1. 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 of three scriptures destroys the myth of the Trinity:

Discussion in 'Biblical Debates' started by iris89, Dec 27, 2004.

  1. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,193
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    I wonder if he is saying the Word came before God? No telling.

    You say this and then in Phaiseeical fashion tell us why YOU have the only correct view. Spiritual myopia is obvious to all but the possessor. :D
     
  2. LittleNipper

    LittleNipper Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,673
    Ratings:
    +29
    I do not assume. I study the entire Bible and the Holy Spirit enlightens me.
     
  3. iris89

    iris89 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    434
    Ratings:
    +21
    Hi NetDoc



    I see you are long on throwing out opinions, and extremely short on dealing with facts.



    You are great at throwing out questions, but when it comes your turn to answer specific questions you fail utterly to do so.



    FIRST, your statement,

    [/font]

    Must be the fact I found you making false accusations and brought it to your attention. By definition false accusations are lies and also called slander.



    SECOND, You mention John 9:34,



    Now, let's look at this scripture in context and learn a little about it.



    John 924-38 , " So they called a second time the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give glory to God: we know that this man is a sinner. 25 He therefore answered, Whether he is a sinner, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see. 26 They said therefore unto him, What did he to thee? How opened he thine eyes? 27 He answered them, I told you even now, and ye did not hear; wherefore would ye hear it again? would ye also become his disciples? 28 And they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are disciples of Moses. 29 We know that God hath spoken unto Moses: but as for this man, we know not whence he is. 30 The man answered and said unto them, Why, herein is the marvel, that ye know not whence he is, and [yet] he opened mine eyes. 31 We know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and do his will, him he heareth. 32 Since the world began it was never heard that any one opened the eyes of a man born blind. 33 If this man were not from God, he could do nothing. 34 They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out. 35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and finding him, he said, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? 36 He answered and said, And who is he, Lord, that I may believe on him? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and he it is that speaketh with thee. 38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him." (American Standard Version; ASV).



    One Bible scholar said on this scripture,





    And another said,



    Now maybe you have a better understanding of this scripture.



    THIRD, You make the opinionated statement without backup,

    [/font]

    Then why does the Bible say at Titus 2:1, "But speak thou the things which befit the sound doctrine:" (ASV)? Do you presume to know more than the Apostle Paul?



    FOURTH, Another opinionated statement without backup.

    [/font][/font]

    My, My here you are again making false accusations and apparently once more presuming to know more than the Apostle Paul? And are you being so presumptuous as to pretend to know more than the scribe God (YHWH) used to write Proverbs who said at Proverbs 4:1-2, " Hear, [my] sons, the instruction of a father, And attend to know understanding: 2 For I give you good doctrine; Forsake ye not my law.' (ASV)? And you are so presumptuous as to infer you know more than the Apostle Paul when he wrote Ephesians 4:14, "that we may be no longer children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, in craftiness, after the wiles of error;" (ASV)? And do you claim to once more know more than the Apostle Paul when he wrote 1 Timothy 6:3, "If any man teacheth a different doctrine, and consenteth not to sound words, [even] the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;" (ASV)? Or when he wrote 2 Timothy 4:3, "For the time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts;" (ASV)?



    FIFTH, Your statement makes a false claim in the form of a question,

    [/font][/font]

    Jesus (Yeshua) never contradicted the Old Testament, the Trinity is NOT found in the old testament. For more information, go to:



    DISCOURSE ON THE MISCONCEPTION WITH RESPECT 'I AM'

    http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=185



    And,



    Discourse on Jeremiah 23:5-6 and the Confusion on YHWH Tsidqenu and Its Equivalents:

    http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=127



    And,



    DISCOURSE ON ISAIAH 44:6:

    http://p197.ezboard.com/fabnafrm10.showMessage?topicID=63.topic



    So STOP MAKING FALSE CLAIMS.



    SIXTH, Are you talking of the great commission found at Matthew 24:14 to let all know about God (YHWH), his Son, Jesus (Yeshua), etc., "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a testimony unto all the nations; and then shall the end come." (ASV) of which I take a very active part in fulfilling?



    Your Friend in Christ Iris89





     
  4. t3gah

    t3gah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,125
    Ratings:
    +48
    If the information one stores in one's brain comes from a source on print or learned verbally and they, the person discussing whatever topic, brings them up, are the said topics for discussion and information known false in any way or is it possible that perhaps the information being supplied is to the best of their ability or last know recollection of such?

    Debates are venues that discover who knows what. Since both sides think or feel that their information is correct and not false, a statement such as the one quoted is highly illogical.

    (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=debate)

    I find your statement extremely perplexing to say the least.
     
  5. Gilbert1908

    Gilbert1908 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Messages:
    4
    Ratings:
    +1
    May I assume that the "cult" you refer to would be Catholics???

    That would be the "cult" which began with Jesus, Peter and his 11 friends??
     
  6. kassi

    kassi Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2004
    Messages:
    156
    Ratings:
    +19
    Im not sure what it is you dont think I understand, but thats o.k.
    If you'll look in the top left corner you'll see NKJV, this stands for " New King James Version".And yes, I used alot of scripture from John, Does this offend you? Would you like me to go into more detail, from other books?
    By the way you didnt answer the Questions, that I asked. Is there a reason why?
    The last statement in my last post, was it true or false?
     
  7. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,193
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    Well, if you count throwing out YOUR opinions, then yes. It seems you have short changed the truth, but not me.

    Actually FALSE claims that are written are called LIBEL. Slander is spoken. Not that you care for the truth.


    You flatter yourself. I would like you to show me where the Apostle Paul thou shalt not believe in the trinity or where he makes it a requirement for salvation. If you can't find it then start writing "I will not be a Pharisee any longer" a hundred times.


    Re-read your post (yeah, I know it's kinda tiresome and hard to read) and see where you said to not go the pagans.


    The thing that amazes me is how I, as a simple man can understand that serving God is far more than how one translates the scriptures and that you, as a supposed learned man, can't. You can take the position of the Sanhedrin and tell the world what an ignoramus I am. But I speak the truth, and in love to boot. GOD IS LOVE!

    BTW, FTR, FWIW, YOU are the one making all sorts of FALSE allegations and in the name of God at that. Shame, shame!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +950

    It's funny how, when read with an open mind, the Old Testament seems to explain the Divinity of Christ.

    A few examples:


    Deut. 4:2; 12:32 - the Lord God commands that we not add or take away from His word - Rev. 22:18-19 - Jesus so commands us not to add or take away from His word.

    Deut. 32:39 - neither is there any that can deliver out of God's hand - John 10:28 - nor shall any pluck out of Jesus' hand.

    Deut. 32:43 - rejoice, ye heavens, with Him, and let all the angels of God worship Him - Heb. 1:6 - the "Him" is Jesus the Son.

    2 Sam. 22:3 - God is the horn of salvation - Luke 1:68-69 - Jesus is the horn of salvation.

    Psalm 19:7 - the law of the Lord is perfect - Gal. 6:2 - fulfill the law of Christ.

    Psalm 24:10 - the Lord is the King of glory - 1 Cor. 2:8 - Jesus is the Lord of glory.

    Psalm 45:7 - Therefore God, your God, has anointed you. God calls someone else God. This someone else is His eternally begotten Son - Heb. 1:9 - Therefore God, your God, has anointed you. cf. Heb. 1:8, 10.

    Psalm 62:12 - the Lord God renders to each according to his work - Matt. 16:27; Rev. 22:12 - Jesus so renders to each according to his work.

    Psalm 71:5 - the Lord God is our hope - 1 Tim. 1:1 - the Lord Jesus Christ who is our hope.

    Psalm 89:27 – I will make him the first-born, the highest (“elyon” which refers to God) of the kings of the earth - John 18:36-27 – Jesus is this first-born king.

    Psalm 97:9 - the Lord God is above all - John 3:31 - Jesus is above all.

    Psalms 110:1 - the Lord (Yahweh) said to my Lord - Jesus = Yhwh - Acts 2:34-36 - God has made Jesus both Lord and Christ.

    Psalm 148:1-2 - the angels worship the Lord God - Heb. 1:6 - the angels worship Jesus. Only God is worshiped.

    Prov. 3:12 - who the Lord loves He corrects - Rev. 3:19 - who Jesus loves He corrects.

    Isaiah 7:14 - a virgin will bear a Son named Emmanuel which means "God is with us" - Matt. 1:23 - this Son is Jesus Christ, God in the flesh.

    Isaiah 25:8 - God swallows up death in victory - 2 Tim. 1:10 - Jesus abolishes death and brings life and immortality.

    Isaiah 40:8 - the Word of God shall stand forever - Matt. 24:35 - the Words of Jesus shall not pass away.

    Isaiah 42:8 - God gives His glory to no other - John 17:5; Heb. 1:3 - yet Jesus has the same glory as the Father.

    Isaiah 43:14 - the Lord God is redeemer - Titus 2:14 - Jesus is the redeemer.

    Isaiah 44:6 - the Lord God is the first and the last - Rev. 1:17; 2:8; 22:13 - Jesus is the first and the last.

    Isaiah 45:19 - I, the Lord God, did not speak in secret - John 18:20 - Jesus said "I have said nothing secretly."

    Isaiah 45:23 - to God, every knee shall bow and every tongue swear. Phil. 2:10-11 - at Jesus' name every knee should bow and tongue confess.

    Isaiah 48:17 - God is the Holy One - Acts 3:14 - Jesus is the Holy One.

    Isaiah 60:19 - God is everlasting light - Revelation 21:23 - Jesus the Lamb is eternal light.

    Jer. 17:10 - the Lord searches the hearts and repays us according to our deeds - Rev. 2:23 - Jesus searches the hearts and repays us according to our deeds.

    Ezek. 1:26-28; Daniel 7:9 - God's glorious appearance - Rev. 1:13-16 - Jesus' glorious appearance.

    Ezek. 34:11-31 - God the Father is the shepherd of the flock - John 10:7-29 - Jesus is the shepherd of the flock.

    Ezek. 34:16 - God seeks to save that which was lost - Luke 19:10 - Jesus seeks to save that which was lost.

    Ezek. 34:17 - God judges between cattle, rams and goats - Matt. 25:32 - Jesus judges and separates the goats from the sheep.

    Ezek. 43:2 - God's voice was like a noise of many waters - Rev. 1:15 - Jesus' voice was like the sound of many waters. Dan. 2:47 - the Lord is the God of gods and the Lord of Lords - Rev. 17:14 - Jesus the Lamb is the Lord of Lords.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,193
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    Whoa Scott. WAY impressive.

    However, reading with an open mind is the fly in the ointment here.
     
  10. No*s

    No*s Captain Obvious

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2004
    Messages:
    5,917
    Ratings:
    +471
    OK. I supplied evidence, so you may show my errors at your leisure. Here it is again.

    1. I pointed out that Ignatius was able to assume the doctrine in his letters from Antioch to Rome. He didn't exactly exert himself in order to prove it. If I'm going to use something as a fundamental assumption when I write letters, and I know someone is going to dispute it, I'd be pretty sure to make a point to prove it. He seemed to use it pretty casually, and those letters could get pretty argumenative.

    Secondly, I could always skip to the mid-second century and use Irenaeus. He spent a good deal of time supporting the humanity of Christ, and asserted his deity. He didn't exactly spend much time refuting belief that Jesus wasn't divine. Rather, his opponents seemed to assume that Jesus was a god who appeared in human form. Why, if there was considerable dispute, did he make such a drastic omission? He was being rather exhaustive and he wasn't pulling any punches.

    Now, can you cite for me any documents in the second century to contradict my claim? I'd love to look at them.

    2. The doctrine is implicitly assumed in the Synoptics. Jesus takes it as His authority in order to change the Law of God. "You have heard it said of old...but I say to you." He prescribes a trinitarian baptism in them, and we know from other documents, that the believer was baptised thrice, once in the name of each, and this is still done in the Church. Jesus' promise in them that we may become "sons of God" smacks of the doctrine of theosis, which we find expounded quite well in John. None of them give any sense that this is some simple and legal adoption, and the terminology was used pretty commonly for the doctrine, and still is. Lastly, the Synoptics also contain the Lord's Supper, which consequently, is inseparable from the whole idea of theosis: we ingest God and God abides in us. There is no other reason for the rather blatant "this is My flesh" and "this is My blood."

    Each of those portions of the Synoptics assume the Deity of Christ. If I'm wrong, you may always correct me, and I would ask you to use primary sources to show your interpretation was present. They all seem to rather blatantly assume it.

    3. Unless you have something earlier than Paul, I don't think I need to prove that Paul assumes it. He spends a lot of time rebuking "legalism" and defending his view of grace, but he spends very little time defending the Deity of Christ. Colossians is the only book where we find him exerting much effort in the matter. Even there, he isn't addressing another teaching the way he does with legalism, rather he simply seems to go off on the subject for about a dozen verses as an introduction. I don't see it as an argumentative segment.

    From your quote below, we both agree Paul taught it. However, you must think he argued it somewhere against another idea, because if not, that pretty much concedes he assumed it. With Paul, we have the earliest documents assuming it. The other early portions of the New Testament (e.g. James) don't speak on the subject. So, I would like to hear your contradictory evidence.

    So, the authors I cite are simply telling stories...but the one you tell and didn't substantiate is better how? It's hard to debate with declarations. You could always use the source material to support the claim.

    As it stands, I maintain that the early documents assume it when it is relevant, and the later documents argued for it. Now, that seems to contradict your statements. So, I should abandon my view that the Jewish converts had a hard time adjusting to their new lifestyles and carried over their old habits, and thus, caused some conflict, and that later, another sect arose that denied the Deity of Christ (these would be the aforesaid Ebionites) and upped the ante, and that they were a local phenomonea and not a church-wide one. Naturally, this view also takes into account the uniformity of the faith that both Irenaeus and Ignatius viewed.

    And after I abandon it, I should opt for a view that makes the conflict over the Deity of Christ take place when the documents assume it where relevant and that the conflict was largely over when we see the arguments. I am, further, to assume that the same side won the argument almost everywhere, if not everywhere, despite the Early Church's decentralization, and I am to accept it though you didn't give any documentation from the early texts. This seems to be stretching things a tad a tad.

    To make a quick note on the sect of James and sect of Paul stuff, which is the theory I think you're drawing on, I'll also note that in Luke-Acts we do have James presiding over the Jerusalem Council. What we don't find is any discussion in there on the Deity of Christ (despite Luke-Acts clearly assumes the Deity of Christ), and it treats it as authoritative. I can assume that L-A was written by a man totally ignorant of the events, that they happened in some fashion like that, or that he made them up entirely. I kind of doubt that the kind of systematic conflict your model requires would escape the attention of even the most ignorant of authors, so I can safely discard the first event, and thus, leave out any attempt at reconciling their contrary position. The second possibility, that Luke actively made it up, also falls flat on its face for the same reasons as the first. If he was trying to gloss over the conflict, then the central themes of the conflict, the Deity of Christ and Eucharist, would've been ascribed to James. That, at least, seems reasonable to me. The last doesn't require absolute historical accuracy, but it omits the conflict between the two sects altogether...that it never happened. This theory, also, isn't exactly universally held in scholarship, so I'm not barking up a tree against all scholarship.
     
  11. No*s

    No*s Captain Obvious

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2004
    Messages:
    5,917
    Ratings:
    +471
    Iris, pushing your Greek knowledge off to your husband doesn't change much for me. We've already gone round about this, and I don't see why I should listen now that you're passing it off onto somebody else. It took me long enough, and with enough loss of hairs, to get you to concede to the facts that proved you didn't know what you're talking about. After that experience, I frankly don't trust you.
     
  12. michel

    michel Administrator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    28,675
    Ratings:
    +2,658
    Hi Iris,

    I have just two comments to make re your post
    1) Have you thought how didtorted the modern English, US bible has become ?
    The Bible is full of scriptures handed down, through the ages, by mouth fro one to another, until it could be written
    2) And once it was written, it had to be later translated - each translator doing his best to retain the original meaning; but hey, who is perfect?

    :162:
     
  13. iris89

    iris89 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    434
    Ratings:
    +21
    Hi Kassi



    The book of John is actually one of my favorites. I have written an entire documentary on it as follows:



    Documentary on the Book of John Being Anti-Trinitarian-In Multiple Parts:

    JOHN 1:1-2 - LEARN THE FACTS:

    Many emotionally diehard Trinitarians point to how John 1:1 is erroneously worded in many Bibles as, "In the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God, and the Word was God." (American Standard Version; ASV), and neglect to look at John 1:2 in those same Bibles which says, "The same was in the beginning with God." (ASV); Clearly showing two distinct individuals. Moreover the overlook John 1:14 in those same Bibles which says, "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth." (ASV) which clearly shows his as the only begotten of his Father, Almighty God (YHWH) in harmony with 1 John 4:9, "Herein was the love of God manifested in us, that God hath sent his only begotten Son into the world that we might live through him." (ASV) once more clearly showing them as two distinct individuals, one superior to the other and sending the subordinate, his Son, to be among mankind.

    The next problem for Trinitarians is the salient fact that no matter how you analyze or translate John 1:1 you only get two individuals or as they falsely claim manifestations of one individual, which makes NO Trinity or group of three, neither of individuals and/or manifestations; my, my, so much for John 1:1 proving a trinity. It does not do this even with the biased translations of Trinitarians; moreover, there are more accurate ways of translating John 1:1 such as the way the New English Bible whose translators had access to older manuscripts that did the translators of the King James Bible, the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible, and the American Standard Bible. In the New English Bible, John 1:1 reads, "When all things began, the Word already was. The word dwelt with God, and what God was, the Word was." (The New English Bible; NEB). In fact, the NEB renders John 1:2, "The Word, then, was with God at the beginning, and through him all things came to be;" (NEB), and the fact that his Father (YHWH) after creating him used Jesus (Yeshua) as his master worker is revealed at Proverbs 8:22-30 about Jesus (Yeshua) being brought forth and being his Father's (YHWH's) master workman, "Jehovah possessed me in the beginning of his way, Before his works of old. 23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, Before the earth was. 24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth, When there were no fountains abounding with water. 25 Before the mountains were settled, Before the hills was I brought forth; 26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, Nor the beginning of the dust of the world. 27 When he established the heavens, I was there: When he set a circle upon the face of the deep, 28 When he made firm the skies above, When the fountains of the deep became strong, 29 When he gave to the sea its bounds, That the waters should not transgress his commandments, When he marked out the foundations of the earth; 30 Then I was by him, as a master workman; And I was daily his delight, Rejoicing always before him." (ASV); And Jesus' (Yeshua's)existence before the earth was is affirmed at John 8:58, "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am." (ASV); Thus as Colossians 1:17 says, ""and he is before all things, and in him all things consist." (ASV); And at Revelation 3:14, "And to the angel of the church is Laodicea write: 'These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God:" (ASV), Jesus (Yeshua) is once more shown as the first of creation. Clearly, then, he, Jesus (Yeshua) is neither the same individual and/or manifestation of the same individual; Nor co-eternal, nor co-equal with his Father (YHWH).

    All this in strict compliance with the Jewish Law of Agencies which is basically as follows, "Jesus (Yeshua) was God's (YHWH's) appointed agent in accordance with the 'Biblical law of agency' described as, "Scripture mentions something being done by Person A, whilst another mentions it being done by Person B. This is best understood when we grasp the Schaliach Principle, or the Jewish Law of Agency, which is expressed in the dictum, "A person's agent is regarded as the person himself." Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principle." (The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, R.J.Z. Werblowski and Geoffrey Wigoder). And 1 Timothy 2:5 says, "For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, [himself] man, Christ Jesus," (ASV). This is why Jesus (Yeshua) could say, John 16:23, "And in that day ye shall ask me no question. Verily, verily, I say unto you, if ye shall ask anything of the Father, he will give it you in my name."(ASV).


    This fact is further affirmed at Ephesians 1:20-23 which shows that his Father (YHWH) raised him from the dead and put him at his right hand to administer all for him, "Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, 21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come; 22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, 23 Which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all." (ASV); This fact, that his Father (YHWH) placed him over all things except himself, a superior one, is highlighted at 1 Corinthians 15:20-28, "But now hath Christ been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of them that are asleep. 21 For since by man [came] death, by man [came] also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; then they that are Christ's, at his coming. 24 Then [cometh] the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be abolished is death. 27 For, He put all things in subjection under his feet. But when he saith, All things are put in subjection, it is evident that he is excepted who did subject all things unto him. 28 And when all things have been subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all." (ASV). This will bring the fulfillment foretold at Isaiah 45:23, "By myself have I sworn, the word is gone forth from my mouth [in] righteousness, and shall not return, that unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear." (ASV). This scripture shows that God (YHWH) will bring the earth back to perfection, i.e., a place where everyone will love their creator, Almighty God (YHWH), and his chief agent or mediator of life, Jesus (Yeshua) Christ, and their neighbor, and he, God (YHWH) will once more be using his Son, the Son of God, Jesus (Yeshua) as his master worker to accomplish this as shown by 1 Corinthians 15:20-28, previously quoted.




    For the remainder since this BB will not support very long articles, go to:





    Documentary on the Book of John Being Anti-Trinitarian-In Multiple Parts:

    http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=97



    Also, I thought I answered all of your questions in great detail so I have no idea what you are referring to when you say:





    Your Friend in Christ Iris89

     
  14. iris89

    iris89 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    434
    Ratings:
    +21
    Hi No*



    FIRST, It appears you do NOT know about intellectual honesty. Specifically you do NOT take credit for yourself for the works (writings) of another. So your statement,



    Is totally out of place.



    SECOND, You may consider plagiarism okay, but I do not. But you are in a crowd of many. The Muslim prophet Muhammed, one of the greatest plagiarist of all times, copied a lot of his work from the Bible without giving credit. His copy job was NOT the best so a lot became distorted. A good example is:



     
  15. iris89

    iris89 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    434
    Ratings:
    +21
    Hi Michel

    Your statement,



    I am well aware of some of the biases and distortions in some English Bibles. I my self do a lot of my Bible study in my own language which is not English. However, the best of the English Bibles in my opinion are the New English Bible (NEB), The New World Translation (NWT); and Dr. J. J. Griesenbach’s Interlinear, Greek to English of the new testament.



    In fact I have written an entire research product on the subject,





    There is more to it, but due to length it can not be posted in its entirety on this forum, so go to:



    Let's Have Reality in Translation:

    http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=207



    Your Friend in Christ Iris89
     
  16. iris89

    iris89 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    434
    Ratings:
    +21
    Hi Everyone:



    Some throw out a lot of scriptures from the old testament supposedly supporting the Trinity, but NONE actually do. The old testament as well as the new testament were written by members of the Jewish nation. Even Jesus (Yeshua) was born to the virgin Mary a Jewish girl. The Jews were absolute monotheist and believed in NO Triad or Trinity so let’s get real, and stop pushing falsethings.

    Let’s look at what the Jewish Encyclopedia says on the subject,



    Clearly we see all those contending that the Trinity is supported in the old testament are only doing wishful thinking to support their God (YHWH) dishonoring false doctrine or myth that they borrowed from the pagans, how pathetic.

    Your Friend in Christ Iris89

     
  17. iris89

    iris89 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    434
    Ratings:
    +21
    Hi WebDoc

    Here is a question for you which you probably will not answer as you have NOT yet answered any of the questions I previously asked you. You love to throw questions at others, but you sure do not like to answer them, and this especially so with respect answering them from the Bible:

    John 5:26, “For as the Father hath life in himself, even so gave he to the Son also to have life in himself:” (American Standard Version; ASV)



    John 6:57, “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father; so he that eateth me, he also shall live because of me.



    By the words of Jesus, Jesus was not eternal; he was given to have life in himself and lives because of the Father. A eternal being cannot be given to have life in themselves, and they do not depend on others to live.

    Now WebDoc what is your answer?

    Your Friend in Christ Iris89
     
  18. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,193
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    John 5: 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself.

    John 6: 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

    I am not sure WHAT question I am supposed to answer, since there is no clear question in your post except for asking what my answer is! I will attempt to answer WHAT I think you are asking and maybe even answer some questions that you did NOT think to ask.

    The first concerns life and death.

    Life is not merely referring to "existence", it is refferring to a "quality".

    John 10:10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.

    John 17:3 Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.


    The people Jesus was talking too were already "existing" and yet he brought them "eternal life". Notice that he did NOT define eternal life as merely existing forever... he defined it as HAVING A RELATIONSHIP with God. He did NOT couch this eternal life in terms of believing in the doctrine of trinity or NOT. Just in knowing God and Jesus. IOW, I don't have to wait for Heaven to get eternal life: I HAVE ETERNAL LIFE RIGHT NOW! Yay God!!! Yay Jesus!!! Yay Spirit!!!

    John 6:63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.

    WHOA... now Jesus is saying that the SPIRIT GIVES LIFE! What gives? Well, if Jesus, and the Father and the Spirit are all ONE it makes sense. If they are seperate than it sounds way contradictory. Sort of like a Spiritual "Who's on First?".

    I certainly believe that the three of them are one and entirely seperate at the same time. I also believe that this is a part of God's omnipresence in the world, but I am not sure since it's just not that important to pursue.There are MANY things about God that we can never understand. We don't need to fully understand them in order to serve him and to love others. I do NOT consider myself a trinitarian... I HATE LABELS. Call me a Christian, if you must call me something. Calling me a Disciple works too. Calling me late for dinner is anathema and you will condemned to the... oops, got sidetracked on that last one.

    BTW, diligently studying the scriptures is great IF your motivation is to love God and not to lord it over others.

    John 5:39 You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life. 41 "I do not accept praise from men, 42 but I know you. I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts.

    I surely do not want Jesus to say this to me on the last day. It's a matter of loving God. It's a matter of surrender to Jesus as Lord... not whether you have the current doctrine du'jour down pat. When I say "Get a Life!" I mean it with all love and sincerity.
     
  19. iris89

    iris89 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    434
    Ratings:
    +21
    Hi WebDoc



    You missed the question altogether, I guess I did not make it clear enough for you.



    The two scriptures were only part of the question. The real question is the fact that these two scriptures clearly show the Trinity is impossible, but I believe you may not fully understand what the Trinity doctrine actually is so let me state it from an authoritive source:





    This doctrine clearly states that the three persons are coeternal together, and coequal, but the scriptures in question,



    John 5:26, “For as the Father hath life in himself, even so gave he to the Son also to have life in himself:” (American Standard Version; ASV)

    John 6:57, “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father; so he that eateth me, he also shall live because of me.




    Clearly show this as impossible as Jesus (Yeshua) himself testified that the “Father hath life in himself, even so gave he to the Son” which would be of course impossible if they were as this false doctrine falsely claims that they are coeternal and coequal. Likewise, Jesus (Yeshua) clearly states, “I live because of the Father” which would of course not be the case if they were as this false doctrine falsely claims that they are coeternal and coequal.



    As I said in the final part of my original question,



    Clearly if all were coeternal and coequal, none could give life eternal to the other, NOR could any live because of the other. This is a simple and obvious fact that you probably missed as many, like yourself, do NOT fully understand the false God (YHWH) dishonoring false doctrine of the Trinity. Most believe it based on what they have been told without bothering to look into it and check the facts. Of course, not checking the facts is NOT in line with Acts 17:10-11, “But the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea. Who, when they were come thither, went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all eagerness, daily searching the scriptures, whether these things were so.” (Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible).



    I asked that question in an effort to get you to think on the subject and to investigate.



    Some post, not you, aimless scriptures from the old testament in a vain effort to support this false doctrine, but of course none of these actually apply as God’s (YHWH’s) specific instructions to his people the Israelites was to have nothing to do with foreign god’s and doctrines.



    Your Friend in Christ Iris89
     
  20. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,193
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    The answer to YOUR question was answered. You just chose to not accept it. I disagree with your logic and in trying to force an interpretation by the twisting of words. Etymology was not created so that you could spend hours trying to determine how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

    Yes, my answer to your question was rather clear, but I will make it more so...

    It doesn't matter!!!
    You are drawing lines in the sand that were never meant to be drawn. Why??? I surely do not know, but I have my suspicions. Honoring God and Loving your Neighbor are not included in my suspicions. ​
     
Loading...