U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Do you believe in a 3-in-1 God?
Yes 45 57.69%
No 33 42.31%
Voters: 78. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-10-2010, 08:58 AM
 
702 posts, read 811,881 times
Reputation: 87

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Blue View Post
Christ is the Son out of God, not God but a part of God, and in perfect harmony with God.
There are two options: Either Christ is God, or he is a created being. John 1 rules out any possibility that he is a created being:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Note: In the Greek, the phrase "the Word was God" is actually written in this order: "God was the Word" (θεος ην ο λογος).

2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.


Note: The creation of any created thing had to take place through Christ, according to this text. If nothing came into being apart from Christ, the Logos, then he cannot have been created. Otherwise we would have to make the illogical claim that Christ came into being through Christ. Thus, this text clearly places Christ outside the category of "created" and firmly in the category of "Creator." That means he must be God. That is the only option John leaves us.

The implications of all this are crucial. If Christ were a created being, then his blood could not have satisfied God's wrath for our sins because he would not have been a pure and holy sacrifice acceptable to God, being merely a man, and according to Scripture all have sinned. Moreover, if he were created, then he could not have borne the eternal guilt of sin in just a matter of hours. Only God could accomplish such an amazing feat. Thus, denying the deity of Christ is a dangerous heresy because doing so leaves us with no means of atonement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-14-2010, 08:05 AM
 
16 posts, read 29,741 times
Reputation: 25
There are many questions that our human mind can't answer. I love the Bible quotes because truly in God's Word are all of the answers. It is easy enough to believe that the universe did not just happen. Once you believe that you just must go to the Word of God and believe He has given us all of the answers we need in His Word. I don't know how electricity works but I trust when I switch on a light it will work. God's Word is the same, He shows us the Trinity and it is up to us to just believe. We must use our discernment based on the Word to decide which truths we allow into our lives. The Trinity is one of those truths that I choose to believe in my life as I know the Bible contains them and that is where my truth comes from. I don't need to overanalyze.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2010, 04:49 PM
 
7,374 posts, read 7,197,872 times
Reputation: 892
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post

Iron all translators of scripture can be said to be scribes, so this point is moot.
I disagree ... The scribes to whom Christ referred were the ones that copied the scriptures(Old testament/Tanakh) generation to generation. They represent a specific class of persons who had a specific Job. Though certainly many of them that did later translate the scriptures into other languages were just as guilty as the scribes to whom Christ referred.

Quote:
The Septuagint was written before the coming of Jesus Christ, all other versions where written after His coming and this includes the interlinear version.

The Septuagint was the bible used in the time of Jesus and Jesus used this version when referring to scripture.
Incorrect, the Hebrew translation was the original and existed before the Greek Septuagint ... And though the Septuagint was a common version, it was is obviously not a word for word literal translation of the Hebrew as i have already proven.

Quote:
The Septuagint never had a bias towards who Jesus was as He was not yet born, the Septuagint new nothing of Jesus.
It is not a matter of the Septuagint having a knowledge of Christ, it is a matter of the literal word for word prophecies of the prophets themselves as they were originally written in the Hebrew. It is apparent that the scribes who penned the Septuagint were against the idea that the messiah would be the almighty God, and the perpetual father, that is why they did not translate those terms in the Septuagint.
Quote:
All other version of the bible were written after Jesus came, and therefore have a bias towards Him.
Again, the Hebrew version of Tanakh(old testament) was the original, the Greek Septuagint came afterward. The interlinear is simply a version that goes back to the original Hebrew, and shows the literal translation verbatim in line with one of the various English translations.

Quote:
Thus to prove the trinity, as most believe in it, scripture was changed in order to support this view.

We see this bias in 1 John 5:7 which says

1 John 5:7
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

This scripture is NOT in the early manuscripts but is an addition to the scripture used to support the trinity.
Really, i have heard some argue this before, mainly Muslims, but i have seen no absolute proof of it. The fact is many of the early church father quoted this passage, as can be deduced from the study of early church period lectionaries. It is found in both the Greek and Latin Vulgate, as well as in the the Syriac Peshiito(150 AD, ). It is interesting to not that though many people believe that Origen removed this verse from his translations of the scriptures, Origen himself believed in the trinity and like myself was a Hierarchical modal monarchist. Nevertheless, regardless of whether it could be proven that this verse were in fact a later addition to the text, it would not prove that Christ is not God. The lack of evidence is not evidence in and of itself. And it is certain that the deity of Christ does not henge on this scripture alone, though this scripture if it be true to the original text, would in fact prove Christs deity. We already have Christ himself saying that he and the father are one, and anyone who disagrees with the fact that Christ is the word of God i believe to be confused on this issue to begin with.

Quote:
Now you say you like to take things back to the original Hebrew and Greek, and that is ok imo, but you must still be aware that 1 John 5:7 was originally also written in Greek yet is an addition to scripture to support a certain bias, and the same can be said of what is written in Hebrew after the time of Christ.
See above for my answer to your supposition the the Septuagint was the earliest written version of Tanakh. The Septuagint was not even begun until the 3rd century BCE and was not completed until the 2nd century BCE. The original manuscript of Isaiah was was written in the 8th century BCE when the prophet lived.
Quote:
You asked this question



Could it be because these are added words to the Hebrew? Obviously at the time the Septuagint was written those words were not there.
The Hebrew version of Tanakh existed before the Greek Septuagint, and these words do appear in all Hebrew versions of Tanakh that i am aware of. I believe you have it backwards, the words were evidently omitted from the Greek Septuagint, not added into the original Hebrew manuscripts.



Quote:
Iron I agree with you here, those scriptures are in reference to CHRIST.
Christ is God, He is just NOT God the Father. Jesus ALWAYS made a distinction between Himself and the Father, why do you think He did that if He was also the Father?
I dont believe that Christ is God the father as i have already stated, he is god the father incarnate as a man, the man Jesus Christ. God the father is invisible, ineffable, and no one will ever see the father except they see Christ who is the very image of the father in the created world.


Quote:
Did anyone say Christ was not divine?If so, I must have missed it. Christ is divine as He is God; howbeit, He is NOT God the Father.
I believe SisterKat and Katjonjj and Katzpur(interesting that they all have the word Kat in their name ) have stated that they do not believe Jesus is divine, or that Jesus is in fact God.




Quote:
And well they should agree on Christ divinity. But agreeing on Christ divinity and agreeing that Christ is God the Father are two totally separate things.
Again i never said that i believe that Christ is God the father, i believe that Christ is the incarnation and manifestation of God the father as a man who dwelt among men. Thus he is the son of God the father.

Quote:
For instance you quoted Justin Martyr, but did you realise Justin Martyr makes the same distinction I do? That being that Jesus Christ is God, but He is NOT God the Father.

Read Justin Martyrs dialogue with Trypho the Jew and you will see that Justin believed there was only ONE true God, that being God the Father, and makes the distinction I mentioned between the Father and the Son.

Now IMO as Justin was a disciple of the apostle John, I would think He was fully aware of what John believed and whom John was speaking of in Jn.1:1.

Justin makes a distinction between the Father and the Son and as he was fully aware of what John believed, John must have made that same distinction.

Here is the link of Justin’s dialogue with Trypho

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0128.htm

God bless and enjoy.
Again, i am not arguing that Christ is God the father, as the father cannot be known but by Christ, as no man can come to the father but by him. He is the image and the manifestation of the father, who of himself did nothing, but of the fathers will did he all things. He and the father are one, though they are not the same. Study modalism and you will understand what i am saying.


Sorry it took so long for me to answer your post, but i have been taking a break.



God bless ...

Last edited by Ironmaw1776; 06-14-2010 at 04:59 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2010, 09:31 AM
 
Location: Tucson, Arizona
987 posts, read 878,484 times
Reputation: 293
I don't believe the word trinity was ever mentioned in the Bible. Men mulled it over and made a doctrine that had to be accepted out of certain words and phrases and then told the masses they HAD to believe it or be in danger of hellfire and/or at least expulsion from the church so very few questioned it, at least publicly, and so it became dogma.

If you want to believe Jesus Christ was God the Father somehow that is your business. But do so with a lot of thought, by reading many articles pro and con, and then reconciling it in your mind, don't do it because that's what you were taught as a child and so automatically assume it's the ONLY option to believe.

If Jesus Christ was God the Father, WHO died on the cross? I guess you have to define death then. God cannot die, as He IS LIFE. Did He just use this physical body and then leave it, giving the appearance of death? If so, who cried out, Father do not forsake me? Was it just a PART of Him that died. What part of the Spirit of God can die? These are all questions I once asked and threw up my hands because I was afraid to go against what I had been taught.

Do I believe Christ was divine? Oh yes I do. But he had to be given His authority. You don't have to give yourself authority. He didn't know some things that he said only the Father knew. He said He did the will of the Father, not His own. His will and place is always ascribed as being subservient to that of the Father. If you divide yourself and withhold some of your power and knowledge from one part....are you still one? When a cell divides and becomes twins, are they the same person? Just some questions. As a universalist, I don't believe that it's a matter of heaven or hell if you believe something in error, BUT I do think it's important to your spiritual growth and development to attempt to look at a puzzle from every angle possible.

He was not like us, for he was sinless. But he was not the Father either for He prayed to the Father, spoke always of the Father, attributed His words and His actions to the Father. If He were the Father and wanted us to understand that He was the Father, I don't think He would have always pointed to a higher power. He was the express image of the Father in that He was agape love, which is what the Father is about. But I have shed the concept that He and The Father are one and the same. I believe L. Ray Smith was correct when He stated that God is not a Trinity but an ever expanding family.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2010, 11:08 AM
 
Location: Canada
6,643 posts, read 3,992,180 times
Reputation: 386
Quote:
Incorrect, the Hebrew translation was the original and existed before the Greek Septuagint ... And though the Septuagint was a common version, it was is obviously not a word for word literal translation of the Hebrew as i have already proven.

It is not a matter of the Septuagint having a knowledge of Christ, it is a matter of the literal word for word prophecies of the prophets themselves as they were originally written in the Hebrew. It is apparent that the scribes who penned the Septuagint were against the idea that the messiah would be the almighty God, and the perpetual father, that is why they did not translate those terms in the Septuagint.
Again, the Hebrew version of Tanakh(old testament) was the original, the Greek Septuagint came afterward. The interlinear is simply a version that goes back to the original Hebrew, and shows the literal translation verbatim in line with one of the various English translations.


Iron I just saw this reply today, sorry for the wait in replying.

Brother who was it the penned the old Hebrew version? Was it not by the pen of the scribe? The same scribes Jeremiah warned us of that used a lying pen.

Israel of old believed that there was only one God and wrote after that which they believed.

But scripture actually teaches there is more than one God. Tis the reason the Jews became so upset with Jesus when He said he was the son of God, the Jews knew the son of God was the Messiah and believed that God and the Messiah was the ONE God. This is the same belief those who believe in the trinity have.

Yet Jesus who himself is God, but not God the Father always made a distinction between Himself and God the Father. Saying things like I go unto my Father and your Father, my God and your God. Clearly, Jesus is saying He has a Father and that Father is God.

Trinitarian mostly bases the trinity on two scriptures, those being where Jesus said the Father and I are one and where Thomas when looking at Jesus said my Lord and My God.

Well Jesus says we to are to be one with Him and the Father, surely you donít believe this makes us God the Father also?

As to Thomasís statement my Lord and my God, this can be looked at two ways.

Thomas recognised Jesus as Lord and God, which He is, but this says nothing of God the Father.

Or

Thomas seeing Jesus saw in Him both his Lord and his God.

This would be no different than people looking at a Christian full of the spirit of Christ and seeing both the person they are looking at and seeing Christ within them.


Quote:
Really, i have heard some argue this before, mainly Muslims, but i have seen no absolute proof of it. The fact is many of the early church father quoted this passage, as can be deduced from the study of early church period lectionaries. It is found in both the Greek and Latin Vulgate, as well as in the the Syriac Peshiito(150 AD, ). It is interesting to not that though many people believe that Origen removed this verse from his translations of the scriptures, Origen himself believed in the trinity and like myself was a Hierarchical modal monarchist. Nevertheless, regardless of whether it could be proven that this verse were in fact a later addition to the text, it would not prove that Christ is not God. The lack of evidence is not evidence in and of itself. And it is certain that the deity of Christ does not henge on this scripture alone, though this scripture if it be true to the original text, would in fact prove Christs deity. We already have Christ himself saying that he and the father are one, and anyone who disagrees with the fact that Christ is the word of God i believe to be confused on this issue to begin with.


Iron I do NOT dispute Christ divinity, saying Christ is not God the Father does not = Christ is not divine.

Christ is God just as John said he was, but that does not make Him the Father.
What do you do with all the distinctions Jesus made between Himself and the Father?
Can you reconcile them to what you believe?



Quote:
See above for my answer to your supposition the the Septuagint was the earliest written version of Tanakh. The Septuagint was not even begun until the 3rd century BCE and was not completed until the 2nd century BCE. The original manuscript of Isaiah was was written in the 8th century BCE when the prophet lived.

The Hebrew version of Tanakh existed before the Greek Septuagint, and these words do appear in all Hebrew versions of Tanakh that i am aware of. I believe you have it backwards, the words were evidently omitted from the Greek Septuagint, not added into the original Hebrew manuscripts.


Yet we still know that the pen of the scribes are lying pens and scripture has been changed by them to suit what they believed. That is if we are to believe Jeremiah and what Justin Martyr said.


Quote:
I dont believe that Christ is God the father as i have already stated, he is god the father incarnate as a man, the man Jesus Christ. God the father is invisible, ineffable, and no one will ever see the father except they see Christ who is the very image of the father in the created world.



Can you reconcile then the distinctions Jesus made between Himself and the Father?

Did you read what Justin Martyr said to Trypho the Jew in the link I provided?

He explains if far better then I can, even if you disagree with what he says it still is a good read as it touches on more than just the topic at hand.

Quote:

I believe SisterKat and Katjonjj and Katzpur(interesting that they all have the word Kat in their name
file:///C:/Users/Scott/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif (broken link)
) have stated that they do not believe Jesus is divine, or that Jesus is in fact God.


They may have stated as much brother, but what does that have to do with you and I?

I have stated Christ is God and that He is divine, but this does not make Him God the Father.

I do not disagree with you on any of these point except were you state Jesus Christ God the Father incarnation.



Quote:
Again i never said that i believe that Christ is God the father, i believe that Christ is the incarnation and manifestation of God the father as a man who dwelt among men. Thus he is the son of God the father.


Well if you believe He is the son of God the Father then it maybe be semantic we are debating over. As I to believe, He is the son of God the Father.

Quote:
Again, i am not arguing that Christ is God the father, as the father cannot be known but by Christ, as no man can come to the father but by him. He is the image and the manifestation of the father, who of himself did nothing, but of the fathers will did he all things. He and the father are one, though they are not the same. Study modalism and you will understand what i am saying.


Well after reading this reply, I do not think we are as far apart as it first seemed we were.


Quote:
Sorry it took so long for me to answer your post, but i have been taking a break.


Tis ok, I know what its like and we all need to recharge that batteries once in awhile.

God bless
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2010, 11:11 AM
 
Location: Canada
6,643 posts, read 3,992,180 times
Reputation: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScarletWren View Post
I don't believe the word trinity was ever mentioned in the Bible. Men mulled it over and made a doctrine that had to be accepted out of certain words and phrases and then told the masses they HAD to believe it or be in danger of hellfire and/or at least expulsion from the church so very few questioned it, at least publicly, and so it became dogma.

If you want to believe Jesus Christ was God the Father somehow that is your business. But do so with a lot of thought, by reading many articles pro and con, and then reconciling it in your mind, don't do it because that's what you were taught as a child and so automatically assume it's the ONLY option to believe.

If Jesus Christ was God the Father, WHO died on the cross? I guess you have to define death then. God cannot die, as He IS LIFE. Did He just use this physical body and then leave it, giving the appearance of death? If so, who cried out, Father do not forsake me? Was it just a PART of Him that died. What part of the Spirit of God can die? These are all questions I once asked and threw up my hands because I was afraid to go against what I had been taught.

Do I believe Christ was divine? Oh yes I do. But he had to be given His authority. You don't have to give yourself authority. He didn't know some things that he said only the Father knew. He said He did the will of the Father, not His own. His will and place is always ascribed as being subservient to that of the Father. If you divide yourself and withhold some of your power and knowledge from one part....are you still one? When a cell divides and becomes twins, are they the same person? Just some questions. As a universalist, I don't believe that it's a matter of heaven or hell if you believe something in error, BUT I do think it's important to your spiritual growth and development to attempt to look at a puzzle from every angle possible.

He was not like us, for he was sinless. But he was not the Father either for He prayed to the Father, spoke always of the Father, attributed His words and His actions to the Father. If He were the Father and wanted us to understand that He was the Father, I don't think He would have always pointed to a higher power. He was the express image of the Father in that He was agape love, which is what the Father is about. But I have shed the concept that He and The Father are one and the same. I believe L. Ray Smith was correct when He stated that God is not a Trinity but an ever expanding family.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2010, 11:29 AM
 
Location: Vancouver, BC
823 posts, read 1,081,033 times
Reputation: 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScarletWren View Post
I don't believe the word trinity was ever mentioned in the Bible. Men mulled it over and made a doctrine that had to be accepted out of certain words and phrases and then told the masses they HAD to believe it or be in danger of hellfire and/or at least expulsion from the church so very few questioned it, at least publicly, and so it became dogma.

If you want to believe Jesus Christ was God the Father somehow that is your business. But do so with a lot of thought, by reading many articles pro and con, and then reconciling it in your mind, don't do it because that's what you were taught as a child and so automatically assume it's the ONLY option to believe.

If Jesus Christ was God the Father, WHO died on the cross? I guess you have to define death then. God cannot die, as He IS LIFE. Did He just use this physical body and then leave it, giving the appearance of death? If so, who cried out, Father do not forsake me? Was it just a PART of Him that died. What part of the Spirit of God can die? These are all questions I once asked and threw up my hands because I was afraid to go against what I had been taught.

Do I believe Christ was divine? Oh yes I do. But he had to be given His authority. You don't have to give yourself authority. He didn't know some things that he said only the Father knew. He said He did the will of the Father, not His own. His will and place is always ascribed as being subservient to that of the Father. If you divide yourself and withhold some of your power and knowledge from one part....are you still one? When a cell divides and becomes twins, are they the same person? Just some questions. As a universalist, I don't believe that it's a matter of heaven or hell if you believe something in error, BUT I do think it's important to your spiritual growth and development to attempt to look at a puzzle from every angle possible.

He was not like us, for he was sinless. But he was not the Father either for He prayed to the Father, spoke always of the Father, attributed His words and His actions to the Father. If He were the Father and wanted us to understand that He was the Father, I don't think He would have always pointed to a higher power. He was the express image of the Father in that He was agape love, which is what the Father is about. But I have shed the concept that He and The Father are one and the same. I believe L. Ray Smith was correct when He stated that God is not a Trinity but an ever expanding family.
Very Well Said...A rep and a for you!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2010, 01:08 PM
 
Location: Seattle, Washington
8,435 posts, read 8,384,960 times
Reputation: 1690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironmaw1776 View Post


I believe SisterKat and Katjonjj and Katzpur(interesting that they all have the word Kat in their name ) have stated that they do not believe Jesus is divine, or that Jesus is in fact God.
Kat's are funny creatures...

Just to clarify: Divinity to me implies being a god. A god implies omniscience, omnipresence, omni- 'all those other things'... none of which Christ (the man) was as he told us over and over that it was not his own will and power, but God's will and power that he showed others.

So when others say that Christ is/was divine I wonder how he could be anointed by God yet be God.

However, I do believe as Moses was god to Pharaoh, so is Christ to us.

Quote:
Sorry it took so long for me to answer your post, but i have been taking a break.
I hope your break was beneficial. It is a necessary thing sometimes to just have some quiet time to reflect. I missed ya though!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2010, 06:17 PM
 
Location: Florida
580 posts, read 632,006 times
Reputation: 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by CantWait2Leave View Post
This article explains in way more detail than I could about the word proskuneo and how it was used to show that Jesus was indeed worshipped more than just respect or courtesy.

Stand to Reason: Was Jesus Worshipped?
Just adding...
Revelation 5:12 In a loud voice they sang: "Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!"
Isn't this worship, is the Lamb Jesus worthy of glory, honor and praise? Yes.
Revelation 5:13 Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing: "To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!"
Colossians 2:9
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,
Father, Son and Spirit
Father is Spirit
1 Corinthians So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being" [ Gen. 2:7] ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.
There is only One Spirit.
The Father and I are One.

God Bless,
Mercy


Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2010, 06:48 PM
 
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
3,381 posts, read 3,379,961 times
Reputation: 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj View Post
Divinity to me implies being a god. A god implies omniscience, omnipresence, omni- 'all those other things'... none of which Christ (the man) was as he told us over and over that it was not his own will and power, but God's will and power that he showed others.
Yes. And Jesus said even HE did not know when he was coming back!!!

Mark 13:32: No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

There is some pretty odd commentary on this verse........

Last edited by herefornow; 06-19-2010 at 06:57 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top