CherubRam
New member
The gift of God to the Elect is life immortal. The people in heaven already have the gift of immortality.
If you don't believe in the trinity...
- Thread starter Eeset
- Start date
- Status
The gift of God to the Elect is life immortal. The people in heaven already have the gift of immortality.
Ben Masada
New member
1 - Right. Immortaligy is indeed a characteristic of God. It means that only God has immortality and no one else does.
2 - I said, and no one else does. It means Jesus included.
Ben Masada
New member
1 - God is not like a man to repent or change His mind. He made already quite clear that Adam & Eve could not live forever. (Gen. 3:22,23)
2 - There is no one in heaven; the afterlife is to be spent in the grave, not in heaven. (Isa. 26:14; II Sam. 12:23)
CherubRam
New member
Genesis 4:7
If you do what is right, will you not be accepted?
Proverbs 12:28
In the way of righteousness there is life; along that path is immortality.
Romans 2:7
To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.
1 Corinthians 15:53
For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.
1 Corinthians 15:54
When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”
2 Timothy 1:10
but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.
Sinners are cut off from the living, to never live again. That is their eternal punishment.
csuguy
Well-known member
Depends upon which religion you are talking about. Hinduism, for instance, merged its gods into one and treated them as different aspects/personages of the same God.
If you study the development of the Trinity, such as by chronologically reading the writings of the Church Fathers as I have done, you will find that the development of the Trinity doctrine was highly influence by Greek Philosophy. After all, many of the Apologists/Theologians were Gentiles who had first been taught Greek Philosophy and who subsequently converted to Christianity. Nor did they always teach the Trinity, but it slowly developed over hundreds of years.
At any rate, the scriptures do not teach the Trinity. No where does it say that they are different personages but of one substance. Nor does it say that they are equal. And your quotes fall short of establishing that they are all omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent - as I will show below.
Jesus was addressed as "God" in a few places, but he is not alone. Angels were addressed as if they were God, such as in Exodus 3 with the burning bush. God told Moses that he had made him God to Pharoah and that he had made Aaron his prophet (Exodus 7:1). These are not called "God" because they are literally God himself, but because they are God's agents - sent with power and authority to do his will.
Hebrews one demonstrates this point nicely, that even when Jesus is called "God" yet it is clear that he is not God Almighty. Rather, he has a God over him.
Hebrews 1:8-9 But of the Son He says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, And the righteous scepter is the scepter of [h]His kingdom. 9 “You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness above Your companions.”
Furthermore, Jesus points out in John 10:34 that the OT calls us Gods. So, you see, the term "God" is used a lot more freely in the scriptures than to simply speak of God Almighty, and is legitimately applied to those who are not literally God.
The Holy Spirit isn't called God. Also, where did you come up with the idea that these attributes are those of diety? That isn't a scriptural idea. Nor do your selected scriptures establish these attributes. Let us focus on the Son with regards these.
First off, this does not say that he is omnipresent - but only that he is with us, in some sense, always. You are jumping the gun to conclude that this means that he is everywhere at once. Rather, scripture teaches that he ascended to a very particular place: to the right hand of the Father, where he serves as High Priest of the New Covenant and as Lord.
John 16:28 I came forth from the Father and have come into the world; I am leaving the world again and going to the Father.
John 14:1-3 “Do not let your heart be troubled; [a]believe in God, believe also in Me. 2 In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. 3 If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also.
So we see here that Jesus was not in the world, but entered it because the Father sent him. Then, after his resurrection, he left the world and rejoined the Father. Thus he is not omnipresent. Also Note the bolded text above: he says believe in God, and also in Me. Aka - he has distinguished himself from God.
Even God Almighty is not said to be omnipresent:
1 Timothy 6:16 [God] who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see.
So we see here that God dwells in an unapproachable light, as opposed to being anywhere and everywhere at once.
The verse you quote here in no way states that the Son is all-knowing. Furthermore, he himself points out his lack of knowledge on certain matters. Example:
Matthew 24:36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone."
This verse alone establishes that he is not omniscient.
Note what the passage says: he was given all power and authority. Aka, they are not his by nature. Furthermore, 1 Cor 15:20-28 clarifies this further by pointing out that while all else has been put underneath him, this does not include God himself. Rather, the Son will be subjected to God.
We are commanded to be Holy for God is holy. The saints are holy. Holiness does not signify that one is God.
We, too, shall be eternal. Eternal life is the reward of his true and faithful servants.
Actually this says that he is true, not "the Truth." A bit different. But even if we accept that he is "the Truth" proper, it does not establish him as God.
As I pointed out in the case of angels of men like Moses - yes, men can have these attributes applied to them. Jesus even notes that scripture calls us Gods. And, more to the point, your idea that a certain set of attributes make one God is unbiblical. There is no scriptural foundation for that idea.
Don't provide out of context quotes. You lopped off an important contextual piece of your Colossians quote, for instance:
Colossians 1:15-16 [w]He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For [x]by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.
He is the firstborn of all creation.
Hebrews 1:1-4 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 [a]in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the [c]world. 3 [d]And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and [e]upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they.
Note here that God is distinguished from His Son. Also note that the Son is said to be an "exact representation" of God's nature. But something which serves as a "representation" is necessarily not the thing being represented. Further we see that when he ascended: he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high (God). It says he has become much better than the angels - meaning that this was not true before. It is also clear that he is not God and is lesser than the Majesty on high.
This is true, excepting himself - who is the firstborn of all creation.
And if you still don't understand the Trinity, does it mean it's not True? I mean do you think it is possible for human beings to know everything about God? If yes, please explain Isaiah 55:8-9, Romans 11:33, and 1 Corinthians 13:12.
We should not reject a doctrine simply because we cannot fully comprehend it. Especially since it's in the Bible
I understand the doctrine and its arguments fine. The problem is that they are fundamentally flawed and neither scriptural nor THE historical position of the Church - despite their attempts at claiming so.
We must note that there are those who are compared to gods, such as Moses in Exodus 7:1 where God says to him, "See, I make you as God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet." God is not, of course, making Moses a god. He was saying that Moses will exhibit the power of God. But John 1:1 does not say that Jesus is a God in the same sense as Moses was said to be "as" God.
Now let’s look at how Jesus uses the passage in John 10:34. Jesus had just claimed to be the Son of God (John 10:25-30). The unbelieving Jews respond by charging Jesus with blasphemy, since He claimed to be God (verse 33). Jesus then quotes Psalm 82:6, reminding the Jews that the Law refers to mere men—albeit men of authority and prestige—as “gods.” Jesus’ point is this: you charge me with blasphemy based on my use of the title “Son of God”; yet your own Scriptures apply the same term to magistrates in general. If those who hold a divinely appointed office can be considered “gods,” how much more can the One whom God has chosen and sent (verses 34-36)?
Now Col. 1:15
In Col. 1:15 is used to say that Jesus is the first-created thing. This verse says, "He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation." The Jehovah's Witnesses and others maintain that "firstborn" means first created, but this cannot be the case for several reasons.
First, there is a Greek word for "first created," and it is not used here.
Second, firstborn can certainly mean the first one born in a family. However, it can also mean preeminence, and it is a transferrable title. We see that Manasseh was called the firstborn, and Ehraim is the second born in Gen. 41:51-52, but in Jeremiah 31:9, Ephraim is called the firstborn." Therefore, "firstborn" is a title of preeminence that is transferrable and does not mean first created.
And Expressions which link together the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit occurred very early in the History of the Christian Church. These are sometimes taken as expressions about the Trinity. The bible I've shown states a Trinity, as All persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) have not only the attributes of God throughout scripture but they all do the works of God and are Even Called God in scripture. And yes the early church also believed in a Trinity.
150 AD Justin Martyr: "The Father of the universe has a Son, who also being the first begotten Word of God, is even God." (Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 63)
150 AD Justin Martyr "Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts." (Dialogue with Trypho, ch, 36)
150 AD Justin Martyr quotes Hebrews 1:8 to prove the Deity of Christ. "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever." (Dialogue with Trypho, ch 56)
150 AD Justin Martyr "Therefore these words testify explicitly that He [Christ] is witnessed to by Him who established these things, as deserving to be worshipped, as God and as Christ." - Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 63.
150 AD Polycarp of Smyrna
150 AD Polycarp of Smyrna "I praise you for all things, I bless you, I glorify you, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, with whom, to you and the Holy Spirit, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen" (Martyrdom of Polycarp 14).
160 AD Mathetes
Same glory for all three persons Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
160 AD Mathetes "[The Father] sent the Word that he might be manifested to the world . . . This is he who was from the beginning, who appeared as if new, and was found old . . . This is he who, being from everlasting, is today called the Son" (Letter to Diognetus 11).
Jesus as from "everlasting" means He always existed.
170 AD Tatian the Syrian
170 AD Tatian the Syrian "We are not playing the fool, you Greeks, nor do we talk nonsense, when we report that God was born in the form of a man" (Address to the Greeks 21).
180 AD Irenaeus "Christ Jesus is our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King." (Against Heresies, Book I, ch. 10, section 1)
Let us look at the gospel of John. Here at the end of chapter 12, this is towards the end of Jesus' public ministry. And this is before the private ministry to the disciples. And verse 39...
39 The reason why they were not able to believe is that again Isaiah said:
40 “He has blinded their eyes and has made their hearts hard, so that they would not see with their eyes and understand with their hearts and turn around and I heal them.”
41 Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory, and he spoke about him.
Now I'm sure you've read that before, but have you ever stopped and asked yourself the question.
"...these things because he saw his glory." In the context, it's only Jesus. So when did Isaiah see Jesus' glory? Well, we just had a quotation so where's the citation from? From Isaiah chapter 6. You know Isaiah chapter 6 I'm sure. It's about the prophets vision of Jehovah sitting upon His throne...
6 In the year that King Uz·zi′ah died, I saw Jehovah sitting on a lofty and elevated throne, and the skirts of his robe filled the temple.
2 Seraphs were standing above him; each had six wings. Each covered his face with two and covered his feet with two, and each of them would fly about with two.
3 And one called to the other:
“Holy, holy, holy is Jehovah of armies.The whole earth is filled with his glory.”
4 And the pivots of the thresholds quivered at the sound of the shouting, and the house was filled with smoke.
5 Then I said: “Woe to me!
I am as good as dead,
For I am a man of unclean lips,
And I live among a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, Jehovah of armies himself!”
The quotation from Isaiah 6 is from verse 10...
10 Make the heart of this people unreceptive, Make their ears unresponsive,And paste their eyes together,So that they may not see with their eyes and hear with their ears,So that their heart may not understand and they may not turn back and be healed.”
So do you see what John is saying in John chapter 12? When he said, Isaiah said these things because he saw His glory and spoke of Him.
If you asked Isaiah... "Isaiah? Who did you see in Isaiah chapter 6?" Isaiah's response would have been, YHWY. YHWY was sitting upon His throne lofty and lifted up.
But if you asked John, "Who did Isaiah see?" Johns answer, is Jesus. The one sitting upon the throne, is Jesus.
Also Psalms 102:25-27
"Long ago you laid the foundations of the earth, And the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you will remain; Just like a garment they will all wear out. Just like clothing you will replace them, and they will pass away. But you are the same, and your years will never end."
Now, who is this scripture about? Gods right? It's saying Gods immutable, unchangeable, the creator of All things. It couldn't be anyone else. Only God created All things and doesn't change right? Ok, now if you can, turn to Hebrews 1:6
6 But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: “And let all of God’s angels will worship him.”
7 Also, he says about the angels: “He makes his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.”
8 BUT ABOUT THE SON, he says: “God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.*
9 You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your companions.”
10 AND (Still speaking about the Son-Jesus): “At the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands.
11 They will perish, but you will remain; and just like a garment, they will all wear out,
12 and you will wrap them up just as a cloak, as a garment, and they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will never come to an end.”
Psalm 102 is clearly about God. So why does the writer of Hebrews so plainly apply them to Jesus. Could you get back to me on that and maybe I can show you some more in the New World Translation.
anybody that doesn't believe in Father Son Holy Ghost should be banished to da moon - to da moon
oatmeal
Well-known member
God calls himself the Father, a shepherd, a rock, a fortress, a buckler, the exceeding great reward, the Holy Spirit and many other names and titles.
God does not call himself the son of God.
God is not His own son.
The son of God is the son of the Father, the shepherd, the rock, the fortress, the buckler, the exceeding great reward, the Holy Spirit and God's other names and titles.
God is God, the son of God is the son of God.
csuguy
Well-known member
"as" is something inserted by the translators - it isn't found in the Hebrew. The rest of the scriptures don't need to explicitly state that it is in this sense that Jesus is referred to as God - that is made clear through both through precedence and by the fact that Jesus is continually distinguished from God proper - both by his own words and by the other scriptural authors.
You are close, but not quite right. Jesus points out there hypocrisy in that he is using a lesser term than what is applied to them. "you are called 'Gods' - so why do you care if I say I am the 'Son of God'?"
But certainly, if these are called gods then how much more appopriate is it to call Jesus, who was sent by God to save us and who was given all power and authority, be called "God." But in the same sense. He is not literally God Almighty.
You are grasping at straws here. If you want to say that what is being used here is a "transferable title" then you need to show contextually that this is the case. However, I doubt you can backup such a position.
Saying the three names does not in anyway establish or indicate the Trinity. Trinitarians like to claim it does - but there is no logical connection between listing the three names and the Trinity doctrine. There have been many competing models that have all accepted that the three are one in some sense. I accept that they are one, but I reject the Trinity.
You clearly haven't read the writings of Justin Martyr or you would have avoided him. Indeed, I doubt you have read any of these church fathers you are quoting - but are blindly relying upon the internet to defend your position. Bad move. For, you see, Justin here taught that Jesus was a second god - created by the first. He is considered a lesser god, but of the same substance - like fire from fire. Here are some example quotes:
There is, and there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things – above whom there is no other God – wishes to announce to them. (Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho, ch. 55)
Of the son he says...
this offspring was begotten by the Father before all things created; and that that which is begotten is numerically distinct from that which begets any one will admit (Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho, ch. 128.)
Justin is quite intent upon making the point that Jesus, who is called God, is numerically distinct from God Almighty:
Reverting to the Scriptures, I shall endeavor to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things, - numerically, I mean, not in will. For I affirm that He has never at any time done anything which He who made the world – above whom there is no other God – has not wished Him both to do and to engage Himself with. (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 55.)
Nor does he consider the three to be equal, but acknowledges a clear hierarchy between them (Father > Son > Holy Spirit):
Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the times of Tiberius Cesar; and that we reasonably worship Him having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove. For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is herein, to which, as we make it plain to you, we pray you to give heed. (Justin Martyr, The First Apology, ch. 13.)
So to Justin, Jesus is a second lesser God created by the first. There is a clear heirarchy between the three Father > Son > Holy Spirit. Nor are they one in number, but rather he goes to pains to establish that they are numerically distinct. Really the only point where Justin agrees with the Trinity doctrine is that he believes him to be of the same substance - like fire from fire (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 128.), not diminishing the fathers own substance.
This doesn't in anyway teach or imply the Trinity doctrine.
Some taught that he had always existed, but many, like Justin Martyr above, taugt that he was born. Even those who accepted that he had always existed were not necessarily Trinitarians. You had the Monarchians, for instance, who believed that the three were simply different ways/modes in which God manifested - as opposed to there being three distinct persons. So, without further study, there is no reason to suspect that Mathetes here is a Trinitarian.
Much the same criticism as above. You haven't established that Tatian here is a Trinitarian. Even if you did, the early Trinitarians (who started to appear about this time) defined the Trinity much differently than what became the orthodox position.
In fact, Tatian was Justin Martyr's disciple - and shared his views.
Additionally, one of the heresies that the early church fought against was the idea that the Father himself had been made man and died on the cross. This heresy is called Patripassianism. They were ok with calling the Son (a) God in some sense, but not with the Father himself being put on the cross and dying.
Again, such a quote falls far from establishing that he was a Trinitarian. Rather, Iraneus concurs with Justin Martyr's views and even quotes him a couple times in his works.
CherubRam
New member
Very funny. Do you support the Catholic modifications to scriptures that suggest a trinity?
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Please supply support for your statement..........
Please supply support for your statement..........
Hi Eeset,
This assumption needs better explanation and evidence that supports your conclusion, could you provide that ? , and if this case is being made from some belief or rationale that is your own, or are you sharing this as a belief held by others?
pj
Please supply support for your statement..........
Hi Eeset,
This assumption needs better explanation and evidence that supports your conclusion, could you provide that ? , and if this case is being made from some belief or rationale that is your own, or are you sharing this as a belief held by others?
pj
It is not an assumption but rather a statement. Read the first commandment.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
No. Your "Urantia Book" is Hogwash! Your UFO Cult won't have the
last word. Judgment and the Lake of Fire await those who reject
God's Grace for ALL mankind. That includes you and Caino, Freelight.
Just like you believe in your "Urantia Book," UFO Cult, you mean?
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Does it really follow?.........
Does it really follow?.........
Ok, lets re-cap:
:think:
Ok, but it comes off as a 'confounding' statement....even a non sequitur.
Lets take this on from a few different perspectives:
From a purely Unitarian view,....there is no problem with such a statement, because Jesus is not worshipped as 'God Almighty', so there is no attempt or desire to worship Jesus as 'God'. Jesus doesn't need to be 'God'! - Only those claiming or believing this, are those who have the burden of proving it.
:idunno:
Also a modalist can still worship Jesus as 'God', without accepting some traditional-orthodox description of the Trinity, since the One God expresses thru 3 modes, and possibly more, since 'God' is Infinite. So a true modalist would not accept your 'statement' as true.
I could bring up more examples and from different schools or points of view. You know I enjoy it too, as one of my fortes. Its not to be antagonistic or difficult,...as my first post asked honest questions, because of the confounding nature of the statement based on whatever logic or assumptions are being held to validate the proposition. that's all. Now I've supplied Unitarian and Modalistic perspectives in view of your statement. I'll let you creatively engage and respond if you like.
pj
Does it really follow?.........
Ok, lets re-cap:
:think:
Ok, but it comes off as a 'confounding' statement....even a non sequitur.
Lets take this on from a few different perspectives:
From a purely Unitarian view,....there is no problem with such a statement, because Jesus is not worshipped as 'God Almighty', so there is no attempt or desire to worship Jesus as 'God'. Jesus doesn't need to be 'God'! - Only those claiming or believing this, are those who have the burden of proving it.
:idunno:
Also a modalist can still worship Jesus as 'God', without accepting some traditional-orthodox description of the Trinity, since the One God expresses thru 3 modes, and possibly more, since 'God' is Infinite. So a true modalist would not accept your 'statement' as true.
I could bring up more examples and from different schools or points of view. You know I enjoy it too, as one of my fortes. Its not to be antagonistic or difficult,...as my first post asked honest questions, because of the confounding nature of the statement based on whatever logic or assumptions are being held to validate the proposition. that's all. Now I've supplied Unitarian and Modalistic perspectives in view of your statement. I'll let you creatively engage and respond if you like.
pj
csuguy
Well-known member
There is no conflict between the first commandment and Jesus not being God. Nor again with honoring him for his sacrifice and respecting him as Lord though he is not God. The first commandment doesn't say you can't honor others - indeed, a few commandments down it says to honor your parents.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
:thumb:
Yes,...and again, if we look at the word 'worship'....it doesn't necessarily infer or mean that such an act of veneration can only be to DEITY, but to a representative or messenger of 'God' as well,....since the term 'elohim' can include 'God', 'angels' or 'men' too,....so there is no problem of Jesus being honored as God's anointed one, his anointed 'agent', his special Son.
A man can be so filled with 'God', that he radiates only that divine life-light-love,....so to see that person doing God's will, in divine service...and honor/venerate the person and the glory of God in them,...is a kind of rightful worship of 'God', since it is all 'God' anyways,...His spirit and presence both 'being' and 'manifesting'.
pj
csuguy
Well-known member
- Status