Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,745 Year: 4,002/9,624 Month: 873/974 Week: 200/286 Day: 7/109 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jesus/God the same?
believerinchrist
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 183 (71496)
12-07-2003 10:45 PM


Hi, I have always been told that Jesus and God are the same, right? Well then how come the bible says that Jesus sits on the right hand of God? I mean if they are the same, then how can this be? I'm not really educated on the word, but I'm trying. I'm a new christian, and there are certain things that I don't really get from the bible (this being one of them). So, anyway can someone please help me to understand this?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Yaro, posted 12-08-2003 11:53 AM believerinchrist has not replied
 Message 14 by wmscott, posted 12-09-2003 7:47 PM believerinchrist has not replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6521 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 2 of 183 (71571)
12-08-2003 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by believerinchrist
12-07-2003 10:45 PM


Hey beliver,
In my opinion the answer is simple. It's theological symbolisim. God is a non-corporial bein, and jesus being so important to him, he symbolicaly sits at his right side. Of course, god has no side. At least this is one explanation.
However, thrughout the bible god is often pictured as having a corpus. He walks in the garden, comes down in human form often, So I'm not so sure how this explanation holds up
In any case, I think if you read thrugh these forums there is a wealth of information that would steer you away from the bible and christianity. It has good philosphies, but it simply does not make sense in a litteral way.
May I ask, why did you become a christian?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by believerinchrist, posted 12-07-2003 10:45 PM believerinchrist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-08-2003 1:39 PM Yaro has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 183 (71576)
12-08-2003 12:31 PM


Hi Believer. This is wise of you to seek understanding in these things as a new believer. I hope you read something in your Bible today and prayed to the Father in Jesus's name also. It's good to do this first, sometime in AM before you get the day going as this way you put God first and have his blessing for the day.
Having said the above, to get to your questions, lots of Christians, including some with divinity degrees have erroneous ideas concerning the trinity. I did a trinity thread here in one of the forums some time ago. Possibly a search of it would bring it up.
Go to the Bible for your answers.
1. Jesus always referred to god the father as "Father", or "God". On the cross he called him, "my God." In John 14 he said that whoever has seen him has seen the father. This is a qualified statement, because later in the same chapter he said "my Father is greater than I." How can this be? What he first meant is "if you've seen me, you've seen what my father is like. The second statement he made was in the sense that the father is always greater than the son. He came to do the father's will.
2. The apostles in the New Testament books called the epistles (most of these follow the 4 gospels) always began their letters with something like "from God our Father and Jesus Christ the Lord." This means the father is the god of us and Jesus is the lord of us, or our master.
3. Jesus is the mediator or the way/ambassidor to get us to God. That's why it is important to pray to the father in the name of the son, Jesus. Jesus taught us this in the Lord's prayer when he instructed his desciples to say "Our Father who are in Heaven." He also taught this in John chapters 15 and 16. Read those.
There is a literal heaven where there is a literal throne where God sits to govern/manage the universe. After the resurrection, Jesus rose to sit on the right hand of God. You're right, he didn't sit in the place of God. He's on his right hand. So they are separate, in that one is the Father and the other the Son. They have different functions also.
How is God the father and Jesus the son one? They are one in that the spirit of them both is the Holy Spirit. That's also why we can call god Father, because when we receive Jesus as saviour, his spirit and the spirit of the Father comes into our bodies, souls and minds. We then become the children of God.
Don't expect to ever comprehend or totally understand the Trinity, but here are some Biblical givens for your and other readers to ponder.

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3945
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 4 of 183 (71588)
12-08-2003 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Yaro
12-08-2003 11:53 AM


quote:
In any case, I think if you read thrugh these forums there is a wealth of information that would steer you away from the bible and christianity. It has good philosphies, but it simply does not make sense in a litteral way.
The above certainly may be true.
In this statement and elsewhere, however, I sense a (so far small) increase in "militant atheism" happening at . While certain "militant Christian" messages may trigger such, and while this is not against forum guidelines, I personally would prefer that "militant atheism" not become a significant part of .
Moose (in the "semi-admin" mode)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Yaro, posted 12-08-2003 11:53 AM Yaro has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by NosyNed, posted 12-08-2003 1:46 PM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 8 by Abshalom, posted 12-08-2003 2:19 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 5 of 183 (71592)
12-08-2003 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Minnemooseus
12-08-2003 1:39 PM


Militant Atheism
I agree with you Moose. We are discussing creation science not faith and belief in general. Maybe there should even be a few hints around that in the guidelines.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-08-2003 1:39 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Yaro, posted 12-08-2003 1:53 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 7 by Buzsaw, posted 12-08-2003 2:03 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6521 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 6 of 183 (71597)
12-08-2003 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by NosyNed
12-08-2003 1:46 PM


Point taken, I wasn't trying to be militant. Just was trying to let the individual know that there is plenty of factual info relating to the validity of the world view he has recently adopted. Since he is a recent convert, I wanted to make sure he was aware of the controversies surounding his religioun before commiting to it fully.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by NosyNed, posted 12-08-2003 1:46 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 183 (71598)
12-08-2003 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by NosyNed
12-08-2003 1:46 PM


Re: Militant Atheism
But Ned, in order to substantiate the veracity and accuracy of the Bible, forums like this and Faith and Belief within EvC provide the avenue to go on for that. If the Bible, for example, is not consistent and sensible on matters of the trinity, it's gona be hard to argue for it's creation story.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by NosyNed, posted 12-08-2003 1:46 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-09-2003 1:51 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 135 by ex libres, posted 01-20-2004 3:37 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 183 (71603)
12-08-2003 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Minnemooseus
12-08-2003 1:39 PM


Militancy
I just re-read the forum rules.
I see that this forum basically is dedicated to the evolution v. creation debate.
I'm sure both members and administrators acknowledge that there are "militant" stances on both sides of the debate.
While I did not see anything directly contibuting to or initiating a "creationist" or "evolutionist" point of view in the original post for this thread or in any subsequent responses, I also saw not a hint of "militant" atheism. After I submit this reply, I will search the forum's glossary for definitions regarding "atheism," "militant atheism," and "militant christianity," (which I suppose may include "christian messianic zionism."
Anyway, to get this thread off to a debate APPROPRIATE to the purpose of the forum in the first place ...
Does the Bible or does Christianity enumerate any "Creations" (other than the standard, New Testament miracles, attributed directly to God's Son, Jesus, or is "Creation" specifically an act reserved for YHVH? Please give chapter and verse for any evidences of Old Testament creations attributed to Jesus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-08-2003 1:39 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Buzsaw, posted 12-08-2003 7:11 PM Abshalom has replied
 Message 112 by ex libres, posted 01-14-2004 4:52 PM Abshalom has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 183 (71692)
12-08-2003 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Abshalom
12-08-2003 2:19 PM


Re: Militancy
quote:
Does the Bible or does Christianity enumerate any "Creations" (other than the standard, New Testament miracles, attributed directly to God's Son, Jesus, or is "Creation" specifically an act reserved for YHVH? Please give chapter and verse for any evidences of Old Testament creations attributed to Jesus.
Hi Abshalome: When the NT refers to creation relative to Jesus the Greek, as well as the ASV used the word, "through" rather than "by." For example, see John 1:10:
"He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world knew him not.
Explanation: Imo, this is explained by the fact that Jesus was born from the Holy Spirit. It was the Holy Spirit which did the actual creating according to Genesis 1:2 and Psalms 104:30 Genesis also says that God created, but Psalms 104 explains how he did it, i.e. sending forth his Holy Spirit to create. So if God the father did it by sending forth the Spirit and the Son came forth from the Spirit, it would be sensible to say the world was created through Jesus as we see in John 1:10.
[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-09-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Abshalom, posted 12-08-2003 2:19 PM Abshalom has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Abshalom, posted 12-09-2003 2:01 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3945
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 10 of 183 (71786)
12-09-2003 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Buzsaw
12-08-2003 2:03 PM


Re: Militant Atheism
Quoting myself, from message 4:
quote:
In this statement and elsewhere, however, I sense a (so far small) increase in "militant atheism" happening at .
I think I overreacted to Yaro's message 2. What I recall setting me off more, was a series of messages "elsewhere". Not that I can find that topic, and those messages now.
Now, Buz said:
quote:
If the Bible, for example, is not consistent and sensible on matters of the trinity, it's gona be hard to argue for it's creation story.
I really don't see the connection between the Trinity concept, and the creation story. Each stands or falls on it's own merits.
The matter of the Trinity is purely one of a theological argument. Science has no argument against the Trinity. Science's argument is against the creation story.
I just don't like seeing the more valid aspects of Christianity (possibly including the Trinity) getting dragged down though some undeserved association with creationism.
Buz, I'm not trying to lump you in with the following statement (maybe you deserve to be included, maybe not). But I see "Fundamentalist Christianity" to be misguided in what they seem to find important as their fundamentals. To me, the fundamentals of Christianity are not the obsessing over details in the Old Testament, some which clash with worldly observations. The fundamentals of Christianity, is the following of the teachings of Christ (things of the New Testament).
Cheers,
Moose
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 12-09-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Buzsaw, posted 12-08-2003 2:03 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Brian, posted 12-09-2003 8:23 AM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 12 by Buzsaw, posted 12-09-2003 11:12 AM Minnemooseus has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 11 of 183 (71822)
12-09-2003 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Minnemooseus
12-09-2003 1:51 AM


Re: Militant Atheism
I think we also have to remember that the creation stories are Hebrew myths whilst the Trinity is a Christian myth.
The OT makes no references to the Trinity, the trinity is totally alien to Judaism.
Therefore you are correct, these two concepts could indeed stand or fall by themselves.
There are Christians of course who state that if even one syllable of the Bible is untrue then they reject it all, a bit silly really given the nature of the transmission of these beliefs.
Brian.
[This message has been edited by Brian, 12-09-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-09-2003 1:51 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 183 (71853)
12-09-2003 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Minnemooseus
12-09-2003 1:51 AM


Re: Militant Atheism
I really don't see the connection between the Trinity concept, and the creation story. Each stands or falls on it's own merits.
The trinity concept is simply a way of articulating the divine administration of the kingdom of the Bible. Each member of what we call the trinity has a unique function.
1. Two members of the trinity are mentioned in the very first two verses of the Bible, i.e. God the father and the Holy Spirit. The Father gives the orders and the spirit of the Father which is multipresent activates them.
2. In the NT, we read in John 1:10 that the world was created [/i]through[/i] the son, Jesus. So Moose, though you folks in science don't have an appreciation of this, we who are speaking for the Bible must go by what is taught in the entire Bible, both the Old and the New Testaments.
3. The son/messiah is alluded to in several texts in the OT, usually in the area of prophecy. The Jews believed this and looked for his appearing. Many still do. So in a sense, for Christians, both Jew and Gentile who receive Jesus as that messiah, the trinity was not actually a reality on earth until Jesus was born. That doesn't mean, however, that he did not exist in spirit before he was born.
quote:
I just don't like seeing the more valid aspects of Christianity (possibly including the Trinity) getting dragged down though some undeserved association with creationism.
Then why do we have Biblical accuracy and faith/belief forums? It has been my understanding that these forums were for this purpose??
The fundamentals of Christianity, is the following of the teachings of Christ (things of the New Testament).
Every fundamentalist Christian carries and uses the complete Bible. They are fundamentally inseparable. The apostles and Jesus used the OT extensively and based everything they taught on the foundation of the OT.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-09-2003 1:51 AM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by nator, posted 12-10-2003 6:16 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 23 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-13-2003 4:01 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 27 by Peter, posted 12-16-2003 11:04 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 183 (71890)
12-09-2003 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Buzsaw
12-08-2003 7:11 PM


Re: Militancy
Dear Buzz Saw:
In Hebrew, the word "ruah" can mean both "spirit" and "wind;" therefore it is and has alway been a matter of debate whether it was "God's spirit" or "God's breath" that hovered "over the face of the waters" BEFORE Creation began. I emphasize "before" simply because the act of creation had not yet begun when this "ruah" is described as hovering over the vast, wild, pre-Creation wastes.
Now then, when the act of Creation commenced in Gen. 1:3 (not in 1:2 IMHO), Creation was via WORD, not WIND, which of course explains why John is forced to also say that Jesus is or was within or somehow a part of the Word, etc.
I still have a problem with the fact that before the followers of Jesus, son of Mary began to create this "Trinity" three centuries after the passing of their messiah, the emphasis of the struggle clearly narrated in the Bible is squarely on MONOTHEISM Vs. Polytheism, and that ANY person, object, icon, or other physical manifestation eventually is bashed into pieces and disposed of in order to preserve the monotheistic integrity of YHVH, the clearly stated Creator of All.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Buzsaw, posted 12-08-2003 7:11 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6273 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 14 of 183 (71955)
12-09-2003 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by believerinchrist
12-07-2003 10:45 PM


Solving the Mystery of the Trinity
Dear Fellow believerinchrist;
I am not surprized that you are confused by the trinity, everyone who actually takes the time to think about it is. But it is a mystery with a very simple answer that once you know it, everything else in the Bible suddenly makes more sense.
The truth is simple, it is lies that are complicated. The reason for this is that the truth is in harmony with the facts, while lies are not and require endless attempts to explain the differences. Some of the most convoluted and complicated statements ever made surround what is suppose to be the central doctrine of Christianity, the trinity. If anyone states that they understand the trinity, they haven't really examined the details of what it is that they have put their faith in. For it is impossible for "three to be one and still be three and still be one." The preceding statement is what is called mutually exclusive, a self contradiction. The trinity doctrine is contrary to common sense, a brain pretzel. Trying to make sense of the trinity will twist even the finest minds into a well knotted pretzel. Ironically, the pretzel was invented by a monk as a symbol of the trinity, and a very appropriate symbol it is indeed. The three equals one nonsense is the least of the problems with the trinity, once Trinitarians start using the Bible, then the real pretzel twisting begins.
The first and most severe form of twisting is actually altering the Bible in an attempt to support the trinity. Throughout the long period of the dark ages, the Bible was in the care of a certain religion with a vested interest in having scriptural support for the trinity. The discovery of ancient manuscripts predating the dark ages has revealed that certain Bible verses had been altered in an attempt to try to prove the trinity. For example, in the King James Version 1 John 5:7 reads "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." Sounds like proof of the trinity, only one problem, the verse is spurious and doesn't appear in ancient manuscripts. In the King James Version, 1 Timothy 3:16 states "God was manifest in the flesh," Proof of the trinity? Nope, "God" was added to this verse, it should read "he" instead referring to Jesus and not his father. The reason I have brought up these spurious additions men have made to the word of God, is to ask why? Think about, why did some feel the need to attempt to alter the very word of God. The obvious conclusion is that they felt they had to add words supporting the trinity to the Bible because without them the Bible didn't support the trinity. Without man made additions to the word of God, proving the trinity is of course impossible, which is why they were inserted in the first place. That of course is the reason, and why some today still try to use these altered verses to support their view, despite the fact that it has been known for over two hundred years that they are spurious.
Without the support of spurious verses, the trinity doctrine rests on interpreting and sometimes even translating a few Bible verses in a manner contrary to the intended meaning. For example the most commonly used verse is of course John 1:1 "what, God was, the Word was." (REB) Now the point of this verse is to highlight the Word's (Jesus Christ) pre human existence in heaven with his heavenly father, not that he was the Father. Many Bible translators have chosen to render this verse as "the word was God." Now this translation is very curious considering the wording of the next verse. "He was with God at the Beginning" Due to this and the rules of Greek grammar, a number of Bibles render John 1:1 stating the Word was like God, rather than stating he was God. Consider what an extreme logic contradiction it is to translate one verse saying the Word is God and the next saying he is with God, for you can be a person or you can be standing next to the person, but you can't do both. The only real reason to chose such a self contradictory rendering for two successive verses is to try to support the trinity.
The trinity is supposed to be the main doctrine of Christianity, yet this huge massive doctrine ends up resting on the flimsiest of reasonings. Words that appear in some Bible translations, but not others, is frequently invoked as support. Translations vary, for translating is more of an art than a science. Translators have to use their judgment in discerning which word or phrase best expresses the thought expressed by the words of a different language. Translators have their religious beliefs too, so it is to be expected that some translations of the Bible in their wording will tend to appear to support things that the Bible doesn't. This is why it is wise to consult more than one Bible translation when the wording of a verse is in question. For most of the verses claimed to support the trinity, they only appear to do so in certain translations and not in others. The other translators, the ones free of the compulsion to create support for things nonexistence in the Bible, generally produce translations completely free of any Trinitarian wording at all.
Trinitarians like to quote John 10:30 "The Father and I are one." and John 12:44 "to see me, is to see him who sent me." (REB) and John 14:9 "Jesus answered, 'Have I been all this time with you, Philip, and still you do not know me? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father." (REB) The argument that these scriptures unequivocally prove the trinity falls flat when you remember that the people who added the spurious trinity scriptures knew about these verses. Why would they add false scriptures if these verses already proved the trinity? The answer of course is even they knew these verses fail to provide any real support for the trinity. To find this out for yourself all you need to do is carefully read the gospels. In fact all you need to do to is read a few verses more to see what Jesus is talking about, in John the seventeenth chapter, verse twenty through twenty three Jesus states. "It is not for these alone that I pray, but for those also who through their words put their faith in me. May they all be one; as you Father, are in me, and I in you, so also may they be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. The glory which you gave me I have given to them, that they may be one as we are one; I in them and you in me, may they be perfectly one." (REB) Jesus is talking about unity. He is praying that his followers would all be one just as he is one with his Father, one in purpose not one in body. Christ's followers were to be one or in union, in the same way Jesus and his father are one or in union. The terms "in union" and "one" are used to state working together towards a goal, team work. God and Jesus are no more the same person than all Christians are really just one person with a lot of names. What Jesus was saying when said he wanted his followers to be one, was that he wanted them not to split into different groups, he wanted them to remain united in true worship. This scripture also points out that God does not approve of the current mess of fragmented religions. Just as God and Jesus work together in the oneness of unity, Jesus wanted his followers to do the same.
Constantly Jesus repeatedly emphasized that he was doing his father's will, that he came as his father's representative and that he was doing exactly what his father wanted him to do. The scriptures the Trinitarians claim prove the trinity, are talking about loyalty and unity and acting with oneness in purpose. Christ is just like his father, but he is not his father. If you still think these scriptures may somewhat support the trinity, remember that the Bible doesn't contradict itself as we consider some verses the Trinitarians don't want you to read..
At one time, if you were caught reading a Bible, you would tied to a stake and burned along with your Bible. In many lands even today people are still told not to read the Bible, that interpreting the Bible is for their religious leaders to do. Did you ever wonder what it was that they didn't want you to read? Some of the scriptures they didn't want you to read are "for the Father is greater than I am." John 14:28 (REB). This verse clearly contradicts the belief that Jesus is coequal with his father. Here we have Jesus himself clearly stating that his father is greater than he is. This scripture has challenged the best minds the Trinitarians have and has resulted in a vast body of wordy philosophical writings which basically try to worm their way around this verse and many others that clearly contradict the trinity. Then there is John 6:38 "I have come down from heaven, to do not my own will, but the will of him who sent me." (REB) Look closely at this verse, Jesus was doing his father's will instead of who's will? Yes, Jesus has his own will. His doing his father's will was his decision, his choice. He was not a part of his father's body, to be commanded mindlessly like a hand or a foot. By his obedience and submitting his will to his father's will, he set the example for us to follow. Luke 22:42 "Father, if it be your will, take this cup from me. Yet not my will but yours be done." (REB) When you read this verse, you can not help being struck by its strong emotional impact. These words charged with feeling are of a son talking to his father, they are not the words of someone talking to himself. Jesus not only has his own will, he also has a mind of his own. Matthew 24:36 "Yet about that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, not even the Son; no one but the Father alone." (REB) Jesus here stated that there were some things he didn't know, but his father did. In order for this to be possible, it requires that Jesus and his father each have their own mind. If they were truly one in the sense the Trinitarians mean, Jesus would know everything his father knows, it would be impossible for it to be any other way. Once again we see how the trinity runs contrary to what the Bible tells us about Jesus and his father. When you step back and look at the whole over all structure of the Bible, we find the trinity is completely incompatible with the word of God. If there really was a trinity, it would be necessary to rewrite the entire Bible. For the trinity doesn't fit with what the Bible teaches. For example Satan tested Jesus' loyalty to his father, by trying to get Jesus to worship the devil instead. Now if Jesus was his father, testing his loyalty would be impossible, for how could he be disloyal? Now remember in the book of Job, Satan had been in heaven before God, Satan would know if Jesus and his father were the same person. The main reason Jesus came to earth was to sanctify his father's name by his obedience under test. Jesus by his integrity proved that Satan's claim in Job, that no one would serve God under test was a lie. Jesus set the example for us to follow. Now if he was God, it would have been impossible for him to fail, it would not have been a real test and would have answered nothing and would not have set a realistic example for us to follow. By giving his life for us, Jesus then used the value of his sacrifice to free mankind from sin. He did this by presenting the value of his sacrifice before his heavenly father. Hebrews 9:24 (REB) "for Christ has not entered a sanctuary made by human hands which is only a pointer to the reality: He has entered heaven itself, to appear now before God on our behalf." This event was foretold and illustrated by the high priest once a year going into the most holy of the temple and offering the blood of the atonement sacrificial lamb before the ark of the covenant. Jesus is the true high priest and he has mediated the new covenant for his followers with his heavenly father based on the value of his blood. Jeremiah 31:31 "The days are coming, says the LORD, when I shall establish a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah."(REB). Matthew 26:27-28 "Then he took a cup, and having offered thanks to God he gave it to them with the words: 'Drink from it, all of you. For this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, shed for many for the forgiveness of sins.'"(REB)
In Hebrews the seventh chapter, the new covenant and Jesus' role as high priest is explained. Now the whole point of this prophetic drama was that Jesus by his blood, mediated a new covenant between his father and his followers. Now if Jesus was God, to whom did he offer the value of his sacrifice to? And how could he act as a mediator between God and mankind, for our reconciliation, if he himself was God almighty? Notice Paul states there is no mediator if there is only one person. Galatians 3:20 (REB) " but an intermediary is not needed for one party acting alone, and God is one." Now at 1 Timothy Paul states that Christ is the mediator between God and man, which would of course be impossible if Jesus and his father were one in the same. 1 Timothy 2:5 (REB) "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and man, Christ Jesus," Hebrews 8:6 (REB) "But in fact the ministry which Jesus has been given is superior to theirs, for he is the mediator of a better covenant, established on better promises."
Clearly the Bible would not speak of Christ as high priest or the mediator of the new covenant if he was God Almighty. He would not be spoken of in the Bible as having these roles if there was a trinity. If there was a trinity, when the high priest offered the blood in the most holy, wouldn't he have had to offer it in front of a mirror to conform to the trinity view of Jesus offering his blood before his father? The fact is the trinity is not part of the Bible. The Jews never believed in it and no one in the Bible teaches it. Jesus never sits his disciples down and explains what is suppose to be the central doctrine of Christianity to them. The trinity is a great mystery that is solved when you realize it is not part of what the Bible teaches, which is why it is so hard for people to understand.
When you read the book of Hebrews the absence of any explanation of the trinity is particularly strange if Paul believed in it. The book was written for the Jews and the main point Paul stressed through out the book was the importance of Jesus Christ. In chapter after chapter Paul shows how Christianity is far superior to Judaism, the new being the fulfillment of the old and showing to the Jews the key role Christ had. Now if the reason Paul wrote Hebrews was to teach the exalted role Christ has in our salvation, why didn't he explain or even mention that "by the way, Jesus is God Almighty"? The conspicuous omission of the supposedly main doctrine of Christianity in a book about how important Christ is, points to the fact that Paul didn't believe in or teach the trinity. Belief in the trinity was not taught by Jesus or any of the apostles, it is something that came later when the apostasy came and many began to follow doctrines of men. The trinity is unknown in the Bible, but is found in the religions of Egypt and Babylon, it is from these non-biblical sources that the doctrine came.
Jesus Christ and his father are one in spirit, unity, purpose and love; but are not one in body. Jesus is the exact representation of his father, but he is not his father. This can be compared to a husband and wife. The two become one flesh, and should be one in unity and love. But they remain two people and the loyally of each to the other can be tested. The Husband is head of the wife, and she in turn is (at least in theory) obedient to him in all things. Is the relationship similar between Jesus and his father? Yes it is, Paul said it was. 1 Corinthians 11:3 (REB) "while every man has Christ for his head, a woman's head is man, as Christ's head is God." God and Jesus are no more the same person than married couples are really only one person with two names.
Once we set a side the spurious scriptures, certain wording found only in some Bible translations and understand the concept of unity and being one with someone; we find the trinity has no scriptural support at all. Additionally the Bible contains many verses which directly contradict the trinity. The anti trinity scriptures cited here in this chapter are just the tip of the massive iceberg of Bible verses which sink the trinity. The trinity is in complete conflict with the whole spirit of the Bible and only serves to confuse people and cloud their minds making it harder for them to know God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by believerinchrist, posted 12-07-2003 10:45 PM believerinchrist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by doctrbill, posted 12-09-2003 9:52 PM wmscott has replied
 Message 96 by Phat, posted 01-04-2004 1:35 PM wmscott has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2790 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 15 of 183 (71992)
12-09-2003 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by wmscott
12-09-2003 7:47 PM


Re: Solving the Mystery of the Trinity
Hi WmScott,
I got this far and quit. Not that your argument isn't fascinating, just that it's way too long to hold me.
wmscott writes:
Consider what an extreme logic contradiction it is to translate one verse saying the Word is God and the next saying he is with God, for you can be a person or you can be standing next to the person, but you can't do both.
I agree. And I am curious how you treat the following in the context of your theology:
quote:
"Thus says [Jehovah]... besides me there is no god." "
Is there a God besides me? ... I know not any." Isa. 44:6,8 RSV
Is it safe to assume you believe that 'two-in-one' is nearly as twisted as 'three-in-one.'?
db

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by wmscott, posted 12-09-2003 7:47 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by wmscott, posted 12-14-2003 9:14 AM doctrbill has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024