The Trinity

[keypurr]

I don't see how this establishes that God "possessed" an innocent person. May I ask a different type of question? If I were to assume that you were correct, how would this affect my actions or belief in any practical way?

I also have another question. It is usually assumed that Jesus was without sin, that is, sinless. One often finds Hebrews 4:15 used for confirmation in that regard. Do you agree with this? And if so, does that apply to the human Jesus or just the possessing spirit son? Depending on your answer I have a followup question as well.

You don't wish to see, it would take you out of your comfort zone.

My thoughts would give you a stronger faith based on how God sent his spirit son to take the form of man in the body he provided. I have never felt closer to my God and my Lord as I now do. I would hope others could understand and share the joy that's in my heart...

Sent from my SM-T330NU using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Right Divider]

It is the fact that your blindness will not let you see the depth of my thoughts friend. You need to ask yourself if you are really open minded.

Oh boy. We have another GT on our hands.

Your "deep thoughts" are irrelevant, as are mine. It's the truth that counts.

 

[keypurr]

Jesus did NOT "receive" anything but a symbolic confirmation of who He ALREADY was.

Can't you see that the Spirit of God came down like a dove and lighted UPON Him?

ALL FOUR accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) agree on this point.

According to your ridiculous "story" the spirit that was in Jesus had to be suppressed or kicked out. That is FALSE.

Luke also added the voice of God to the information about this event:

Luke 3:22 (AKJV/PCE)
(3:22) And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.​

This was NOT Jesus becoming something that He was NOT ALREADY.

Again, you cannot understand figures of speech. The "express image of His person" is telling you that Jesus is God. But you reject it anyway.

"charakter autos hupostasis"

Your restrictions yourself from what scripture tells you RD. Stop assuming and just take the words that are there. But do not stick to one translation.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[keypurr]

Jesus did NOT "receive" anything but a symbolic confirmation of who He ALREADY was.

Can't you see that the Spirit of God came down like a dove and lighted UPON Him?

ALL FOUR accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) agree on this point.

According to your ridiculous "story" the spirit that was in Jesus had to be suppressed or kicked out. That is FALSE.

Luke also added the voice of God to the information about this event:

Luke 3:22 (AKJV/PCE)
(3:22) And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.​

This was NOT Jesus becoming something that He was NOT ALREADY.

Again, you cannot understand figures of speech. The "express image of His person" is telling you that Jesus is God. But you reject it anyway.

"charakter autos hupostasis"

Consider the word IMAGE in Heb 1:3.
Name any image that is not created.

Christ is the exact copy of the Father, the Father is a spirit. However the Father is not a creation, the son is. One is God and one is a form of God.

Think on that..

Sent from my SM-T330NU using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Right Divider]

Your in the same boat BR is in, bobbing up and down in the sea of tradition. I have over thirty Greek to English Bibles and only one Aramaic to English one. I trust none fully because they all have human translators. So I take what is written and prove what it says by comparing and reasoning with the content.
Believe as you wish RD, I have been where you are and could never go back there.

I don't accept tradition unless it lines up with the Bible. In this case, your ship has sunk.

Yet you used a Hebrew word for something that was originally Greek, for which we have perfectly clear English translation. What compelled you to need to have Hebrew word involved in this discussion?

Regardless of what you think the word LOGOS means, the Bible makes it CLEAR that the Word/Logos created ALL THINGS. How then can this Word/Logos be a CREATED being?

So if you were ever really "where I am", then you went from logical to illogical and I don't care to join you there.

Hugs and kisses, RD.

P.S. It's "you're" and not "your". "You're" is a contraction of "You are", whereas "your" is a possessive pronoun.

 

[keypurr]

Why is it that we are unable to communicate with yo Keypur? Is it that you are unable to to understand the context of scripture? What is your biggest beef?

It is not I that does not understand the words friend, my problem is that I do understand them. I was given the understanding. My biggest beef is try to tell folks that Jesus tells you to worship his Father and most do not. They created another God then sixty years later added the Holy Spirit as a God. Believe in the truth. John 17:3

Sent from my SM-T330NU using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[keypurr]

So if I understand correctly, you know that God raised Jesus (1 Corinthians 6:14, 2 Corinthians 4:14, Hebrews 11:19) and thus you conclude that Jesus cannot be God. But doesn't your logic depend on assuming that Jesus is not God to begin with? If so, that's circular logic. So, if I show you a passage where we are told that Jesus raised the body of Jesus, that should be sufficient to prompt honest reconsideration of your other assumed premise, right?

For clarification, your assumed premise is that if Jesus was God, then God could not raise Jesus from the dead. It might be more dramatic to wait for your answer and commitment, but I'll step forward in faith that you are reasonable.

Joh 2:18-22 KJV
(18) Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
(19) Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
(20) Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
(21) But he spake of the temple of his body.
(22) When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

Note that Jesus did not say "God will raise it up" but "I will raise it up." Both statements would be correct, but the latter that he actually spoke and is recorded in the gospels gives the credit to Jesus himself. The logical resolution of the aforementioned passages and Christ's prophecy is that he actually was their God. Otherwise, it would have been blasphemous to claim the credit himself. Moses was denied entry into the promised land when he struck the rock and claimed credit for the miracle himself. God actually made him die before they arrived.

I realize that the conclusion may sound confusing, but Jesus did literally say that he would raise his own body. The literal words of scripture should overrule our own confusion. Are you willing to perhaps reconsider some of your other conclusions in this light?

I am well aware of your verses, been looking at them for about seventy years. There is only one true God and Jesus Christ has a God so that alone disqualifies him as God. He is however a godlike person who was given powers we do not have.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Right Divider]

Consider the word IMAGE in Heb 1:3.
Name any image that is not created.

For the umpteenth time, the WORD "image" is NOT in that sentence. The Greek word that is TRANSLATED as "express image" is the SINGLE Greek word "charakter" (from which we get our English word CHARACTER). With your "thirty Greek to English translations" you should KNOW this my now, but instead you're a stubborn, thick-header man that goes against the meaning here.

The TERM "express image of His person" is saying that He is God.

Christ is the exact copy of the Father, the Father is a spirit. However the Father is not a creation, the son is. One is God and one is a form of God.

Think on that..

The fact that you think that God made a Xerox of Himself is both laughable and heretical. Think on that.

 

[keypurr]

If the JW have got it right, then I have something to add. I have talked with JW teams on four different occasions. I talked to them and showed them scripture from their own bibles, the New World Translation. On each occasion they were forced to admit that Jesus was God. Not "a god" but actually the LORD God Jehovah. Three of those teams were in succession, one team came in where the previous one had retreated after admitting that "Jesus is God the Father" or "Jesus is the God Jehovah" (and I didn't use the same proofs each time there.) They have done their best to edit their Bibles to obscure and remove it, but even with that bias they didn't manage to get rid of it all.

I said that they got John 1 right, I disagree with JWS on a lot of things. The Christ in Jesus is a form of God, that means a god. That is what I see friend.

I am going out for the afternoon, I will get back to you later.
Blessings

Sent from my SM-T330NU using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Right Divider]

Your restrictions yourself from what scripture tells you RD. Stop assuming and just take the words that are there. But do not stick to one translation.

And this coming from a Greek scholar that cannot understand what charakter means.

Please tell us what is wrong regarding THAT translation of THAT passage.

 

[keypurr]

For the umpteenth time, the WORD "image" is NOT in that sentence. The Greek word that is TRANSLATED as "express image" is the SINGLE Greek word "charakter" (from which we get out English word CHARACTER). With your "thirty Greek to English translations" you should KNOW this my now, but instead you're a stubborn, thick-header man that goes against the meaning here.

The TERM "express image of His person" is saying that He is God.


The fact that you think that God made a Xerox of Himself is both laughable and heretical. Think on that.

Maybe you need to tell the translators. Later I will send to to that verse in 30 translations.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Right Divider]

Maybe you need to tell the translators. Later I will send to to that verse in 30 translations.

You really need to learn about idioms and figures of speech.

 

[Rosenritter]

...

RD, why would it be "heretical" to suggest that God could "Xerox" himself? I can think of a place or two that is are difficult for the "Spirit Son" model, I know of places in scripture that cause problems for "Trinity" explanations as well. Do you have a place in mind that would rule out "Xerox" as a possible explanation?

 

[Rosenritter]

I am well aware of your verses, been looking at them for about seventy years. There is only one true God and Jesus Christ has a God so that alone disqualifies him as God. He is however a godlike person who was given powers we do not have.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using TheologyOnline mobile app

When in the form of a man, walking a mile in our shoes like a mortal, and filling the role of Passover Lamb, Jesus would of God in heaven as "his God" because he certainly didn't give credit to any other God. What you hold up as a Golden Proof isn't a proof at all, it is entirely consistent with how Jesus intended to present himself as he walked among us.

Like the military, God is allowed to understand his rank when he chooses to. However, one is never allowed to overstate their rank or position without committing blasphemy. So the relevant proof is how High Jesus declared himself. Can you acknowledge this?

 

[Rosenritter]

You don't wish to see, it would take you out of your comfort zone.

My thoughts would give you a stronger faith based on how God sent his spirit son to take the form of man in the body he provided. I have never felt closer to my God and my Lord as I now do. I would hope others could understand and share the joy that's in my heart...

Sent from my SM-T330NU using TheologyOnline mobile app

That wasn't an answer, at least the part with the "It would take you out of your comfort zone."

 

[Right Divider]

...

RD, why would it be "heretical" to suggest that God could "Xerox" himself?

Because it's always heretical to say something about God that God Himself does not say about Himself.

I can think of a place or two that is are difficult for the "Spirit Son" model, I know of places in scripture that cause problems for "Trinity" explanations as well. Do you have a place in mind that would rule out "Xerox" as a possible explanation?

Once again, we do not need evidence against it. He needs to provide evidence for it.

His only "evidence" is his mistaken idea of what is meant by "the express image of His person". He extracts "image" and tries to use this in a similar sense to a "photo copy".

 

[Rosenritter]

Because it's always heretical to say something about God that God Himself does not say about Himself.


Once again, we do not need evidence against it. He needs to provide evidence for it.

His only "evidence" is his mistaken idea of what is meant by "the express image of His person". He extracts "image" and tries to use this in a similar sense to a "photo copy".

Then you are a heretic by your own measure, because God never said he was a Trinity.

 

[Right Divider]

Then you are a heretic by your own measure, because God never said he was a Trinity.

HaHaHaHa... you're a riot Alice.

Heb 1:8 (AKJV/PCE)​

(1:8) But unto the Son [he saith], Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom. ​

 

[keypurr]

When in the form of a man, walking a mile in our shoes like a mortal, and filling the role of Passover Lamb, Jesus would of God in heaven as "his God" because he certainly didn't give credit to any other God. What you hold up as a Golden Proof isn't a proof at all, it is entirely consistent with how Jesus intended to present himself as he walked among us.

Like the military, God is allowed to understand his rank when he chooses to. However, one is never allowed to overstate their rank or position without committing blasphemy. So the relevant proof is how High Jesus declared himself. Can you acknowledge this?

I understand that Jesus said his Father is greater than all. So why do they elevate Jesus to God level? In Phil 2, who is it that lowered himself to become flesh?
Only the son of man has seen God, the son of man decended from his Father, giving up the glory to take the form of man. How could he do that? Think about that.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Rosenritter]

I understand that Jesus said his Father is greater than all. So why do they elevate Jesus to God level? In Phil 2, who is it that lowered himself to become flesh?
Only the son of man has seen God, the son of man decended from his Father, giving up the glory to take the form of man. How could he do that? Think about that.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using TheologyOnline mobile app

I believe that quote has an additional part you missed,

Joh 10:29-30 KJV
(29) My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
(30) I and my Father are one.

If that passage is extended logically, that also implies that Jesus was greater than all. Were you meaning to reference John 14:28? If it was please say so and I can address that instead.

You asked who it was that lowered himself. The answer is in Philippians 2:6 that Jesus, was in the form of God and equal with God, and then in verses 10-11 Paul equals Jesus with God again by citing the Old Testament passage with the name of JESUS in place of where LORD was in the Hebrew, proving that the way he means "Jesus is Lord" in that passage is actually "LORD" (Jehovah.)

How does he give up the glory he had? In a similar way as a king, who observing a game that he would normally be over as a judge, could give up his glory to participate as one of the players, subject to the same rules. It is no longer a crime to interact with the King the way one would any other participant. That is an example of "giving up the glory" that you had.