FreeInChrist
Active Member
When you are standng in front of God at judgement and He asked you why you denied His Son was God....
What are you going to say?
The Trinity and the Incarnation
- Thread starter Rory Wilson
- Start date
When you are standng in front of God at judgement and He asked you why you denied His Son was God....
What are you going to say?
amazing grace
Active Member
He didn't have to --- there are plenty of scriptures that say the Father is God....God the Father.
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ......that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.......Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.......yet for us there is one God, the Father, .......Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ......Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort,.........The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, he who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying........Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—........Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ,.......who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, ....etc., etc.
charismaticlady
Active Member
Melchizedek was not human. He was a theophany of Jesus. In other words, the preexistent substance of the Word, which became Jesus, was seen in the Old Testament. He was also the Angel of the Lord. That is the only "angel" that allowed Himself to be worshipped. No created angel allowed themselves to be worshipped. Jesus was also the burning bush. The I Am. And was who Moses saw on Mt. Sinai. Only God allows worship. Therefore, Jesus is God. It's just a fact that someone must be taught not to believe.
amazing grace
Active Member
I don't think He will ask me that because His Son is not Him. Jesus, the Son of God, the Lamb of God will be right there with him.
charismaticlady
Active Member
This is all I found. Exodus 3
14 And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” 15 Moreover God said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: ‘The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations.’
This the name Jesus called Himself.
cc: @amazing grace
civic
Active Member
amazing grace
Active Member
Look unis are told all the time that they have to believe Jesus is God for salvation but yet no scripture claims that so out of approximately 31,102 scripture - I would like ONE scripture that says God is Triune.Jesus didn’t have to either
Next fallacy
I would like ONE scripture that actually says we must believe Jesus is God.
I want ONE scripture that actually says one must believe I that God is three persons YET ONE GOD.
I would like ONE scripture that actually says Jesus is God because if it's that important of a doctrine it should be plainly and clearly taught by SOMEONE.
I would like ONE scripture that calls Jesus God the Son.
I would like ONE scripture that says Jesus is a god-man, or 100%God 100%man.
I'm pretty sure God would have set in his word the way in which humanity should be saved and I believe he did.
Thanks.
amazing grace
Active Member
No that is NOT God's NAME - no one is named 'I Am' . . . He name is Yahweh - in scripture it is distinguished by being in all caps LORD and that is his name forever to all generations. The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob is Yahweh, the LORD God Almighty. And he is the Father . . . Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us? Why then are we faithless to one another, profaning the covenant of our fathers? Malachi 2:10
I am is a statement of self identification . . . a very common statement of self identification.
Peterlag
Active Member
May I add ...
If there is a trinity then why not just come out and say it? Why do we have to jump all over the Bible cutting and pasting pieces of words that are scattered all over the Bible? Why not just teach it? I know enough about how the Bible is written in the New Testament and in the Gospels to know if there was a trinity it would have been taught. The Gospels would have clearly said...
Verily, verily I say unto you that I am Jesus and I'm also God.
The Epistles would have writings like...
Yay, I Paul do testify that Jesus who is God came down from heaven to be a man for us. And we do know and testify that this same Jesus who you crucified is God. And so let us bow our knee to the one and only true God-Man Jesus Christ.
And yet there's nothing like that anywhere. Not in the Old or New Testament. Not even one complete verse like that.
P.S. Im going to post what you wrote above elsewhere. Thanks.
civic
Active Member
Not one scripture says I have to believe " the Father is God" to be saved.
next fallacy
Runningman
Active Member
I am going to have to put you on pause.
First of all, if Melchizedek was a theophany of Jesus then Hebrews 7 would not say: "without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually."
A theophany would be an audible or visible manifestation of God appearing. Hebrews 7:3 says Mel is "like" Jesus on the point of having an eternal priest because of Mel's absence of a genealogical record. Playing on a technicality, if Mel doesn't have a record of his birth or death then, wow, he must be alive forever, but not literally. Mel is also said to be a real person who Abraham interacted with in Genesis 14.
Secondly, there is no mention or reason why Jesus would be the angel of the Lord unless you are attempting to make the argument that Jesus is not God. If that's what you are trying to do then I agree, but pre-existing as a messenger of God doesn't help your case either.
Sorry, everything you are saying is just your belief and opinion, not something the Bible is explicit about.
amazing grace
Active Member
Yea, why keep something so important as a means for our salvation hidden, secret, mysterious! It seems sort of cruel.
Peterlag
Active Member
IF JESUS IS GOD. THEN WHY DOES HE BECOME "HIGHLY EXALTED" by GOD?
9 Therefore God also has 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 on earth and under the earth,
11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
IF JESUS IS GOD, WHY DOES HE BECOME "HIGHLY EXALTED" by GOD?
Does it mean God needs to be re-exalted?
One God exalts another God, yet remains as a human mediator between God and man, while calling GOD "MY GOD"?
How can a once "exalted" 2nd God-person of the trinity be a pre-existing and PRE-EXALTED God, only to be incarnated, raised by God-person #1, and become re-exalted?
Sorry, but the delusional trinity and oneness doctrines are frauds.
And if he is God, why does "God" have to "give him a name"? God said that His name is the same "to all generations". So why, generations later, does He have to give "himself" a new name?
9 Therefore God also has 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 on earth and under the earth,
11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
IF JESUS IS GOD, WHY DOES HE BECOME "HIGHLY EXALTED" by GOD?
Does it mean God needs to be re-exalted?
One God exalts another God, yet remains as a human mediator between God and man, while calling GOD "MY GOD"?
How can a once "exalted" 2nd God-person of the trinity be a pre-existing and PRE-EXALTED God, only to be incarnated, raised by God-person #1, and become re-exalted?
Sorry, but the delusional trinity and oneness doctrines are frauds.
And if he is God, why does "God" have to "give him a name"? God said that His name is the same "to all generations". So why, generations later, does He have to give "himself" a new name?
really? You want God to disregard him? Not sure what your goal is in posting here.
The dominant evangelistic message is the testimony of Jesus as Messiah that walked among them. It does not decrease the significance of Jesus walking among them and known in that fashion just because he is God incarnate. And maybe you do not even know that John 1 uses Logos because there was no name until his incarnation. I'm sorry you are so confused by scripture.
charismaticlady
Active Member
Yes, Abraham met him and gave Him a tithe.
Peterlag
Active Member
The following comments are what came back when I posted this data on the Internet...
I find Trinitarians either stupid or dishonest. Which is it...
Take for example John 8:58...Jesus said "ego eimi" .... God didn't. The Greek word in Exodus 3:14 is not the same word Jesus used in John 8:58. Jesus said “ego eimi” in John 8:58. Not “ego eimi ho eimi” which means "I am the One who is" as Exodus 3:14 is written in the Septuagint. The two statements are very different. The Greek phrase in John does mean "I am" which was a common phrase in the New Testament and isn't the name of anyone. The disciples were trying to find out who would deny the Christ at the last supper. They said literally "Not I am, Lord" Matthew 26:22, 25. No one would say the disciples were trying to deny they were God because they were using the phrase "Not I am." The word "I am" was a common way of designating oneself and it did not mean you were claiming to be God. In order for the Trinitarian argument that Jesus' "I am" statement in John 8:58 makes him God, his statement must be equivalent with God's "I am" statement in Exodus 3:14. And it is not. The argument is made that because Jesus was "before" Abraham that Jesus must be God. Jesus figuratively existed in Abraham's time. He did not actually physically exist as a person, but rather he existed in the mind of God as God's plan for the redemption of man.
1.) Cognitive bias, reinforced by fear. A good 100 arguments against the trinity don't amount to anything while they are clinging to the tradition that frames their worldview. They have been taught to fear the loss of the Trinity as if it would rip the very soul out of their body. The church has built their salvation and its own reputation upon this foundation. They need to see that the alternative to the trinity isn't oblivion but true hope, and individual freedom to understand.
2.) Maybe both! LOL I think a lot of them don't know any better because they don't want to know better. They don't care if they have the truth. Many of them are brainwashed. Too lazy to study God's word. They also fear believing the truth because they are going to lose their friends, church and family. There is persecution involved and they can't handle that.
3.) I think the Trinitarians are grasping at straws. They hear the words Father Son and Holy Spirit and say there's proof of the Trinity!
4.) I find that they are a little of both.
5.) The biblical term would be a "fool". Also Peter makes it perfectly clear that they are untaught and unstable - ie - uneducated and lacking in reason. Paul states clearly that they preach a false gospel.
6.) Maybe not stupid or dishonest. Maybe conditioned / groomed / brainwashed. I feel sorry for them, and often think about how to get them to see the truth.
7.) Sometimes I feel sorry for them too. However, it makes me angry to see people teaching the trinity. They are pumping it down people's throats like never before. There are far more lies concerning the trinity than I have ever seen before. They come up with new lies all the time. While we are seeing more and more truths that Jesus is not God, the devil is coming up with more lies.
8.) Only through prayer may they gain understanding of what got lost through translations and removal. That removal helped propagate the man-made doctrine of the trinity.
9.) They are not stupid, I assure you, but very dishonest!
10.) I think it could be either, but there is a third option: spiritual blindness.
Last edited:
You might have a point if there was just one verse here or there that pointed to Jesus' divinity. But much of scripture undeniably points to it.
It obviously means he exists before Abraham. It hardly is saying Abraham existed before Jesus.
That is a horrible theory. It is whitewashing over scripture.
Let's say there is no trinity theory. The deity of Christ still remains blatant and cannot reasonably be denied. But still some people try to deny it.
amazing grace
Active Member
civic
Active Member
Then don't demand of the Son what you don't demand of the Father.
amazing grace
Active Member
Jesus had a beginning - he was conceived in the womb of Mary. He had an end - He died on the cross and was dead, in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights BUT God raised him from the dead giving him eternal life and Jesus became a life- giving spirit.
Melchizedek actually had a mother and a father. He was a real human being, a real king of Salem.
'having neither beginning of days nor end of life' is in reference to his priesthood, i.e. his priestly genealogy did not come from the tribe of Levi. All priests were chosen from the line of Aaron, the tribe of Levi, you know, the Levitical Priesthood. Melchizedek did not derive his priesthood from the Levites but was chosen by God (a priest of God Most High) just as Jesus did not derive his priesthood from the Levites but was chosen by God. Melchizedek had an earthly genealogy as did Jesus but their priesthood was not bound by earthly lineage.
Melchizedek was a 'type' of Christ, a foreshadowing of Christ. Hebrews 7:3 states that he is "without father, without mother, without genealogy," a description used to show that Jesus's priesthood is eternal and not bound by earthly lineage.
For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. [Hebrews 5:1]
No, Jesus was not the Angel of the LORD - an actual angel was the Angel of the LORD. Jesus wasn't the 'burning bush' either . . . Jesus is not God. To arrive at that conclusion from what is not WRITTEN is to read into scripture.
Similar threads
- Poll
