Trinity Proof Scriptures

[Idolater]

This is pure fiction.

Oh.

 

[Rosenritter]

Or perhaps the phrase is used as metaphor in the way I suggest which doesn't rely on skipping around the bible in the hope of support from other books with differing agendas on how the author wished to portray his vision of Jesus. You can't object to my analysis of GJohn 10 using GJohn 17 (using the same book and using Jesus' own words) then do the same thing and worse.

"Skipping around the bible" as you called it is the bible's own defined method for interpreting its own words.

Isaiah 28:9-11 KJV
(9) Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
(10) For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
(11) For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

Isaiah 28:13 KJV
(13) But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

If I have an question about your interpretation of John 10:30, it would be whether you are also considering its context following in John 10:34.

Wait... Jesus, who IS god was "exalted by god"? :liberals:.
Wait... Jesus, who IS god was "exalted by god"? :liberals:.

Really? Seriously, you don't see the obvious (to me) contradiction/inconsistency?

No, there's no contradiction or inconsistency. One is the office and authority and the other is the person that we knew face to face. If you would like a contemporary example for comparison, imagine that you created a world and also entered into it... such as an Online Theology Forum for which you also created a user login in addition to the Administrator access you have that doesn't post on the boards. Let's say you named your user login "Hunter."

So, if in the future "Hunter" is exalted by the Administrator and given rank and privilege above other users, is that a contradiction? Is that an inherent inconsistency? None of that required that "the Administrator" and "Hunter" have two different minds or personalities or pairs of hands behind the keyboard.

Poof texting? I thought you said, "NO!", to this or are you confusing the literal with the metaphorical again?

I'm not sure what you're objecting to. "Exalted" means "raised up" and would be the opposite of "made lower." If God lowered himself (for the suffering of death) than if he is later restored to "the glory which I had with thee before the world was" (John 17:5) that is the meaning of exalted.

Paul saying something similar to a verse found in Isaiah doesn't mean he (Paul) was quoting Isaiah. Wishful thinking in a passage filled to the brim with metaphor doesn't prove Jesus = "the christian deity".

Have you compared the quotes?

Isaiah 45:22-23 KJV
(22) Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.
(23) I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

Romans 14:11 KJV
(11) For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

Philippians 2:9-11 KJV
(9) Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
(10) That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
(11) And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.


Paul clearly knows of the passage and specifically states that it is a quotation "it is written" when he speaks to the Romans.

Does it really seem more probable that Paul made up these words in an unrelated way, without connection, either without knowing the Old Testament at that time, or in full knowledge that the passage from Isaiah and his epistle to the Romans bore the similarity?

Perplexing... isn't it?

Not really. Not any more than how the Roman church elevated Mary to a level of deity or had people praying to the dead or turned local gods into "saints" or integrated with other customs and practices. If you take what is already popular and adopt a bit of this and a bit of that theoretically you've got something for everyone. I suspect that it's a strategy that is calculated to gain widespread acceptance the fastest.

 

[Right Divider]

I consider myself to be an Open Theist, but do not see how Open Theism could lead to "Jesus is God".

You don't need Open Theism to believe that Jesus is God, you just need a Bible and some faith.

The most vocal Trinitarians on this forum seem to claim that they independently became Trinitarians by reading the Bible and were never taught about Trinitarianism by their church.

We all enjoy your fallacious reasoning... NOT!

 

[Right Divider]

:blabla:

Get saved, then we can discuss spiritual things.

What?... You don't appreciate this atheist trying to help us believers understand the Bible? :french:

 

[musterion]

I doubt my concept of a "supreme being" would differ substantially from many other posters on this thread. However, if Jesus WAS (a part of) the common concept of deity then he lacked every attributes I would ascribe to that deity.

You might make that suggestion but in so doing any trinitarian cobbling together of verses in support of the Trinity throughout the Bible are bound by the same restriction.

If I were to say, "I am blue." would you think my skin was literally the color blue? If I defined what I meant two weeks later that blue = sad would that mean I can't use "blue" to mean anything other than a color or an emotion even in the same context/sentence? No. My objection from Post #345 withstands your test.

Is none of this metaphor? If not Christians should just throw out the whole Bible and replace it with something completely literal as to avoid confusion.

I've noted you've been playing a commendable job of Devil's Advocate.

No one who matters cares what you think on this topic.

 

[7djengo7]

I agree with Dartman here I believe. I have not been following your discussion with him, but from what I can make out I too would say the HS is an attribute of God(Gods active force) and is thus part of God. I would not say or call the HS "God" since I not see it as a separate person from God anymore than I would say "love" is God when scripture states "God is love". Love is an attribute of God, the same way I would say the HS is an attribute of God, the only difference being Gods HS can do whatever God wills it.

Dartman specifically stated that the Holy Spirit IS the Father:

The holy spirit is the Father.

For anyone to say, on the one hand, that the Holy Spirit IS the Father, and that the Father IS God, and then, on the other hand, to say that the Holy Spirit is NOT God is pure irrationality.

 

[7djengo7]

No

On the contrary, Yes. As a Christ-hater, you demonstrated your lying hypocrisy, as is your wont.

Trying to bury the fact that you did so, under another heap of your flimflam, does you no good.

You worship neither the Father nor Jesus.

 

[7djengo7]

No, since scripture at times shows things in the ultimate sense, and other times shows explains in a little more detail the process of how things are completed in the ultimate sense.

What you're trying to hand us, here, is meaningless jargon. You're trying to hide your gross inconsistency and hypocrisy behind a cloud of smoke you've belched out. Your meaningless phrase, "the ultimate sense" (among other things), is not going to hide the fact that, while pretending that you worship Jesus, you demand that people who actually worship Jesus should show you Bible verses in which people are commanded to worship Jesus.

 

[7djengo7]

You've taken my words out of context.

Oh, so when you wrote, "I do worship Jesus," what you meant was, "I do not worship Jesus." Got it.

If you were actually following along you would have known that Judgerightly and I worship God in very different ways.

JudgeRightly worships God--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. You do not worship God at all; you worship neither the Father, the Son, nor the Holy Ghost.

JR worships Jesus as God directly, no scripture states for man to do this, when it IS stated we see that it isn't to Jesus directly but rather to the Father, I have stated this over and over to both yourself and JR. I worship God through Jesus as Jesus commanded and as scripture shows.

You do not worship the Father at all. You dishonor the Son, and, thereby, you dishonor the Father.

 

[Dartman]

Dartman specifically stated that the Holy Spirit IS the Father:

Exactly .... but you left out the rest;

IT is the Father's mind, identity, spirit, thinking, values, knowledge, wisdom ..... and POWER.

For anyone to say, on the one hand, that the Holy Spirit IS the Father, and that the Father IS God, and then, on the other hand, to say that the Holy Spirit is NOT God is pure irrationality.

The holy spirit is the .... Father's mind, identity, spirit, thinking, values, knowledge, wisdom ..... and POWER.
Just like you and I are minds ,,,, and have minds. The holy spirit is God's mind. And God's mind IS Him. It's not ALL of Him, as I have clarified before.... but it IS God, It is NOT a separate "person".

 

[7djengo7]

In your excerpt from your "New World Translation", we read:

(Philippians 2:8-11) "..More than that, when he came as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, yes, death on a torture stake. 9 For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground— 11 and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.."

You pretend to believe--to "openly acknowledge"--that Jesus Christ is Lord. What say you of the Father? Is the Father not Lord, also? Would you say that there are two Lords, one Lord being Jesus Christ, and the other Lord being the Father?

Do you worship the Father "directly" (as you say)? How so? Do you "openly acknowledge" that the Father is Lord? Do you deny that the Father is Lord?

If there are two Lords, one being Christ, the other being the Father, how, exactly, do you imagine it is to the glory of God the Father to "openly acknowledge" that Jesus Christ is Lord, if Jesus Christ is NOT the same Lord as the Father, but a different Lord than the Father?

To whom was Jesus referring as "the Lord thy God", when He, quoting Scripture, said "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve"?

Would you say that Jesus worships a Lord? If so, what Lord would you say Jesus worships?

 

[7djengo7]

Exactly .... but you left out the rest;

The rest of what? The proposition, 'The Holy Spirit IS the Father', is one of the propositions which Dartman explicitly stated:

The holy spirit is the Father.

I'm well aware that Dartman, ALSO stated ANOTHER proposition:

The holy spirit is the Father's mind.

Two distinct propositions--false ones, at that--and Dartman affirmed each one of them.

 

[7djengo7]

Again, your excerpt from your "New World Translation":

(Philippians 2:8-11) "..More than that, when he came as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, yes, death on a torture stake. 9 For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground— 11 and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.."

You claim to "openly acknowledge" that Jesus Christ is Lord. Do you "openly acknowledge" that Jesus Christ is the Lord to which Jesus Christ, Himself, refers in Matthew 4:10 KJV?

Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Or, is only the Father, "the Lord thy God"? If so, then, when you claim to "openly acknowledge" that Jesus Christ is Lord, what you are saying is that Jesus is "the Lord not thy God". You, then, are claiming to "openly acknowledge" two Lords:

• The Lord thy God (the Father)
• The Lord not thy God (Jesus)

 

[musterion]

Exactly .... but you left out the rest;

IT is the Father's mind, identity, spirit, thinking, values, knowledge, wisdom ..... and POWER.

The holy spirit is the .... Father's mind, identity, spirit, thinking, values, knowledge, wisdom ..... and POWER.
Just like you and I are minds ,,,, and have minds. The holy spirit is God's mind. And God's mind IS Him. It's not ALL of Him, as I have clarified before.... but it IS God, It is NOT a separate "person".

Are you also a Jehovah's witness?

 

[7djengo7]

Exactly .... but you left out the rest;

Left out the rest of what?

 

[7djengo7]

The holy spirit ... is NOT a separate "person".

Here are a couple of questions for you to stonewall against:

Is the Holy Spirit a person? Yes or No?
Is the Father a person? Yes or No?

 

[7djengo7]

The holy spirit is the .... Father's mind, identity, spirit, thinking, values, knowledge, wisdom ..... and POWER.

Here, you have affirmed 8 propositions:

1. "The holy spirit is the Father's mind"
2. "The holy spirit is the Father's identity"
3. "The holy spirit is the Father's spirit"
4. "The holy spirit is the Father's thinking"
5. "The holy spirit is the Father's values"
6. "The holy spirit is the Father's knowledge"
7. "The holy spirit is the Father's wisdom"
8. "The holy spirit is the Father's POWER"

Since you say that the Holy Spirit is all these things, what (if anything) would you say there is left over for the Father, Himself, to be? Just a face, a hand, and "back parts"?

Also, who, or what, would you say is Jesus' spirit?

 

[Rosenritter]

This post seems to be more of a statement than reasoning. Because of this I will ask the questions that were vital to my argument that you failed to address in my last post.

1. Could Adam rightly called "the first and the last" in the sense of being the first and last human that was made by God from dust?

No, for several reasons.

1) First and foremost, in the absence of qualifying portion of "the first and the last created from the dust" it is "the first and the last" and that is a title already created by and reserved for the LORD, the type of careless construction you are suggesting would be certainly "taking the name of the LORD in vain."

2) Second, on technical reasons, even if that blasphemous abuse of the title was intended, there is a whole multitude of multitudes that shall be created again from the dust. Surely you are familiar with the scripture, "And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt" ... ?

3) Third, the acrobatics you have had to stoop to here border on the absurd. If you try hard enough and try long enough, you could come up with something that applied for ANYONE I suppose, which would render "I am the first and the last" to be a worthless statement of no effect. Maybe Adam was "the first and the last to have eat the forbidden fruit AND to have married Eve?" And Eve could be "the first and the last to eat the forbidden fruit AND to have married Adam?"

2. Whose message was preached on earth according to the NT, Jesus or the Fathers message?

Yes, to both.

3. Who is ultimate judge according to Acts 17:31, the Father or Jesus?(see also John 5:22)

Based just on those two passages, God is the ultimate judge (from the first) and Jesus is the ultimate judge (from the second) and the Father is excluded from judgment by the second as well. That creates a bit of a problem for your position as now the Father is no longer God, but not so much a problem from where I am standing.

4. If the F&L is in relation to Jesus being Almighty God as in Rev 1:8 then how is it possible the "first and the last became dead" according to both Rev 1:18 and Rev 2:8 since God cannot die. Please do not say its speaking about his humanity as Jesus is clearly speaking in regards to his divine nature (according to your reasoning of F&L being the same as Rev 1:8 A&O the almighty).

5. Show us were "Jesus was not the first to be raised by God without a human prophet"?

I already did, and you didn't object then. Why now?

Matthew 27:50-53 KJV
(50) Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
(51) And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
(52) And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
(53) And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

The arising of those saints are described to have occurred when Jesus was slain, not after he arose.

You are correct, he isn't the last to be raised to eternal life, but the Father is not the one who will be rasining all others after Jesus to eternal life, Jesus is. So still, Jesus is the ONLY person who was raised by the Father himself, and also the last one to be raised by the Father.

Even under your reasoning, that is incorrect. See above. And also see the first question, concerning "taking the name of the LORD in vain" by abusing the title "the first and the last" without any qualifier to make it a different title.

 

[7djengo7]

Whose message was preached on earth according to the NT, Jesus or the Fathers message?

Do you mean, Whose message was preached, the Lord's (Philippians 2:11 KJV) or the Lord's (Matthew 4:10 KJV)?

Who is ultimate judge according to Acts 17:31, the Father or Jesus?(see also John 5:22)

Do you mean, Who is ultimate judge, the Lord (Philippians 2:11 KJV) or the Lord (Matthew 4:10 KJV)?

 

[Rosenritter]

Rev 1:1 tells us, "A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him", "God" and "Jesus" are separate according to the context of the opening verse, the reason I bring this up is because in v8 "God" is mentioned again and is the "one who is, was and is coming", contextually the one mentioned in Rev 1:8 is not Jesus since Jesus was the who was given the revelation by God, thus your example does not fit into the context of the chapters context and is a loaded question. If then, we were to add into your example the context "A revelation by Rosenritter, which Andrew gave him" and then you gave your example of "Hello from Andrew, and the staff at TOL, and Rosenritter" then Rosenritter would not be Andrew, would you not agree?

No, I would not agree, especially when the context of the communication is for the purpose of combining those two identities, as evidenced by using prior unique titles for the LORD such as "the first and the last" and introducing fresh never-used-before titles such as "the Alpha and the Omega" which are linked to both "the Almighty" and he which identified himself as "he that liveth and was dead" ​even in the same chapter.

If you agree that "James" is not "Rosenritter" (in the above), then based on comparsion with Rev 1:4,5 (not forgetting that God in Rev 1:8 is contextually the God in Rev 1:1) then on what merit does your claim Jesus is somehow "the one who is, was and is to come" stand?

Is that a trick question? Of course I agree that James is not Rosenritter (Andrew is the true name) but that hardly relates to the logic trail above.