• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Trinity in Luke 2:40-56

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
I'm afraid you are simply incorrect. In the first place, Psalm 82 isn't limited to a specific subset of the Jewish people - and Jesus doesn't take it that way. In the second place, in context Jesus is very clearly applying this verse to his accusers. He is rebutting their accusations against him by pointing out that the scriptures call them Gods, while he makes the lesser claim: that he is the Son of God.

Finally, you're "them" vs "you" complaint holds no weight. It is very plain to see that them = "those to whom God's word came" = the Jewish People, a group to which his accusers belong. Just 'cause you wouldn't speak that way doesn't mean it is an invalid or unclear way to state it.


I agree... it was addressed to corrupt judges and I don't see what it would not be taken as to Jewish rulers
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Don't know why you are replying to another, older thread here when I have been involved in this thread at all. At any rate, what I said is completely supported by scripture. Your positions are dependent upon ignoring the scriptures. When you are ready to discuss what the scriptures say - rather than how you can twist them to support your doctrine - let me know.

Wrong again. I don't believe that the H. Spirit is a person.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
Catholics and Protestants both believe in the hypostatic union which is Jesus has two natures divine and human

You can see an example in John 1:19 where Jesus says "tear down this temple and in three days I will rase it again" Human enough to die. Divine enough to raise his dead human body.

I would say the hypostatic union is also portended in Psalms 111 and Psalms 112 the blessed God Blessed man psalms
Adjacent psalms that tell a story part 4 - the blessed God ad the b…
"It is common in speech that if a person has a vital part in something, he is spoken of as having done the thing. We know that Roman soldiers crucified Jesus. The Gospels say it, and we know that the Jews would not have done it, because coming in contact with Jesus would have made them unclean. Yet Peter said to the rulers of the Jews, “you” crucified the Lord (Acts 5:30). Everyone understands that the Jews played a vital part in Jesus’ crucifixion, so there really is a sense in which they crucified him, even though they themselves did not do the dirty work. A similar example from the Old Testament is in both 2 Samuel 5 and 1 Chronicles 11. David and his men were attacking the Jebusite city, Jerusalem. The record is very clear that David had sent his men ahead into the city to fight, and even offered a general’s position to the first one into the city. Yet the record says, “David captured the stronghold of Zion.” We know why, of course. David played a vital role in the capture of Jerusalem, and so Scripture says he captured it. This same type of wording that is so common in the Bible and indeed, in all languages, is the wording Jesus used. He would raise his body, i.e., he would play a vital part in it being raised." From: John 2:19 - A Verse Used to Support the Trinity | BiblicalUnitarian.com
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
I may be misunderstand you, but are you saying Adam and Eve were somehow really one person? All the grapes in the bunch were really one grape? I don't see either as a good argument for making Jesus God, especially when the scriptures say almost 50 times he is the son of God.

The language allows diversity in a unity... one marriage of two people ... one clump of grapes
similarly trinity is an abbreviation for try-unity one divine nature with 3 persons ... and consistent with the great commissions where 'one name' singular used for a plurality of 'Father, Son and Spirit'
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
I may be misunderstand you, but are you saying Adam and Eve were somehow really one person? All the grapes in the bunch were really one grape? I don't see either as a good argument for making Jesus God, especially when the scriptures say almost 50 times he is the son of God.
You need to make up your mind, whether 'God', in the text, means, the Abba only , or, if it can mean other persons. You are using the word and name God, in your comment, to specifically refer to the Abba, [presumably, Yahweh, or whatever name you use.
[[If, when you write 'God', you always only mean the Abba, then you need to specify that, as that isn't the way the name and word is used, in the text.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
Wrong again. I don't believe that the H. Spirit is a person.


Interestingly 'paraclete' in the New Testament is used in many places and some obviously talking about a person 1) concerning the Holy Spirit in John 14:16 (and about 4 more places in John) and 2) concerning Jesus in 1 John 2:1 and in the Old testament some more... also people... Job's comforters for example in the Septuagint used the word of them paraclitor Job 16:2

A paraclete is a person who runs along and helps ... and may be like a family lawyer in the greek culture
so why don't you think paraclete is a person... Jesus is also called a paraclete... and he's a person

see Wiki
"Paraclete comes from the Koine Greek word παράκλητος (paráklētos) that can signify "called to one's aid in a court of justice", a "legal assistant", an "assistant", or an "intercessor"."

and

"Philo speaks several times of "paraclete" advocates primarily in the sense of human intercessors."
 
Last edited:

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
You can textually talk, using God to only mean the Abba, but you can't do it generally, like that, in an argument.

Some verses do that, some don't.
 
Last edited:

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Interestingly 'paraclete' in the New Testament is used in two places 1) concerning the Holy Spirit in John and 2) concerning Jesus in 1 John

A paraclete is a person who runs along and helps ... and may be like a family lawyer in the greek culture
so why don't you think paraclete is a person... Jesus is also called a paraclete... and he's a person

see Wiki
"Paraclete comes from the Koine Greek word παράκλητος (paráklētos) that can signify "called to one's aid in a court of justice", a "legal assistant", an "assistant", or an "intercessor"."

and

"Philo speaks several times of "paraclete" advocates primarily in the sense of human intercessors."
The definitions don't seem to specify a person.
Persons usually have personal names, even if they have more than, and, I'm not familiar with a H. Spirit, in the Old Testament, as a person. If you have arguments concerning the personhood of the H. Spirit, I would be interested, though.
 

lostwanderingsoul

Well-Known Member
It you are sincerely seeking, you must decide what your source of truth is. If it is the Bible, then you should be able to quote verses to back up whatever it is you claim. I'm afraid that a lot of what you've said can't be found in the scriptures. It sounds more like your own reasoning. I don't say that to be critical. Nobody can go beyond what they are taught. Unfortunately orthodox Christendom has taught error pretty much from before the apostle Paul died, 2,000+ years ago (2 Tim 1:15). As such, the things he taught have been mangled beyond recognition. It's not easy to wade through all the tradition and get back to the actual truth, but it can be done. If you want any help on that, I'd be glad to point you in the right direction.
Thank you. For starters I have one main question. When the Word became flesh, was that Jesus or not? If not, what or who was it? I try to avoid orthodox Christianity and that is why some of my ideas may seem strange. I do not believe there is a "person" named God. There is a "person named "Father". Another "person" named "Word". And a "person" named Jesus. Maybe others. When you put them all together they make up a group or family or something called God. You should never pray to God you should pray to the Father in Jesus name just like Jesus prayed to the Father. Wierd huh? Your thoughts?
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
You need to make up your mind, whether 'God', in the text, means, the Abba only , or, if it can mean other persons. You are using the word and name God, in your comment, to specifically refer to the Abba, [presumably, Yahweh, or whatever name you use.
[[If, when you write 'God', you always only mean the Abba, then you need to specify that, as that isn't the way the name and word is used, in the text.
I think my mind is made up OK. I don't think God can be anybody other than God. He can't be Jesus because Jesus is somebody else, i.e. God's son. We have a father and a son, two people. If language means anything at all, a father and a son are not the same person. I've never met anybody who was their own father. It's a non-sequitur to think such a thing could exist.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
The definitions don't seem to specify a person.
Persons usually have personal names, even if they have more than, and, I'm not familiar with a H. Spirit, in the Old Testament, as a person. If you have arguments concerning the personhood of the H. Spirit, I would be interested, though.


Jesis is called the paraclete in 1 John 2:1 clearly a person

The holy spirit can be grieved in the New Testament, which is a personal description not a force description
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
I think my mind is made up OK. I don't think God can be anybody other than God. He can't be Jesus because Jesus is somebody else, i.e. God's son. We have a father and a son, two people. If language means anything at all, a father and a son are not the same person. I've never met anybody who was their own father. It's a non-sequitur to think such a thing could exist.

The phrase "Son of" can also mean of the same type as
and the divine son of God can be an eternally generated person which is God's image of himself

In any case Jesus was called paraclete in 1 John 2:1 and He is a person
 
Last edited:

rrobs

Well-Known Member
The definitions don't seem to specify a person.
Persons usually have personal names, even if they have more than, and, I'm not familiar with a H. Spirit, in the Old Testament, as a person. If you have arguments concerning the personhood of the H. Spirit, I would be interested, though.
Excellent point! I hope you don't mind if I elaborate.

God is holy and a spirit and thus He is sometimes called the Holy Spirit. It is simply another name for God (He has many names in the scriptures), not another person. God, being the Holy Spirit (note capital 's' and capital 'h'), give every born again believer what He is, a gift called holy spirit (note small 's' and small 'h'). The church has got holy spirit so messed up that most Christians are not even aware they have a gift of holy spirit. That's too bad because it is the very source of our power. It's what makes us children of God. It's that gift that can be manifested into the material world via the manifestation of the holy spirit (1 Cor 12: 7-10).

The original texts were written in all capital letters (uncials). There was no distinction between small letters and capital letters. In most languages today capitalizing a word makes it a proper noun. When the translators capitalized the words holy spirit it made it seem as though the words referred to God. But many times the words holy spirit are used of the gift, not the giver. As such they should not be capitalized. It is only by context that we can know for sure. Mixing them up has caused a lot of undue confusion when it comes to the gift of holy spirit and the manifestation of that gift (tongues, interpretation of tongues, prophecy, miracles, etc).
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
The phrase "Son of" can also mean of the same type as
and the divine son of God can be an eternally generated person which is God's image of himself
Yes on the assertion that Jesus is the image of God.

Heb 1:3,

Who (Jesus) being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his (God's) person..."​

An image of something is, by sheer logic, not the something itself. When you look into a mirror you see an image of yourself, but it's not you. There is only one you and there is only one God.

In many ways you are the image of your earthly father, but you are not your father.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
Yes on the assertion that Jesus is the image of God.

Heb 1:3,

Who (Jesus) being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his (God's) person..."​

An image of something is, by sheer logic, not the something itself. When you look into a mirror you see an image of yourself, but it's not you. There is only one you and there is only one God.

In many ways you are the image of your earthly father, but you are not your father.


But Jesus is 'like Melchikadek' being without beginning see Hebrews 7:3. Additionally, being eternally generated God from God is fitting as Augustine or Jonathan Edwards might say.

God estranged from God at the cross is also fitting
as His Robes for Mine says in the song
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
Thank you. For starters I have one main question. When the Word became flesh, was that Jesus or not? If not, what or who was it? I try to avoid orthodox Christianity and that is why some of my ideas may seem strange. I do not believe there is a "person" named God. There is a "person named "Father". Another "person" named "Word". And a "person" named Jesus. Maybe others. When you put them all together they make up a group or family or something called God. You should never pray to God you should pray to the Father in Jesus name just like Jesus prayed to the Father. Wierd huh? Your thoughts?
The word "word" in John 1:1 is the Greek word "logos." A little background on that word will help understand what God was saying in John 1:1.

At the time of Jesus' birth there existed what are called the Greek and Roman mystery religions. Zeus, Aphrodite and many other familiar names were part of their panoply of gods. These religions all spoke of things that were not real in any sense, things that were not part of reality, nor could be. In that world pigs could fly for example. There was no boundaries as to what could happen or be. The term used for these irrational beliefs was "mythos." If "mythos" looks like "myth" to you, you have the idea. Everything and anything could happen in myths. Reality was not a yardstick as to what these folks said about their gods.

John was pointing out that the scriptures are not myths, but logical (logos), things that could really happen in the everyday world.

The word logos was used to convey the thinking process behind the speaker as he spoke. It was the logic in their thinking for saying the things they said. It can be thought of as a "plan." Thus John 1:1 is speaking about the plan God had in mind from the very beginning. When Adam and Eve disobeyed, God put that plan into action. The entire Old Testament is part of that plan. God revealed that plan to Israel via words, the words of the scriptures. At some point, Jesus was born. So God went from revealing His plan via words to revealing it via a person who followed that plan to the letter, i.e. Jesus. That is why the logos is said to have been made flesh.

Now he was the star of God's plan, so when he was born it could be said that God's plan became flesh. In other words, although Jesus was the major player of the plan, he was not the plan itself. The plan was with God in the beginning but Jesus entered the scene much later. The only way he was with God was in God's mind, the logos. He didn't physically exist until he was born. John 1:14 speaks of Jesus beginning. God has no beginning.

There is a lot more to all of this. If you really want to know just google "mythos" and "logos." I guarantee you will find they mean something quite a bit different than the typical church doctrine. Plan on spending some time in your research, maybe months or even years. Don't be to hasty. You will have to change your thinking if you want to get to the bottom of this.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
The phrase "Son of" can also mean of the same type as
and the divine son of God can be an eternally generated person which is God's image of himself

In any case Jesus was called paraclete in 1 John 2:1 and He is a person


I think my mind is made up OK. I don't think God can be anybody other than God. He can't be Jesus because Jesus is somebody else, i.e. God's son. We have a father and a son, two people. If language means anything at all, a father and a son are not the same person. I've never met anybody who was their own father. It's a non-sequitur to think such a thing could exist.


Of course acts 20:18 speaks of God saving the church by His own blood.... and that only makes sense with some sort of Trinity..

In the end what you you have without the Trinity?
A God who has nothing to love eternity past before the world made
A God who is power and majesty primary and love and mercy secondary

With A trinity there is love communication and community within God by nature
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
I'm just curious how the JW's Bible translates Hebrews 1:8, which in the KJV states, "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom."
Hebrews 1:8 (NWT)
But about the Son, he says: “God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.
A few other translations render this text the same way.

The Complete Bible: An American Translation
Hebrews 1:8
But of the Son he says, "God is your throne forever and ever! And a righteous scepter is the scepter of his kingdom!

The Twentieth Century New Testament
Hebrews 1:8
while of the Son he said-- 'God is thy throne for ever and ever; The scepter of his Kingdom is the scepter of Justice;

The question seem worthy of asking... which rendering is in harmony with the context?

God is the one speaking, not the one being addressed.
This is seen from the surrounding texts, and the verse itself. Verse 7 says “Therefore God, thy God...” The one being addressed is a worshiper of that God.

Hebrews 1:8 is quoting Psalm 45:6, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel.
Clearly, the Bible writer of this Psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God.
Psalm 45:6, in Revised Standard Version reads...
Your divine throne(Footnote*) endures for ever and ever.
Your royal scepter is a scepter of equity;

Footnote* Psalm 45:6 Or Your throne is a throne of God, or Thy throne, O God
NE says, “Your throne is like God’s throne.” JP (verse 7): “Thy throne given of God.”

Solomon, who was possibly the king originally addressed in Psalm 45, was said to sit upon Jehovah’s throne. (1 Chronicles. 29:23)
Bible scholar B. F. Westcott states concerning this quotation:
“The LXX. admits of two renderings: [ho theosʹ] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (Thy throne, O God, . . . therefore, O God, Thy God . . . ) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (God is Thy throne, or Thy throne is God . . . ), and in apposition to [ho theosʹ sou] in the second case (Therefore God, even Thy God . . . ). . . . It is scarcely possible that [’Elohimʹ] in the original can be addressed to the king.
The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho theosʹ] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.’” — The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1889), pp. 25, 26.

In harmony with the fact that God is the “throne,” or Source and Upholder of Christ’s kingship, Daniel 7:13, 14 and Luke 1:32 show that God confers such authority on him.
The context is a very important factor.

By the way, I spoke with @Hockeycowboy. Did he contact you?
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Excellent point! I hope you don't mind if I elaborate.

God is holy and a spirit and thus He is sometimes called the Holy Spirit. It is simply another name for God (He has many names in the scriptures), not another person. God, being the Holy Spirit (note capital 's' and capital 'h'), give every born again believer what He is, a gift called holy spirit (note small 's' and small 'h'). The church has got holy spirit so messed up that most Christians are not even aware they have a gift of holy spirit. That's too bad because it is the very source of our power. It's what makes us children of God. It's that gift that can be manifested into the material world via the manifestation of the holy spirit (1 Cor 12: 7-10).

The original texts were written in all capital letters (uncials). There was no distinction between small letters and capital letters. In most languages today capitalizing a word makes it a proper noun. When the translators capitalized the words holy spirit it made it seem as though the words referred to God. But many times the words holy spirit are used of the gift, not the giver. As such they should not be capitalized. It is only by context that we can know for sure. Mixing them up has caused a lot of undue confusion when it comes to the gift of holy spirit and the manifestation of that gift (tongues, interpretation of tongues, prophecy, miracles, etc).
I agree.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
Hebrew 1:8
Hebrews 1:8 (NWT)
But about the Son, he says: “God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.
A few other translations render this text the same way.

The Complete Bible: An American Translation
Hebrews 1:8
But of the Son he says, "God is your throne forever and ever! And a righteous scepter is the scepter of his kingdom!

The Twentieth Century New Testament
Hebrews 1:8
while of the Son he said-- 'God is thy throne for ever and ever; The scepter of his Kingdom is the scepter of Justice;

The question seem worthy of asking... which rendering is in harmony with the context?

God is the one speaking, not the one being addressed.
This is seen from the surrounding texts, and the verse itself. Verse 7 says “Therefore God, thy God...” The one being addressed is a worshiper of that God.

Hebrews 1:8 is quoting Psalm 45:6, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel.
Clearly, the Bible writer of this Psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God.
Psalm 45:6, in Revised Standard Version reads...
Your divine throne(Footnote*) endures for ever and ever.
Your royal scepter is a scepter of equity;

Footnote* Psalm 45:6 Or Your throne is a throne of God, or Thy throne, O God
NE says, “Your throne is like God’s throne.” JP (verse 7): “Thy throne given of God.”

Solomon, who was possibly the king originally addressed in Psalm 45, was said to sit upon Jehovah’s throne. (1 Chronicles. 29:23)
Bible scholar B. F. Westcott states concerning this quotation:
“The LXX. admits of two renderings: [ho theosʹ] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (Thy throne, O God, . . . therefore, O God, Thy God . . . ) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (God is Thy throne, or Thy throne is God . . . ), and in apposition to [ho theosʹ sou] in the second case (Therefore God, even Thy God . . . ). . . . It is scarcely possible that [’Elohimʹ] in the original can be addressed to the king.
The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho theosʹ] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.’” — The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1889), pp. 25, 26.

In harmony with the fact that God is the “throne,” or Source and Upholder of Christ’s kingship, Daniel 7:13, 14 and Luke 1:32 show that God confers such authority on him.
The context is a very important factor.

By the way, I spoke with @Hockeycowboy. Did he contact you?

Hebrews 1:8 is from Psalm 45 the marriage of a Jewish king to a gentile bride pointing to Jesus and the church

Psalm 45
6 fYour throne, O God, is forever and ever.

The gscepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness;

It's a bit like 'the Lord said to my Lord' in Psalm 110 which also portends Jesus
 
Top