civic
Well-known member
yes many people read the bible with presuppositions. For example Jesus is not God. So what they do is every passage that speaks of His Deity they will automatically deny and give a bunch of excuses on why He cannot be God.
Do Trinitarians really know their foundational core doctrines and their impact on their beliefs and others?
- Thread starter APAK
- Start date
DavidTree
Well-known member
2 Timothy 3:16 -
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."
Peterlag
Well-known member
Just a side note on 2 Timothy 3:16. It says all Scripture is given. It does not say all Scripture is written to you.
DavidTree
Well-known member
In addition to "all whom God will call"; Who then, is Scripture given to?
Peterlag
Well-known member
I do not know why we have so many Christians who believe the entire Bible is written directly to them, the Church of God. There is nothing in the Bible to indicate such thinking, and I would like to add nothing could be further from the truth. It's true the Word of God was written for everyone for all time, and it's for our learning because it contains what everyone should know. That does not mean every part of it is addressed to everyone in this time, because the subject matter was written either to the Jews, to the Gentiles, or to the Church of God (1 Corinthians 10:32).
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
I think we all read the Bible with presuppositions, civic.
That's why we should agree on a method to follow. I don't know what method is best.
I could only propose mine, but even in the act of proposing it, I am doing it biased, with presuppositions.
MY SUGGESTED METHOD TO APPROACH SCRIPTURE REGARDING THE TRINITY
First, I would try to get a knowledge of how Jews conceived God, particularly at the time of Jesus. This is because Jesus was a Jew, his disciples were Jews, the crowds were Jews, Pharisees, Saducees and doctors of the Law were Jews, Paul was Jew. The Tanakh they quoted conveyed the Jewish concept of God. Since Christianism was not considered at first an independent religion, but a sect of Judaism, something as essential as the concept of God should not be radically different.
Second, I would be to give priority to passages where it is Jesus who speaks about Himself and His Father... even more if we can peer into an intimate conversation between Jesus and His Father. So, the gospels would be the first thing to read, and then I would try to interpret apostolic letters and speeches in the light of the gospels.
Third, I would examine with special interest verses in which God and Jesus or God and the Holy Spirit are presented by a third party next to each other, preferably within the same sentence, so that any shared identity or any separation is more evident.
Fourth, I would look at the number of verses/sentences above where one position or the opposite is presented. If the position A is presented, say, 80% of the time, and B is presented 20% of the time, I would go for A.
Fifth, if the steps above do not solve the question, I would apply the Occham's razor: Which of the two explanations is the simplest?
Finally, I would apply a kind of "spiritual Occham's razor". A question like Which of the two explanations helps me more to love God and my neighbor?
Last edited:
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
I tend to think that the Holy Spirit acts on both sides: the side of the author and the side of the reader.
Luke didn't have in mind Pancho Frijoles when he wrote his gospel. But he had in mind people like me, interested in what Jesus said and did.
It is my task to read carefully, to pray, and to extract from his gospel what I need for my life.
The Holy Spirit worked on Luke's side as it works on my side, 2000 years later.
It is a combination of the two things.
Peterlag
Well-known member
We will never understand the truth of God’s Word if we neglect to rightly divide the subject matter. As far as we are concerned in this Grace administration, what happened to Israel in the Old Testament was written for our learning. If we do not rightly divide to whom it's addressed—the Jew, Gentile, or the Church of God, we will use one truth to contradict another truth, and we will use what is true for one group in contrast to what is also true for another group.
These different administrations are suited to different times because God has spoken everything to its proper time and administration. We will never understand the truth of God’s Word if we read into one administration what God tells us belongs to another administration. If we believe what God said in one administration and carry it into another administration that was on a different principle, we will be taking what is true for one time, and using it to contradict what is also true for another time. When we mix them all together, by jumbling the whole Bible together: Law, Gospel, Grace, Judgment, Glory, Jew, Gentile, and the Church of God, we will be very confused in our understanding of the truth of God’s Word.
What is written directly to the Jews, belongs to and is for the Jews. What is written directly to the Gentiles, belongs to and is for the Gentiles. What is written directly to the Church of God, belongs to and is for the Church of God. What does God mean when He tells us that the visions shown to Isaiah was concerning Judah and Jerusalem? It was not addressed to us or written concerning us, but it was addressed to and concerning Judah and Jerusalem. It would be dishonest for the Church of God to interpret to the Church of God what God said concerns Israel.
The present administration of God is in the time period of the New Testament known as Grace. It deals with the new covenant, and it belongs to the time that is called the administration of the mystery. It's a period in time that was not made known to any one prior to this administration because God kept it a secret since the world began. From this our Grace administration, we learn God’s secret purpose that He had placed in Himself, according to the administration of Grace, which was first revealed to the apostle Paul.
civic
Well-known member
The reality is if you know nothing about religion, God, Christianity and read the bible as if what your first time you would come to the conclusion that Jesus was claiming to be God and He was called God by His followers and worshipped and prayed to as God.
DavidTree
Well-known member
It is time for you to submit to the LORD in faith and allow His Goodness and Mercy to grant you faith unto Salvation.
It is no longer about us pleasing ourselves - Romans 15:3-6
"For even Christ did not please Himself; but as it is written, “The reproaches of those who reproached You fell on Me.”
For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.
Now may the God of patience and comfort grant you to be like-minded toward one another, according to Christ Jesus, that you may with one mind and one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
So your approach is to neglect some scriptures so you can use other passages to deny the passages you neglect. That is convenient for your position since you want to deny the testimony of the deity of Christ. I'm not sure how that helps the Christians or anyone else for that matter.
DavidTree
Well-known member
@Pancho Frijoles @civic
Why don't you follow the PROVEN method that has NEVER changed throughout Time = Proverbs 30:5-6 , Luke 6:46 , Revelation 22:18
Every word of God is pure;
He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.
Do not add to His words,
Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.
“But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do the things which I say? 47Whoever comes to Me, and hears My sayings and does them, I will show you whom he is like: 48He is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid the foundation on the rock. And when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently against that house, and could not shake it, for it was founded on the rock. 49But he who heard and did nothing is like a man who built a house on the earth without a foundation, against which the stream beat vehemently; and immediately it fell. And the ruin of that house was great.”
For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Peterlag
Well-known member
The Jews would not have considered Jesus a threat, but insane if he had walked around saying he was God. But it was a threat for Jesus to claim to be the Messiah of God and also walk around doing miracles. Jesus had not been claiming to be God in the flesh and this is why the Jews never asked him at his trial if he was God in the flesh, but instead they asked him about what he had been claiming to be, which was the Messiah. Mark 14:61-62 records the High Priest asking “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" And Jesus said "I am.” The High Priest tore his garments and said he deserved to be put to death when Jesus stated he was the Messiah. So we see that the Jews correctly assessed that Jesus had been claiming to be the Christ, and that Jesus indeed said he was the Christ, and also that the Jews thought his claim was worthy of the death penalty.
The supposed “dual nature” of Christ is never stated in the Bible and contradicts the Bible and the laws of nature that God set up. Nothing can be 100% of two different things. Jesus cannot be 100% God and 100% man, and that is not a “mystery” but it's a contradiction and a talk of nonsense. A fatal flaw in the “dual nature” theory is that both natures in Jesus would have had to have known about each other. The Jesus God nature would have known about his human nature, and (according to what the Trinitarians teach) his human nature knew he was God, which explains why Trinitarians say Jesus taught that he was God. The book of Hebrews is wrong when it says Jesus was “made like his brothers in every respect” if Jesus knew he was God (Hebrews 2:17). Jesus was not made like other humans in every way if Jesus was 100% God and 100% human at the same time. In fact, he would have been very different from other humans in many respects.
The supposed “dual nature” of Christ is never stated in the Bible and contradicts the Bible and the laws of nature that God set up. Nothing can be 100% of two different things. Jesus cannot be 100% God and 100% man, and that is not a “mystery” but it's a contradiction and a talk of nonsense. A fatal flaw in the “dual nature” theory is that both natures in Jesus would have had to have known about each other. The Jesus God nature would have known about his human nature, and (according to what the Trinitarians teach) his human nature knew he was God, which explains why Trinitarians say Jesus taught that he was God. The book of Hebrews is wrong when it says Jesus was “made like his brothers in every respect” if Jesus knew he was God (Hebrews 2:17). Jesus was not made like other humans in every way if Jesus was 100% God and 100% human at the same time. In fact, he would have been very different from other humans in many respects.
uh huh. And where do Jewish writers speak of a death penalty for anyone calling themselves a messiah?
Now Peterlag has duplicated this same text and it still makes no sense.
Funny how Peterlag goes on to demonstrate again how he fails to be able to conceive how God could be able to have divinity in the Son joined with humanity/creation in Christ Jesus. Peterlag also is somewhat wrong to say Jesus taught that he was God. If Jesus taught this, he would be quoted as saying "I am God who has come to you in the flesh." If Jesus taught so directly, he would have been so clearly being heard that way that people would have killed him for blasphemy. Instead he spoke with the "I am" wording such as "before Abraham was, I am." He also said "if you have seen me you have seen the Father." These of course contribute to pointing out the divinity of Christ as being the most apparent concept behind his words.
Peterlag
Well-known member
Some thoughts on Thomas because he keeps being mentioned...
We have to remember that Thomas’ statement occurred in a moment of surprise and even perhaps shock. Thomas saw that what Jesus had said was true. The Father had worked in Jesus and raised him from the dead. Thomas, looking at the living Jesus, saw both Jesus and the God who raised him from the dead. It is also important to know that the early manuscripts of the Bible were written in all capital letters. That means that technically, both Elohim in Hebrew and Theos in Greek should always be translated “GOD,” in all capital letters. Since the biblical languages used the word “GOD” to refer to God, lesser divinities such as the Devil, angels, and demons, and also to rulers, judges, and people who represented God in some way, Bible readers are forced to use the context and scope of Scripture to determine whether the modern English translation should be “God,” “god,” or “gods."
We have to remember that Thomas’ statement occurred in a moment of surprise and even perhaps shock. Thomas saw that what Jesus had said was true. The Father had worked in Jesus and raised him from the dead. Thomas, looking at the living Jesus, saw both Jesus and the God who raised him from the dead. It is also important to know that the early manuscripts of the Bible were written in all capital letters. That means that technically, both Elohim in Hebrew and Theos in Greek should always be translated “GOD,” in all capital letters. Since the biblical languages used the word “GOD” to refer to God, lesser divinities such as the Devil, angels, and demons, and also to rulers, judges, and people who represented God in some way, Bible readers are forced to use the context and scope of Scripture to determine whether the modern English translation should be “God,” “god,” or “gods."
duh. He was doubtful about it until he saw Christ raised from the dead. Otherwise, resurrection was not a common thing that people saw.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
No. My approach is the one depicted in the post.
Not the one you are making up.
So please, read my post again and, if in doubt, ask me.
The problem is that your religion seeks to gain a stronghold by denying the essence of Christ and God found in the scriptures. We cannot deny the 20% of scripture (using your numbers) that speak of the deity of Christ in the Godhead just to accommodate your denial of the truth of God.
You are not coming up with sufficient basis to reasonably reject the evidence of Christ's deity nor are you coming here on a benevolent basis of seeking out the truth. Your interest is in denigrating the true nature of Christ.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
It is 5% or a bit less, not 20%.
Are you willing to deny the 95% just to accomodate the denial of your pastors of the truth of God?
