that I’m intolerant and call Christianity an abomination and a demonic cult.. Why can’t we respectfully disagree? Disagree agreeably?
We all have our own road to travel. You are welcome to yours. It just pains me that we can’t have a civil conversation without resorting to name calling. By the way, you refer to yourself as a rabbi and yet suggest Judaism has been gone 2000 years and Christianity is a cult. You haven’t mentioned what you’re a teacher of … exactly.
I’m glad you’re still here. I hope you’ll keep posting. I think it was someone else who called you intolerant. I said that I am Intolerant, because that’s the truth. Obviously there are still synagogues but they turned to the dark side spiritually. The churches holy days and worship rituals have much more in common with your old ways than the bible for sure. So my comments were really directed at Christianity not you. I actually have much respect for you ,because of your willingness to say the quiet part out loud. That you don’t believe in it any more. I think you could start a whole ministry of people in the church because I bet most in the pews don’t really believe it either. As for me I serve as teacher in a Messianic synagogue in NC. I’ve been at this post since 2014. I’d enjoy talking with you further if you are willing. I will not try to evangelizing or fix you in any way. Besides as you can see from my posts someone else would probably be better at that. Shalom.
Now that’s what I respect. A gentlemanly response. Talking is always good.
I wont be available tonight. But tomorrow around lunchtime. 7042026922
Thanks for the thread Malachi, you attacked no one in your article. Hope to see more of your articles here.
How many times did the Israelites fall into demon worshipping? The Goyim as you refer to or the Christian demon worshippers have no future? I will stay in Christ thank you.
David, thank you for taking the time to post this. As I’ve posted before, God is quite able to have “God the son” written. However, He chose not to. O, nada. “Son of God” is written 46 times.
Please do not think you are doing God a favor by promoting something He has never said. This is not new information About 40 years ago, the Way International first published “Jesus Christ Is Not God.” It is tremendous research. It is available for purchase. Over these 40 years, the least interested and most vocal critics have been the professing Christian denominations. It is one reason I’m non denominational.
I’m not looking to convince anyone. I choose not to debate but to point people in a different direction if they’d like to inquire. It’s just like trying to wake people up to what’s really going on in our world. You can tell right away if someone is interested.
2 Corinthians 5:20 says we are ambassadors for Christ. An ambassador heralds the message. We are not defense attorneys. I have no interest in defending 46 to 0. That only leads to infighting.
My purpose was to have people understand that the point of the Trinity has been contentious for centuries. I do not question whether it is true or not as it has no impact on the level of my faith. I do not assume that I have greater knowledge or wisdom than God or even those greater minds before me that questioned this topic.
Personally, I would rather spend time working on issues upon which I can make an impact. Like trying to make people see that controversial topics only divide us and result in personal attacks. Maybe I should revisit my discussion with Malachi eight years ago where we agreed that the Bible says that Saturday is the Sabbath.
I think this discussion is warranted and gets people looking for the truth in spite of the controversy.
Can you name a non controversial topic? Chuckle.
The sat. sun. thing will also go up in flames. lol. i see, Isaiah 66: 23. And you posted one almost the same a week ago. i will search. Found it. Isaiah 1:10-15
Malachi also thought: “I doubt you’ll find much to disagree with here. Tune out the modern world. Focus on the inner, whatever path you may be on.”
Even his title became quite ironic. “Peace Be upon us”
i personally can see i have enemy’s here, i also think there are enemies of God here, in these many many threads and articles. Many do not seem to realize this, and do not think of themselves as such. Should i love them as He does? He the Son?
Should we pray for them, their salvation, their awakening? Is this not Love? Should we pray that the demons be cast out? And yes sometimes the demons are within us. i hope some of you who think of me as an enemy, are also praying for me.
Refine: This was the thought given me this morning. we are refined by His fire.
WoW. Just WoW. Of all the things to attack and write an entire article about. Everyone grab a different version and interpretation of the Bible and argue amongst yourselves. Let’s not be comfortable in our faith and instead take time out of our day to belittle another’s beliefs to make ourselves feel better in these trying times.
You missed the whole point.
In the O.T. one of the ways to refer to God was to speak of Him as “The Name” (Heb. Ha Shem), and the Name stood for His character or essence 0f God (Exo.34:5-7).In Exo.15:3 “The Lord (YHWH) is a man of war; The Lord (YHWH) is His name.” In the gospel of Matthew, specifically written to the Jews, Jesus sent the disciples out with these words, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name (singular) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”. The Jews would immediately understand that “The Name” (the essence of God) applied equally to each member of the Godhead.
Later in Acts 4:12, Peter, speaking to the “men of Israel” (3:12) said, “Nor is there salvation in any other (than Jesus Christ, v.10), for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
In 3Joh.7, John speaks of those who went out in obedience to the command to witness to all nations, and says, “because they went forth for His name’s sake”.
The incarnation of Jesus Christ into human flesh caused no “change” in the essence or nature of God. Instead He took on human flesh so that the true nature of God could be seen through His humanity.
When Jesus said, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM” (Joh.8:58), He claimed the name of Jehovah/YHWH for Himself.
To deny His deity is to blaspheme God Himself.
The problem is you (or rather the article) describe God as if He is subject to time. He is not. He is not only the same yesterday, today, and forever, but He is, at this moment in our timeline, present in every yesterday, now, and in every tomorrow. While we are in a timeline, and He deals with us in that timeline (that He created for us). He is not subject to it. Everything about Him, then, always was, is, and always will be. He and every facet of what he remains unchanged. It seems like a change from our perspective but not from His. Everything He is, He has always been and ever will be. Jesus, in His entirety, was there when God said in Genesis 1:26, ” And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” Then in the next verse, Genesis 1:27, The Word refers to Him in the singular, ” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” While this would seem to be a contradiction, referring to God both in the plural and the singular, it is not! We can not be both, but God can (and is).
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit exist in perfect harmony and have specific purposes, and all are subject to the other and don’t contradict or interfere with of each other (they are of one mind). Clearly, He is one God that He chooses to relate to us in three parts.
I agree that God is not bound by time. I cannot think of any boundaries that would restrain or constrain God.
If the Trinity is truth, I have almost 300 verses that I questions about. I do mean real questions. I prayed to God to reveal the truth to me about this issue. Because I see it crucial to salvation. Either you have to believe that Jesus is the son of God or God. To give the title of God to anyone/thing else is idolatry. How are you to believe on Jesus if you do not know who he is? Am I wrong in my thinking?
I have also experienced anger/hatred or just ignored when I asked about some of them.
At best I have been told I just have to believe. I could find anywhere in the Bible that I have to believe the Trinity, I have found where I have to believe that Jesus is the son of God, that he died on the cross for all mine/our sins and he was resurrected.
I would be happy to post the verse with the questions. But I want Bible answers, I care less what Dr this and that think or feel (no offense to doctors). It really needs to be backed up by the Bible for me.
Just as God breathed the breath of life into Adam, every creation of God has his spark of life, Jesus Christ has a name above all, unique and distinguishable from Jehovah all mighty.
For what it’s worth………
I am neither a theologian nor a biblical scholar; but I try to understand God’s word. Many passages are difficult even for those versed in the ancient languages. Sometimes, the wrong rendering will confuse the meaning. This causes many folks to sidestep an in-depth discussion. As for the notion that there is only one God exclusive of a triune persona and nature, there are too many references within the Word refuting such a hypothesis. Many scholars have offered explanations and verses to justify the existence of the three-in-one character of God. For that reason, I will not repeat the process. Instead, I will offer my thoughts based on what I understand.
Biblically speaking, the number three represents completeness. Except for Judaism and Islam, many religions throughout the ages subscribe to a threefold nature in their gods. This might lead some to believe that Christianity adopted the Doctrine of the Trinity from pagan theology during the Council of Nicaea as convened by Constantine I. That would be a false assumption; and the bible explains why. Some things to consider follow.
One thing that comes to mind is the statement, “I am that I am.” To me, that says God can be whatever He chooses to be. And this is supported throughout the bible. He has the power to create or destroy the universe. He is masculine (something He will never change). He created the angelic beings (they were not born). But……….
He never leaves the control room and, because of that, He has his self (in the personage of Jesus) who is able to be anywhere at any time though only in one place at a time. “…he that hath seen me hath seen the Father….” You might say He is an identical twin or a clone except that Jesus always was; so He can’t be a clone. However, both are “ancient of days.” Both have a physical presence. They are spirit beings in the sense that they can manifest themselves however they choose. The Holy Spirit is also a person that is a bit difficult to comprehend. He can be anywhere and everywhere at any time all the time. He has power to dispense gifts of the spirit. He permeates the universe. Everything is composed of His spirit. There are a couple ways to think about it.
For all intents and purposes, the polar icecap is composed of H2O. It basically remains stationary. The melting water flows while each drop can be anywhere at any time but in only one place at a time. As the water vaporizes it can be everywhere. All three are H2O in three different forms. That’s rather simplistic; but we can only understand anything based on that with which we are familiar. Another way of looking at it relates to a fertilized egg. At the moment of fertilization there exists a being imbued with all the characteristics it will be as an adult. Think of the Holy Spirit as a fertilized egg. I only say that since we can’t see the egg without a microscope. Spirit has many meanings often related to the unseen and to a force. Nothing exists without Him.
John says that Jesus made everything. Jesus says that seeing Him is the same as seeing the Father. Jesus always existed. How, then, can He be the Father’s only begotten (not only begotten son as that would imply God may have begotten daughters as well). Speaking in simple terms once again, God performed what we would consider impossible. He transformed His second self into a fertilized egg to be artificially inseminated into Mary’s womb. Remember, He created everything. What is so difficult to understand? “I am that I am.” Jesus is God. The Holy Spirit is God. The Father is God. They are one and the same with separate responsibilities. When Jesus was doing His thing on Earth in the Old Testament, there was no one in the control room with whom the Father could trust to helm the ship. That is why He never leaves. When He comes back to Earth it will be Jesus who returns. Only the Father was able to resurrect the dead body of Jesus.
The only difference between Jesus the man and Jesus as God has to do with the fact that He had to be able to experience all the frailties of being human. The only way God could do this was to become human. That meant that Jesus was not able to have super powers as a human and had to rely completely on His Father. That He is referred to as son and God is referred to as Father is a result of the transformation only. Otherwise, they are both God one and the same.
I’m going to re-read your comment but this one point stood out “Only the Father was able to resurrect the dead body of Jesus.” There are verses that God (the Father) raised Jesus from the dead -- Acts 4:10 and Rom 6:4. Jesus raised Himself Jn 2:19 & Jn 10:17. The Holy Spirit raised Jesus Rom 8:11 & 1Pet 3:18. Which implies there is a Trinity and of course we all know that can’t be (sarc.)
Some of your ideas seem to be ‘modalism,’ that God changes into whatever He needs to be at that time. I’m not in favour of that idea. Just FYI. There are quite a few things said about God that are again repeated as the same for Jesus and the Holy Spirit i.e. God the Father is in you Eph 4:6. Jesus in you Rom 8:10 and the Holy Spirit is in you Rom 8:11 & Eze 37:14 (see above sarc not directed at you EddieH, just a general sarc)
Your comments appreciated. Thank you.
There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth.
The doctrine of the Trinity can be a hard doctrine to accept, and harder yet to understand. The reason it can be hard to accept is because the Bible doesn’t clearly state that God exists as a triune God. However the Bible does give us verses that, when compared to other verses, along with understanding the culture of the time, do teach a triune God. Allow me to post some of my sermon notes:
“Let me ask you a question: Have you ever thought about what somebody is saying when they call Christ Jesus the Son of God?
The Bible refers to Christ Jesus as the Son of God, you’ve probably called Christ Jesus the Son of God, and you’ve likely heard others call Christ Jesus the Son of God, but what does it actually mean when Christ Jesus is called the Son of God? Is Son of God just a title for Christ Jesus, or is there an actual meaning to it?
How we understand the title Son of God can make a big difference in how we understand just who Christ Jesus is and how the title Son of God relates to Christ Jesus when we use it.
When we think of the term “son of”, one of the first things that comes to mind is somebody’s immediate male offspring. Somebody’s male child. But is that the only way we use the term “son of”? Not always.
When we say son of, we might finish it by saying son of a gun. Does that mean the person we’re speaking of is the male offspring of a gun? That a male’s father was a 30-06 rifle? No.
“Son of a gun” is a term that might be an insult or it can even be used jokingly between 2 friends, but it doesn’t mean the person is the actual male offspring of a gun. I have friends that call each other “son” as a means to show them up. They’ll say “listen here son” but that doesn’t mean the person is their actual son.
In ancient Jewish culture like our own culture, “Son of” could mean immediate male offspring of, but it didn’t always mean immediate male offspring. In ancient Jewish culture the term “Son of” could also have different meanings than immediate male offspring, like the term “Son of” has different meanings to us, like “son of a gun”
We have to remember that when we read the Bible we’re reading something from a Jewish culture over 2000 years ago. So in order to understand the true meaning of the term “son of” in the Bible, we have to understand what it meant in the culture of that time.
Now pay attention. This is important. If you ever speak with people in the cults, they’ll tell you that they believe Christ Jesus is the Son of God, just like we do. They won’t even bat an eye when they say it. But their understanding of what “Son of God” means is seriously flawed.
J.W.’s teach that Christ Jesus being called the “Son of God” means He was a created being, created by God, just like Adam was created by God. J.W.’s teach that Christ Jesus is God’s Son by the act of God creating Him. J.W.’s believe Michael the archangel is Christ Jesus in his prehuman existence.
Mormonism teaches that God the Father, who they believe is an exalted man, came down to earth and had sexual relations with Mary in order for Christ Jesus to be conceived in Mary.
Through God the Father having sexual relations with Mary, Mary had a son, Christ Jesus, whose father was God. This is how Christ Jesus became the “Son of God” to Mormons.
We want the truth. We want to get a proper Bible based understanding of the name “Son of God” for Christ Jesus.
Before we go on, I want you to notice something. If you ever do a personal study on the titles Son of Man and Son of God for Christ Jesus, you’ll notice that Christ Jesus is referred to as the Son of Man significantly more often than He’s referred to as the Son of God. Why was this?
Referring to Himself as the Son of Man more than the Son of God was less offensive to His Jewish audience. As we’re about to see, being called the Son of God was a more concrete affirmation to His Jewish audience that Christ Jesus was in fact deity. That the person they saw in front of them was God in human flesh.
Being called the Son of Man was less offensive in the sense that if Christ Jesus referred to Himself as the Son of God more often, He likely would’ve stirred up Jewish hatred and animosity towards Him to an even greater degree than He already had, which would’ve caused even less Jewish people to follow Him.
So do we see Christ Jesus being called the “Son of God” in Scripture? Sure we do. By who and where? Demons…. Matthew 8:29, disciples…. Matthew 14:33, Centurion…..Matthew 27:54, Mark… Mark 1:1, Jesus….John 10:36, John the Baptist, Nathanael, Martha, Peter, Paul all call Christ Jesus the Son of God in Scripture.
So what does it mean when Christ Jesus is called the “Son of God?”, or better yet, how would it be understood by a Jewish audience 2000 years ago?
1Kings 20:35 “And a certain man of the sons of the prophets said unto his neighbour in the word of the LORD, Smite me, I pray thee. And the man refused to smite him.”
· Here we see the phrase “sons of the prophets”
· Who were “the sons of the prophets”? Were they all male offspring of prophets? Were all of their parents prophets? No. If they weren’t actual sons of actual prophets, who were the sons of the prophets?
· This was a school or a community or guild of prophets. By calling them “sons of the prophets” didn’t mean they were actual sons of prophets, it meant they were of the order of the prophets.
Nehemiah 12:28 “And the sons of the singers gathered themselves together, both out of the plain country round about Jerusalem, and from the villages of Netophathi;”
· Here we see the phrase “The sons of the singers”. Are all of these people male offspring of singers? Were all of their parents singers? No.
· What does it mean to be called “The sons of the singers”? These were Levites who belonged to a class of singers. Once again it means these people were of the order of the singers.
Matthew 1:1 “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.”
· Here Christ Jesus is called the son of David. Was Christ Jesus actually David’s son? No.
· He’s called the son of David because he is descended from David
Just like our modern use of “son of” could have different meanings, like “son of a gun”, in ancient Judaism the term “son of” could have different meanings. It could mean a descendant of a number of generations, a student could be called son by his teacher, believers are called sons of God by the new birth, but it was also used to determine the nature or order of the person.
According to O.T. and postbiblical writings of Judaism, calling Christ Jesus the “Son of God” signified that Christ Jesus had the same divine nature as the Father. That He was God in the flesh.
When Christ Jesus is called “Son of God” in ancient Jewish culture it means He is of the order of God, just like sons of the singers means somebody was of the order of the singers. It’s a strong, clear title of deity. That Christ Jesus is God in the flesh.
How did the people of Christ Jesus day understand it when Christ Jesus was referred to as the “Son of God?”
John 5:17-18 “But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.”
John 5:25 “Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.”
· For Christ Jesus to call God His Father or claim to be the Son of God meant He was identifying Himself as God. He is of the same divine nature
· The Jewish people understood what Christ Jesus was saying. They understood that by saying God was His Father or He was “the Son of God”, Christ Jesus was claiming that He was equal with God.
· What Christ Jesus was saying was considered blasphemy under O.T. law and that’s why “the Jews sought the more to kill Him”.
· Christ Jesus claim to be the Son of God made Him equal to God and that was the same as blaspheming name of God. You can read this in Leviticus 24:11, 16
Christ Jesus never dodged the issue. He never said He wasn’t the Son of God. He always accepted being called Son of God and Christ Jesus Himself said He was the Son of God and He knew exactly what He was saying in the culture of the day when He said He was the “Son of God”. That He was God in the flesh.”
Any further examples needed just ask.
Antioch vs. Alexandria
We hear much talk these days about “older” and “more authoritative” manuscripts, but we aren’t hearing much about the origin of these manuscripts. It is a well established fact that there are only two lines of Bibles: one coming from Antioch, Syria (known as the Syrian or Byzantine type text) and one coming from Alexandria, Egypt (known as the Egyptian or Hesycnian type text). The Syrian text from Antioch is the Majority text from which our King James 1611 comes, and the Egyptian text is the minority text from which the new perversions come.
The manuscripts from Antioch were mostly copied by Bible-believing Christians for the purpose of winning souls and spreading the word of God. The manuscripts from Alexandria were produced by infidels such as Origen and Clement of Alexandria. These manuscripts are corrupted with Greek philosophy (Col. 2:8), and allegorical foolishness. The strange thing is that most Christians aren’t paying any attention to what God’s word says about these two places. Notice how the Holy Spirit casts Egypt and Alexandria in a negative light, while His comments on Antioch tend to be very positive:
Egypt and Alexandria
1. Egypt is first mentioned in connection with Abraham not trusting Egyptians around his wife (Gen. 12:10-13).
2. One of the greatest types of Christ in the Bible was sold into Egypt as a slave (Gen. 37:36).
3. Joseph did not want his bones left in Egypt (Gen. 50:25).
4. God killed all the firstborn of Egypt (Exo. 12:12).
5. God calls Egypt “the house of bondage” (Exo. 20:4).
6. God calls Egypt an “iron furnace” (Deu. 4:20).
7. The Kings of Israel were even forbidden to get horses from Egypt (Deu. 17:16).
8. The Jews were forbidden to go to Egypt for help (Jer. 42:13-19).
9. God called His Son out of Egypt (Mat. 2:15).
10. Egypt is placed in the same category as Sodom (Rev. 11:8).
11. The first time Alexandria is mentioned in the Bible, it is associated with unbelievers, persecution, and the eventual death of Stephen (Acts 6:9; 7:54-60).
12. The next mention of Alexandria involves a lost preacher who is messed up doctrinally (Acts 18:24-26).
13. The last two times we read about Alexandria is in Acts 27:6 and Acts 28:11 where Paul was carried to his eventual death in Rome by two ships from Alexandria .
Alexandria was the second largest city of the Roman Empire, with Rome being the first. It was founded in 332 B.C. by Alexander the Great (a type of the Antichrist in Daniel 8). Located at the Nile Delta, Alexandria was the home of the Pharos Lighthouse, one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient world. Also, during the second and third centuries B.C., it was the home of a massive library containing between 500,000 and 700,000 volumes. It was also the home of a catechetical school once head-mastered by the great apostate Adamantius Origen (185-254 A.D.).
QUESTION: In light of what God’s word says about higher knowledge and philosophy (I Cor. 1:22; Rom. 1:22; Gen. 3:5; Col. 2:8; I Cor. 8:1), why would a Christian expect to find the true word of God in Alexandrian manuscripts?
Antioch
1. Upon its first mention, we find that Antioch is the home of a Spirit-filled deacon (Acts 6:3-5).
2. Antioch sheltered persecuted saints (Acts 11:19).
3. The first major movement of the Holy Ghost among the Gentiles occurs in Antioch (Acts 11:20-21).
4. Paul and Barnabas taught the Bible in Antioch for a whole year (Acts 11:26).
5. The disciples were first called “Christians” at Antioch (Acts 11:26).
6. The church at Antioch sent relief to the poor saints at Jerusalem (Acts 11:27-30).
7. The first missionary journey is sent out from Antioch (Acts 13:1-3).
8. Antioch remained the home base or headquarters of the early church (Acts 14:19-26; 15:35).
9. The final decision of the Jerusalem council was first sent to Antioch (Acts 15:19-23, 30) because Antioch was the home base.
10. Antioch was the location of Paul setting Peter straight on his doctrine (Gal. 2:11).
Founded in 300 B.C. by Seleucus Nicator, Antioch was the third largest city of the Roman Empire. Located in Syria, about twenty miles inland from the Mediterranean on the Orontes River, Antioch had its own sea port and more than its share of travelers and tradesmen. In His infinite wisdom, God picked this ideal location for a “home base”. Antioch was far enough away from the culture and traditions of the Jews and the dominant Gentiles that new Christians could grow in the Lord. Meanwhile, its geographical location was ideal for taking God’s word into all the world.
Friend, you can get your Bible from Alexandria, or you can get it from Antioch. Wise Christians choose Antioch.