Bible Teachings or Traditions of Men?

The above sound like excuses. I don't see anything wrong with advocating your position, and doing so would not be preaching. And you are not obligated to address every verse or every possible position.The web is littered with attacks and defenses of Trinity doctrine. It would seem that a reader would better served with ignoring this thread and simply looking at those sources.

quote:

---

ALTER2EGO:
If I were to do what you are not suggesting, that would amount to preaching. Not only that, I would have to present several counter-arguments for each verse of scripture that Trinitarians often use, because they do not all focus on the same words within the same verse. They use different parts of the same verse and come up with entirely different reasons for why the verse is talking "trinity."

​

NO NUKES:
The above sound like excuses. I don't see anything wrong with advocating your position, and doing so would not be preaching. And you are not obligated to address every verse or every possible position.

---

ALTER2EGO -to- NO NUKES:
Where did you get the idea that your standards for how to conduct a debate--in a thread that someone else started--is worthy of consideration? Of course you don't see anything wrong with me wasting my time making counter-arguments to a third-party source that is not even here to counter back. Furthermore, this debate topic was authored by me, and it will be debated according to my method for conducting debates.BTW: You are in no position to make demands in this thread, considering your fallacious arguments over in my "Precision in Nature" thread, the fact that you evaded my questions in that thread, and then insulted me by informing me that I am a buffoon.

quote:

---

NO NUKES:
You don't trust anyone here, so if there is any person offline you can trust, who knows even a little about astronomy, I suggest that you ask them about your statement above. But you are beyond my help. I'll take whatever suspension this comment has earned, but you are an absolute buffoon.

---

quote:

---

NO NUKES:
The web is littered with attacks and defenses of Trinity doctrine. It would seem that a reader would better served with ignoring this thread and simply looking at those sources.

---

ALTER2EGO -to- NO NUKES:
Good. That means you will disappear from this thread immediately. Especially since you have not contributed anything of significance to the discussion and are now playing the role of moderator-wanna-be.

As far as the relationship between God the Father and God the Son is concerned, I think we can get an understanding of it by using Christ`s own self understanding. Jesus often referred to Himself as ``The Son of Man``. This is an obvious reference to Daniel 7. Here is the pertinent part of that chapter.

quote:

---

9 "As I looked, "thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow; the hair of his head was white like wool. His throne was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze. 10 A river of fire was flowing, coming out from before him. Thousands upon thousands attended him; ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him. The court was seated, and the books were opened. 11 "Then I continued to watch because of the boastful words the horn was speaking. I kept looking until the beast was slain and its body destroyed and thrown into the blazing fire. 12 (The other beasts had been stripped of their authority, but were allowed to live for a period of time.) 13 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

---

There are all the messianic texts in the OT but the Jews, didn’t anticipate that the messiah would be anything more than human and in general the plan was to lead them to victory over their enemies. However throughout their Scriptures there was this theme of a much more loving God and in particular there is the suffering servant in Isaiah. Then we get to this passage in Daniel with the Son of Man reference. In all likelihood Daniel would have thought that The Son of Man’ would be the Israeli nation.Jesus seems to have woven all these themes together to come to His own understanding of His relationship with Yahweh, the one He called Father and the one to whom He prayed.This Daniel passage is clearly set in God’s heavenly dimension. It is obviously written in Jewish apocalyptic style and we should understand it in that light.It has God the Father as the Ancient of Days Taking His throne and it has one like a son of man coming into His presence. Verse 14,( He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshipped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed), clearly outlines the role that Jesus was and is to play in God’s created world. It is less clear but I contend that Jesus would have understood that Daniel meant the passage to be about the nation of Israel and so understood that He, Jesus, was standing in for the whole nation.Jesus speaks of this in Matthew 24. In the first part of that chapter Jesus tells the disciples that the Temple buildings will be destroyed. This is part of His message that if the revolutionaries were going to continue to be the dominant political force the nation would face destruction. Then the disciples ask Jesus about His coming and the end of the age. Jesus then goes on to talk about the tribulations that are going to befall the nation, (once again as a result that His non-revolutionary message of peace and love was being ignored), and the general political upheaval which will come. Then in verse 29 and 30 he refers us back to Daniel 7 when He says this:

quote:

---

29 "Immediately after the distress of those days " 'the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.' 30 "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.

---

Verse 29 refers back to Isaiah 13:

quote:

---

9 See, the day of the LORD is coming --a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger-- to make the land desolate and destroy the sinners within it. 10 The stars of heaven and their constellations will not show their light. The rising sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light.

---

All of this clearly is not about the end of time but it is again Jewish apocalyptical lingo for massive political upheaval and all that goes with it. So Jesus is saying in Matthew 24:30 that when that happens it will be shown that what Daniel was talking about has taken place. Jesus has been presented to the Father, His eternal Kingdom has been established and He has been given dominion over all the nations.Then He gets back to the disciples initial question in the Matthew 24 which was being referred to earlier verse 36.

quote:

---

36 "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

---

His message then goes on to say that they aren't to worry about it, and just to get on with building His Kingdom by taking His message of truth, peace, love etc to all nations, which is His message for us to this day.

Where did you get your idea that your standards are good? They're not, they're crap.Now, NoNukes is right. There would indeed be nothing wrong with you advocating your own position. If you don't, then I and everyone else reading this thread will assume that you don't because you can't. Actually, debate doesn't work like that. You, of course, are free to keep to your own rule that you won't ever say anything in favor of your own opinions. We, on the other hand, are free to draw our own conclusions about why you refuse to even try to do so. His arguments were so correct that you have been unable to produce a coherent argument against them, and, let's be frank, you are a buffoon.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Or he could stick around and continue to point out that if you want to know what the Bible teaches, then reading the Bible would be a good start and producing your reams of shifty pompous blather is not.

I think a review of the thread would show a number of posts by me with arguments backing up my position to which you have never responded.And I appreciate your characterization of my statements of your buffoonery as "informing". Thank you. I did not tell you to address Faith's source. And perhaps if you were not focused on your own navel, you might have noticed that I also suggested to Faith that her approach was not the best. I instead suggested that you already know the major arguments for the Trinity and that you might give us some indication of your arguments against those.Your reading comprehension is off the hook today.

GDR,I have a comment question about your citing of these verses.

quote:

---

13 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

---

Faith has said that the important point here is Jesus' Divinity. These verses certainly speak to the divinity of the son of man, but are they supported of the doctrine of Trinity. These verses speak of the Ancient One giving authority to the son of man. They don't imply that Jesus is One with the Ancient One.The Trinity as I understand it involves a real separation of three entities that are also one in some way. The verses in the Bible that talk about the relationship between separate entities are very explicit and I would expect that Christians in general would have no problem with them, and that most Christians would have no problem with the Divinity of Christ. These concepts are common between Trinitarians and at least some non-Trinitarians.On the other hand, the verses that refer to a single underlying God who is all three aspects generally seem far less clear. I'll pick one verse that may or may not be representative:

quote:

---

Matthew 1:23
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

---

This is interpreted as saying that Jesus is God, but is that the best interpretation?

Yes, three Persons IN ONE GOD, who is Jehovah. You are making a common mistake of confounding the separate persons with their identity as God. To be "considered Divine" IS to be equated with God. That's what the word "divine" refers to.

quote:

---

FAITH:
OK here's a bone for Alter (or anyone else) to pick on, one of my own favorite proofs of Jesus' Deity, Thomas' addressing Him as "my Lord and my God.'

​

Here Purpledawn can play with the Greek word kurios translated "Lord" if she wants, and maybe even try to argue like the Jehovah's Witnesses do, that calling Jesus "my God" was acknowledging Him to be a lesser god but not THE God.

​

Which a Trinitarian such as myself answers that that is idolatry, and no Jew, which Thomas was, would ever talk that way about a demon god, but only the true God.

​

Therefore this passage demonstrates that Thomas recognized Jesus to be THE God, and is another of the proofs of His Deity.

quote:

---

Jhn 20:25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
Jhn 20:26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: [then] came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace [be] unto you.
Jhn 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust [it] into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
Jhn 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
Jhn 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed.

---

---

ALTER2EGO to- FAITH:
The next time you decide to throw "bones" out for others to "pick on," it would be a good idea if you pay attention to the context of the scriptures you are getting the "bones" from. John 20:28 is not saying that Jesus Christ is, to quote you: "THE God." There are numerous reasons why the verse is not saying that, and the reasons are found within the context. I will present a couple of the reasons for now and leave the rest for later on. Below is the first reason: REASON #1 FOR WHY JOHN 10:28 IS NOT REFERRING TO A TRINITY:
Three verses later (the context) Jesus confirmed who he is, in relationship to Jehovah, as follows:"But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God , and that by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:31 -- New International Version)"But these are written so that you may continue to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing in him you will have life by the power of his name." (John 20:31 -- New Living Bible) QUESTION #1 to FAITH: The verse above at John 20:31 clarifies that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and the Son of God. In a trinity in which he is combined with Jehovah, that would amount to Jesus being his own Father and his own Messiah. YES or NO?In my next post, watch for the second reason why John 20:28 does not support the dogma of a 3-prong god.Edited by Alter2Ego, : No reason given.

But you've already agreed that the verses "certainly speak to the divinity of the son of man" which means the Son of Man IS God, because that's what "divinity" means, and if He's divine then He IS One with the Ancient One who is God. What else COULD it mean? If you hadn't yourself made that statement about His divinity the question about Jesus' identity with the Ancient One might be more ambiguous in this particular passage. First noting that the word "aspects" is misleading, it does seem clear at least that scripture is unambiguous in characterizing God as one God. In fact that is no doubt the least disputable statement involved in establishing the Trinity. The first four headings at the link I supplied -- I through IV of The Trinity Outline--all deal with scripture that establishes this point, that God is one God.With that established, when the Deity of each of the three, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, is also established, which is the subject of the next headings at the link, I would think your question is answered, since if they are all God and God is one the relationship is clearly established right there.But you go on in a way that suggests this isn't really your question and I'm not sure what you are trying to say: I don't see any ambiguity in the statement, "God with us." How else are you going to interpret that?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, no, obviously.First, "combined with Jehovah" expresses nothing having to do with the Trinity.First grasp the implication of Thomas' statement that he regards Jesus as God -- and note that Jesus did not rebuke him for that, showing that He accepted his worship, which He certainly would not have done if Thomas had gotten it wrong. Jesus is tacitly acknowledging that He IS God.So we can go on to affirm that as Messiah and Son of God He has the nature and attributes of God. In fact there are plenty of Old Testament prophecies that make it clear the Messiah will be God Himself incarnate, and the term "Son of God" itself implies identity of nature with God as well.What you are doing is confusing the Person of the Father with the One God who is Jehovah, who subsists in the three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Ooooo, I can't WAIT.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

FAITH:
OK here's a bone for Alter (or anyone else) to pick on, one of my own favorite proofs of Jesus' Deity, Thomas' addressing Him as "my Lord and my God.'

---

ALTER2EGO to- FAITH:
I cannot say it often enough: context is the key to understanding what the Bible is actually saying. In my last response, I gave you part of the context, which clarified that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and the Son of God rather than "THE God" aka Jehovah. Below is another part of the context that you have chosen to ignore."{1} On the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the memorial tomb [of Jesus] early, while there was still darkness, and she beheld the stone already taken away from the memorial tomb. {2} Therefore she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple, for whom Jesus had affection, and she said to them: 'They have taken away the Lord out of the memorial tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.' {3} Then Peter and the other disciple went out and started for the memorial tomb. {9} For they did not yet discern the scripture that he must rise from the dead.." (John 20:1-3, 9)QUESTION #2 to FAITH: The verses above, from the same chapter of John that you quoted from earlier, clearly state Jesus had been resurrected from the dead? TRUE or FALSE?

And I answered you that there is no contradiction, that the Messiah and the Son of God are also to be equated with Jehovah God. True of course.(What's with the strange phrase "memorial tomb?")

quote:

---

FAITH:
First grasp the implication of Thomas' statement that he regards Jesus as God -- and note that Jesus did not rebuke him for that, showing that He accepted his worship, which He certainly would not have done if Thomas had gotten it wrong. Jesus is tacitly acknowledging that He IS God.

---

ALTER2EGO -to- FAITH:
Thomas said "My Lord and my God." Both the words "lord" and "god" are titles not restricted just to Jehovah. The Apostle Paul made that quite clear, as follows:"{5} For even though there are those who are called 'gods,' whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are MANY 'gods' and MANY 'lords,' {6} there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him." (1 Corinthians 8:5-6)Not only that, Thomas was an imperfect, sinful human being. So even if, for the sake of argument, one would accept that Thomas thought Jesus was also Jehovah, what does that prove? Jesus' true relationship to Jehovah was provided three verses later, in the very same chapter 20 of John that you used earlier. So at this point, you are banking on Thomas who was so lacking in faith, that he would not believe the other disciples who told him Jesus had been resurrected. The result was that Jesus had to show himself to Thomas, as indicated by the verses you quoted earlier.