Wrangler
Well-known member
Untrue. I believe Jesus is the Son of God as the Bible explicitly says. I don't believe the trinitarian exegesis of the NT.
See the OP.
Easily Dispelling The Trinity
- Thread starter Wrangler
- Start date
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
You rejected Paul's appeal to the humility of Divinity in Christ. I don't believe you.
No. Because they didn't.
Jesus was born as a man. A Descendent of Adam. That is why He is referenced as the Second Adam. He JOINED His people and destroyed the barrier that existed between Jew and Gentiles and of "twain" made one new man. God can do anything. You seem to believe the God is too weak to share Unity in the Three. Your view of God is rather weak.
No. Because Adam wasn't a Jew. Jesus came to save humanity. Not just Jews.
Wrangler
Well-known member
Thank you. I never even heard of Oneness until someone mentioned it in another thread.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
He certainly made a statement that would come from a Oneness position.
Wrangler
Well-known member
LOL. I believe what Paul wrote - not your trinitarian take on it.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
You need to be more exacting. I said exactly what Paul wrote and you rejected it. Either you don't know what he said or you made a mistake.
Wrangler
Well-known member
Listen, Israel: Yahweh is our Elohim. Yahweh is the only God.
Deuteronomy 6:4YHWH is the only God. This is so simple, you cannot get your mind around it because trinitarian idolatry has twisted your thinking. Why can't you accept the Sh'ma? The veracity of the most important law according to Jesus?
Wrangler
Well-known member
I am more exact than anyone you have ever encountered. You just reject the exact statement I've made and want to pretend they require paragraphs of commentary. Jesus is not God. Pretty exact.
Wrangler
Well-known member
I try not to avoid bad and false doctrine.Which shows you have much to learn young padawan.
You sure about that?
Being in the form of God (ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων)
Being. Not the simple είναι to be, but stronger, denoting being which is from the beginning.
See on Jas_2:15. It has a backward look into an antecedent condition, which has been protracted into the present.
Here appropriate to the preincarnate being of Christ, to which the sentence refers. In itself it does not imply eternal, but only prior existence.
Form (μορφή). We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape.
The word is used in its philosophic sense, to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character. Thus it is distinguished from σχῆμα fashion, comprising that which appeals to the senses and which is changeable.
Μορφή form is identified with the essence of a person or thing: σχῆμα fashion is an accident which may change without affecting the form. For the manner in which this difference is developed in the kindred verbs, see on Mat_17:2.
As applied here to God, the word is intended to describe that mode in which the essential being of God expresses itself. We have no word which can convey this meaning, nor is it possible for us to formulate the reality. Form inevitably carries with it to us the idea of shape. It is conceivable that the essential personality of God may express itself in a mode apprehensible by the perception of pure spiritual intelligences; but the mode itself is neither apprehensible nor conceivable by human minds.
This mode of expression, this setting of the divine essence, is not identical with the essence itself, but is identified with it, as its natural and appropriate expression, answering to it in every particular.
It is the perfect expression of a perfect essence. It is not something imposed from without, but something which proceeds from the very depth of the perfect being, and into which that being perfectly unfolds, as light from fire.
To say, then, that Christ was in the form of God, is to say that He existed as essentially one with God. The expression of deity through human nature (Php_2:7) thus has its background in the expression of deity as deity in the eternal ages of God's being.
Whatever the mode of this expression, it marked the being of Christ in the eternity before creation.
As the form of God was identified with the being of God, so Christ, being in the form of God, was identified with the being, nature, and personality of God.
This form, not being identical with the divine essence, but dependent upon it, and necessarily implying it, can be parted with or laid aside.
Since Christ is one with God, and therefore pure being, absolute existence, He can exist without the form. This form of God Christ laid aside in His incarnation.
Thought it not robbery to be equal with God (οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ)
Robbery is explained in three ways. 1. A robbing, the act. 2. The thing robbed, a piece of plunder. 3. A prize, a thing to be grasped. Here in the last sense.
Paul does not then say, as A.V., that Christ did not think it robbery to be equal with God: for, 1, that fact goes without. saying in the previous expression, being in the form of God. 2. On this explanation the statement is very awkward. Christ, being in the form of God, did not think it robbery to be equal with God; but, after which we should naturally expect, on the other hand, claimed and asserted equality: whereas the statement is: Christ was in the form of God and did not think it robbery to be equal with God, but (instead) emptied Himself. Christ held fast His assertion of divine dignity, but relinquished it. The antithesis is thus entirely destroyed.
Taking the word ἁρπαγμὸν (A.V., robbery) to mean a highly prized possession, we understand Paul to say that Christ, being, before His incarnation, in the form of God, did not regard His divine equality as a prize which was to be grasped at and retained at all hazards, but, on the contrary, laid aside the form of God, and took upon Himself the nature of man. The emphasis in the passage is upon Christ's humiliation. The fact of His equality with God is stated as a background, in order to throw the circumstances of His incarnation into stronger relief. Hence the peculiar form of Paul's statement Christ's great object was to identify Himself with humanity; not to appear to men as divine but as human. Had He come into the world emphasizing His equality with God, the world would have been amazed, but not saved He did not grasp at this. The rather He counted humanity His prize, and so laid aside the conditions of His preexistent state, and became man.
MV.
Johann.
Wrangler
Well-known member
Yes. And I don't need 10 paragraphs to explain it. The reason the Holy Spirit of God had to come to Jesus (at his baptism) is because Jesus is not God.
Now, I don't want to derail this thread but another thread topic related would be the difference between divine and deity. Scripture only states that Jesus is OF God, i.e., divine. Not once does Scripture say Jesus is a deity. Not once! The reason is simple. Jesus is not God. Naturally, trinitarians cannot admit this.
I know you want to copy and paste dozens of verses that you like to read your doctrine into, inferring what you want out of it. Fact is, Scripture comes right out and says YHWH is not only God, he is the only God. There simply is no trinity verse in 66 books! That is how important it is. Jesus did not teach the trinity. Why do you?
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
I try not to avoid bad and false doctrine.
Can we shift gears for a moment?
Can I ask you how do you expect the God to treat you since God has so highly exalted the "Son".... Yet you so openly try to diminish Him? You may not realize this but you're basically discrediting Christ.
So what is your message to humanity? Keep the law and please God?
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Not really. As referenced....
Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
Joh 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Joh 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
Joh 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
Joh 10:38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
You say Jesus isn't God. Yet Jesus chided those that treat Him like you're treating Him for saying the same.
What works do you do that match of excede what Christ did? Please read these verses a few times before you answer.
Wrangler
Well-known member
Total and complete nonsense. Because your argument is so weak, trinitarians must resort to shaming and guilting language.
The 1C does not say to do what you advocate. YHWH gave Jesus all authority in heaven and Earth, is the Anointed One, the liberating king, the son of God, etc. He is exalted above all - except YHWH. To categorize all this as putting him done shows how twisted trinitarianism is.
Wrangler
Well-known member
Was there an exact question there or are you holding me to a different standard than you hold yourself?
Yes. That's exact.
No, that's not true. My Bible heading for that section of John 10 is that Jesus claimed to be the son of God. He brilliantly invoked one of my favorite Psalms, Ps 82. Before I continue, what do you make of verse 6
I say, ‘You are gods;
you are all children of the Most High.
This is one of the most profound verses in a monotheist text. I'll start a new thread and expand on it when I get a chance later today.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
I never believed you were ashamed. I'm asking you a logical question. Are you not saying that Jesus Christ is less than what Trinitarians say He is?
That is a logical question.
So just how long have you gone without actually saying these words? Do you expect someone to believe you actually believe this when you've spent so much time saying Christ is less?
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Go for it. I will answer there.
Does it really matter what the heading of your bible says? Are you still following the summaries of others?
Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."
This verse points out the inescapable fact that the Messiah is God Almighty appearing in human form.
That this passage was considered Messianic is evident from the fact that verse7 says that the Child would sit on the throne of David forever, a description which only fits the Messiah.
In the Targum of Isaiah we read: "His name has been called from old, Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, He who lives forever, the Anointed One (Messiah), in whose days peace shall increase upon us."
Pereq Shalom: R. Yose the Galilean said: "The name of the Messiah is Peace, for it is said , "Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."
Midrash Mishle,
S. Buber edition: The Messiah is called by eight names : Yinnon, Tzemah, Pele ["Miracle"], Yo'etz ["Counselor"], Mashiah ["Messiah"], El ["God"], Gibbor ["Hero"], and Avi 'Ad Shalom ["Eternal Father of Peace"]
Whoever this Child is one thing remains certain - This Child must shine forth from Galilee according to Isaiah 9:1:
'Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress. In the past He humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali but in the future He will honor Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea along the Jordan...'
NOTE: In an attempt to avoid the impact of this passage's significance to the divinity of the Messiah, certain Jewish Publications have translated it in a way as to suggest that the divine titles are not messianic in nature. Rather, they are descriptions of God:
For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us, and the dominion will rest on his shoulder; the Wondrous Adviser, Mighty God, eternal Father, called his name Sar-shalom [Prince of peace]. (This appears as Isaiah 9:5 in the Stone Edition Tanakh, Arts Scroll Series, published by Mesorah Publications Ltd.; Brooklyn, NY, 1998)
The great rabbi Ibn Ezra responds: There are some interpreters who say that 'wonderful, counselor, mighty God, everlasting Father' are the names of God, and that only 'prince of peace' is the name of the child.
But according to my view, the right interpretation is that they are all the names of the child . (Walter Riggans, Yeshua Ben David [Wowborough, East Sussex; MARC, 1995], p. 370)
Jeremiah 23:5-6 'The days are coming,' declares the Lord, 'When I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a king who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land. In His days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety.
This is the name by which He will be called; The Lord our Righteousness (YHVH Tseidkeynu) .' The Targums concluded that this passage was speaking of Messiah.
For instance, the great Rabbi David Kimchi wrote in reference to this verse, ' By the righteous Branch is meant Messiah .' The compilers of the Targum agreed with Kimchi since they introduced Messiah by name in this passage. (David Baron, Rays of Messiah's Glory: Christ in the Old Testament [Grand Rapids, MI; Zondervan, 1886], p. 78)
Hebrew scholar Alfred Edersheim quotes other Rabbinic writings in reference to this passage:
On Jer. xxiii, 5, 6 the Targum has it: 'And I will raise up for David the Messiah the just.'
This is one of the passages from which, according to Rabbinic views, one of the names of the Messiah is derived, viz.: Jehovah our Righteousness. So in the Talmud (Babha Bathra 75b), in the Midrash on Ps. xxii.1, Prov.xix.21, and in that on Lamentations I 16. (Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah [Grand Rapids, MI; Eerdmans, 1972], pt. 2, p. 731).
Hence, we find the Hebrew Scriptures testifying to the fact that Messiah would be the Lord Himself. (Hebrew YHVH / Adonai)
You sit with a problem @Wrangler but I am not going to impose, coerce-or convince you.
Shalom
Besides-you don't read.
J.
It was always by the Holy Spirit that Jesus did miracles. As I said before, it was His divine powers, not His Divinity, that He temporarily set aside on Earth.
I agree, which is what I'm saying also.
