The Trinity The Touchstone of Truth

[dwight92070]

Well, the Bible uses "through". What is the reason for that, then?

Through is a preposition that indicates that the noun is a mean, a way.

An "instrument" or "means" implies that whoever uses that instrument or those means is greater than the instrument itself or the means used. But Jesus made Himself equal with God. John 5:18

 

[dwight92070]

Dear Dwight

No one in the Bible has ever taught that God has blood. Why would you think that God has blood?
Over and over, the Bible (including Paul in numerous instances) refers to the blood of Jesus, not to the blood of God.
What happens in this passage, then? A copy error or translation error. Just that.
"His own" should have been translated by "his own Son", to be compatible with all other Scriptures.

That's why several translations now yield the verse differently:

Watch yourselves and the whole flock, in which the Holy Spirit has placed you as supervisors, to shepherd God’s church, which he obtained with the death of his own Son. (CEB)

“Watch out for yourselves, and for all the flock in which the Ruach HaKodesh has placed you as leaders, to shepherd God’s Messianic community, which he won for himself at the cost of his own Son’s blood. (CJB)

Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock among which the Holy Spirit has appointed you as overseers, to shepherd the church of God which he obtained through the blood of his own Son. (LEB)

Watch out for yourselves and for all the flock in which the Holy Spirit · has placed you overseers, to shepherd the church of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own Son (MOUNCE)

Be careful for yourselves and for all the people the Holy Spirit has given to you to oversee. You must be like shepherds to the church of God, which he bought with the death of his own son. (NCV)

Watch out for yourselves and for all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son. (NET)

Keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock, of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son. (NRVSA)

Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son. (RSV)

If Jesus was God in the flesh, if God became a man (the Word became flesh), if God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself, then whose blood was shed? There's no indication of a copy or translation error, or that it is incompatible with other scriptures. Nobody is denying that Christ's blood was shed, but if Christ is God, then it was also His blood that was shed.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

You are obsessed with God and Jesus being mentioned separately.

I didn't write those more than 200 verses, dwight. Probably God could have inspired only 2, or 20 verses with such separation, but He inspired 200... in every single book of the NT, from Mark to the Book of Revelation.

So, I guess God was either "obsessed", or committed to leave us clear that He is One, the Same He has always been.

It should be considered at least "weird" that, if the doctrine of Trinity is so important, so fundamental for the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Jesus never taught it in clear, simple, and direct terms... just as he taught us to love our neighbor.

It should be considered at least "weird" that, if the doctrine of Trinity is so important, the apostles were not interested in seizing the enormous opportunity to say "Jesus our God" every time they wrote "God" and "Jesus Christ" together. It should be considered at least "weird" that almost every time they presented the Father and Jesus together, they gave the title "God" only to the Father.

Why did they miss the opportunity to teach us? Isn't that weird?

 

[synergy]

I didn't write those more than 200 verses, dwight. Probably God could have inspired only 2, or 20 verses with such separation, but He inspired 200... in every single book of the NT, from Mark to the Book of Revelation.

So, I guess God was either "obsessed", or committed to leave us clear that He is One, the Same He has always been.

It should be considered at least "weird" that, if the doctrine of Trinity is so important, so fundamental for the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Jesus never taught it in clear, simple, and direct terms... just as he taught us to love our neighbor.

It should be considered at least "weird" that, if the doctrine of Trinity is so important, the apostles were not interested in seizing the enormous opportunity to say "Jesus our God" every time they wrote "God" and "Jesus Christ" together. It is "weird" that almost every time they presented the Father and Jesus together, they gave the title "God" only to the Father.

Why did they miss the opportunity to teach us? Isn't that weird?

There is enough material in the OT to clearly show that Jesus is the Uncreated Word of God Person who directly spoke to OT Prophets in what we call Theophanies. John 1:1 immediately drives it home that the Word is God. What's happening is that Judaizers have infected and warped much of our Christian thinking to the point that many Christian beliefs have fallen apart amongst Christians. The JWs are a perfect case in point on how Christianity can be warped by Judaizing heresies.

 

[dwight92070]

I didn't write those more than 200 verses, dwight. Probably God could have inspired only 2, or 20 verses with such separation, but He inspired 200... in every single book of the NT, from Mark to the Book of Revelation.

So, I guess God was either "obsessed", or committed to leave us clear that He is One, the Same He has always been.

It should be considered at least "weird" that, if the doctrine of Trinity is so important, so fundamental for the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Jesus never taught it in clear, simple, and direct terms... just as he taught us to love our neighbor.

It should be considered at least "weird" that, if the doctrine of Trinity is so important, the apostles were not interested in seizing the enormous opportunity to say "Jesus our God" every time they wrote "God" and "Jesus Christ" together. It should be considered at least "weird" that almost every time they presented the Father and Jesus together, they gave the title "God" only to the Father.

Why did they miss the opportunity to teach us? Isn't that weird?

Sometimes I wonder why it even matters to you. I mean I thought you were Bahai. Don't they believe that it doesn't matter what religion you accept? Isn't everyone going to heaven anyway?

Another thought. Why did Jesus teach in parables? Didn't He want to make everything plain and simple, just like you do? Then why did He disguise His message?

 

[mikesw]

The Bible in general, and Paul in particular, use the word "spirit" in several senses, not just as "Person".

For example,
For God has not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and love, and self-control. (2 Tim 1:7)

There are no distinct "Persons" who are Mr Power, Mr Love or Mr Self-control, and who are all of them God. And certainly, there is no evil Person called "Mr Fear" who God could send to us.

So, as I have shown in the text, Paul is not talking about the Trinity here. He is talking about the life of the spirit vs the life of the flesh.
And as I have shown in verse 3, Paul distinguishes God from Jesus, as he does in all his epistles. So God and Jesus are not the same being.

You explained nothing about the Spirit. You at best refer to a verse with a different sense of meaning that has nothing to do with Rom 8:2. I suppose I should not say anything about the disregard of the passages that show the divinity of Christ in the Godhead since this point in the discussion is only on Paul's mention of the Spirit as the one who has changed Christians so they are free from the law of sin and death.

 

[Peterlag]

Your sexual drive is alive or dead, my friend? Mine is alive, fortunately... much less than when I was young, but alive

Sex drive has nothing to do with flesh and spirit that are used in the New Testament. When Paul says flesh he means those who are only in the flesh and therefore do not have spirit. Not always, but often and we can see it when we read the Bible in its context. Again ...

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you.

 

[dwight92070]

I think that the reason

I didn't write those more than 200 verses, dwight. Probably God could have inspired only 2, or 20 verses with such separation, but He inspired 200... in every single book of the NT, from Mark to the Book of Revelation.

So, I guess God was either "obsessed", or committed to leave us clear that He is One, the Same He has always been.

It should be considered at least "weird" that, if the doctrine of Trinity is so important, so fundamental for the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Jesus never taught it in clear, simple, and direct terms... just as he taught us to love our neighbor.

It should be considered at least "weird" that, if the doctrine of Trinity is so important, the apostles were not interested in seizing the enormous opportunity to say "Jesus our God" every time they wrote "God" and "Jesus Christ" together. It should be considered at least "weird" that almost every time they presented the Father and Jesus together, they gave the title "God" only to the Father.

Why did they miss the opportunity to teach us? Isn't that weird?

Just so you'll know, Mark is not the first book in the New Testament - Matthew is.

Your obsession is also your deception, which is thinking that because God and Jesus are often mentioned separately, that that somehow proves that Jesus is not God. That's laughable - separate mention does not prove Jesus isn't God. It proves nothing really, especially since there are so many verses that prove that He is God.

Let's test your so-called proof. I counted around 30-40 times in the New Testament that the Holy Spirit is mentioned separately from God. So going by your so-called reasoning, the Holy Spirit is not God either, right? He can't be, because He is mentioned separately!

Just so you'll know, I didn't write those verses.

 

[dwight92070]

Pancho, just so you'll know, Mark is not the first book in the New Testament - Matthew is.

Your obsession is also your deception, which is thinking that because God and Jesus are often mentioned separately, that that somehow proves that Jesus is not God. That's laughable - separate mention does not prove Jesus isn't God. It proves nothing really, especially since there are so many verses that prove that He is God.

Let's test your so-called proof. I counted around 30-40 times in the New Testament that the Holy Spirit is mentioned separately from God. So going by your so-called reasoning, the Holy Spirit is not God either, right? He can't be, because He is mentioned separately!

 

[dwight92070]

the Lord Jesus is not born, the Christ is born. other words, the son of God is born, but the son of man is not born. supportive scripture, Isaiah 9:6 "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given" flesh is born, spirit is given.

101G

"And behold, you will conceive in your womb and BEAR A SON, and you shall name Him JESUS. He will be great and will be called the SON OF THE MOST HIGH;" Luke 1:31-32

" ... for today in the city of David there has been BORN FOR YOU a Savior, who IS CHRIST THE LORD." Luke 2:11

This is clear - the LORD JESUS CHRIST WAS BORN and HE ALSO WAS GIVEN -

"For God so loved the world that HE GAVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON ..." John 3:16

So stop speaking nonsense.

 

[101G]

"And behold, you will conceive in your womb and BEAR A SON, and you shall name Him JESUS. He will be great and will be called the SON OF THE MOST HIGH;" Luke 1:31-32

" ... for today in the city of David there has been BORN FOR YOU a Savior, who IS CHRIST THE LORD." Luke 2:11

This is clear - the LORD JESUS CHRIST WAS BORN and HE ALSO WAS GIVEN -

"For God so loved the world that HE GAVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON ..." John 3:16

So stop speaking nonsense.

READ your bible. Question, "did the Son of God come from Heaven or out of Mary?".... your answer PLEASE.

101G.

 

[101G]

@dwight92070,
do you know the different between the "Son" of Man, and the "Son" of God? ........ once knowing the truth, then the nonsense that you said 101G speak, will reprove your nonsense. will be looking for your answer to both. book chapter and verse to both.

thanks in advance.

101G.

 

[mikesw]

I think I see what Peterlag is saying. His idea is that Jesus could not be of the Godhead because Jesus as not throwing lightning bolts at the Pharisees and was having to ask questions of the apostles when teaching them. His teaching should not have involved asking questions because, as God, Jesus would know what their answers are. Also, with Lazarus's death, John should have said that Jesus was there at the side of Lazarus when Lazarus was dying -- instead of just knowing (as God also does) that Lazarus had died even though Jesus was not physically omnipresent there.

 

[dwight92070]

READ your bible. Question, "did the Son of God come from Heaven or out of Mary?".... your answer PLEASE.

101G.

Stop acting so condescending. You're not the Bible expert that you think you are. When you change your attitude, then we can talk, not before.

 

[101G]

Stop acting so condescending. You're not the Bible expert that you think you are. When you change your attitude, then we can talk, not before.

(smile), first thanks for your reply, second, condescending? no,..... confident, YES. when one KNOWS what they are speaking about, and have scriptures to back it up, it's only confident which you didn't recognize, because you didn't know or understand the scriptures themself which 101G speak of. see,101G is neither condescending nor arrogant, or Ignorant of the scriptures. we need to address the scriptures only, and not each other... ok. let's just stick to the scriptures. for it is the scriptures up for discussion, not us.

now, one more time. "did the Son of God come from Heaven, YES or NO?

thanks in advance,

101G.

 

[101G]

I think I see what Peterlag is saying. His idea is that Jesus could not be of the Godhead because Jesus as not throwing lightning bolts at the Pharisees and was having to ask questions of the apostles when teaching them. His teaching should not have involved asking questions because, as God, Jesus would know what their answers are. Also, with Lazarus's death, John should have said that Jesus was there at the side of Lazarus when Lazarus was dying -- instead of just knowing (as God also does) that Lazarus had died even though Jesus was not physically omnipresent there.

Greeting Mike, 101G do not fully agree with you there. the Lord Jesus while in natural flesh and blood know "by" the Spirit that he as the Ordinal Last received at his baptism. understand, if he had all his Godly powers while in that flesh, why this... Listen closely. Luke 2:40 "And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him."

if the Lord Jesus was God almighty, is he NOT WISDOM? so why did the scriptures say he, "was filled with wisdom". is not God Wisdom? see, there is lacking of information on your part too.

101G.

 

[101G]

To all,
Serious business ..... of the Lord Jesus, God almighty. we all need to come together and really discuss the word of God in Spirit and in truth. many have good points, but they get reproved by scriptures. we need to a. learn and b. Know the TRUTH. 101G will not say he knows everything about God. no. but neither anyone else. but if we come together, under the Lead of the Holy Spirit we would KNOW more together than what we know apart. let's discuss, and not argue.

101G.

 

[Peterlag]

To all,
Serious business ..... of the Lord Jesus, God almighty. we all need to come together and really discuss the word of God in Spirit and in truth. many have good points, but they get reproved by scriptures. we need to a. learn and b. Know the TRUTH. 101G will not say he knows everything about God. no. but neither anyone else. but if we come together, under the Lead of the Holy Spirit we would KNOW more together than what we know apart. let's discuss, and not argue.

101G.

I have given up on you. I have put so much great Bible in front of you and you have called it false. I don't think I can help you.

 

[101G]

I have given up on you. I have put so much great Bible in front of you and you have called it false. I don't think I can help you.

maybe it's you who cannot see. 101G have reprove everything you brought up or put forth. and did it by scriptures. but you cannot answer not my question by scripture.

once more. "is the person in John 1:3 who MADE ALL THINGS, is the same one person in Isaiah 44:24 who MDAE ALL THINGS" yes or no?

101G.

 

[mikesw]

Greeting Mike, 101G do not fully agree with you there. the Lord Jesus while in natural flesh and blood know "by" the Spirit that he as the Ordinal Last received at his baptism. understand, if he had all his Godly powers while in that flesh, why this... Listen closely. Luke 2:40 "And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him."

if the Lord Jesus was God almighty, is he NOT WISDOM? so why did the scriptures say he, "was filled with wisdom". is not God Wisdom? see, there is lacking of information on your part too.

101G.

Nothing lacking on my part. I am fine with Christ in his humanity growing in wisdom. Why should it be a problem for God to have this development as part of the incarnated Son? It would not be natural humanness for the baby Jesus to be throwing lightning bolts at his enemies right out of the manger.