The Trinity The Touchstone of Truth

[synergy]

This is what most likely happened.
I said "a disciple of Peter" in my post. I beg you to read my posts more carefully.

Such disciple would be very well educated or skillful in highly literary Greek, and chose the terms he could, on the basis of the linguistic menu Greek had to offer. If Greek lacked a word to represent the concept of One Personal God, it is not the fault of anyone.

My point is that Peter, the apostle, thought of God in Aramaic and Hebrew, like his Master, Jesus Christ.
Peter believed, like the rest of Jews, in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as One Personal God, who was not Jesus Christ, as attested in the Book of Acts 3:13.

"The God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His Son Jesus, whom you handed over and denied in the presence of Pilate..."

Peter obviously thought in Greek also since his Epistle was written in Greek. You're dangerously close to scolding Peter for allowing his Epistle to be written in Greek.

 

[synergy]

Do you seriously think I am saying that?
I beg you to read my posts more carefully.

Why do you think that I am "up against the fact that Greek was the Lingua Franca of the Eastern Mediterranean"?
I beg you to read my posts more carefully.

I glad to see that you have nothing against Greek being used and that nothing was lost in its usage.

 

[synergy]

If the Biblical authors had written in Chinese for the Chinese audience of their time, they would have referred to Tian (heavens) to mean God.
And then, someone Chinese man like you would be claiming that God and heavens are synonyms.

It is an error to try to extract theological meanings from the Greek of the New Testament ignoring the Hebraic Scriptures, Jewish theology and Jewish context.

Jesus Christ did not come to teach a new religion, a new gospel or a new God.... and for sure, Peter did not announce a new triune God, but the same God of their ancestors.

"The God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His Son Jesus, whom you handed over and denied in the presence of Pilate..." (Acts 3:13)

It was the Alexandrian Jews themselves who translated the Hebrew OT to Greek. For example, they were the ones who assigned the name of Kurios to the OT God in the Septuagint (LXX). They took it upon themselves to lose nothing in the translation. They ignored nothing in the Hebrew as they were the Hebrew Experts. Now if you want to file a complaint against them (their descendants), I'm sure there's an Alexandrian Synagogue you can mail your complaint to. I would highly advise against it because it was the Greek OT that the Apostles overwhelming quoted from, thus proving its authenticity.

 

[synergy]

Dear @Grace ambassador and synergy

John 8:58 does not point to the deity of Christ. I will show you why in three arguments.

1. The passage is not about the deity of Christ, but about the preeminence of the Word of Christ, against any arrogant claims based on lineage.
2. Throughout this passage Jesus insists over and over that He is a person sent by God... not God!
3. The "I am" of this passage has nothing to do with the "I am who I am" of Exodus, which is a Name of the Father of Jesus, and not of Jesus, as attested by Peter in Acts 3:13.

Let's start with the first argument. This is what happened in 10 "give-and-takes" between Jesus and his enemies.

1. The enemies of Christ were boasting about Abrahamic lineage. "They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s seed and have never been in bondage to anyone." (John 8:33) "Abraham is our father" (8:39)

2. Christ told them that they were not authentic Abraham's lineage, because of their evil works. "If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham. But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. Abraham did not do this." (8:39,40)

3. The enemies go one step further. They boast about being not just children of Abraham, but children of God Himself. They make this declaration mocking Jesus as a probable bastard: Then they said to Him, “We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father: God.” (8:41)

4. Jesus replies in even stronger terms. His enemies are not children of God, but children of the devil... again, due to their evil works. “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I came from God and proceeded into the world. I did not come of My own authority, but He sent Me... You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father.... you are not of God.” (v 42-27, extracts)

5. The enemies do not give up and accuse Jesus of being possessed by a demon “Do we not rightly say that You are a Samaritan and have a demon?” (v. 48)

6. Jesus replies that He has not a demon and that He didn't come to seek glory for Himself, but for the Father. “I do not have a demon. But I honor My Father, and you dishonor Me. I do not seek glory for Myself. There is One who seeks it and judges." (v 49.50) and very importanty, Jesus tells them about how to avoid spiritual death: "Truly, truly I say to you, if anyone keeps My word, he shall never see death.” (v 51)

7. Finally, Jesus' enemies find a perfect occasion to accuse them of blasphemy: Jesus was pretending to be greater than their father Abraham, because while Abraham had died (physically), and Jesus was promising to free persons from (physical) death. “Now we know that You have a demon. Abraham and the prophets died, and You say, ‘If a man keeps My word, he shall never taste death.’ “Are You greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets are dead! Who do You make Yourself out to be?” (v 52.53)

8. Jesus explains that He is not pretending to be greater than Abraham by His own merits, but by the merits of God who have sent Him: “If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing. It is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom you say that He is your God... (v.54). Jesus also says that Abraham had seen Jesus coming: Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day. He saw it and was glad.” (v. 56)

9. Jesus enemies can't explain how Jesus can say that Abraham had saw Jesus, since Jesus was so young. “You are not yet fifty years old. Have You seen Abraham?” (v.57) Again, Jews could not understand that Jesus was talking spiritually, figuratively, about his Word conferring eternal life and about Abraham seeing Jesus.

10. Then comes the punch line, in which Jesus destroys any preeminence based on genetic linage and teaches the preeminece of His Word: Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." (v.58)

Jesus had not claimed to be the God of Israel. Jesus had claimed to be the Messiah, the Word of God, which, if followed, if practiced, is preexistent and preeminent over a genetic lineage from Abraham. The Gospel, according to Revelation 14:6, is eternal and is the same across history for all mankind, Jews and Gentiles alike.

Unfortunately, your item 9 fails and so does item 10. Nobody says my words saw you. You can say my words greeted you or spoke to you. Maybe you can say my words saw you in Mexican/Spanish but not in English or Greek. Thus God's Word has eyes which points to a Person, the Uncreated Word of God. Item 10 goes on to totally annihilate your already dead argument. Jesus makes it personal through the pronoun "I", points to the OT God "I Am", and declares "I" (Himself) as existing before Abraham. WOW!!!!

With your first argument disintegrated, all your other arguments collapse like a deck of cards.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

I glad to see that you have nothing against Greek being used and that nothing was lost in its usage.

I have nothing against Greek or any other language being used.
I did not say that nothing was lost in its usage. A lot of things can be lost in any translation to any language.
So, I beg you to read my posts carefully.

 

[synergy]

I have nothing against Greek or any other language being used.
I did not say that nothing was lost in its usage. A lot of things can be lost in any translation to any language.
So, I beg you to read my posts carefully.

I'm sure that the Alexandrian Jews took great care on translating the word of God with their extensive knowledge of Hebrew and Hebrew religious customs. They were Hebrew Experts. I'm sure you're nowhere close to their knowledge of Hebrew and Greek.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Unfortunately, your item 9 fails and so does item 10. Nobody says my words saw you. You can say my words greeted you or spoke to you. Maybe you can say my words saw you in Mexican/Spanish but not in English or Greek. Thus God's Word has eyes which points to a Person, the Uncreated Word of God. Item 10 goes on to totally annihilate your already dead argument. Jesus makes it personal through the pronoun "I", points to the OT God "I Am", and declares "I" (Himself) as existing before Abraham. WOW!!!!

With your first argument disintegrated, all your other arguments collapse like a deck of cards.

If you had understood what the whole conversation between Jesus and his enemies was all about, you would have understood the first argument.
If You had understood that Jesus cannot claim to be God and Sent by God at the same time, you would have understood the second argument.
If you had understood that Peter says that The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is not Jesus, you would have understood the third argument.

It is the doctrine of Trinity that collapses like a deck of cards every time someone tries to explain it or prove it.
And this is not your fault. It is that the doctrine is faulty at its roots,
Your love for God is sincere, and the love of God for you is eternal. There is no relevance whatsoever of this discussion for your salvation or mine.
What could be relevant for our salvation would be to get distant from each other due to a theological disagreement. That woud be devil’s victory.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

I'm sure that the Alexandrian Jews took great care on translating the word of God with their extensive knowledge of Hebrew and Hebrew religious customs. They were Hebrew Experts.

Sure they did what they could. God bless them.
I am not referring to their limitations, but to the limitations of the Greek language (or any language in which an original thought is translated to).
Again, I beg you to read my posts carefully.

Whatever the term chosen for the language in which Jewish thought is translated, it is our responsibility to reject that God is a “Divine Nature”. If we deny a One Personal God because of the limitations of a given language, be it Hindi or Navajo, then we got a problem.

 

[Complete]

deleted

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Peter obviously thought in Greek also since his Epistle was written in Greek.

False.
Peter thought in Aramaic. More importantly, as a Jew, he believed in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob… and he believed that Jesus was NOT the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as per Acts 3:13.
Whoever Peter’s disciples or scribes were who wrote on his behalf, they probably thought in Greek.

****

It seems you lack a proper understanding of what a Lingua Franca is.
English is currently a Lingua Franca over most of the world. I speak it and write it as a Lingua Franca.
That doesn’t mean that I think of God in English. I think of God in Spanish. Sometimes I find difficult to find the exact English word for the meaning I want to convey. Sometimes I don’t understand quite well what an English word means.

Take “Godhead”, for example. I still don’t know what such word means.
In Spanish, God it is either Dios or nothing else. In French, it is either Dieu nor nothing else. Same with italian Dio and Portuguese Deus.
So, at least for the Romance languages, “Godhead” has no equivalent or distinctive meaning.

If Jesus had thought in English and preached in English to an English-speaking audience, and I were responsible for translating his teachings into Spanish, I would need to be very careful in understanding what “Godhead” meant for them, before choosing the most suitable word in my language… and yet, perhaps such mission would be impossible.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Nobody said that Churches are Persons or Personal Entities. That's a Strawman on your part. I said Churches can be Personal.

I may have created a strawman and I will apologize publicly and immediately to you.
But before I realize I have actually made that mistake, could we review what your position is?

You accept that churches are not personal entities, because they don’t have a single mind. Or is there any other reason I am not aware of?
You worship God as a personal entity, because you believe God has a single mind. Have I understood you correctly?

 

[synergy]

Sure they did what they could. God bless them.
I am not referring to their limitations, but to the limitations of the Greek language (or any language in which an original thought is translated to).
Again, I beg you to read my posts carefully.

Whatever the term chosen for the language in which Jewish thought is translated, it is our responsibility to reject that God is a “Divine Nature”. If we deny a One Personal God because of the limitations of a given language, be it Hindi or Navajo, then we got a problem.

Who is denying a Personal God? Not me.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Who is denying a Personal God? Not me.

If you believe that God is a Collective, then you are denying God as a personal being.*
This is why a church or an organization cannot be a personal being. Please read and confirm this as per post 351.

*I’m refering here to your theological formal position, not to your inner life, my friend. I believe you do serve One Single Personal God.

 

[synergy]

If you had understood what the whole conversation between Jesus and his enemies was all about, you would have understood the first argument.

Your first argument fails linguistically. Half of all cults would immediately evaporate if people would just develop good linguistic skills.

If You had understood that Jesus cannot claim to be God and Sent by God at the same time, you would have understood the second argument.

That falls in line with John 1:1. Trinitarianism is perfectly in line with the entire Bible. I can't say the same thing for the Arian Heresy.

If you had understood that Peter says that The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is not Jesus, you would have understood the third argument.

The OT God goes by many other names, one of them being "I Am" which Jesus explicitly claimed for himself.

It is the doctrine of Trinity that collapses like a deck of cards every time someone tries to explain it or prove it.
And this is not your fault. It is that the doctrine is faulty at its roots,
Your love for God is sincere, and the love of God for you is eternal. There is no relevance whatsoever of this discussion for your salvation or mine.
What could be relevant for our salvation would be to get distant from each other due to a theological disagreement. That woud be devil’s victory.

Our love for Jesus annihilates any and all of the devil's schemes and practices.

 

[synergy]

False.
Peter thought in Aramaic. More importantly, as a Jew, he believed in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob… and he believed that Jesus was NOT the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as per Acts 3:13.
Whoever Peter’s disciples or scribes were who wrote on his behalf, they probably thought in Greek.

****

It seems you lack a proper understanding of what a Lingua Franca is.
English is currently a Lingua Franca over most of the world. I speak it and write it as a Lingua Franca.
That doesn’t mean that I think of God in English. I think of God in Spanish. Sometimes I find difficult to find the exact English word for the meaning I want to convey. Sometimes I don’t understand quite well what an English word means.

I have Egyptian friends who think and converse fluently in 5 languages. Not just two, five! Unfortunately, I'm not Egyptian but I make do with the few languages I do know.

Take “Godhead”, for example. I still don’t know what such word means.
In Spanish, God it is either Dios or nothing else. In French, it is either Dieu nor nothing else. Same with italian Dio and Portuguese Deus.
So, at least for the Romance languages, “Godhead” has no equivalent or distinctive meaning.

If Jesus had thought in English and preached in English to an English-speaking audience, and I were responsible for translating his teachings into Spanish, I would need to be very careful in understanding what “Godhead” meant for them, before choosing the most suitable word in my language… and yet, perhaps such mission would be impossible.

I always go to the Greek root word to better understand an English term. I've found the NKJV to be very good in translating Greek. It needs help now and then but for the most part it is very good.

 

[Grace ambassador]

For every verse that indicates that Jesus is God, there are more than 40 that indicate He is not… and this may be a gross underestimation from my part. The proportion is overwhelmingly against the Trinity.

Precious friend, so you're saying, in your math argument, that the 500 "plain and clear" Passages for
"The Lord Jesus Christ Is Almighty God" already found and displayed are "going to be outweighed"
by your More [ 500 X 40+ ] Than 20,000 [ gross underestimation??? ] verses that 'plainly and clearly"
(?) indicate and teach otherwise?

You do realize, of course, that The AV has approximately 31,102 verses, so it is very highly
doubtful that almost 2/3 of them are going to "fit into your Very Complex math equation," eh?

Would you be interested in exploring this with me?

For this Complex journey, No thanks, but I beseech you, Precious friend, to please re-consider
God's Pure And Holy Words More prayerfully and Carefully:

Bible Study Rule(s) (# 6):
The Best Interpretive Commentary On The Bible Is:

The Bible Itself!​

​

Never ever interpret The Many Plain Scriptures by the 'few' [ 40 or 20,000? ] difficult verses,​

But, Always Always Interpret the few Obscure/Difficult/Dubious verses By All Of The​

Many Plain and Clear Passages Of God’s Pure And Holy Word Of Truth!:​

Of course, this would be first, Correct?:

'For by Grace are ye saved through faith;
and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast.'

Then, and Only Then, will the faithful student of God, receive His Blessed Teacher,
[ The Other Third Person of The Triune GodHead ] The Holy Spirit:

Bible Study Rule(s) (# 5c):
Compare All Related Scriptures to learn and know a Specific doctrine! :

“Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom​

teacheth, but Which The Holy Ghost Teacheth; comparing spiritual​

things with spiritual!” (1 Corinthians 2:13 AV)​

{ Comparing Scripture With Scripture! }​

Simplicity in Christ! (2 Corinthians 11:3 AV), Is So Much Better, eh?

Amen.

 

[synergy]

I may have created a strawman and I will apologize publicly and immediately to you.
But before I realize I have actually made that mistake, could we review what your position is?

You accept that churches are not personal entities, because they don’t have a single mind. Or is there any other reason I am not aware of?
You worship God as a personal entity, because you believe God has a single mind. Have I understood you correctly?

Just like a Church can possess the same unified mind, certaining the 3 Persons of the Trinity can do the same.

 

[synergy]

I may have created a strawman and I will apologize publicly and immediately to you.
But before I realize I have actually made that mistake, could we review what your position is?

You accept that churches are not personal entities, because they don’t have a single mind. Or is there any other reason I am not aware of?

A Church is not a Person but it can be Personal.

You worship God as a personal entity, because you believe God has a single mind. Have I understood you correctly?

I worship a Personal God because of the Persons of the Trinity. They are unified in that they are all of the same mind.

 

[dwight92070]

I gave you the answer to your question, my friend.
The answer is that I believe Jesus bows his head, or uses whatever sign or expression he prefers to show he worships the Father.
Why that particular verse doesn't say that Jesus bows his head to the Father? I don't know. The verse is focusing on the relation of others to the Lamb, not on the relation of the Lamb and his Father.

Do you think the Father worships Jesus?
Do you think Jesus worships the Father?

I don't believe that we have a record of either of these happening. In Matthew 11:25 and Luke 10:21, some translators have put in the word "praise", but it actually means "to confess or agree, to acknowledge".
If "to glorify" each other is the same as worship, then they both worshiped each other. John 17:4 and 5
If to call one another "God" is the same as worship, then they both worshiped each other. Hebrews 1:8-9
Some say that He was worshiping the Father in Luke 22:39-46 in the Garden of Gethsemane, because He knelt down to pray, but His words are not words of praise and worship - they are words of an urgent and humble plea to be released from this terrible death, if the Father was willing. His kneeling seems to be more in line with His subjecting Himself to the Father's will. Again He was subject to the Father, but not less than the Father.

 

[dwight92070]

Thanks for your answer.
Then, if Jesus recovered those powers or attributes upon resurrection, can you please tell me
Why the resurrected Jesus still calls God his God?
Why the Jesus in the Book of Revelation calls God his God?

The author of Hebrews has God speaking to the Son saying, "Therefore God, your God, has anointed You ..." He says that the Father calls Jesus God but God also says that Jesus has a God. So it's not surprising to see Jesus, who was God in the flesh, saying that He has a God. The Father said it, so why couldn't the Son say it as well?