Trinity Proof Scriptures

[genuineoriginal]

The assertion was that Isaiah 64:8 calls Jehovah "THE Father."

You are admitting that it DOES NOT say "THE Father, but rather says "OUR Father."

Are you trying to claim that "The Father" mentioned as God in the New Testament is a different God than "Our Father" mentioned as God (Jehovah) in the Old Testament?

Indeed it is.

Now go count the numerous times that Jesus refers to "My Father" (55 times in the 4 'gospels') and NOT "Our Father" about His relationship with God.

There are only two occurrences of Jesus using the term "Our Father" and those both refer to a SINGULAR event where Jesus was teaching His disciples to pray to "Our Father".

Are you trying to claim that "My Father" mentioned as God by Jesus is a different God than "Our Father" mentioned as God by Jesus?

 

[Rosenritter]

You're not the politeness police.

Oh, should I have said that in an aggressive offensive manner? How about this then?

"Shut up you bible-corrector wolf among the sheep you, bobber-of-the-head, mealy-mouth, pansy-waisted heretic, learn to rightly divide the word of truth. Shut up, go home, get saved."

Does that fit in more with the style that you approve of? Or would that be inappropriate?

 

[Rosenritter]

Did you read my post I alluded to in my last post to you? How can you asked me If I arguing "bodies being raised out of the ground" over them "coming to life" when the verse only mentions them "raising out of the ground" and NOT c"coming to life", it should be simple conclude which of the those two things are correct. Do you think its just a coincidence that an earthquake was mention precisely before the dead were raised out of the tombs? And no, it does not mentioned them walking and talking but simply that the bodies "went into the Holy City, where many people saw them", Jerusalem, if you have ever been or seen pictures is a hilly area, so they could have easily have rolled from the tombs into the city.

Don't you think its also weird that if they were in fact resurrected that all other bible account leave out such a feat as its only mentioned in the book of Matthew.

When you start attacking someones character in a debate your clearly on the loosing side and trying to appeal to the "Ad hominem" argument.

No, seriously. You are suggesting that dead bodies were raised up out of the ground, still dead, stayed dead, and then were rolled into the cities, either by gravity or angels or third parties, still dead? And this is a testament of Jesus how?

Matthew 27:52-53 KJV
(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.

Considering that it says that the bodies of the saints which slept arose, the arising is awaking from that sleep. Furthermore, it says that "they went" not that they were carried into the holy city, and it says they "appeared unto many" not that they were shown or paraded before many. Why would anyone take corpses from the graves and carry them into the city anyway?

The only reason I can think of that you would have an interpretation of dead bodies going into the city while still dead is for the purpose of propping up that failing 'Jesus is the first and the last to be raised from the dead ... oops, I mean raised from the dead by God without a prophet nearby" theory. And the only reason you made that theory was in an effort to evade the full force of "I am the first and the last."

... if you have ever been or seen pictures is a hilly area, so they could have easily have rolled from the tombs into the city.

Recognizing when your story has tied itself in knots is not a personal attack, it's a realization that your premise has defeated itself that would be recognized by a rational person. Do you really not see any difficulty in your proposal that dead bodies first rose out of the ground and then went (or ROLLED?) into Jerusalem?

 

[Right Divider]

Are you trying to claim that "My Father" mentioned as God by Jesus is a different God than "Our Father" mentioned as God by Jesus?

You like to try to come off as smart, but then you ask questions like this.

No, not a different God but a different type of RELATIONSHIP.

55 times in the "gospels" Jesus refers to God as MY FATHER and only ONCE does Jesus teach THEM to use the term OUR FATHER.

If you can't understand that there is something different about those, then I can understand why you are so horribly confused about the nature of God with regard to the doctrine of the trinity.

 

[genuineoriginal]

No, not a different God but a different type of RELATIONSHIP.

55 times in the "gospels" Jesus refers to God as MY FATHER and only ONCE does Jesus teach THEM to use the term OUR FATHER.

Jesus singled Himself out as having a special relationship to God beyond what the children of Israel had.
All believers can have that same special relationship with God.

John 1:12 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:​

Romans 8:15 15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.​

I can understand why you are so horribly confused about the nature of God with regard to the doctrine of the trinity.

I am not confused about the nature of God.
I know perfectly well that the Bible never tells us we need to understand the nature of God.
The Bible tell us that we need to understand the will of God, not the nature of God.

 

[Right Divider]

Jesus singled Himself out as having a special relationship to God beyond what the children of Israel had.
All believers can have that same special relationship with God.

John 1:12 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:​

Romans 8:15 15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.​

You falsely equivocate. But that does not surprise me in the slightest.

The "sons of God" are NOT and will never be IDENTICAL to the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON of God.

I am not confused about the nature of God.

Indeed, YOU ARE.

I know perfectly well that the Bible never tells us we need to understand the nature of God.

That must be why God spends so much time in the Bible talking about His nature.

The Bible tell us that we need to understand the will of God, not the nature of God.

And you think that the two can be completely separated? Fascinating.

John is as clear as can possibly be about the nature of the Word made flesh.

• The Word was God (John 1:1 KJV)
• The Word is the Creator of ALL things (John 1:3 KJV)
• The Word was made flesh and dwelt on earth (John 1:14 KJV)

 

[7djengo7]

Remember I'm asking who receives the glory in the ultimate sense.

Again, your jargon, "receives the glory in the ultimate sense", is not only not found in the Bible, but it is nonsensical.

Now, why don't you state exactly what (if anything) you think it is to "give glory", and also, state exactly what (if anything) you think it is to "receive glory"?

 

[7djengo7]

That's a pretty aggressive way to respond to "You raise a good point."

Forgive me. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings.

 

[genuineoriginal]

The "sons of God" are NOT and will never be IDENTICAL to the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON of God.

We will be like Him when He returns and we are transformed.

1 John 3:2 2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.​

 

[Right Divider]

We will be like Him when He returns and we are transformed.

1 John 3:2 2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.​

You will not be God.

 

[genuineoriginal]

That must be why God spends so much time in the Bible talking about His nature.

Where?

 

[genuineoriginal]

You will not be God.

What are you babbling about now?

 

[Right Divider]

Where?

:rotfl:

 

[Right Divider]

What are you babbling about now?

I give you the facts and you stoop to this sort of stupidity.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I give you the facts and you stoop to this sort of stupidity.

You have denied the facts presented by the Bible.
You have not presented any facts.
You have consistently misrepresented both what the Bible says and what I have said.

 

[Right Divider]

You have denied the facts presented by the Bible.
You have not presented any facts.
You have consistently misrepresented both what the Bible says and what I have said.

You are wrong on all counts.

 

[7djengo7]

You literally just agreed with 7s.

The assertion was that Isaiah 64:8 calls Jehovah "THE Father."

You are admitting that it DOES NOT say "THE Father, but rather says "OUR Father."

:dunce: = GenuineOriginal

Superb! Thanks again!

 

[7djengo7]

Are you trying to claim that "The Father" mentioned as God in the New Testament is a different God than "Our Father" mentioned as God (Jehovah) in the Old Testament?


Are you trying to claim that "My Father" mentioned as God by Jesus is a different God than "Our Father" mentioned as God by Jesus?

Obviously, Right Divider is NOT trying to claim, nor claiming, those things. Are you?

 

[Right Divider]

Obviously, Right Divider is NOT trying to claim, nor claiming, those things. Are you?

GO is a spin-doctor, always asking silly questions and always equivocating.

 

[7djengo7]

I know perfectly well that the Bible never tells us we need to understand the nature of God.
The Bible tell us that we need to understand the will of God, not the nature of God.

Then, why do you go about pretending to understand the nature of God? To deny the Trinity is to pretend to understand the nature of God. Why are you such a hypocrite?