Posted on 04/05/2010 3:13:26 PM PDT by wagglebee
Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!
Indeed. Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!
Thanks AG. I needed that. :-)
Thank you for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!
If history is any guide; that is, if past tells us anything about future, many of those who are presently "most certainly alive" perish under such regimes.
Maranatha, Jesus!!!
Go back to my listing a few posts ago. Find the false ones. Oh. They don't exist.
God cannot equal Christ and Christ cannot equal God if there is even one small difference.
Remember, it was the organized religious leaders of Christ's time that had him killed. The refuge of Satan has been in false religion since the fall of man.
Do you think Isreal fell to idolotry because they were stupid? No. They were tricked by (sincere) religious leaders who lead them astray bit by bit. Seduction by a counterfeit.
IMO the trinity has more in common with baal worship than with Christ.
There is one God. God is one.
That flies in the face of a three person godhead or a god that is three.
The Bible states clearly and unambiguously in dozens of places that Jesus is the son of God and that God is the father of Jesus.
Those clear and unambiguous verses should be the foundation for interpretation and not twisted to fit philosophies built on unclear or ambiguous verses, just as Leviticus 17:11 is clear about life being in the blood, I have to look at God being the invisible spirit father of Christ as a different entity than Christ.
Sons often resemble their fathers but they are not their father. If a son so perfectly represents his father in will and purpose then they are one. Jesus stated that his followers were one with him as well.
Jesus so perfectly represented the Father (since he is the sole mediator between men and God) that he was able to state that seeing him was (the same as) seeing the invisible father!
Most people accept what they are taught in church without question. The accept the illogical idea that one is three and three is one when they are told it is a mystery or that God can do what ever he wants and that we are not to question it.
My KJV says that God has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness (meaning an understanding and relationship with God) and so there may be things that we don't always understand but there should be nothing held back universally to prevent us from knowing and understanding God as He wants us to.
If me being an earthly father want good things for my kids and want them to know me, how much more can God want those same things?
Romans 10:9,10 are key to salvation. I believe them and also believe that they hold the conditions for salvation. You either do or you don't.
It is clear to me that Paul (who was a Jew of Jews) was totally monotheistic and understood the difference between God and Christ.
God sent Christ. Paul saw Christ. Paul did not see God since no man has seen God at any time. Christ cannot be God.
When the ambiguous verses are used for the foundation then there are numerous contradictions.
When the clear verses are used for the foundation then the ambiguous verses can be examined closely and the truth determined from them.
Bottom line is that if I am incorrect then I have wrongly divided the word of truth, but if trinitarians are wrong then they are worshipping in idolotry.
Do you attend a formal church which shares your position on the Trinity? The only formal religious organization of which I am aware which shares your view is the Jehovah’s Witnesses. If you are not a JW, then are you a member of any specific sect or denomination?
I am very curious about this.
Thanks
Marlowe
I know I said I was going to drop the subject on this thread, but I would be interested in knowing Eagle Eye’s view of Matthew 28:19.
In EVERY translation of this verse that I have ever seen the word NAME is singular, it is not plural.
If the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit have ONE Name, They are ONE, not separate, not “one mind”, simply ONE.
The bible also describes Jesus as "The first and the last, the Alpha and the Omega, and the Almighty."
How about y’all looking at those verses in light of the clear and unambiguous verses?
Remember, sometimes the KJV is poorly translated and/or sometimes our understanding is skewed.
If God is invisible, if he is not a man, if he is the father, and Jesus is visible, a man, and God’s son, then what does that do to those isolated verses?
Does it put those verses at odds with the clear verses?
I certainly believe that there are verses that on the surface support trinitarian ideas, but those verses end up contradicting the clear, unambiguous verses.
There are a few cases where legitimate figures of speech and ancient customs come into play and most westerners do not recognize or understand these terms.
I will always strive to stand firm on the clear verses and try to understand the others in light of them rather than take an ambiguous or indirect verse and interpret it regardless of what the clear verses say.
Once upon a time I was taught to tithe regularly, but my research could not find the use of tithing in the NT at all. Gifts and offerings, yes. Tithing, no. And no, that did not make me popular with clergy. God loves a hilarious giver, not one simply following the law.
I am unaware of ANY translation of Matthew 28:19 where the word NAME is pluralized into names.
If God is invisible, if he is not a man, if he is the father, and Jesus is visible, a man, and God’s son, then what does that do to those isolated verses?
I suggest you read the first chapter of the Gospel of St. John. He spells it out very clearly, the in beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word WAS God and then the Word became flesh.
I certainly believe that there are verses that on the surface support trinitarian ideas, but those verses end up contradicting the clear, unambiguous verses.
As P-M and I have both asked, do you belong to some specific religious group or is this all just based on your personal interpretation of Scripture?
I will always strive to stand firm on the clear verses and try to understand the others in light of them rather than take an ambiguous or indirect verse and interpret it regardless of what the clear verses say.
Do you actually do that or do you just pick and choose which ones to stand clear on?
How about y'all answering my question about what church you belong to or attend?
Remember, sometimes the KJV is poorly translated and/or sometimes our understanding is skewed.
And you obviously know that because you are a much better Hebrew and Greek Scholar than the team of scholars who translated the KJV, right?
BTW since you use the KJV rather than the original languages, don't you find it odd that literally NONE of the KJV Scholars who translated the KJV held to your view of the Trinity?
Does it put those verses at odds with the clear verses?
Have you studied Biblical Hermenutics?
I certainly believe that there are verses that on the surface support trinitarian ideas, but those verses end up contradicting the clear, unambiguous verses.
Have you studied the Original Languages and the Early Church Fathers theological papers? Do you not find it incongruous that those who Cannonized the scripture held to a view of scripture that is wholly opposed to your own? If you trust them on the idea of which books and which verses properly belong in the Bible, then should you not also give some deference to what their interpretation of the Scripture was when they so Cannonized it?
So tell me, what Church, if any, do you attend or are a member? Does your Church agree with your position regarding the Deity of Christ?
It is evident at the baptism of Jesus when (1) The Son is Baptised, (2) The Father speaks, (3) The Holy Spirit descends.
Believe what you want, Eagle, but you'll not be following the same faith as the Church founded by Jesus Christ if you follow anything other than historic Christian Trinitarianism.
As Wagglebee cited: "...and the Word was God."
If Jesus is God then no body saw him and we know that is not the case.
What you are doing is what I emphatically cautioned against!
By using isolated verses like John 1 you end up with a model that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
You assert that John 1 proves that Jesus is God but then totally ignore that God is invisible, etc etc.
Based on the clear and unambiguous verses, Jesus Christ cannot be God and God cannot be Jesus Christ!
With all due respect, your research is not even to the same level of integrity of the man made global warming 'scientists'!
John 1 is a very beautiful section but it doesn't mean what you claim.
Again, in order for Jesus to be God you have to contradict dozens and dozens of clear, unambiguous scriptures and concepts.
Can God be tempted with evil? No. Was Jesus tempted with evil. Yes.
It is really very simple, but it takes years even centuries of indoctrination to get people to accept that when the Bible says that there is one God and that God is one that that really means that there are 3 Gods and/or that God is 3 and not one.
And the best part is....it is all a mystery, right?
Whenever we can't explain the broken logic and contridictory verses we can always claim it a Divine Mystery! Yes!
Have you ever used an interlinear? or even a concordance? It is amazing what simple tools like Berry's or Young's and Strong's can show you.
Why did it take until the 4th Century to formalize Jesus as God? And why does that doctrine cause so many major contridictions?
When y'all can explain how those many clear verses and concepts that show differences between God and Jesus work then I'll return the favor on the other verses, but until then it just shows that you have failed to look at your religious template with an honest and critical eye.
Jesus taught STRONGLY about truth versus tradition...maybe it is time for y'all to look at some of your traditions in light of the truth of God's word instead of what centuries of traditions have taught?
It sounds like your issues are “invisibility” and “temptation”....is that right?
Abraham ate dinner with the Lord prior to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Didn’t he?
Temptation: It says that God can’t be tempted with evil? Jesus wasn’t tempted because the temptor came to him. In fact, the point of the story was that He was NOT tempted
Both synonyms and various usages of the same word are common in most languages. That is true of Greek and Hebrew as well.
One usage of “temptation” is “enticed to sin.” God cannot be enticed to sin.
Another usage is “put to the test.”
In Jesus’ case, Satan put Jesus to the test, but Jesus was not enticed.
As I said before: you are not in the tradition of historic Christianity, EE.
You assert that John 1 proves that Jesus is God but then totally ignore that God is invisible, etc etc.
The first chapter of the Gospel of Saint John is very clear.
Based on the clear and unambiguous verses, Jesus Christ cannot be God and God cannot be Jesus Christ!
And people wonder why the Catholic Church rejects sola scriptura.
With all due respect, your research is not even to the same level of integrity of the man made global warming 'scientists'!
So, you think that two thousand years of orthodox Christian belief has less integrity than a hoax?
Why are you so reluctant to answer the simple question of what denomination you belong to?
I'll accept that response as a "no".
Why did it take until the 4th Century to formalize Jesus as God?
Because the clear teachings of the first century were being perverted by heretics who thought they knew more than the Apostles and their immediate disciples. Error was creeping into the Church and the various churches got together to make a formal statement as to what the Church Fathers and the Apostles had been teaching for 400 years.
When y'all can explain how those many clear verses and concepts that show differences between God and Jesus work then I'll return the favor on the other verses, but until then it just shows that you have failed to look at your religious template with an honest and critical eye.
If I were to show you the clear verses in the Bible that confirm that Jesus Christ is God Almighty, would you change your view? Are you open to being taught on this subject, or is your current view the one you plan on taking to the grave?
So what Church do you attend or what church are do you hold membership? Or are you just a "Lone Christian" making up your theology as you go?
BTW I am pining our resident Greek and Hebrew Scholars to this thread in case there is a question regarding the original intent of the scriptures.
Eagle Eye is not practicing "sola scriptura". Sola Scriptura is a historic-grammatical interpretation of scripture that takes into account all scripture, its history, and its correct interpretation.
EE is obviously not doing that.
I don’t know what this is, but it clearly illustrates the danger of simply handing a person a Bible and telling them to figure it out on their own.
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.