Halcyon
Lord of the Badgers
Surely this is God himself denying the trinity?I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
There is God, and beside him is no saviour, no Jesus?
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Surely this is God himself denying the trinity?I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
Halcyon said:Surely this is God himself denying the trinity?
There is God, and beside him is no saviour, no Jesus?
How can Jesus have a God, if he is God incarnate?John 20:17
Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' "
Halcyon said:Surely this is God himself denying the trinity?
There is God, and beside him is no saviour, no Jesus?
But this was God the Father speaking, hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus.FerventGodSeeker said:Actually it's an excellent prooftext FOR the Trinity. Jesus is the Savior (Titus 1:4), and therefore, since there is no Savior but God, then Jesus must be God.
Halcyon said:But this was God the Father speaking, hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus.
It is also said Jesus sits on the right hand of God, at His side. The Father and Jesus cannot therefore be one and the same, as Jesus is sitting on God's hand. But there is no Saviour beside God - Jesus is not the Saviour if he sits on the right hand of God.
Halcyon said:Surely this is God himself denying the trinity?
There is God, and beside him is no saviour, no Jesus?
How do you know that it was God the Father speaking?Halcyon said:But this was God the Father speaking, hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus.
The phrase "right hand of God" (Acts 7:55) is not literal. It is symbolic of power, authority, etc.It is also said Jesus sits on the right hand of God, at His side. The Father and Jesus cannot therefore be one and the same, as Jesus is sitting on God's hand. But there is no Saviour beside God - Jesus is not the Saviour if he sits on the right hand of God.
"Your right hand, O LORD, has become glorious in power; your right hand, O LORD, has dashed the enemy in pieces." Exodus 15:6
"Now I know that the LORD saves His anointed; he will answer him from His holy heaven with the saving strength of His right hand." Psalm 20:6
"According to Your name, O God, so is Your praise to the ends of the earth; Your right hand is full of righteousness." Psalm 48:10
When Stephen saw Jesus, he saw Him in awesome power and authority. It does not mean he literally saw Jesus standing on God the Father's right side.
FerventGodSeeker
Hmmm, the logos yes. But this is Gnostic mythology only found in John you will notice. It only makes sense in its original Gnostic context.Buttercup said:Not at all. If you read the NT there are many, many verses that describe Jesus and God as equal. "The Word" referenced in the first quote is Jesus
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...All things were made by him...He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not...And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us" John 1:1, 3, 10, 14
Yes, but this can be interpreted in many ways. I can and often do make the same claim.Buttercup said:"I and my Father are one". John 10:30
Yes, the logos was before Abraham.Buttercup said:"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." John 8:58
Three that bear record, but it doesn't say three alone.Buttercup said:"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." 1 John 5:7
Because Isaiah 43:15 says "I am the LORD, your Holy One, Israel's Creator, your King." Jesus didn't create Israel because he wasn't born yet.FerventGodSeeker said:How do you know that it was God the Father speaking?
So you take this as allegorical. Why then do you take Jesus talking about his Father in heaven to literally mean he his the offspring of God?FerventGodSeeker said:The phrase "right hand of God" (Acts 7:55) is not literal. It is symbolic of power, authority, etc.
When Stephen saw Jesus, he saw Him in awesome power and authority. It does not mean he literally saw Jesus standing on God the Father's right side.
FerventGodSeeker said:Are we to believe that you do not think at least some portions of the Bible are literal. How do you differentiate from literal and figurative?How do you know that it was God the Father speaking?
The phrase "right hand of God" (Acts 7:55) is not literal. It is symbolic of power, authority, etc.
"Your right hand, O LORD, has become glorious in power; your right hand, O LORD, has dashed the enemy in pieces." Exodus 15:6
"Now I know that the LORD saves His anointed; he will answer him from His holy heaven with the saving strength of His right hand." Psalm 20:6
"According to Your name, O God, so is Your praise to the ends of the earth; Your right hand is full of righteousness." Psalm 48:10
When Stephen saw Jesus, he saw Him in awesome power and authority. It does not mean he literally saw Jesus standing on God the Father's right side.
FerventGodSeeker
The fact that He wasn't born physically doesn't mean He didn't exist as spirit. The Word was with God and was God in the beginning. He did not need a physical human form until He came to earth to pay the price for human sin.Halcyon said:Because Isaiah 43:15 says "I am the LORD, your Holy One, Israel's Creator, your King." Jesus didn't create Israel because he wasn't born yet.
I believe that Jesus is the Son of God cheifly because the Bible says it multiple times. It explains quite plainly how the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary and she came to be with child through the Holy Spirit. That doesn't seem allegorical, it sounds like the Holy Spirit really did give her a child, Jesus, although it was certainly miraculous as she remained a Virgin. There's no reason contextually to take that event as allegorical, and thus Christ truly was and is the Son of God.So you take this as allegorical. Why then do you take Jesus talking about his Father in heaven to literally mean he his the offspring of God?
FerventGodSeeker
Pah said:Well one way is simply through context, both grammatical and historical. When you look at the Biblical examples talking about the "right hand of God", it seems pretty clear that they are metaphorical. Take the example I cited of God's right hand being "full of righteousness". How could a literal hand be "filled" with a quality which is not physical? The "right hand of God" was a jewish expression expressing power, authority, etc.FerventGodSeeker said:Are we to believe that you do not think at least some portions of the Bible are literal. How do you differentiate from literal and figurative?
FerventGodSeeker
Interesting. Buttercup, along with millions of other Christians have had no trouble understanding this outside a Gnostic context.Halcyon said:Hmmm, the logos yes. But this is Gnostic mythology only found in John you will notice. It only makes sense in its original Gnostic context.
Could you give examples of all the different ways you interpret this?Yes, but this can be interpreted in many ways. I can and often do make the same claim.
Yes. The alpha and the omega.Yes, the logos was before Abraham.
The earliest Christians of the Church that has existed to this present day have understood the Trinity to be the Manifestation of the One True God to those of us here on earth. I understand that others do not see it this way, but I fail to understand why it is so important to deny the Trinity to Christians. OK, so you see differently. But, if you think that the Trinity is an empty, or even harmful, doctrine, you must also think that Christ was unable to keep the promises He made and that the Holy Spirit did not come and lead us into all Truth as Christ promised. At what point do you think the Spirit abandoned the Church? And, how then can you trust the Bible to tell you anything, literal, metaphorical, spiritual, or otherwise?Three that bear record, but it doesn't say three alone.
No, it's Christian theology. The Apostles adamantly opposed Gnosticism.Halcyon said:Hmmm, the logos yes. But this is Gnostic mythology only found in John you will notice. It only makes sense in its original Gnostic context.
No, the Logos IS before Abraham. The whole uniqueness of that statemen lies in the fact that Jesus intentionally used the present tense (I am) where the past tense was gramatically appropriate (I was). Jesus is the eternal present tense, He is timeless and eternal. The passage bears odd resemblance to God's own claim back in Exodus to be the "I AM", which also appears gramatically out of context there.Yes, the logos was before Abraham.
It says that the three are one...how much more plain of a Trinitarian declaration could you possibly expect?Three that bear record, but it doesn't say three alone.
FerventGodSeeker
Halcyon said:Surely this is God himself denying the trinity?
Halcyon said:There is God, and beside him is no saviour, no Jesus?
Go on then, explain to me why Christ was called the word of God. Also why he's only called this in the gospel fo John.lunamoth said:Interesting. Buttercup, along with millions of other Christians have had no trouble understanding this outside a Gnostic context.
Sure. I am the son of God because i am male and am a creation of God. I am a part of God, but i am also an individual.lunamoth said:Could you give examples of all the different ways you interpret this?
The earliest Christians, are you sure of that?lunamoth said:The earliest Christians of the Church that has existed to this present day have understood the Trinity to be the Manifestation of the One True God to those of us here on earth.
Oh i'm fine with people believing in the Trinity, i just came across a passage that seemed to go against the concept and wanted to debate it.lunamoth said:I understand that others do not see it this way, but I fail to understand why it is so important to deny the Trinity to Christians. OK, so you see differently.
The spirit was never with the Church, the spirit is with the people. Truth abandoned the Church as soon as man-made beliefs became more important than Christ's message.lunamoth said:But, if you think that the Trinity is an empty, or even harmful, doctrine, you must also think that Christ was unable to keep the promises He made and that the Holy Spirit did not come and lead us into all Truth as Christ promised. At what point do you think the Spirit abandoned the Church? And, how then can you trust the Bible to tell you anything, literal, metaphorical, spiritual, or otherwise?
No, they didn't.FerventGodSeeker said:No, it's Christian theology. The Apostles adamantly opposed Gnosticism.
Yes, you are correct. My bad. I was reffering to the fact that the logos existed before Abraham was born, since Abraham existed in a fixed time period.FerventGodSeeker said:No, the Logos IS before Abraham. The whole uniqueness of that statemen lies in the fact that Jesus intentionally used the present tense (I am) where the past tense was gramatically appropriate (I was). Jesus is the eternal present tense, He is timeless and eternal. The passage bears odd resemblance to God's own claim back in Exodus to be the "I AM", which also appears gramatically out of context there.
Quite a lot plainer actually. Along the lines of "God is three forms in one, and three forms alone" would be best.FerventGodSeeker said:It says that the three are one...how much more plain of a Trinitarian declaration could you possibly expect?
Halcyon said:But this was God the Father speaking, hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus.
It is also said Jesus sits on the right hand of God, at His side. The Father and Jesus cannot therefore be one and the same, as Jesus is sitting on God's hand. But there is no Saviour beside God - Jesus is not the Saviour if he sits on the right hand of God.
Sure. We have gone off topic.Buttercup said:I am interested in contributing further to this debate but may I ask for clarification before I proceed?
Are you wanting us to discuss a passage from the OT to explain the idea of the trinity in the NT?
Could you explain just a bit more of what you are looking for? Sorry...just want to make sure I am understanding correctly as I am a bit confused. I can't get back till tonight or tomorrow though....
Do you happen to know the Hebrew for the english translation of Lord in this case?sojourner said:Actually, it was the LORD speaking...not the Father.