Bible Teachings or Traditions of Men?

Yeah, that's a translational option.

Names with "God" in them, in one form or another, are fairly common in the Bible. Anything beginning or ending with "El", or beginning with "Je" or ending in "ja" or "jah" is likely to be an example (I'd be careful because we are dealing with transliterations here).I think that if the Bible meant it to be clear that the Messiah was literally God it would say so clearly. As it is the Bible seems clear that the Messiah will be a restored monarch of the Davidic line, and by implication human. It seems to me that you need the idea of Jesus being both God and man to even make sense of the idea that the Messiah could be God.

I did not say that I don't worship Jesus as God. As you yourself say they are three different persons. Jesus prayed to the Father. They are different manifestations and in Jesus we see God's human manifestation. I don't understand why you are determined to believe everything in the Bible except for the Gospels. Just read what Jesus said. The problem is that doesn't fit with your pre-conceived beliefs so you reject the words of Jesus.

Christians DO study these things, and pastors DO preach with such things in mind. Big mistake. The Bible speaks in a veiled way about many things, requiring a spiritual understanding to get the message.I've always thought Pascal was particularly astute in his "Pensees" when he commented that the Bible was written so that sincere believers would get light from it but scoffers and unbelievers would find only darkness and obscurity. I forget how he said it, but that was the gist.I think the passages that underlie the Trinity are quite obvious myself, especially all in relation to each other, they build on each other, but if one is of the mind to deny the Bible or anything supernatural you CAN find ways to interpret them another way.This in fact is probably a good reason why debating the Bible is a lost cause.To my mind if the KJV translators, building I assume on Tyndale and all the other translations before them, chose to render the phrase "God our righteousness" their understanding should be considered the correct one.Playing with alternative translations of the texts offends and annoys me, so I guess I shouldn't be trying to debate any of this anyway. Pretty much what the Jews believe who haven't a clue about the depths of the OT.I guess I could also say, so you do believe in prophecy, which is already believing something supernatural, but only a prophecy of something unsupernatural or something like that.So, watch for it. When is this merely human monarch to appear as you understand it? Yes you do need that idea and that IS the orthodox understanding. Time-honored, affirmed by Bible believers for 2000 years (meaning believers in the FULL Bible of course, for all those who think they are Bible believers but only believe part of it)You must be born again. That's the bottom line. The unregenerate mind can't grasp these things.Repent and believe.======================================================Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Christians DO study these things, and pastors DO preach with such things in mind.

---

But you obviously didn't think of it when you touted your "proof".

quote:

---

Big mistake. The Bible speaks in a veiled way about many things, requiring a spiritual understanding to get the message.

---

The mistake is yours. Do you really not understand that an intentionally veiled teaching isn't meant to be clear ?

quote:

---

I think the passages that underlie the Trinity are quite obvious myself, especially all in relation to each other, they build on each other, but if one is of the mind to deny the Bible or anything supernatural you CAN find ways to interpret them another way.

---

As you've admitted, these passages are NOT clear support for the Trinity.

quote:

---

This in fact is probably a good reason why debating the Bible is a lost cause.

---

Well if your objective is to get people to believe that the Bible says what you say it does rather than what it actually says, then debate here will be pretty futile.

quote:

---

To my mind if the KJV translators, building I assume on Tyndale and all the other translations before them, chose to render the phrase "God our righteousness" their understanding should be considered the correct one.

---

Even if that is the case you still need to argue that it isn't a Theophoric name, especially in the light of the scriptures that imply that the Messiah will be a man. And really, you also need to explain why they chose that rendering and what it meant to them (Jacobean English is not identical to current usage and can easily lead you astray if you aren't careful).

quote:

---

Pretty much what the Jews believe who haven't a clue about the depths of the OT.

---

Err, even Christians agree that the Messiah is supposed to be of the line of David. Not that Christian interpretation is automatically better than Jewish - the Jewish interpretations are, after all, culturally closer to the OT texts, if nothing else.

quote:

---

So, watch for it. When is this merely human monarch to appear as you understand it?

---

I don't intend to debate my personal beliefs here. But there's no agreement in the Bible on that issue.

quote:

---

Yes you do need that idea and that IS the orthodox understanding. Time-honored, affirmed by Bible believers for 2000 years (meaning believers in the FULL Bible of course, for all those who think they are Bible believers but only believe part of it)

---

By which you mean that it is an idea that did not appear until centuries AFTER Jeremiah was written. If your argument depends on the assumption that Jeremiah intended to agree with your doctrine then you have more assumption than argument.

quote:

---

You must be born again. That's the bottom line. The unregenerate mind can't grasp these things.

---

Yawn. That's just an excuse to exalt your prejudices.

quote:

---

Repent and believe.

---

I don't think that honestly trying to understand what the Bible says is anything that anyone should repent of. Perhaps you should ask yourself why you think otherwise.

I assume it to have been resolved in the translation so that your raising such issues is just the endless objections of an unbeliever. [qs] Big mistake. The Bible speaks in a veiled way about many things, requiring a spiritual understanding to get the message. You said you expect the Bible to be clear, I said oh but it isn't, it is veiled. I went on to quote Pascal who suggests that it is unclear ONLY to unbelievers and those who are looking for a way to find fault with it. So if it is unclear to you it's because this describes you. Only to unbelievers and scoffers, I "admitted" nothing else. To me they are obvious. Cleverly put. Of course the Trinity is based on what the Bible actually says, attested by millions down the centuries too, and that is what I am trying to show, and think I HAVE shown. I do think it's quite obvious really, and that it takes twisting to see it some other way. Which is what unbelievers do. There MIGHT be a few here who get the argument, despite what you say, but over all I agree with you that it is futile. Not interested in that kind of debate. That's why I shouldn't even try. The scripture is self explanatory if you just take it straight and stop second guessing it and looking for ways the KJV translators got it wrong, and the New Testament reading of the Old is clear that Jesus is God, and theologians and believers, Creeds and Confessions down the centuries understood it that way, and having to argue it beyond these points is not interesting to me. Take it or leave it. Oh I try to be careful about such things but I don't want to debate on that level. I've made my case, you can take it or leave it, and really, I don't care which you do. Well, I'd be thrilled if ANYONE here was persuaded of what I've presented of course, but that has never happened at EvC, and although I think I've put up some really good stuff I'm used to losing the debate here and just now and then I think why do I bother? But not spiritually. Jesus upbraided the Pharisees for their man-made traditions. They expected a Messiah who would lead them against Rome. They had no clue, they still don't. Some did of course, some rightly understood the OT prophecies, and they became the followers of Jesus, the first Christians. The timing of the coming of the Messiah was clear enough from the OT, for those with an "ear to hear," and some of the Jews DID know He was due in Jesus' time. Anna and Simeon certainly. Covenant Theology hermeneutics argues that the prophets did understand a great deal of what the NT reveals, though the NT reveals it with more certainty. It's actually an argument for why you don't see the obviousness of the Trinity. You COULD consider that I'm right, and that unless you approach it believingly, and in fact are born again, you really CAN'T understand it no matter how much effort you put into it-- especially if you keep questioning it all, raising other translational possibilities instead of just taking it as written. THAT way will only get you into deep darkness.You want to understand it? Read it and believe it as written. Believing is THE key that unlocks the Bible. "Faith is the evidence of things unseen, the substance of things hoped for" or the other way around. It really is. The fallen mind CAN'T get it. Faith is the faculty that grasps it. But there's no real faith without repentance, which is why the two are always said together: Repent and believe. THEN you'll understand. One of the Church fathers said "I understand because I believe." That's the truth. It's not true of anything else, only the Bible.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Unclear is unclear Faith, and veiled normally means hidden.If the veil is only lifted and the bible becomes clear only once you believe in it, it's rather useless to those who have found no prior cause to believe.It's also a perfectly circular argument - 'believe in it, and it will make sense'.Your belief in the bible as literal truth has lead you to believe in a whole pack of total nonsense about geology, biology and physics. These sciences contain objective, unveiled, and clear facts about our world which do not require belief.It's an odd book that forces you to believe untruths.

Everything is an endless argument here.Yes "hidden" but not hidden from everybody, only from those who nitpick everything.Yes, it is useless to those who have found no reason to believe.See, you don't even know your judgment is flawed about Old Earth Geology and everything else having to do with the unobservable past. What unbelievable chutzpah that you think you can know such unknowables with such a misguided sense of certainty. The untruth is on your side.Oh well.Repent and believe. Try it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well yes, that's rather the point of the place That makes less sense than usual - it's either hidden or not, clear or not. it's objectively unclear. If I believe in Harry Potter, it doesn't make the story anything more than a story; it just means I'm delusional. So much for spreading the Word of God. It's not fit for its supposed purpose. That seems like a very un-Godlike thing to do. This is truly weird stuff - I doubt I'll ever understand how a modern person can hide from reality in this way. Indeed.

quote:

---

I assume it to have been resolved in the translation so that your raising such issues is just the endless objections of an unbeliever.

---

And on what basis would it have been resolved ? By my understanding the underlying text gives you no basis for doing so.

quote:

---

You said you expect the Bible to be clear, I said oh but it isn't, it is veiled.

---

I said no such thing. Indeed, the point of the statement was that your argument assumed that it was clear when in fact it isn't.

quote:

---

Cleverly put. Of course the Trinity is based on what the Bible actually says, attested by millions down the centuries too, and that is what I am trying to show, and think I HAVE shown. I do think it's quite obvious really, and that it takes twisting to see it some other way. Which is what unbelievers do. There MIGHT be a few here who get the argument, despite what you say, but over all I agree with you that it is futile

---

Of course all you've got is a circular argument based on your assumption that Jeremiah is talking about Jesus and Jesus is God. And the second assumption is absolutely inappropriate in this thread, for the simple reason that it begs the question.If you have any better reasons I'm willing to listen, but they need to be rational reasons.

quote:

---

Not interested in that kind of debate. That's why I shouldn't even try. The scripture is self explanatory if you just take it straight and stop second guessing it and looking for ways the KJV translators got it wrong, and the New Testament reading of the Old is clear that Jesus is God, and theologians and believers, Creeds and Confessions down the centuries understood it that way, and having to argue it beyond these points is not interesting to me. Take it or leave it.

---

This discussion is about the OT. Assuming that it anticipates NT doctrines is a dubious basis for interpreting it. If we take Jeremiah straight then I have to say that your case rests solely on taking a rather questionable interpretation. I'd need more than that to say that you even had a decent argument, let alone a proof.

quote:

---

The timing of the coming of the Messiah was clear enough from the OT, for those with an "ear to hear," and some of the Jews DID know He was due in Jesus' time. Anna and Simeon certainly

---

That certainly isn't true, and since the Messianic prophecies still go unfulfilled Anna and Simeon would have been wrong to expect them to be fulfilled 2000 years ago.

quote:

---

It's actually an argument for why you don't see the obviousness of the Trinity.

---

It's more of an assertion than an argument. And I would say that the evidence favours my diagnosis of the reality of it.

quote:

---

You COULD consider that I'm right, and that unless you approach it believingly, and in fact are born again, you really CAN'T understand it no matter how much effort you put into it-- especially if you keep questioning it all, raising other translational possibilities instead of just taking it as written. THAT way will only get you into deep darkness.

---

The evidence of our past interaction - indeed of your own arguments - is very much against that. There's no evidence that you - or any other self-styled born-again has any special ability to interpret the Bible. Just the opposite in fact.

What makes it seem like I object to the Trinity idea?

Spreading the Word is rarely accomplished by debating the Bible. Or if it ever is, it's by the sovereign will of God and not the debater's doing. The Word is preached from the Bible and the hearer believes or not. That's how it is normally done. Debating the Bible is too often just a way for people to object to it and remain unbelievers. Well, repent and believe. Perhaps it will then become clear to you. You'd immediately lose your hidebound prejudice about "hiding from reality" though. Be prepared to have your mind blown. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Why, because technically it COULD be a mere name and not a literal prophecy of God incarnate therefore it MUST be that? No wonder you'll never get it. So much for your discernment.

Just an impression I got.

For a believer, sharing the Word is sharing the living word...Jesus Christ.

quote:

---

The First Ecumenical council of Nicaea was called by emperor Constantine. The council met to deal with the schism created by Arianism. The Arians wished to avoid the heresy of Sabellius who believed in a divine monad which, by expansion, projected itself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit--a form of Modalism. The Arians separated the Son from God entirely so that they believed he was a creature having a beginning. "There was when he was not." The Son was but God's first creation, yet out of nothing and hence has preeminence over the rest of creation.

---

Without Jesus as God, the word itself becomes merely human and subject to interpretation by human wisdom...either in the form of secular intellectualism, or, in the case of this thread, by a representative of a cult who seeks to establish biblical authority through their own lone organization. Biblical authority, however, can only come through the living word. Jesus Christ is no mere created angel sent as a messenger. Portion Of Nicene CreedWe believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,Edited by Phat, : No reason given.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.