Posted on 01/16/2010 8:23:23 AM PST by Colofornian
This week's Bible study dealt with a question some Christian folks asked before the start of our meeting: “Can someone who has the Torah and lives obediently to it be saved if they don't accept Jesus as Savior?”
We approached this in three steps:
•What is meant by Torah observant?
•What is the difference between “Jesus” and “Yeshua”?
•What is meant by being saved as related to Messiah?
First, we discussed that being Torah observant means to obey the written word of Elohim, not the traditions of men that have come in and taken a place alongside His Word. To be Torah observant means to obey the commandments, judgments, statutes and instructions of Elohim as He gave them to Moshe (Moses) and subsequently recorded in the Torah.
Next we discussed if Yeshua taught that the Torah should be observed or obeyed? In Matthew 5:17 Yeshua said during His Sermon on the Mount:
“Do not think that I am come to destroy the law [Torah], or the prophets [Nevi'im]; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.”
When someone teaches that “Jesus” did away with—destroyed—the Torah, they are saying in effect that He lied; when He actually said that He did not come to do away with the Torah. He said He came to fill up the Torah and Prophets with meaning and to interpret them correctly. The terms fulfill and destroy are rabbinical terms that mean to explain correctly or incorrectly respectively.
We see Yeshua filling up the meaning of the Written Word when He says in Matthew 5:21,22:
“You have heard that it was said to the men of old, You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment. But I say to you...”
Since Elohim said that His people are to keep His commandments forever (Exodus 31:16, Leviticus 16:31, 23:21), to say that Jesus did away with the Torah—and the commandments in it—places Him in the category that Moshe taught in Deuteronomy 13:1,2:
“If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods’—which you have not known—‘and let us serve them.’”
Moshe cautioned not to believe that prophet:
“You shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for YHVH your Elohim is testing you to know whether you love YHVH your Elohim with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall walk after YHVH your Elohim and fear Him, and keep His commandments and obey His voice; you shall serve Him and hold fast to Him.”(Deuteronomy 13:3,4)
So when a person comes to a Torah follower and quotes “Jesus” as saying:
“...that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised...” (Luke 7:22b)
and at the same time says that “Jesus” did away with the Old Testament commandments—this is a red flag to the Torah observant believer. “Jesus”, according to Moshe, must then be a false prophet if He does signs and wonders and teaches not to keep the commandments in the Torah.
Second, is there a difference between “Jesus” and “Yeshua”? Do the two names identify the same person? “Jesus” (Ιησους) is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name “Yeshua” (ישוע). In this sense, it is the name in a non-native language for the same Person. But when it is contrasted that Yeshua of the New Testament kept the Torah, instructed His followers to keep the Torah, taught the Torah, and did all the signs and wonders—that's different.
The problem arises when the names “Jesus” and “Yeshua” are used interchangeably. On one hand, the modern church refers to their “Jesus” as a Prophet who annulled the Torah and taught their people not to follow the commandments in the Torah—thus this would make the “Jesus” that is usually taught by many Christian missionaries and teachers a false prophet according to the teachings of Moshe. The Torah explicitly warns the followers of YHVH not to listen to this kind of false prophet.
The third question is about the Messiah. Again, the name of “Jesus” is tied to the “Christian Christ.” Many Torah followers make a distinction between the “Christian Christ” and the “Jewish Messiah.” The “Jewish Messiah” is a central figure in biblical thought. Many of the figures in the TaNaKh (Old Testament) looked forward to and had faith in the coming Messiah. The binding of Isaac is a prime shadow of the Messiah. Abraham looked forward to the Messiah:
“God will provide himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.” [See all of Genesis 22:8–14]
“By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son...that Elohim was able to raise him from the dead...” (Hebrews 11:17 [OT Genesis 22:12])
“And the Scripture, foreseeing that Elohim would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, In you all the nations shall be blessed.” (Galatians 3:8 [OT Genesis 12:3])
“And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, Abraham believed Elohim, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. And he was called the friend of Elohim.” (James 2:23 [OT Genesis 15:6])
As did Jacob:
“So Jacob called the name of the place Peni'el, saying, "For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life is preserved.” (Genesis 32:30)
“The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh comes; and to Him shall be the obedience of the people.” (Genesis 49:10)
Job:
“For I know that my Redeemer lives, And He shall stand at last on the earth;” (Job 19:25)
David:
“Your throne, O Elohim, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You love righteousness and hate wickedness; Therefore Elohim, Your Elohim, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.” (Psalm 45:6,7)
Ezekiel:
“David My servant shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd; they shall also walk in My judgments and observe My statutes, and do them.” (Ezekiel 37:24)
Daniel:
“Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublesome times. And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, and till the end of the war desolations are determined.” (Daniel 9:25,26)
Jeremiah:
“Their Redeemer is strong; YHVH of hosts is His name. He will thoroughly plead their case, that He may give rest to the land, and disquiet the inhabitants of Babylon.” (Jeremiah 50:34)
Isaiah:
“Our Redeemer; YHVH of Hosts is His name, the Holy One of Israel.” (Isaiah 47:4)
In the modern church the “Christ” often taught under the name of “Jesus” is not the “Jewish Messiah” of the Scriptures. The “Christian Christ”— “Jesus”—changed the unchangeable commandments, statutes and judgments of Elohim. He also violated the Torah, according to many teachers. If “Jesus” violated the Torah, then He sinned. If He sinned, He was not sinless. If He wasn't sinless, He was not a Perfect Sacrifice for our sins.
The real Messiah of the Scriptures—the “Jewish Messiah”—did not sin. He kept the Torah to the letter, He taught the Torah, and He was born, grew up, lived, died, and was raised again—a Torah-observant Jew.
So can a person be saved without “Jesus” or the “Christian Christ?” The answer we came up with in our study is—“yes”—if the question relates to the “Jesus” or the “Christian Christ” usually preached in the modern church.
But, can a person be saved without the “Jewish Messiah“—the Torah-observant Jew in the Scriptures Who is the Savior, the Redeemer, and the Perfect Sacrifice for sin? No!
With this knowledge, according to the prophet Ezekiel, he points out in Ezekiel 18 that each person needs to set his life on-course based on what the Torah says. Excerpts from verses of this chapter state:
“But if a man be just, and does what is lawful and right...If he has walked in My statutes and kept My judgments faithfully—he is just; he shall surely live!...the soul who sins shall die...” Ezekiel 18:5,9,20.
Ezekiel continues in verse 20 that if the wicked person who repents—turns from his sin to righteousness—will live. But in verse 24 if the righteous person who turns from righteousness to wickedness—will die. The Hebrew word for righteous is tzadik (צדיק) meaning “straight,” as in the narrow way. And the word for wicked is rasha (רשע) meaning “off the path,” as in wide is the way that leads to destruction.
“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.” (Matthew 7:13,14)
In both Ezekiel and Matthew the life spoken of is more than physical existence. They are discussing Eternal Life, salvation. The gate by which we gain entrance to the path of salvation is the atonement of our Sacrifice Yeshua. The path of salvation is obedience to the commandments, judgments and statutes of Elohim.
It is up to each of us to choose our path in life, the way of the world or the way of Elohim. If you choose to follow the Elohim of the Bible—which “Messiah” will you follow—the fabled Torah-denying Christ of the modern church who, according to Moshe and the Torah, was a false prophet and leads to eternal death and separation from YHVH our Elohim. Or, the Torah-observant Yeshua ha Mashiach (Jesus the Messiah)—the true “Jewish Messiah” prophesied in the Old Testament and Whose earthly life is recorded in the New Testament—and Who provides eternal life as the Perfect Sacrifice for our sins—the only path for salvation.
“Yeshua said to him, ‘I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.’“ (John 14:6)
| "You really need to do some personal research on what the words "I am" mean in each of those contexts instead of regurgitating error ridden lessons you've been taught. The Old Testament is in Hebrew and the source for John is in Greek. Direct correlation of the words are a matter of men's opinion, and as it turns out, unnecessary. The two following citations provide the context for what was intended in God's and Jesus' statements: Exodus 3:13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, [when] I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What [is] his name? what shall I say unto them? Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. Exodus 3:15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this [is] my name for ever, and this [is] my memorial unto all generations. As you can see, God intended Himself to be identified with "I AM" for all posterity. (Jesus Speaking in John 8, where he identifies Himself to the Pharisees/Jews repeatedly as "I am":) John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw [it], and was glad. John 8:57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. John 8:59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. Jesus was saying that He was the One who preexisted Abraham using the everlasting self-reference God specified to Moses. The Pharisees/Jews knew exactly what he was saying and attempted to attack him (unsuccessfully). Please help me identify my errors/misconceptions/misunderstanding. |
| Simply put, if Jesus = God then there cannot be any differences. But the differences between God and Jesus are abundant, therefore Jesus does not equal God. Was God born? No Jesus was. Can God be tempted with evil? No, but Jesus was. You've oversimplified in an attempt to make your case, using what is called a 'straw-man' argument. Of course God≠Jesus in the mathematical sense. (I'm guessing it's more like Jesus∋God) Again in Exodus: Exodus 3:1 Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, [even] to Horeb. Exodus 3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush [was] not consumed. Exodus 3:3 And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt. Exodus 3:4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here [am] I. The conclusions that could be drawn from this passage are:
(b)Both The Angel of the Lord and God occupied the vicinity of the bush. I'm of the opinion (held as well by others) that they were two aspects of one entity, one of those aspects being He who appears as Immanuel. I'm open to other perspectives as I realize this is but an opinion and subject to human error. |
| Did God tell people that Jesus was his begotten son in which he was well pleased? Yes. Do you think God knows who he is and who Jesus is? I'd say so....so why would you argue with God Almighty? I don't, I trust in God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. |
No, only a misrepresentation of the definition of the Trinity as found in the Bible.
John 1:1* ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
The Bible tells us they are the same.
I wasn't aware that the word Trinity was anywhere in the Bible!
And what about the phrase 'god the son'? Where is that in the Bible?
Seems you have to use unBiblical words because you're describing an unBiblical concept.
God is invisible, and Jesus was the visible representation of God, right?
Wasn't it God Almighty who identified Jesus as his (God's) son?
We can keep it real simple...God is God, Christ is Christ and one is not really three.
The problem with your interpretation is that it flagrantly ignore clear verses that contradict it.
God is not a man that he should lie...nor the son of man that he should repent
God is one; there is only one God
God cannot be tempted with evil
God is spirit; God is invisible
Jesus was/is a man and the Son of Man
Jesus was tempted in all ways
Jesus was visible and in the flesh.
God said that Jesus was his son and Jesus said that God was his father, yet you want to call both of the liars!
Me? I like to believe that Jesus is God's only begotten son who was conceived by a virgin, born and lived a life that fulfilled the law and prophesies of the Messiah, died and was resurrected after three days and nights, and then ascended to sit on the right hand of God.
Neither will you find the word "Bible" either - does that negate it? Is the principle taught. To take you logic further - "omniscience" which means "all-knowing," "omnipotence" which means "all-powerful," and "omnipresence" which means "present everywhere," are words not found in the Bible either, but we use them to describe the attributes of God. Therefore it is not necessary to see a specific word in the bible when that corresponding concept is found true.
And what about the phrase 'god the son'? Where is that in the Bible?
See above - scripture attributes him the title of "Son of God" and God the Son describes His position in the trinity.
We can keep it real simple...God is God, Christ is Christ and one is not really three.
So you are advocating polytheism - interesting.
OK, so you call the Apostle John a liar then. Only by twisting those 'other' verses can you come to your conclusion. Then again, to prove your point you de facto render the bible worthless to cite.
I find it sad that by eliminating an honest representation of the doctrine of the Trinity is the only mean available for you to use. Jesus claimed the title "I AM" preexisting before Abraham, he claims the title "Alpha and Omega", cited to God. Jesus accepted the worship of Thomas (my Lord and God).
The prophet spoke of Jesus saying Emmanuel, and in another "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." (Isa 9:6)
God said that Jesus was his son and Jesus said that God was his father, yet you want to call both of the liars!
That they referenced each other by their position in the Trinity is no wonder - Jesus was 100% God and 100% man
Me? I like to believe that Jesus is God's only begotten son who was conceived by a virgin, born and lived a life that fulfilled the law and prophesies of the Messiah, died and was resurrected after three days and nights, and then ascended to sit on the right hand of God.
Why a virgin - you make Jesus out to be no different from any other prophet - as such nothing special about His birth was necessary. LOL, you are sounding like a mormon and God having sex with Mary in accordance with Greek theology. LOL, speaking of ignoring verses, Jesus over and over again links Himself to a pre-existence with God the Father. Your postings are full of serious misconceptions and statements as to who Jesus is.
Please explain to me why you wrote "That is what you claim". as opposed to either explaining what you meant or admitting my assertion that you deny the Gospels is true. (Parsing words betrays the intent to confuse and deceive – if that was your purpose, your forthrightness in this discussion is suspect.)
How hard is this? Geez, it is exactly that: what you claimed. So you assert something - that doesn't make it true. Why should I go on the defensive about what you believe?
As far as "happy-happy-joy-joy messages" are concerned, this thread asks the question at the heart of the Gospel and is no joyful message for those who turn away (but IS a joyous message for those who have accepted and will accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior).
That God is One (and not three) is no joyful message for those who turn away (but IS a joyous message for those who have accepted and will accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior).
Mark 12:28-34
28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?
29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:
33 And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.
34 And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question.
A question derives from your reference to the Jews in the third person: are you a contrarian, a Jew, a Diest, or an Islamist, or what (some of your other posts seem to support and derive from Judaism)?
It is quite apparent that you don't know me.
Ding ding ding! We have the winner of the straw man argument! Yes!!
Did John also write the first, second and third epistles?
You know, the ones that repeatedly call Jesus Christ the Son of God?
You say that Jesus is God. I say that he is the son of God, the Christ. But you say Jesus is God.
who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?
Well, who is the liar? He that claims Jesus is God or he that claims Jesus is the Christ?
I'm sorry, the rest of your ramblings would take a lot more time and patience than I have right now...but holy moly...Jesus never claimed a 'title' of I Am...I've heard a lot of silly things on these discussions but you are bringing in some fresh silliness.
Yep, same John
1John 22* Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. (Note two of the three persons in the Trinity linked as equals)
23* Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
24* Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.
Notice, you can't have one without the other. Oh and BTW, notice you CAPITALIZE Jesus title (Son of God), in the Greek that has the same meaning as God the Son.
1John 4: 2* Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3* And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
Yep, same John, and this passage makes no sense if Jesus originated at His birth. The phrase "come in the flesh" indicates that Jesus did indeed exist prior to His earthly ministry. - See John 1:1 again - my coherence in the scriptures on this point.
1 John 5:20* And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. In Christ the true God is revealed to us and in him we have eternal life. The divinity of Christ is most clearly proved by this passage. Yep, this is the same John.
2 John 9* Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. Wow, that same John pointing to the equality of the Son and the Father. You don't have Christ, you don't have God, but if you have Christ you have BOTH Christ and the Father.
Well, I guess you failed to really read John's epistles very closely given the above.
I'm sorry, the rest of your ramblings would take a lot more time and patience than I have right now...but holy moly...Jesus never claimed a 'title' of I Am...I've heard a lot of silly things on these discussions but you are bringing in some fresh silliness.
Here you pontificate on a subject and it is evident you haven't read the bible on the same subject -
Joh 8:58* Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
And the people sought to stone Him for blasphemy. A solemn and official declaration, preceded by "Verily, verily" [see Joh 3:3]. Jesus does not merely assert that he was before Abraham, but before Abraham was, I AM. It identifies with the I AM of the Old Testament. Divinity has no past tense, no future tense, but always the present. Please take some time to better read the bible before posting such drivel :)
Nothing but evasiveness.
You obviously have as a purpose something other than to engage in a meaningful discussion; any further effort on my part would be wasted.
I pray for God’s blessings on you.
fin.
I would not know where to begin. Sometimes the obvious is unseen by the oblivious.
Tell me where you disagree:
God is spirit
God is invisible
God is not a man
God in not the son of man
God cannot be tempted with evil
God is eternal without beginning or end
God is omniscient
God is one
Jesus came in the flesh
Jesus was visible
Jesus was a man
Jesus was the son of man
Jesus was tempted with evil
Jesus had a beginning (gennesis)
Jesus did not know all
Jesus is the mediator between man and God.
The theme of John's letters is that even by that time the truth of One God had been paganized making it necessary for John to write and detail how that Jesus was the Son of God and not god the son.
It is interesting to note that trinitarians forged some verses to twist the meaning for their benefit.
John makes it abundantly clear that the Father and the Son are not identical even though they are similar. If one says they are identical then they have denied their separate identities. This is quite common with those that profess that having three gods in god the father god the son and god the holy spirit really isn't three but is one.
One of the most fundamental rules for Biblical interpretation is that most of the Bible interprets itself as written and says what it means.
Another fundamental rule is that one should interpret in light of the many, clear, well defined verses instead of the few complex or seemingly ambiguous ones.
I believe that the Bible clearly states that Jesus is the Son of God about 50 times while it never once say god the son. Never once.
Yet you will give him that title regardless of what the Bible says or fails to say.
I wasn't aware that the word "Bible" was anywhere in the Bible! (But I guess to you, Eagle Eye, the "Bible" is therefore "unbiblical," too?) You can draw up a long list of "words" NOT in the Bible: rapture, eschatology, theology, I could go on & on...the fact is the Bible teaches that...
...Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost both are described in the Bible with attributes and characteristics belonging to God alone...
...it's there from Jesus Christ maintaining that He has the authority to forgive sins that are not committed against Him...
...to Annanias & Saphira lying to the Holy Spirit -- and then a few verses later, saying they lied to God...
...It's there even in the baptism "formula" of baptizing in the singular NAME (not plural NAMES) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:18-20) [They share the same divine identity, though having distinct Persons]
If Jesus Christ, in Matthew 19:5-6 can declare "and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one." when it comes to a married couple, who in heaven's name are YOU to come and in an analogous way to the manner in which you've responded to Godzilla, declare...???
Eagle Eye: "Well, hey Godzilla, how dare you misrepresent the 'BInity' of married couples..."
Godzilla: "Uh, I haven't. Take it up with Jesus. Take it up with the Bible -- Matthew 19:5-6."
Eagle Eye: "OK, I will!"
Eagle Eye: "Well, hey Jesus, how dare you misrepresent the 'BInity' of married couples 'cause, you know, Jesus we 'all know' that even married couples are still two people. So, Jesus, why don't you just do a 'takeback' on your 'they are no longer two, but one' verbiage and we'll overlook it. Besides Jesus, we all know that you NEVER used the word 'binity' ANYWHERE in the gospels. So, we just don't know where the BInitarians get this concept of this 'two-become-one' marriage crud. Thanks for correcting your maritalology, Jesus!"
My challenge to you, Eagle Eye: If Jesus Christ could describe a mere mortal married couple as 2-in-1, on what grounds do you thereby claim that the God who created them...the God who "joined them together" (Matt. 19:6)...is somehow less able to be either equally or even more united as a Being who has loved from eternity even before the creation of any angel or man???
God is no solitary solo unit. Even "unity" implies "community." A giver of love must have a receiver of love. And the tri-unified God has been a complete, perfect Social Unity and Social Community from eternity past!
***God can choose to save anyone he pleases to.***
And He does, only though Jesus. Said so Himself.
But God the Son took the form of a man 100% God, 100% man.
God cannot be tempted with evil
As the God-man, Jesus could (and was tempted)
God is eternal without beginning or end
So is Jesus.
God is one
So the doctrine of the Trinity attests to.
Jesus came in the flesh
Ah, Jesus had a pre-existance - the Word was with God and the Word was God
Jesus had a beginning (gennesis)
See answer above - God has no begining and end, Jesus was God and thus no begining or end either.
Rev 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
Rev 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send [it] unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
The theme of John's letters is that even by that time the truth of One God had been paganized making it necessary for John to write and detail how that Jesus was the Son of God and not god the son.
Sorry, John is one of the strongest of the Gospels in identifying Jesus as God the Son through proving His deity. The very first verse of the gospel destroys your arguement.
It is interesting to note that trinitarians forged some verses to twist the meaning for their benefit.
It is interesting arians twist and ignore verses to make their claim - and Trinitians don't need to use those passages to prove their point.
John makes it abundantly clear that the Father and the Son are not identical even though they are similar. If one says they are identical then they have denied their separate identities.
I double dog dare you to present the definition of the doctrine of the Trinty used by Trintarians - were you to do so you would recognize how stupid your strawman above is. Identical but not similar - pretty close to Trinitarian understanding if you BOTHER to do the research for the definition.
One of the most fundamental rules for Biblical interpretation is that most of the Bible interprets itself as written and says what it means.
"And the Word was with God and the Word was God"
I believe that the Bible clearly states that Jesus is the Son of God about 50 times while it never once say god the son. Never once.
Just like your lame strawman on the absence of the word "Trinity", absence of that precise phrase does not invalidate the principle contained in the bible.
Yet you will give him that title regardless of what the Bible says or fails to say.
I don't give Him that title - that is the Title that is His by His very nature, true God from true God.
Bible means book. It is the common name for the collection of writings. Why is that point so important to you? Ahhhh....another straw man argument that you so skillfully dismantled!P> Amazing! Compared to yourself you are a darned genius!
You have a problem in that you have to use unBiblical terms, ignore clear scripture, and twist other scripture in order to promulgate a 3-in-1 trinity.
God is no solitary solo unit.
Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD:
Gal 3:20 Now a mediator is not [a mediator] of one, but God is one.
So the Bible says that God is one but you say Got is not a solitary unit! Ok, so who do we believe? You with your unbiblical ideas or the Bible?
Sadly you don't recognize figures of speech. Married couples become one in unity, purpose, etc but they are not literally one person.
So if Jesus is God because he and God are one, does that mean that Jesus prayed for his disciples to be God as well since he wanted them to be one, too?
Jhn 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
Jhn 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
God is one. He has many aspects and several names that describe his relationship to his creation, his people, and his adversaries. But he is one.
This is in contrast to the pagan gods who had many names that also described their powers but they were pluralistic gods and God Almighty wanted it known that he was not the same as the pagan gods.
In some ways it is understandable how the uninitiated see Jesus as God: they don't understand how God can delegate power and authority to his son; they don't understand what it really means to conduct business in the Father's name; and they certainly do not understand that Jesus does, in fact, stand in place of God to mortal man, that mortal man cannot get to God without going through Christ and that Christ mediates between man and God.
1Ti 2:5 For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Oh, by the way, notice that this verse distinguishes a difference between God and man and also puts Christ in the category of man. How about that? You put Christ in the category of God/Godman/God the Son, yet the Bible (there's that word again) says Jesus Christ is a man...and it says it over and over and over...you'd think you'd get the point!
Yep, numerous references to Jesus being a man, the son of man, and the Son of God but NOT ONE SINGLE REFERENCE TO GOD THE SON!
God had many opportunities to clearly state that Jesus was God of God the Son or Godman or something like that but God instead chose to CLEARLY state that Jesus was his son.
But you can't stop arguing with God, can you?
I’d like to point out something.
Like it or not I continually bring you back to Bible scriptures and some common sense.
Meanwhile you are using the doctrine of the trinity for your side.
And really, that is where this goes; it is the trinity versus the Bible.
They don’t mesh or match. They are opposed to each other.
So I’ll continue quoting the Bible to you and you can keep using terms and concepts that are not in the Bible to describe a concept that isn’t in the Bible.
And that is the simple down and dirty of it; you simply don’t believe the Bible and continue to argue against it.
And in all fairness, I simply don’t believe the doctrine of the trinity and continue to argue against it.
My EE, seems that I've been the one citing all the scriptures and pointing out the errors of your ways.
Meanwhile you are using the doctrine of the trinity for your side. And really, that is where this goes; it is the trinity versus the Bible.
Nope, the bible and the Trinity go hand in hand.
And that is the simple down and dirty of it; you simply don’t believe the Bible and continue to argue against it.
LOL, what a piece of fallderall. I believe in the Trinity because I believe the Bible. I have no cognitive dissonance in this regard, however it is present in your posts.
And in all fairness, I simply don’t believe the doctrine of the trinity and continue to argue against it.
I previously challenged you to cite what the doctrine of the Trinity is - regardless of whether you believe it or not. It is becoming completely apparent from your posts that there is no fundamental comprehension of what the doctrine of the Trinity actually states. Ignorant postings on a doctrine not understood is one thing, arrogant ignorant postings on a doctrine you will not do the simple research to examine is another.
What? You want me to post it for you?
Look, you are the one saying that a three in one doctrine meshes with the Bible stating that God is one and there is only one God.
You are the one taking about God the Son when there is absolutely no Biblical reference to such a title.
What is most lame about trinitarians is their total lack of logic and their reliance on 'god can do anything' to reconcile the contradictions in their own arguments.
If you believed the Bible then you would believe that God called Jesus his son.
If you believed the Bible you'd believe that Jesus is a man and the mediator between God and man, not God himself.
But you don't by your own unwitting admission.
What is most lame about trinitarians is their total lack of logic and their reliance on 'god can do anything' to reconcile the contradictions in their own arguments.
I would challenge you to cite my defense of the Trinity as "God can do anything' (is that something you don't believe)? Go ahead, search upthread and find it (crickets)
If you believed the Bible you'd believe that Jesus is a man and the mediator between God and man, not God himself.
I believe the Bible and believe Jesus to be fully God and fully man.
If you believed the Bible then you would believe that God called Jesus his son.
I believe the Bible because it teaches that Jesus was -
Tim 3:16* And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
If you believed in the Bible, you would believe Jesus is God manifested in the flesh - if you don't then
1 Tim 4:4:1* ¶ Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2* Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
But you don't by your own unwitting admission.
ROTFLAICGU - how pitiful EE - you've been silenced on John 1:1, you've been silenced when shown that Jesus uses the divine epithet "I AM" (Jn 8.58-59, 24, 28), you are silent when shown that Jesus lays claim to the same title "Alpha and the Omega" as God has. And He is worshiped and called God by His disciples.
Come on EE, show me that you can think deeper than these posts indicate. Certainly, you can at least elucidate what the definition of the Trinity is - regardless of your belief. Otherwise you keep failing to knock your own strawmen down.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.