How Can Trinity Believers Explain This

Dear Legend;Galatians 3:19-20 "Why, then, the Law? It was added to make transgressions manifest, until the seed should arrive to whom the promise had been made; and it was transmitted through angels by the hand of a mediator. Now there is no mediator where only one person is concerned, but God is only one." The mediator of the law was of course Moses, and Moses pictured Christ who is the greater Moses and has mediated a greater covenant. I think we both agree on that point, I wanted to clarify and point out how Moses' role as mediator pictured Christ's role as mediator. We also both agree on your first point, which is surprising since most Trinitarians would not, I am impressed. Your second point is wrong of course, even if the Trinity were true. Under the Trinity doctrine Jesus was only human while on earth, and he mediated the new covenant after he returned to heaven. The dual nature doctrine is wrong anyway since Jesus was fully human while on earth, but we will get into that a little later. Now Jesus when he was and is, in heaven, does have a divine nature in that he is like God. But as you stated yourself, he has a distinct will and personality which makes him a separate being from Jehovah. Which is required under Paul's definition of a mediator. Just as the law was transmitted through Moses as the mediator, the new covenant was mediated by Jesus Christ. (Hebrews 9:15) "So that is why he is a mediator of a new covenant," In acting as mediator, Jesus did what Moses did, which he could not do if he was part of God. According to Paul, Jesus to be the mediator, had to be separate enough from God that they could not be called one person which Paul said god is. So by definition, Jesus is not nor can be called "God" in the absolute sense of the word. Jesus is a god, a mighty god, but he is not 'God.' The wrath of God came upon Jesus? Mankind are subject to God's wrath because of our inherited sin, (Ephesians 2:3) "we were naturally children of wrath even as the rest." but Jesus as a man was free of inherited sin and was thus not under the wrath of God. (John 3:36) "He that exercises faith in the Son has everlasting life; he that disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him." God was never wrathful towards his only begotten beloved son, nor did he kill his own son. Moses was a Mediator and he foreshadowed Christ, and he was not divine so Jesus didn't need to be divine to be a Mediator.Jesus while on earth was a perfect sinless man, just as Adam was before he sinned. Adam was without sin or defect when he was created. "God proceeded to create the man . . . God saw everything he had made and, look! [it was] very good." Genesis 1:27-31 Adam became sinful once he sinned. Adam's creation would not be described by God as being very good if he was sinful or imperfect when he was created. The world of mankind was without sin until Adam sinned, it was this sin that condemned him and all his off spring to death. To make up for what Adam lost, another perfect man would need to offer his life as a sacrifice, none of mankind could do this since we were all born in sin and fall short of perfection. Paul explained this;
"through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned . . . Adam, who bears a resemblance to him that was to come. . . . For if by one man's trespass many died, . . . For if by the trespass of the one [man] death ruled as king through that one, . . . So, then, as through one trespass the result to men of all sorts was condemnation, likewise also through one act of justification the result to men of all sorts is a declaring of them righteous for life. For just as through the disobedience of the one man many were constituted sinners, likewise also through the obedience of the one [person] many will be constituted righteous. . . . sin ruled as king with death, likewise also undeserved kindness might rule as king through righteousness with everlasting life in view through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 5:12-21 This is why Christ's death is of far greater value than Christian martyrs, for they were all sinful humans and none of them could equal what Adam had lost, a perfect sinless human life.Jesus offered up the value of his life as a perfect man that exactly balanced what Adam had lost when a sinned, his life as a perfect man free from sin. That is why Paul calls Jesus' sacrifice "a corresponding ransom" 1 Timothy 2:6 because it corresponded or equaled what Adam had lost. If Jesus had been a "god-man" the value of his life would not have matched what Adam lost, he had to be a perfect man, nothing more, nothing less.Jesus did not need a divine dual nature to access God, Moses did just fine without it. He taught them to pray through Jesus as their mediator to Jehovah god. (as per my previous posts) 2 Timothy 4:18 "The Lord will deliver me from every wicked work and will save [me] for his heavenly kingdom. To him be the glory forever and ever. Amen." -Jesus is given glory, not worship.
Philippians 2:10-11 "so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father."-The knees are to bend in bowing before Jesus as King, not as worship to God, which is why the verses ends with "to the glory of God the Father" showing that Jesus is still subject to Jehovah God. (1 Corinthians 15:27) "For [God] "subjected all things under his feet." But when he says that 'all things have been subjected,' it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him." No he didn't, look again, "grace of the Lord Jesus", "love of God" and "Holy Ghost, be with you" three separate things with three separate intents. He basically may have as well have said "Tom sends you his love, Bob said 'hi' and may our love be with you." doesn't sound like a Trinity to me. (2 Thessalonians 2:8) . . .Then, indeed, the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will do away with by the spirit of his mouth and bring to nothing by the manifestation of his presence. . .
(1 Timothy 6:14) . . .until the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
(2 Timothy 1:10) . . .but now it has been made clearly evident through the manifestation of our Savior, Christ Jesus, . . .
(2 Timothy 4:1) . . .Christ Jesus, who is destined to judge the living and the dead, and by his manifestation and his kingdom,All these scriptures, except for 2 Timothy 1:10, refer to the second coming and not to when Jesus was on earth. The word manifestation means the action of manifesting, manifest means obvious or to make apparent. Look how Paul uses the word at; 1 Timothy 5:24-25 "The sins of some men are publicly manifest, leading directly to judgment, but as for other men [their sins] also become manifest later. In the same way also the fine works are publicly manifest and those that are otherwise cannot be kept hid". Now some Translations use the manifest in this verse while others use other words, the same is true of the verses you cited. This sounds like another trinity argument that is translation dependant, such things are of no value.Now for 2 Timothy 1:10 and other verses in the Bibles that use the term 'manifestation' or equivalent, they are just referring to Jesus appearing as a man on earth and preaching. He made himself and what he taught, manifest or obvious. You seem to be reaching for some magical meaning of "manifestation" that Trinitarians have created, I can find nothing in the Bible on this, so I don't know where you are trying to go with this word.I will take a guess that you are trying to say that the word 'manifestation' means that Jesus was a God/man while on earth, that he was a manifestation or part of God in the flesh. Which is in conflict with scripture because they are clear on the point that Jesus was a man and not a god/man.
(1 Timothy 3:16) Indeed, the sacred secret of this godly devotion is admittedly great: 'He was made manifest in flesh,
(1 John 4:2) . . .Every inspired expression that confesses Jesus Christ as having come in the flesh originates with God,
(John 1:14) So the Word became flesh
(Philippians 2:7) No, but he emptied himself and took a slave's form and came to be in the likeness of men.The above scriptures are clear that Jesus was in the flesh a man, in the likeness of men, not a divine god/man hybrid. His 'likeness of men' was complete, he was a man, as shown by the next scripture.
(Hebrews 2:14-17) "Therefore, since the "young children" are sharers of blood and flesh, he also similarly partook of the same things, that through his death he might bring to nothing the one having the means to cause death, that is, the Devil; and [that] he might emancipate all those who for fear of death were subject to slavery all through their lives. For he is really not assisting angels at all, but he is assisting Abraham's seed. Consequently he was obliged to become like his "brothers" in all respects,"Jesus being like us in every respect means he was fully human and not super human or a god/man. He made god manifest to us by preaching, not by being god in the flesh. (John 17:6-8) "I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world. . . . because the sayings that you gave me I have given to them, and they have received them and have certainly come to know that I came out as your representative, and they have believed that you sent me forth." It was through his preaching and miraculous works, that Jesus disciples knew that he was sent from God, that is how he manifested God to them and not by his mere presence.On your second post; Who is the Almighty God ? (Jeremiah 32:18) . . .the [true] God, the great One, the mighty One, Jehovah of armies being his name,. . .
(Isaiah 10:21) A mere remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the Mighty God.
(Isaiah 9:6) . . .For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.Jeremiah 32:18 and Isaiah 10:21 are both referring to Jehovah God, Isaiah 9:6 is referring to Jesus Christ. They are both mighty gods, they are also both saviors, spirits, kings, counselors, etc. Being mighty is a quality that they both have, but only Jehovah is almighty. While Jesus is spoken of as being mighty, he is never referred to as being almighty. Since Jehovah is almighty, he certainly is mighty.On your third post: Your logic is faulty, there is no required connection between the vision and receiving the 'thorn' other than it kept him from getting boastful about the vision. And as I pointed out, if it was his problem with his eyes, he had had that for years earlier. Come, lord Jesus! Did I just pray, or did I just say 'Come, Lord Jesus!' Well was that two or none? It was none, I just typed it on the computer, even if I said it to someone aloud it probably wouldn't be a prayer ether. Let's say the other person was talking about the coming kingdom and I said 'Come, lord Jesus!' to agree with what he had said, it would be a statement of agreement and not a prayer. Now I could also just say it and mean it as a prayer, I hear people say 'Lord help me' and they don't mean it as a prayer, in fact if they say it gruffly I know it isn't. While other people do say it as a prayer. It comes down to what the person meant or his intent when he said it. I can't read John's mind, but considering what he wrote I don't see him meaning it as a prayer. Plus he had just seen a vision from Christ and may have been speaking to Christ while still in the vision or just expressing his heartfelt wish that Jesus would come soon. Remember that we are not there hearing him say it, but that he wrote it down in the scrolls he sent to the seven congregations. So he meant for them to read it, he may have been telling them that he certainly agreed with the vision and longed for it's fulfillment. In light of what he wrote in his gospel, (John 15:16) "ask the Father in my name" (John 16:23) "ask the Father . . . in my name." he would have made his request to Jehovah in Jesus name if he was actually praying. So while some may interpret John's words as a prayer, there is nothing to indicate that he meant it as one.I read the notes you sent.
Thanks for resending the e-mail, it did the trick and I was able to read it. I was not impressed by the way they presented and tried to support the Trinity, you have been doing a better job in your posts than they did. They even made honest but dumb statements like, "We must heap paradox upon paradox." one of the definitions of a paradox is; "A self-contradictory statement that at first seems true", and that certainly fits what they were doing! They also said in regard to the Bible; "When searching these documents for clues to an understanding of the Godhead we must remember that we can make verses say anything we want to if we are not careful." which is of course stock and trade for trying to support the Trinity. They did just that with Mat 28:19 "baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit," which was the cornerstone of their argument, I mean if that is the best support for the Trinity in the Bible, the doctrine truly hangs on nothing. They even used the "I AM" argument, which is totally without any merit, just take a look at my posts to 'Truthlover" on this and you can see what I mean.They also followed the usual Trinitarian tactic of changing history, claiming that a undefined Trinity was believed in, and then the heresy of non Trinitarianism came along which forced the Church to define the doctrine and that took a very long time. Which is of course nonsense. They claim that- "What is so striking about the New Testament teaching about the Godhead is that the belief and declaration that God is both one and yet triune, took place without a struggle or controversy among the Jewish people who had held, for centuries, an uncompromising faith of one God alone." It is strikingly impossible, if the Trinity is anything it is controversial and complex, it never happened because the Trinity came along later and caused the controversies.The earliest mention they made of anything starting to resemble the Trinity from christian sources was Iranaeus [c 175-195 AD] (Am I reading those dates right? They are citing a teenager as a scholar?) Which is suppose to prove the early existence of a undefined Trinity belief. Now according to their whole premise, non Trinitarianism didn't come along until much later. The problem is that Justin Martyr, [died 165? AD] stated that Jesus was an angel, created by God, which blows their whole argument out of the water. For if Justin Martyr and others like Polycarp (69?-155? AD) were non-Trinitarians, the lack of an early controversy over the Trinity can mean only one thing, the Trinity wasn't an issue because it wasn't yet a common belief among Christians. The inescapable conclusion is that the earliest Christians were non-Trinitarians, they believed that Jesus was created by God and was a lesser separate being.I did find your notes very valuable for giving a better and more through definition of what the Trinity is and what it is not. I found the following quote very informative. Which I found interesting because you have posted about Jesus Christ. Which makes you a heretic, welcome to the club! But seriously, you used the 'separate / distinct' thing because of what certain scriptures stated, you realized that the Trinity was in direct conflict with those scriptures, so you modified the Trinity! So do you accept the fact that the Trinity as defined in your notes is in conflict with scripture? Do you realize that you no longer believe in the 'Trinity doctrine' but have your own doctrine?Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott AndersonThis message has been edited by wmscott, 01-17-2005 16:18 AMThis message has been edited by wmscott, 01-19-2005 20:43 AM

I don't have any problems with this argument. I don't think it's certain that Y'shua was trying to use "I Am" as a name. I only jumped into this to point out that it is very unlikely that his listeners were Greek speakers who read the Septuagint. I hold to that, and I gave the reason in my last post. I think the great weight of scholarly opinion would back me up, and my case is rested on that point. Well, he did. I understand your argument that "Ego eimi ho on" is what would need to be said in order for it to be a real quote, but I don't think that argument is certain at all. I think "Ego eimi" would be sufficient to be a quote. I don't think it's certain, but I don't think your argument is certain, either."my eye" -- New Jerusalem
"my eye"--New Revised Standard Version
"my eye"--New American BibleCan't go check this out very quickly, but I will look it up the next time I'm in a bookstore that carries these. Assuming you're correct, I apologize for suggesting it was a stretch.It really doesn't change anything, though. I wish I had a NWT available, because I'd be happy to just post your translation here and let it stand for itself. I don't, though, so here's the KJV. [quote]For thus saith the LORD of hosts; After the glory hath he sent me unto the nations which spoiled you: for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye.
9 For, behold, I will shake mine hand upon them, and they shall be a spoil to their servants: and ye shall know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me.
10 Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion: for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the LORD.
11 And many nations shall be joined to the LORD in that day, and shall be my people: and I will dwell in the midst of thee, and thou shalt know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me unto thee.[/qs]You really have to play with those pronouns to suggest the speaker is Zechariah there. I'll just leave it there, saying what it says. I think it's clear, despite your attempts to make it say something else. I'm not trying to defend a doctrine.However, what you say about Trinitarians--and I don't agree with the modern version of the Trinity, and I think the emphasis they put on the subject is just one more sign of their preoccupation with theory, which is why their practice is so awful--what you say about Trinitarians isn't true. They most certainly believe that two members of the Trinity can be called Jehovah. The Christian Research Institute trains people to use Genesis 19:24 against you guys, their very argument being that there are two Jehovahs in that passage, one on earth and one in heaven. They have millions of students/listeners.Justin Martyr uses that passage as well way back in AD 150, though he's using it against the Jews (Dialogue with Trypho).Anyway, the main people who argue with you guys argue that there are two Jehovahs, so it's certain that it doesn't somehow disagree with Trinitarians. No one at Rose Creek Village here would have a problem with it, either. No, my argument is that Y'shua said that Isaiah saw Y'shua's glory at the time that he said Yahweh was going to harden hearts. That happened in Isaiah 6. Isaiah saw the glory of Yahweh there in Isaiah 6, and Y'shua said it was him there, not the Father, a view that the early church would have agreed with, because the Scriptures say no one had seen the Father. You're right, I meant Jude. I had no idea I wrote James rather than Jude. Sorry.There is overwhelming evidence that he was quoting Enoch, because it was widely used by the early church. That he got that quote from some other source, when there was no other known source is, as Spock would say, illogical.It's funny that you would suggest that Y'shua's listeners in John 8 were Greek speakers, which is pretty unlikely, based on the availability of the LXX. But then, when Jude quotes Enoch, you say he wasn't quoting it, despite its availability. Rather inconsistent, wouldn't you say? Yeah, but you'll find that there are some things that almost all scholars are agreed on if they're not influence by their theology. It's the book, the Martyrdom of Isaiah, that says that Isaiah was sawn in two. When the writer of Hebrews mentions someone sawn in two, he was surely referring to this. You don't need a scholar to prove that.I have read Enoch. The description of Hades given by Y'shua in Luke in the story of the rich man is pulled almost word for word from Enoch. Knowing Enoch was available then, I can figure out that the description is a reference to Enoch without a scholar telling me that.But all of that is really beside the point. You say only the Bible is inspired, yet the books of the Bible that you use were chosen by a 4th century council that you say is apostate. You can never prove Scripturally that those 66 books constitute the Bible, because their is nothing in any of the Scriptures saying which books are Scripture.For example, you reference 2 Peter saying that Paul wrote Scripture, but which books are Paul's and which of Paul's letters he's referring to are not mentioned. Did Paul write Hebrews? 2 Peter doesn't address this. Did Paul write either of the Timothy letters or the letter to Titus? 2 Peter doesn't address this. Should 2 John, 3 John, and Jude be Scripture? The Roman Catholics think so, but the Assyrian Orthodox church does not. They don't accept Revelation, either. Why do you agree with the Roman Catholics? You can give no Scriptural reason for doing so.That NWT you own is a collection of books and letters passed down to you by a church you say is apostate. It doesn't make much impact on me when you say only those books are inspired, because it doesn't make any sense at all that you agree with the Catholics & Protestants on those 66 books.

Dear truthlover;
Sounds like we are done with the "I AM" nonsense, it is a silly Trinity argument dependant on specific wording being used that we both agree is unsupported. It is such a silly argument, every time in scripture someone asks where Jesus is and he said 'Here, I am.' or something like that, the Trinitarians get all excited jumping up and down exclaiming "See he just said he was God!" when all he was doing was answering a question and it wasn't 'Say by the way, are you God?'. As weak as the argument is, it still is one of the main arguments used by Trinitarians which shows how unscriptural the Trinity is. Here is a link to an on line copy.
http://www.watchtower.org/bible/index.htm You are right, Zechariah doesn't speak in these verses at all! My mistake, I was fooled by verse 9 and I missed what is stated in verse 3; "the angel who was speaking with me". Check the context yourself, start with verse 3 and read down through 9, the angel is the one talking. He is the one talking about being sent by Jehovah and is stating what Jehovah has told him. Great for you, but what do you believe, can you define it? Genesis 19:24 "Then Jehovah made it rain sulphur and fire from Jehovah," I can see how it could sound that way to the uniformed, but it is only a Hebrew idiom which is referring to taking an action in respect to the speaker. (1 Kings 8:1) "At that time Solomon proceeded to congregate the . . . to King Solomon at Jerusalem," unless you want to believe that the Bible is stating that there were two King Solomons. This same type of expression occurs in a number of other verses as well. The fact that the 'Christian Research Institute' uses this as a 'proof' ether said something about the depth of their scholarship or how they see fit to use or misuse scripture. If having 'millions of students/listeners' makes them right, then Jehovah's Witnesses must be even 'righter' since the Watchtower magazine has a circulation of over 26 million earth wide. It don't matter how many people believe in something, what matters is if it is true or not. You are probably right about the Trinitarians and maybe even everyone at Rose Creek Village, but it does disagree with the Bible and that is the one that matters. (Deuteronomy 6:4) "Jehovah our God is one Jehovah." The Bible is very clear on this point, there is only one Jehovah, this is a very basic main point of God's Word. What the Bible states is that there is one Jehovah and one Jesus Christ. (1 Corinthians 8:6) "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, " Not only is there one Jehovah and one Jesus, Jesus is separate from God and acts as the mediator between God and man. (1 Timothy 2:5) "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus." To be the mediator Jesus can not be God or part of God, for if he was part or one with God, then he would be able to be a mediator. (Galatians 3:20) "Now there is no mediator where only one person is concerned, but God is only one." So Jesus can not be "Jehovah" and be the mediator, really a odd thing for Paul to write if he believed in some form of the Trinity. Jesus reflects Jehovah's glory, just as his true followers are to do too. (2 Corinthians 3:17-18) "Now Jehovah is the Spirit; and where the spirit of Jehovah is, there is freedom. And all of us, while we with unveiled faces reflect like mirrors the glory of Jehovah, are transformed into the same image from glory to glory, exactly as done by Jehovah [the] Spirit." The book of Enoch is not inspired, there is no argument on that point. The supposed 'quote' from Enoch is located in Hebrews not Jude anyway, here it is below. Now check the wording to see if Paul is quoting or not.Enoch 70:1-4"Enoch pleased the Lord and was taken up, an example of repentance to all generations."
Hebrews 11:5 "By faith Enoch was transferred so as not to see death, and he was nowhere to be found because God had transferred him; for before his transference he had the witness that he had pleased God well."
Both verses are referring to Genesis 5:24 "And Enoch kept walking with the [true] God. Then he was no more, for God took him." As for Jude 14-15 "Enoch, prophesied also regarding them, when he said: "Look! Jehovah came with his holy myriads, to execute judgment against all, and to convict all the ungodly concerning all their ungodly deeds that they did in an ungodly way, and concerning all the shocking things that ungodly sinners spoke against him." does anyone claim this is a quote from the book of Enoch, and if so, what is the verse? The Catholic Church likes to make the claim that it was the Council of Carthage in 397 AD that determined the Bible cannon, but that is historically false. There are a number of lists of Bible books that match what we have today, that predate the Council of Carthage. It is known the it was the appearance of the apocryphal books that caused scholars to list what books they viewed as accepted. So it Bible cannon of 66 books had already been established before the earliest list was made. Some of the earliest lists are the Muratorian Fragment (170 AD), Irenaeus (180 AD), Clement (190 AD) and Tertullian (207 AD). As you can see the Bible cannon had already been fixed hundreds of years before the Council of Carthage. The Catholic Church's claim of having determined the Bible cannon is like Al Gore's claim of inventing the internet. It was holy spirit the fixed the books of the Bible cannon, and not the Catholic Church.Sincerely yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Hi, William. I'm going to divide my answer up into shorter blips for readability: First, even if it were the angel speaking, it wouldn't change anything for me. Y'shua is referred to as an angel in other places, too.However, it doesn't matter whether it's Zechariah speaking or Zechariah quoting the angel. Either way, Zechariah or the angel quotes Jehovah as saying that Jehovah sent him. It's really very clear. Here's the passage in your version (thanks for the link):

quote:

---

3 And, look! the angel who was speaking with me was going forth, and there was another angel going forth to meet him. 4 Then he said to him: Run, speak to the young man over there, saying, ‘As open rural country Jerusalem will be inhabited, because of the multitude of men and domestic animals in the midst of her. 5 And I myself shall become to her, is the utterance of Jehovah, a wall of fire all around, and a glory is what I shall become in the midst of her.’

​

6 Hey there! Hey there! Flee, then, YOU people, from the land of the north, is the utterance of Jehovah.

​

For in the direction of the four winds of the heavens I have spread YOU people abroad, is the utterance of Jehovah.

​

7 Hey there, Zion! Make your escape, you who are dwelling with the daughter of Babylon. 8 For this is what Jehovah of armies has said, ‘Following after [the] glory he has sent me to the nations that were despoiling YOU people; for he that is touching YOU is touching my eyeball. 9 For here I am waving my hand against them, and they will have to become spoil to their slaves.’ And YOU people will certainly know that Jehovah of armies himself has sent me.

​

10 Cry out loudly and rejoice, O daughter of Zion; for here I am coming, and I will reside in the midst of you, is the utterance of Jehovah. 11 And many nations will certainly become joined to Jehovah in that day, and they will actually become my people; and I will reside in the midst of you. And you will have to know that Jehovah of armies himself has sent me to you.

---

I defined it earlier. Sorry, I thought you caught it.I believe the Nicene Creed the way it was meant at Nicea, not the crazy way it was twisted by Athanasius. "We believe in one God, the Father...and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God."I'm like you on that, except that I believe that the Son of God was born of God in the beginning, created from the same substance God is made of, not created from nothing like everything else.Before we diverge from that into a further debate, I don't particularly think it's worth arguing about. Too cosmic for me, anyway. I only jumped into this thread on the topic of simple factual things. I was disagreeing with others when they suggested the Nicene Creed says the same thing as modern Trinitarians and I was disagreeing with you when you said that Y'shua was talking to Greek speakers in John 8.I let the topic carry into Zechariah 2, just because I think it's a fact that Y'shua has always felt free to use his Father's names, including YHWH, and I thought that applied to the whole John 8 argument. I didn't say two Jehovah's was true because CRI has millions of listeners. You said that two Jehovah's was a problem even to trinitarians, and I was using those millions of argumentative trinitarians to show that they do believe in two Jehovah's. You haven't established that, and it looks to me like you're having a very hard time trying to figure out a way around Zech 2. I think anyone who just reads the above quote is not going to buy your explanation of it, and that's from your own religion's translation. This really doesn't answer Y'shua's statement that Isaiah saw Y'shua's glory back in Isaiah 6.

Why is there no argument on that point? You mention Clement of Alexandria later among those who made a list of inspired books. He believed Enoch was inspired.Also, the quote is in Jude, not Hebrews. It's a word for word quote from 1 Enoch 1:9. Ok, you saw this. Yes, they do claim that. 1 Enoch 1:9. Some versions have it as 2:1, but either way, it's the ninth verse in the book. Well, those are the right early lists, but they don't list the 66 books y'all use. For example, the Muratorian fragment includes the Book of Wisdom (neat book, very likely quoted in Paul's letters) and only two letters of John. I note that Hebrews and James are also missing. Of course, being a fragment, it doesn't even address the Old Covenant writings. (See The Muratorian Fragment)The first time a list is drawn up that matches the 66 books commonly used by non-Roman Catholics today is in the 4th century.

Dear Truthlover; The angel is quoting Jehovah and mentions that Jehovah has sent him to the nations and that once the prophecy comes true then everyone would know for a certainty that the angel was sent by Jehovah. "he has sent me to the nations that were despoiling YOU people" and "And YOU people will certainly know that Jehovah of armies himself has sent me." That is what it said, to say that the angel is quoting Jehovah as saying he will send Jehovah and then people will know that Jehovah sent Jehovah, is illogical. Why would fulfilment convince people that Jehovah had sent Jehovah? Now fulfilment certainly would convince people that Jehovah was the one who had sent the angel, proving that Jehovah sent Jehovah would be a pointless exercise even if it was true, what would be the point? Not in detail, I looked over what I think you are referring to and couldn't see any connection so I gave you a general reply. If you want to discuss your point in detail, you will need to cite the verses and show me exactly what wording you are referring to. The book of Enoch wasn't written by Enoch, it was written probably in the second or first centuries BC, or possibly even later. It is known to be a collection of "extravagant and unhistorical Jewish myths" believed to be based on the brief reference to Enoch in Genesis. As for Jude quoting the book of Enoch, R. C. H. Lenski notes: "We ask: 'What is the source of this patchwork, the Book of Enoch?' This book is an accretion, and nobody is sure of the dates of its various parts . . . ; nobody can be sure that some of its expressions were not, perhaps, taken from Jude himself." Or both books in the verses in question could be quoting from another source. Even the scholars who support Jude quoting from the book of Enoch, view it as a indirect quote and not a direct one, compare the wording, it isn't the same. Plus regardless of what Clement may have thought, the non inspirited status of the Book of Enoch is universally known. Britannica states "pseudepigrapha work (not included in any canon of scripture)" First off, at the Council in Carthage in 397 (A.D.) the Roman Catholic Church accepted 73 books as being inspired, so they have no claim to determining the Bible cannon. While there are three early lists that predate Carthage that contain the same NT books as found in the Bible today, Origen 230 AD, Eusebius 320 AD, Cyril 348 AD.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

I'll leave the Zechariah 2 point. I have it quoted in my last post, and I think it stands for itself, so I'll just rest my case. I'll leave John 12 (Isaiah seeing Y'shua's glory), too. The point of all of that was to show that Y'shua is called YHWH in the OT writings, and I think those passages stand on their own.As for the Canon of Scripture: I'm not saying that the Book of Enoch was written by Enoch. I'm not even saying it's inspired. My point is that there are references you reject as "not inspired," but the 66 books you call inspired were chosen by a church you consider to be corrupt and fallen. (That's not the Roman Catholic church. It's the "catholic" church of the 4th century, before it was Roman.)In order to refute that, you, not I, mentioned that Clement made a list. I simply pointed out that Clement's list is not the same as yours, and Enoch was one of the examples I used of where his list is not the same as yours.Now that your appeal to Clement's list, dated from around AD 190 or 200, is shown to be inaccurate, let me get to the new lists you appeal to. You'll find a review of Origen's list at Origen on the Canon of Scripture. Note the reference to 22 books in the Hebrew Scriptures. He lumps some together, but when you read the list, you see it doesn't match your 39 in any way. It includes the Maccabees, but it doesn't include any of the minor prophets (interesting, huh?).I didn't look up the other two, but they're both 4th century, which is when I said you would get the first list that matches the modern 66, and establishes my point. You guys believe the church was corrupt long before the 4th century, so where did you get your list of inspired Scriptures from?(That same web site, by the way, has Eusebius' list, and it specifically says 2 Peter is "uncanonical," so it doesn't match yours, either. Do you not read the lists you're appealing to? Cyril's is the one I was thinking of. It matches your 66! AD 350, middle of the 4th century.)

Dear Truthlover; On Zechariah 2 we have discussed it enough, you have your opinion and I have mine and I too think the answer is obvious as well. I never heard anyone express your interpretation on those verses before, did you come up with that on your own, or where did you hear it?, I found it very unusual. On John 12 and Isaiah you didn't answer my request for the specific wording you were referring to, so I have no idea what you are talking about or how it can 'stand' on it's own when I don't even know what it is. So as for showing that Jesus is ever referred to as Jehovah, you don't have a case to rest. It is my contention that the cannon of the Bible was chosen by the action of the holy spirit and not by men. When Peter wrote 2 Peter (64 AD), the letters of Paul were already recognized as being part of the Scriptures or Bible. 2 Peter 3:15-16 "Paul according to the wisdom given him also wrote YOU, speaking about these things as he does also in all [his] letters. In them, however, are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unsteady are twisting, as [they do] also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." The reason why Paul's letters and the other books of the NT were accepted at once as being inspired scripture is given by Paul.
1 Corinthians 12:7-10 "the manifestation of the spirit is given to each one for a beneficial purpose. For example, to one there is given through the spirit . . . discernment of inspired utterances,"The early Christians through the power of the holy spirit knew what was part of the inspired Word of God as soon as they read it. With this ability, the NT books were recognized as cannon as soon as they were written. The web site you provided the link to made this statement on the bottom of the page with the chart of early lists. "**The Revelation of John was first received and then rejected by many churches in Asia Minor." Now the book of Revelation is obviously part of the Bible, why did they first accept it and then later reject it? Because some had already begun to fall away from the truth. The church didn't stay pure till after the fourth century, the apostasy was already well under way by then and many unscriptural beliefs had entered the church. John lived long enough to see the start of the apostasy and warned the congregations.(1 John 2:18) Young children, it is the last hour, and, just as YOU have heard that antichrist is coming, even now there have come to be many antichrists; from which fact we gain the knowledge that it is the last hour.
(2 John 7) . . .For many deceivers have gone forth into the world, persons not confessing Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.Jesus himself stated that there were false apostles trying to mislead the congregations.(Revelation 2:2) . . .'I know your deeds, and your labor and endurance, and that you cannot bear bad men, and that you put those to the test who say they are apostles, but they are not, and you found them liars.Paul even warned about two apostates by name and stated that some had been mislead by them.(2 Timothy 2:16-18) . . .But shun empty speeches that violate what is holy; for they will advance to more and more ungodliness, and their word will spread like gangrene. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of that number. These very [men] have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred; and they are subverting the faith of some.So by the fourth century the church was already corrupted on a number of doctrinal points, so if one wanted to find the Truth, one would need to look farther back than what was written then. The final authority on Truth is God's Word, that alone should be our standard of Truth. My reference shows Clement's list missing 4 books, but makes no mention of other books that he may have accepted. The reference I used was showing how Bible books were viewed as inspired at an early date, they were not focusing on non-inspired books, so that could account for the omission if he did indeed view Enoch as inspired. I wasn't referring to the OT, I was referring to his NT list which is complete. The OT canon was well established before Jesus' day, or are you saying that the Catholic Church decided that too? Yes I did read the list, the status of 2 Peter in his list is "Doubted in certain quarters, but cataloger accepted it as Scriptural and canonical" The web site you referred to has him listing it as 'disputed' and quotes him as saying "second epistle we have received to be uncanonical; still as it appeared useful to many it has been diligently read with the other scriptures . . . I recognize one epistle only as genuine and acknowledged by the ancient presbyters" while my reference states he viewed it as canon which would directly contradict that statement. It would take some research to find out which is correct, or which is more correct, since in dealing with ancient history some answers can't be known with total certainty. The book I referred to has proved to be very accurate, so I would be surprised if it was in error on this point. I am old fashioned, so I tend to believe books over web sites, but I will have to keep my eyes open for more information on this point.While our written records are few and incomplete, the scriptural evidence is that the Bible canon was known and completed with the writing of Revelation. This was done by holy spirit. Today we can look at the Bible books and see for ourselves all the inspired books are included and non were left out. The fact that at the Council in Carthage in 397 (A.D.) the Catholic Church accepted 73 books as being inspired shows how far they had already strayed from knowing what the truth was, if they were having trouble telling an inspired book from a non inspired book.You had posted earlier. Yes it sounds like we agree on those points, but do you still believe in some form of a Trinity, or are you non-trinitarian? How does thinking that Jesus was referred to as Jehovah fit in with your beliefs? For that certainly sounds Trinitarian to me. What are the other points that you think we disagree on?Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

How do you get the idea that Paul's letters were part of the Canon from that? I seems it is a simple acknowledgement that Paul was a prolific letter writer. Other books, for example Enoch, Adam and Generic referals to a Gospel are also mentioned in similar fashion yet are not part of the mainstream canon and in the case of the general Gospel referal, we don't even have a clue what book is meant?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Dear Jar;
When Peter wrote 2 Peter (64 AD), the letters of Paul were already recognized as being part of the Scriptures or Bible. 2 Peter 3:15-16 "Paul according to the wisdom given him also wrote YOU, speaking about these things as he does also in all [his] letters. In them, however, are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unsteady are twisting, as [they do] also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." Notice the term Scripture, Peter viewed the letters of Paul as scripture.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Of course he did.Scripture simply means: That which is written.

But the passage that you quote says nothing about considering the letters of Paul as scripture. Let's parse it. The key point in this is not Paul's letters but rather some of the content of them. Peter says Paul touches on points of theology in his letters. Specifically, Paul was teaching a doctrine based on the immediate return of Jesus. The writer of 2^nd. Peter was pretty sure that the second coming would not be immediate or come with advanced notice. This whole epistle deals with trying to tone down some of the claims and foment that was being generated at the time.Look at the passage you quoted in relation to all of 2^nd. Peter 3 and you will see that far from calling Paul's epistles canonic scripture, it is a warning on taking some of the claims as written. Forget the word scriptures and look at what Peter is saying. Peter is saying that you CAN'T go by what Paul says without someone's (Peter's) help in explaining what Paul really meant.Far from saying that Paul's epistles were scripture, this is another example of the differentiation going on between Peter and Paul. Peter is saying that you cannot interpret on your own. That only someone taught and steady can really understand the message. This is yet another example of the divergence of the two systems of Christianity, the tightly held, centralized system of Peter and the revolutionary system of Paul. Instead of showing acceptance it is indicating discord.2^nd. Peter 3 is short so I'll reproduce it in full here so folk can see the quote in context.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Dear Jar; The supposed discord between Paul and Peter is the product of modern scholars with too much time on their hands, such speculations are not supported by scripture. A careful examination of the NT reveals that the two believed and taught the same things, but to different audiences. (Galatians 2:9) "James and Cephas and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of sharing together, that we should go to the nations, but they to those who are circumcised." Which is why they expressed things differently. Notice also that Paul referred to Peter as a pillar of the Christian faith, Paul's faith, which he would not have done so had they had doctrinal differences. There are no conflicts between what is taught in the respective books they wrote, or both would not be part of the inspired word of God. God certainly would not allow for one part of his word to teach one thing and another part to teach a different things, how could he expect anyone to follow his word if it was contradictory?And look at what Peter wrote. 2 Peter 3:15,16 "Paul according to the wisdom given him . . . In them, however, are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unsteady are twisting, as [they do] also the restof the Scriptures," He is talking about what Paul wrote and that some were twisting what Paul wrote as they did the rest of the "Scriptures". He is not talking about everything written as Doctorbill would like to believe, he is referring to inspired scriptures, he was referring to the OT along with possibly the inspired letters that became part of the NT. Paul also used the word scripture in regard to the OT. (2 Timothy 3:16) "All Scripture is inspired of God" Also notice where Peter said Paul's wisdom was from, he said it was "given" to him from God of course, which means he viewed Paul as speaking the wisdom of God and not of Paul himself. He viewed Paul as speaking under the authority and power of divine inspiration of the holy spirit. Peter would never contradict what the wisdom of God was teaching, and even if he had decided to, his words would not have been inspired and would never have become part of the inspired Bible.(Matthew 22:29) "YOU are mistaken, because YOU know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God;"Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Circular argument.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion