Your Views on The Trinity

[civic]

I did not change the subject, you just stick to your preconceived belief.

1. Yes, you just won't believe יהוה the Almighty God the Father's words, that made you misled.

Isa 41:4 “Who has performed and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? ‘I, יהוה, am the first, and with the last I am He.’ ”

2. No, because when you read the above verse, you just read your own presumptions and preconceptions without knowing it.
Maybe knowing or just avoiding the truth. I wonder how many times would I need to quote 1Peter 3:18 to be understood?
Am I quoting a verse hard to understand or the someone is hard to understand.

1Pe 3:18 For Christ also suffered for sins once for all time, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;

Let me elaborate these more fully;
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Father . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jesus
1. First and the Last . . . . . . . . . . . Isa 41:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rev 1:17
2. Beginning and the end . . . . . . Rev 1:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rev 22:13
3. Alpha and Omega . . . . . . . . . . Rev 1:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rev 22:13

Following your eisegesis, as all the Fathers titles are also of Jesus, as Jesus said "all things the Father had are mine.(John 16:15)
If you interpret Jesus Divine being died, you also made God the Father died.
You have to be awake because not knowing Jesus involves eternal life.(John 17:3, 1 John 5:11-20)

well done !!!

 

[Runningman]

Really? John 1 shows the pre-existence and other passages show it for Christ Jesus. So you just deny those so you do not have to admit the truth. No one else has to pre-existence as deity and take on flesh for this to be true about God's one and only Son.
Just because you find some things hardly similar to the divine One who became flesh, that does not make for an argument against Christ.

You have not proven the Word is Jesus and you have not proven the Word to have pre-existed using Scripture. Jesus because your Bible was translated a certain way doesn't mean it is theologically sound. Where is the Word saying or doing anything in the Old Testament?

That is just your preference from translations that probably make no sense. That hardly makes for a good argument.

Yes it makes sense. Jesus didn't pre-exist. There are no pre-existent verses in the Old Testament about him doing anything.

So you just take a translation as your favorite when you think it denounces Christ. When a passage is clear about his divinity and an incarnation of the One through whom all things came into being, your just skip it or distort the passage. That hardly is honest interpretation.

So you want Jesus to pre-exist when the Bible has no examples of him pre-existing. Why?

He created all things. He seems to be the Angel of the Lord and the Word that came to the prophets. You just treat his relevance as nothing.

There is nothing in the Bible that calls Jesus the Creator. He's distinct from the Creator in every context.

I should ask you for clarification since you keep on asking such a question. What do you mean by finding Jesus in the OT? Do you mean a physical body that is named Jesus?

You say that Jesus pre-existed so the burden of proof is on you to substantiate such a thing.

As to the future Messiah, we have his divinity in Dan 7:13-14. Does God have to tell anyone the full plan in the OT? Why so? You are presuming on what God should have done to satisfy your unusual request.

Daniel 7 is what I quote too. In this chapter, the saints of God receive the kingdom, sovereignty, and authority while Jesus and the others serve the Most High.

Why do you put words in God's mouth and bear false witness of God?

 

[Runningman]

Runningman, may I know what is your take of what Daniel saw. Who the "Ancient of Days" do you refer to?
And the "Son of Man" Who do you refer Him to?
Are they separate two persons or just one person?

Dan 7:9 "I kept looking Until thrones were set up, And the Ancient of Days took His seat; His vesture was like white snow And the hair of His head like pure wool. His throne was ablaze with flames, Its wheels were a burning fire.
Dan 7:13 "I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him.
Dan 7:14 "And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.

The son of man is not the Ancient of Days. Why do you keep quoting things that soundly and effectively prove that Jesus is not God and then ask a bunch of questions about it?

I recommend you read more of the chapter. The sovereignty and dominion is something the people in general have, they received it from God, not from the son of man. They all serve the Most High together. Means Jesus is not the Most High.

 

[charismaticlady]

I copied and pasted data from my own website where I have it saved. Would it be better if I hand wrote the same data to you?

John repeated Word in 1 John 5:7. And 1 John 5:7, the long version, shows the Three as One. The Word is Jesus.

 

[Peterlag]

John repeated Word in 1 John 5:7. And 1 John 5:7, the long version, shows the Three as One. The Word is Jesus.

Concerning 1 John 5:7-8 where it has the words "In heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth" are words that are not found in any Greek Manuscript before the 15th or 16th century and in no ancient Version. - E. W. Bullinger., A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament: (London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1975), p. 11 of Appendix A.

 

[Peterlag]

Is the request "outside Titus 2:13" difficult to digest, or just someone hard to understand?

I don't understand what you are referring to when writing the above.

 

[dwight92070]

Concerning 1 John 5:7-8 where it has the words "In heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth" are words that are not found in any Greek Manuscript before the 15th or 16th century and in no ancient Version. - E. W. Bullinger., A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament: (London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1975), p. 11 of Appendix A.

None of that matters. There is so much evidence throughout the New Testament and much as well in the Old Testament, so that this argument over 1 John 5 becomes irrelevant. The concept of the Trinity is all over the Bible but uni's don't want to admit it.

 

[Peterlag]

None of that matters. There is so much evidence throughout the New Testament and much as well in the Old Testament, so that this argument over 1 John 5 becomes irrelevant. The concept of the Trinity is all over the Bible but uni's don't want to admit it.

In biblical research and in any other reasonable study. If we have 10 clear verses on a subject and 1 verse that does not fit with the other 10 verses on the same subject. We are not to disregard the 10 clear verses and hold on to the 1 verse and then say we have proof that the 1 verse is well documented. Baptizing in the name of the father, son, and spirit is not taught or practiced anywhere in the book of Acts or in any other part of the New Testament. Nobody carried out such a request that Trinitarians say came from Jesus. So even if 1 John 5:7 and Matthew 28:19 were originally written by the Apostles. It still does not fit with the rest of the Bible because we are immersed in the spirit when we are born again. We get that spirit by confessing the Lord Jesus, and believing that God raised him from the dead. Thus we are immersed in his name.

 

[mikesw]

In biblical research and in any other reasonable study. If we have 10 clear verses on a subject and 1 verse that does not fit with the other 10 verses on the same subject. We are not to disregard the 10 clear verses and hold on to the 1 verse and then say we have proof that the 1 verse is well documented. Baptizing in the name of the father, son, and spirit is not taught or practiced anywhere in the book of Acts or in any other part of the New Testament. Nobody carried out such a request that Trinitarians say came from Jesus. So even if 1 John 5:7 and Matthew 28:19 were originally written by the Apostles. It still does not fit with the rest of the Bible because we are immersed in the spirit when we are born again. We get that spirit by confessing the Lord Jesus, and believing that God raised him from the dead. Thus we are immersed in his name.

oops. you have to check which spirit you are immersed in. Basically the rejection of the broad scriptures based on 10 that you like simply reflects bad interpretation methods. I see plenty of instances where clear passages show Jesus as having (conscious) pre-existence with God. To reject those or make them insignificant is pure bias -- it is man's reading to reject those rather than being led of God. Certainly there are some passages that people pretty much recognize as some scribal error but Matt 28:19 is not one of those.
Also, the baptisms in the name of Jesus may reflect the simple effort to distinguish from the baptism of John's disciples.

 

[Runningman]

oops. you have to check which spirit you are immersed in. Basically the rejection of the broad scriptures based on 10 that you like simply reflects bad interpretation methods. I see plenty of instances where clear passages show Jesus as having (conscious) pre-existence with God. To reject those or make them insignificant is pure bias -- it is man's reading to reject those rather than being led of God. Certainly there are some passages that people pretty much recognize as some scribal error but Matt 28:19 is not one of those.
Also, the baptisms in the name of Jesus may reflect the simple effort to distinguish from the baptism of John's disciples.

I think you can drop the charade now. We all know there aren't any examples of anyone getting baptized following the formula in Matthew 28:19 and we all know that Jesus under any name or title can be found to have pre-existed his birth.

 

[mikesw]

I think you can drop the charade now. We all know there aren't any examples of anyone getting baptized following the formula in Matthew 28:19 and we all know that Jesus under any name or title can be found to have pre-existed his birth.

So you will deny Christ's words because of what Luke said. Not a surprise. You reject everything showing the divinity of Christ. So Matt 28:19 is just another rejection.

 

[Runningman]

So you will deny Christ's words because of what Luke said. Not a surprise. You reject everything showing the divinity of Christ. So Matt 28:19 is just another rejection.

You can drop the accusations too. We all know that since there are no examples of Matthew 28:19 being practiced in Scripture we can just as easily say you deny Christ and the apostles. You reject every example of water baptism and deny that Jesus is the man who God exalted and empowered.

 

[mikesw]

You can drop the accusations too. We all know that since there are no examples of Matthew 28:19 being practiced in Scripture we can just as easily say you deny Christ and the apostles. You reject every example of water baptism and deny that Jesus is the man who God exalted and empowered.

you are the one denying Jesus's words in Matthew 28:19. That is only what a unitarian would do. Your decisions on scripture are based on forcing the unitarian error into everything you read.

I certainly do accept Jesus is the man whom God exalted and empowered because Jesus, being born the One called the Word, is not going to be rejected by his Father.

 

[Peterlag]

oops. you have to check which spirit you are immersed in. Basically the rejection of the broad scriptures based on 10 that you like simply reflects bad interpretation methods. I see plenty of instances where clear passages show Jesus as having (conscious) pre-existence with God. To reject those or make them insignificant is pure bias -- it is man's reading to reject those rather than being led of God. Certainly there are some passages that people pretty much recognize as some scribal error but Matt 28:19 is not one of those.
Also, the baptisms in the name of Jesus may reflect the simple effort to distinguish from the baptism of John's disciples.

You have no Scripture that says Jesus pre-existed. You can't even find the word pre-existed in the Bible.

 

[mikesw]

You have no Scripture that says Jesus pre-existed. You can't even find the word pre-existed in the Bible.

Jesus says he was before Abraham. You just do not believe Jesus.

 

[Runningman]

you are the one denying Jesus's words in Matthew 28:19. That is only what a unitarian would do. Your decisions on scripture are based on forcing the unitarian error into everything you read.

I certainly do accept Jesus is the man whom God exalted and empowered because Jesus, being born the One called the Word, is not going to be rejected by his Father.

You are the one denying Jesus and the apostles and accusing them of being liars. They did exactly what they were commanded to do and it had nothing to do with baptizing according to Matthew 28:19. Your misunderstandings regarding Scripture give you no grounds to accuse others.

 

[mikesw]

You are the one denying Jesus and the apostles and accusing them of being liars. They did exactly what they were commanded to do and it had nothing to do with baptizing according to Matthew 28:19. Your misunderstandings regarding Scripture give you no grounds to accuse others.

so you are saying Jesus was wrong in giving the instructions of Matthew 28:19?

 

[civic]

so you are saying Jesus was wrong in giving the instructions of Matthew 28:19?

That must be the case since Jesus identified God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit in that passage.

One God=One Name singular.

Father, Son, Holy Spirit are the Ones who make up the One God, One Name singular. One Singular God who is Plural in Persons.

This passage perfectly fits the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity, not the uni god.

 

[mikesw]

That must be the case since Jesus identified God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit in that passage.

One God=One Name singular.

Father, Son, Holy Spirit are the Ones who make up the One God, One Name singular. One Singular God who is Plural in Persons.

This passage perfectly fits the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity.

I think the unitarians want to say this was improperly added by conniving people in the second century. Yet that theory is self-defeating since it again points to early awareness of the Triune God by people most influenced by the Jewish culture. The unitarians try to say this trinity concept only came in force by a trivial gathering in the 4th century -- one which already showed few unitarians (but vocal ones) remained.

 

[civic]

I think the unitarians want to say this was improperly added by conniving people in the second century. Yet that theory is self-defeating since it again points to early awareness of the Triune God by people most influenced by the Jewish culture. The unitarians try to say this trinity concept only came in force by a trivial gathering in the 4th century -- one which already showed few unitarians (but vocal ones) remained.

yes the evidence favors us with the ECF's and those who were taught by the Apostles like ploycarp, ignatius, clement of rome,papias just to name a few.