Trinity claims that the Jews believed that a Son is equal to his Father

[rosends]

Either you're kidding, or they did Caesarean sections in Moses' time? I guess this is an added rule to the law of Moses.

I am not kidding and yes, they did.

 

[PearlSeeker]

What does trinity teaching claim in exact regard to the son.

Does trinity not say that the son was ‘Born before all the ages’ : or firstborn of all creation?

Where does the Son of God come from?

What does it mean to be ‘Son’ … and ‘of God’?

And what then does it mean to be ‘Father’?

Just remember that ‘God does not procreate’! God only CREATES … in fact SPIRIT can only create… Angels cannot procreate!

From Catechism:

240 Jesus revealed that God is Father in an unheard-of sense: he is Father not only in being Creator; he is eternally Father by his relationship to his only Son who, reciprocally, is Son only in relation to his Father: "No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."

241 For this reason the apostles confess Jesus to be the Word: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"; as "the image of the invisible God"; as the "radiance of the glory of God and the very stamp of his nature".

242 Following this apostolic tradition, the Church confessed at the first ecumenical council at Nicaea (325) that the Son is "consubstantial" with the Father, that is, one only God with him. The second ecumenical council, held at Constantinople in 381, kept this expression in its formulation of the Nicene Creed and confessed "the only-begotten Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father".​

 

[IndigoChild5559]

OK, well it was a childhood memory, I saw a chair that looked to me like a throne, but I've seen throne-like chairs in other religious settings. I just remember being told it was for the rabbi's son. Maybe it was just that synagogue. Anyway yes, memories can be faulty.

Memory can be a funny thing. I have a very vivid memory of visiting the model homes in the town we moved to when I was two. Part of that memory was climbing on these wooden structures that were shaped like obtuse triangle. Now THAT doesn't make sense -- my twelve year old sister would have to be crazy to take me to the construction site and let me play on something like that. So I know that the memory, whatever it was originally, has been altered through time.

 

[YoursTrue]

I am not kidding and yes, they did.

They did Caesarians?

 

[YoursTrue]

Memory can be a funny thing. I have a very vivid memory of visiting the model homes in the town we moved to when I was two. Part of that memory was climbing on these wooden structures that were shaped like obtuse triangle. Now THAT doesn't make sense -- my twelve year old sister would have to be crazy to take me to the construction site and let me play on something like that. So I know that the memory, whatever it was originally, has been altered through time.

ok

 

[Soapy]

From Catechism:

240 Jesus revealed that God is Father in an unheard-of sense: he is Father not only in being Creator; he is eternally Father by his relationship to his only Son who, reciprocally, is Son only in relation to his Father: "No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."

241 For this reason the apostles confess Jesus to be the Word: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"; as "the image of the invisible God"; as the "radiance of the glory of God and the very stamp of his nature".

242 Following this apostolic tradition, the Church confessed at the first ecumenical council at Nicaea (325) that the Son is "consubstantial" with the Father, that is, one only God with him. The second ecumenical council, held at Constantinople in 381, kept this expression in its formulation of the Nicene Creed and confessed "the only-begotten Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father".​

You are not really answering the question.

Referring to ‘Ecumenical’ what’sits isn’t an answer since all that does is regurgitate trinitarian corporate ideas.

What IS A SON?

You rightly state that ‘Father’ is creator…. Thank you for this!

So if ‘Father’ is creator then how does trinity claim that the Son created everything and yet is not called ‘Father’ (which obviously would creator an invalid circular farce! … and does!)

I find all too often that Trinitarians claim something CORRECT in one argument and then go and contradict themselves in a second part of an argument. This is exactly what I’m seeing here!

Jesus is ‘The Word of God’ as in Jesus being the messiah that God promised IN HIS WORD of salvation: ‘The seed of a woman’.

God TAUGHT Jesus exactly what to do and say … and therefore when Jesus DID do and say exactly what the Father taught him to do and say then Jesus IS THE WORD OF GOD (word of the Father). This is no different to a emissary in a foreign country saying and doing exactly what his king showed him and taught him to sag and do…. That emissary is then THE WORD OF THE KING.

It most certainly does not mean that the emissary IS THE KING!!

And the emissary would blaspheme his king if he were to say (because of the power and truth of the words he speaks and deeds he does) ‘I Am [the] King’!

Likewise, the son of God never says ‘I Am [the] God [who taught me what to say and do when he sent me to you!]’.

And, by the way (or more importantly - IN THE WAY…) ‘Son’ means ‘He who says and does exactly what the Father taught him to do and say!’ …. Funny that, eh??

And guess what? The Son of a king is an Heir….

What is an Heir….?

Is an Heir King to the King he is heir to?

The Son of a king is not ‘[a] king’! Nor is a Prince king … but trinity alludes to this by its tortured and wrongful claims (E.g. Jesus the Son is Father; Jesus the heir is king; The servant of God is God, etc.)

 

[PearlSeeker]

So if ‘Father’ is creator then how does trinity claim that the Son created everything and yet is not called ‘Father’ (which obviously would creator an invalid circular farce! … and does!)

Not so. Father is the Creator/Source. Everything was created through the Word/Son. Son is the agent of creation.

For us, there is one God, the Father who is the ultimate source of all things. And there is one Lord—Jesus the Anointed; through Him all things were created. (1 Corinthians 8:6)​

See also:
John 1:3
Hebrews 1:2
Colossians 1:16

And the emissary would blaspheme his king if he were to say (because of the power and truth of the words he speaks and deeds he does) ‘I Am [the] King’

436 The word "Christ" comes from the Greek translation of the Hebrew Messiah, which means "anointed". It became the name proper to Jesus only because he accomplished perfectly the divine mission that "Christ" signifies. In effect, in Israel those consecrated to God for a mission that he gave were anointed in his name. This was the case for kings, for priests and, in rare instances, for prophets.29 This had to be the case all the more so for the Messiah whom God would send to inaugurate his kingdom definitively.30 It was necessary that the Messiah be anointed by the Spirit of the Lord at once as king and priest, and also as prophet.31 Jesus fulfilled the messianic hope of Israel in his threefold office of priest, prophet and king. (CCC)

Philippians 2:6-11

 

[Soapy]

Not so. Father is the Creator/Source. Everything was created through the Word/Son. Son is the agent of creation.

For us, there is one God, the Father who is the ultimate source of all things. And there is one Lord—Jesus the Anointed; through Him all things were created. (1 Corinthians 8:6)​

See also:
John 1:3
Hebrews 1:2
Colossians 1:16



436 The word "Christ" comes from the Greek translation of the Hebrew Messiah, which means "anointed". It became the name proper to Jesus only because he accomplished perfectly the divine mission that "Christ" signifies. In effect, in Israel those consecrated to God for a mission that he gave were anointed in his name. This was the case for kings, for priests and, in rare instances, for prophets.29 This had to be the case all the more so for the Messiah whom God would send to inaugurate his kingdom definitively.30 It was necessary that the Messiah be anointed by the Spirit of the Lord at once as king and priest, and also as prophet.31 Jesus fulfilled the messianic hope of Israel in his threefold office of priest, prophet and king. (CCC)

Philippians 2:6-11

I’m not sure if you are agreeing that Jesus is not God or trying disappointedly to claim that Jesus is God.

Your response is exactly as I illustrated in that you at one moment claim that Jesus is the emissary of the king (as my analogy shows) and the previous moment claim against what I illustrated:

• “No so. The Father is the source!” [of creation]
• “The Son is the agent” [of creation]

Where is the sense in what you say?

If you feel you are right now I’ve pointed out the ridiculous error you presented then please give an example of:

• The source of an action and the accompanying agent of that source of action!

 

[rosends]

They did Caesarians?

Jewish understanding of biblical texts is that they were familiar with at least post mortem c sections. Other cultures have similar traditions
https://www.researchgate.net/public...tion_in_the_days_of_the_Mishna_and_the_Talmud

 

[PearlSeeker]

I’m not sure if you are agreeing that Jesus is not God or trying disappointedly to claim that Jesus is God.

Your response is exactly as I illustrated in that you at one moment claim that Jesus is the emissary of the king (as my analogy shows) and the previous moment claim against what I illustrated:

• “No so. The Father is the source!” [of creation]
• “The Son is the agent” [of creation]

Where is the sense in what you say?

If you feel you are right now I’ve pointed out the ridiculous error you presented then please give an example of:

• The source of an action and the accompanying agent of that source of action!

I am not agreeing that Jesus is God. I am just discussing what the Trinity doctrine says.

Example of source and agent:

Remember John Lennon’s song “Imagine”? Well, for this post you will need to imagine. You own five acres of picturesque waterfront property valued at $2 million. You are going to build a $5 million house overlooking the water but tucked into a heavily wooded area. You’ve informed family and friends of your intention: “We’re going to build a magnificent house on our property!”

QUESTION! Are YOU actually going to build the house? Of course NOT! You’re going to hire a general contractor who in turn will deal with various building trades. So, whereas YOU ARE THE SOURCE (it’s your idea, land, and money) of the house, these talented people are YOUR CONSTRUCTION AGENTS to accomplish your desire. Get the idea? Life abounds with similar illustrations!

Christ and creation—Jesus: agent of creation​

 

[Soapy]

I am not agreeing that Jesus is God. I am just discussing what the Trinity doctrine says.

Example of source and agent:

Remember John Lennon’s song “Imagine”? Well, for this post you will need to imagine. You own five acres of picturesque waterfront property valued at $2 million. You are going to build a $5 million house overlooking the water but tucked into a heavily wooded area. You’ve informed family and friends of your intention: “We’re going to build a magnificent house on our property!”

QUESTION! Are YOU actually going to build the house? Of course NOT! You’re going to hire a general contractor who in turn will deal with various building trades. So, whereas YOU ARE THE SOURCE (it’s your idea, land, and money) of the house, these talented people are YOUR CONSTRUCTION AGENTS to accomplish your desire. Get the idea? Life abounds with similar illustrations!

Christ and creation—Jesus: agent of creation​

You suggest using Trinity DOCTRINE to claim SCRIPTURAL reality?

Well, let trinity doctrine destroy its own argument:

• Trinity says Jesus IS God

So, in your analogy GOD is BOTH Source and Agent - but two different PERSONS.

• Trinity doctrine says that Jesus created all things BY HIMSELF

So how can Jesus, who is GOD, and the source, and the Agent have created ALL BY HIMSELF if the Father is THE SOURCE (circular but unjoined - spiralling down into nonsense!)

In your argument the source and the agent are two different persons but then you say by trinity doctrine that the source and the agent are both the same person!

Your builder is also the supplier of the idea, the land, and the money:

• ‘The world was created BY HIM and FOR HIM….’

Circularly: The Father is the supplier and the Son is the builder: you say!

But that is not a TRINITY!!!

And also that would mean that the Father IS the Son!

This is intriguing - please Try again!

 

[PearlSeeker]

In your argument the source and the agent are two different persons but then you say by trinity doctrine that the source and the agent are both the same person!

According to doctrine they are the same God - not the same person.

 

[Soapy]

According to doctrine they are the same God - not the same person.

How does that fit into your analogy?

The same God created all things for himself?

Who else was there that He could have made the world for?

Yet we read that the inheritance is for the heir - the son!!

So if the Son created all things … how is he to inherit it? Wouldn’t he already own it?

Yet we know that the Angel, Satan, is the ‘God of this system of things…!’, the ‘God of this world’ who tried to tempt Jesus into obtaining it before Jesus had actually earned it!

Are you saying that GOD was tempted by an Angel?

How can God be tempted? Temptation is the desire to acquire something that you do not already have ownership of as a possession by underhanded means!!

Wow! This gets messier the more I ask you questions about his the trinity works!

 

[PearlSeeker]

So if the Son created all things … how is he to inherit it? Wouldn’t he already own it?

I thought we have already made this clear. The Father is the Creator creating through Son (some translations have "by" Son instead).

Are you saying that GOD was tempted by an Angel?

When Son became one of us he became God-man (fully God and fully man). "The Word became flesh." As a man he could be tempted.

 

[Soapy]

I thought we have already made this clear. The Father is the Creator creating through Son (some translations have "by" Son instead).


When Son became one of us he became God-man (fully God and fully man). "The Word became flesh." As a man he could be tempted.

The Father most certainly is the creator…. Therefore the Don cannot be the creator. So this truth flies in the face of everyone who claims that ‘Jesus created everything’ (or indeed, ANYTHING!).

The scriptures says that Jesus is Heir to the Father … heir to the possessions of the father. And, indeed we read that Jesus told his apostles that he was going to Heaven to prepare a place for them IN A ROOM IN HIS FATHER’S MANSION.

This is clear indication that creation is the possession of the Father and that Jesus is gifted a part of it.

To be gifted something means you do not already own it.

And, as for ‘Created through the Son’, that’s a cop-out since the Son was but a contingency by God before creation: every good builder of a free-Will system must have a contingency - this much is obvious and true.

But in all the time Jesus was living on earth, did he ever claim to have created anything? Did Jesus not say that now the Father was pleased with him for completing the works that the Father had sent him to do, that the Father should reward him with the prize that was there from the beginning - notably to be ‘God…. Ruler…’ over that which the Father had created!

If Jesus was ‘God’ like as in the Father, what reward is it to be gifted what you already owned?

No! Jesus is a human being and the created world is to be ruled over by a Human King… just as the Spirit world is ruled over by a Spirit King!

What sense is there is creation bring a reward for GOD… when not only did God CREATE IT but already rule OVER it (Satan, an Angel, is but a Steward over creation - he doesn’t ‘own’ it!)

 

[PearlSeeker]

The scriptures says that Jesus is Heir to the Father … heir to the possessions of the father. And, indeed we read that Jesus told his apostles that he was going to Heaven to prepare a place for them IN A ROOM IN HIS FATHER’S MANSION.

This is clear indication that creation is the possession of the Father and that Jesus is gifted a part of it.

To be gifted something means you do not already own it.

John 1:11 says otherwise:

He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.

 

[Soapy]

John 1:11 says otherwise:

He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.

You are not answering the questions I ask … for obvious reasons that trinity cannot furnish them for you.

• ‘He came unto his own ….’

Jesus was a Jew and was sent BY GOD to the Jews… Jesus came [WAS SENT BY GOD] unto the PEOPLE of the nation of Israel: the Jews!!

• [Jesus] answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” (Matt 15:24)

The Canaanite woman (vs. 22) was not one of ‘his own’ and therefore Jesus initially refused to help her.

Your point in your reference response would suggest that Jesus came to all people. Jesus, himself, said otherwise… saying that he was doing what the Father had sent him to do: To bring back the house of God.

But, as shown later on from your reference in John 1., Jesus gave concession to all those who were not from the house of Israel - like this cannanite woman - IF THEY BELIEVED that in Almighty God and that he, Jesus, was the spiritual Son of almighty God. The woman professed this and therefore Jesus said to her:

• “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.” (Matt 15:28)

So, once again you have shown to be posting false answers to questions posted to you. Your quoted answers and responses do not fit the questions asked of you!

 

[PearlSeeker]

• ‘He came unto his own ….’

Jesus was a Jew and was sent BY GOD to the Jews… Jesus came [WAS SENT BY GOD] unto the PEOPLE of the nation of Israel: the Jews!

The verse is not just about people of Israel. It's about the world. See context:

He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.​

 

[Soapy]

The verse is not just about people of Israel. It's about the world. See context:

He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.​

That’s a sad situation for ‘God who created the world’.

You really believe that the world did not recognise its creator? That’s a fairy tale! If almighty God is disowned by His very own creation - if God can be defied by his own creation then he is not God!

No! The verse does not mean that GOD was in the world but rather that the SERVANT OF GOD was in the world and the world did not recognise what it had been waiting for.

Isaiah 42:1 tells the words of almighty God in which He prophesies that He would send His Servant as a saviour.

God says that He would put His Spirit upon this servant. And it happened.

The people of God knew that the time was right for the messiah to come. Even Anna in the temple desired to remain in life until she knew the coming was done. The seers and wise men - mages - saw the signs.

Those signs were not of GOD COMING but of the SERVANT OF GOD.

Trinitarians ignore the words of God for those of the deceitful translators even when they can see the deception.

The servant of God cannot be God - He was sent by God - and the servant of God says he was sent by God. But trinity says God sent God!!!

 

[PearlSeeker]

That’s a sad situation for ‘God who created the world’.

You really believe that the world did not recognise its creator? That’s a fairy tale! If almighty God is disowned by His very own creation - if God can be defied by his own creation then he is not God!

No! The verse does not mean that GOD was in the world but rather that the SERVANT OF GOD was in the world and the world did not recognise what it had been waiting for.

Isaiah 42:1 tells the words of almighty God in which He prophesies that He would send His Servant as a saviour.

God says that He would put His Spirit upon this servant. And it happened.

The people of God knew that the time was right for the messiah to come. Even Anna in the temple desired to remain in life until she knew the coming was done. The seers and wise men - mages - saw the signs.

Those signs were not of GOD COMING but of the SERVANT OF GOD.

Trinitarians ignore the words of God for those of the deceitful translators even when they can see the deception.

The servant of God cannot be God - He was sent by God - and the servant of God says he was sent by God. But trinity says God sent God!!!

Again: it's not what I believe. It's what the Bible says. Read John 1. The Word was with God and the Word was God in the beginning (before any creation). And this Word came to the world as a human - Jesus. Uncreated, preexisting creation, agent of all creation - is this a divine being or an ordinary man to you?