Trinity Proof Scriptures

[Rosenritter]

You've got it backwards. I am demanding that the context BE included.
I am PROVING the absolute necessity of the context with my example.

There is no way you can be certain of the meaning of this virtually identical phrase, WITHOUT CONTEXT!

I answered and said unto Wendy; "My brother, and my dog".

Still waiting for your admission that it is impossible to determine the meaning, without more context.

Again, you have this backwards. Jesus approached Thomas, and ONLY AFTER Jesus proved his God had resurrected him, did Thomas exclaim "My Lord, and my God".

So Jesus approached Thomas, and the eyes of Thomas flipped back in his head and he started to speak to Jesus, but then turned and spoke to a vision in the air? "My Lord .... and OMG! What's that angel beside you that no one else sees but me?"

Preposterous....

 

[7djengo7]

Can you lie to the IRS?

To what are you referring by the phrase, "the IRS"? If to one or more persons, then, obviously, it's possible to lie to it/them. And, if not to one or more persons, then to what non-personal thing (if anything) are you referring by the phrase, "the IRS"?

 

[7djengo7]

Can I lie to Google? I made an account so my daughter could log in to play a video game on an old Android device. I might have exaggerated her age a little so that she would make the minimum to have her own email account (she is age two in real life.) Are Google's automated server scripts a person?

What you did, there, was to lie to the persons called "Google". You lied to them by means of their technology. Computer programs aren't persons.

 

[7djengo7]

Where have I said that Jesus should not be called the most high, show me the post number. I've only ever stated that Jesus is never called the most high, but is referred to as the Son of the most high.

Should Jesus be called the Most High God, or not?

 

[Dartman]

It is a fair representation of his argument.

Of course it's not.

1. Accepts names and titles as identification except when it conflicts with the position he wishes to hold.

No, the exception is to your INTERPRETATION of what similar/identical phrases mean.

Both Jesus and his God are called "king of kings", so are worldly kings, who had kings under them ..... IDENTICAL TITLES DOES NOT PROVE A SHARED IDENTITY!

2. You are warping the passage out of its context. What do you think it would mean if Jesus said that he did his wonders apart from the power of God? Jesus was equal with God, not apart from God.

You are ignoring the context. Jesus makes it VERY clear, his GOD is the source of any power and authority Jesus has. Jesus "can do NOTHING of myself".

John 5:18 KJV
(18) Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

News flash, the Jews were wrong. I know, you would THINK that the same people who murdered Jesus would be the best authorities about his nature ..... but, not so much.

Philippians 2:6 KJV
(6) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

Here are some less biased translations:
Phil 2:6 ... did not consider equality with God something to be grasped NIV


Phil 2:6 ... did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, NASU


Phil 2:6 ... did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, ESV


Phil 2:6 ... did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped, NET


Phil 2:6 ... did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, RSV


NT:726 harpagmos (har-pag-mos'); from NT:726; plunder (properly concrete): KJV - robbery.


NT:726 harpazo (har-pad'-zo); from a derivative of NT:138; to sieze (in various applications): KJV - catch (away, up), pluck, pull, take (by force).

Your premise is that Jesus is not equal with God.

Absolutely correct.

John 14:28 ... my Father is greater than I.


John 20:17 .... go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

 

[Dartman]

Should Jesus be called the Most High God, or not?

Absolutely not.

 

[Dartman]

So Jesus approached Thomas, and the eyes of Thomas flipped back in his head and he started to speak to Jesus, but then turned and spoke to a vision in the air? "My Lord .... and OMG! What's that angel beside you that no one else sees but me?"

Preposterous....

Yes, your distortion of the context IS preposterous.

It is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS, the context is Christ's RESURRECTION.
That is what Thomas refused to accept, and that is what Jesus convinced Thomas had actually happened.
We know beyond doubt, that Jesus' FATHER, Jesus' GOD, is who raised Jesus from the dead.

Eph 1:17-20 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,
19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to usward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,
20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,


So, it's VERY logical, and common sense ... to conclude Thomas is praising both his God, who raised his Lord from the dead, and his Lord as the "firstborn from the dead".

 

[7djengo7]

The verse I used showed exactly what I was claiming, namely, that Jesus was the Son of the most high (the verse also implies that Jesus is not the most high since he is the Son of that one - not that this is the point I was originally arguing).

Here, you admit that you claimed exactly what I said you claimed: that Jesus should not be called "the Most High God". That is EXACTLY what you were claiming, all along, by way of implication.

If you wish to try to say, now, that THAT was really not the thing that you were implying, then, by all means tell us, What, exactly, was your "point" in saying that "Jesus is never referred to as the most high and is referred to [sic] the Son of the most high"? What were you trying to argue by stating that "Jesus is never referred to as the most high and is referred to [sic] the Son of the most high"?

 

[7djengo7]

I do worship Jesus since this is the method that the father deems all persons to worship him. I worship the Father by worshiping Jesus, who passes all glory to his father. This a basic truth.

You claim that the Father created Jesus, and you pretend that you worship Jesus. So, you admit that you consider yourself to be a creature worshiper.

In your (pretended) worship of Jesus (Whom you say is a creature), how do you think you avoid the charge of worshiping the creature more than the creator?

Do you deny that Trinitarians worship Jesus? Would you say that acknowledging a person to be God is worship of that person?

 

[Rosenritter]

Of course it's not.

No, the exception is to your INTERPRETATION of what similar/identical phrases mean.

Both Jesus and his God are called "king of kings", so are worldly kings, who had kings under them ..... IDENTICAL TITLES DOES NOT PROVE A SHARED IDENTITY!

In the context of all other governments of the world being destroyed and put under his feet it certainly does prove the same identity.

You are ignoring the context. Jesus makes it VERY clear, his GOD is the source of any power and authority Jesus has. Jesus "can do NOTHING of myself".

Which means that his power is of God and not apart from God, not the work of a mere man or the prince of devils.

Your argument is circular. This particular thread has the theme of recognizing bad arguments and why they shouldn't persist in being used. If Jesus said the opposite you'd claim that for your position with double zeal (and then you might have a point.)

News flash, the Jews were wrong. I know, you would THINK that the same people who murdered Jesus would be the best authorities about his nature ..... but, not so much.

You are also saying that the apostles and writers of scripture are wrong when they affirm the same in the later New Testament. I happen to think that those who Jesus spoke to after his resurrection would have a better idea of his nature than a diverse group that disagrees on the details but of which all unite to say the scripture doesn't say what it clearly affirms.

Did you say that "the Father" comes to earth, just at a later date? I am getting the people here mixed up, but at least one of the current "Jesus is not our God" crowd would denies that. It came up last week.

 

[Rosenritter]

Yes, your distortion of the context IS preposterous.

It is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS, the context is Christ's RESURRECTION.
That is what Thomas refused to accept, and that is what Jesus convinced Thomas had actually happened.
We know beyond doubt, that Jesus' FATHER, Jesus' GOD, is who raised Jesus from the dead.

Eph 1:17-20 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,
19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to usward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,
20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,


So, it's VERY logical, and common sense ... to conclude Thomas is praising both his God, who raised his Lord from the dead, and his Lord as the "firstborn from the dead".

It hasn't mattered how many times you go at this, your explanation doesn't make coherent sense and seems obviously contrived. You know what meaning you need the text to say, and you're trying to force that into the passage. Square pegs and round holes. Doesn't fit.

 

[Dartman]

It hasn't mattered how many times you go at this, your explanation doesn't make coherent sense and seems obviously contrived. You know what meaning you need the text to say, and you're trying to force that into the passage. Square pegs and round holes. Doesn't fit.

Your post is an empty claim. Not a shred of credible evidence is provided.
Are you denying that the context is about Christ's resurrection???

 

[7djengo7]

I have done no such thing...

Yes, you did that very thing:

'only the Father Jehovah is called the Most high and Jesus is the Son of the Most high'

You modified the word 'Jehovah' by the phrase 'the Father'. Why, as an anti-Trinitarian, would you do that?

You're a hypocrite for despising the phrase, "the Trinity", for its being a phrase not found in Scripture, while turning around and using another phrase not found in Scripture, "the Father Jehovah". What drives you to be such a self-righteous hypocrite?

 

[Dartman]

In the context of all other governments of the world being destroyed and put under his feet it certainly does prove the same identity.

1 Cor 15:23-28 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming,
24 then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power.
25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.
26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death.
27 For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, "All things are put in subjection," it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him.
28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all. NASU

Which means that his power is of God and not apart from God, not the work of a mere man or the prince of devils.

This is mostly true.... but still tainted by your confusion..... AND, in direct contradiction to any Jesus is the Father notions. Jesus was GIVEN power by his God. Jesus submitted to his God, obeyed his God, and worships his God. Jesus is not a "mere" man.... Jesus is the ideal man ..... Jesus is NOT God, which would destroy the example the Scriptures teach.
Of course Jesus isn't "the prince of devils"..... the only people who thought that, also accused him of making himself equal to God!!!

You are also saying that the apostles and writers of scripture are wrong when they affirm the same in the later New Testament.

I don't know what you are talking about. I agree with ALL writers of Scripture.

I happen to think that those who Jesus spoke to after his resurrection would have a better idea of his nature ..

I totally agree, which is why I believe in the "Jesus" that the book of Acts records the apostles preaching. NEVER .... NOT ONCE ... do the apostles preach ANY trinitarian/oneness "Jesus".

Did you say that "the Father" comes to earth, just at a later date?

Absolutely.
1 Cor 15:24-28 and Rev 20, 21 and 22 are in total harmony regarding Jesus returning to destroy the governments of this planet, set up the immortal righteous as rulers;

 

[clefty]

1 Cor 15:23-28 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming,
24 then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power.
25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.
26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death.
27 For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, "All things are put in subjection," it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him.
28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all. NASU


This is mostly true.... but still tainted by your confusion..... AND, in direct contradiction to any Jesus is the Father notions. Jesus was GIVEN power by his God. Jesus submitted to his God, obeyed his God, and worships his God. Jesus is not a "mere" man.... Jesus is the ideal man ..... Jesus is NOT God, which would destroy the example the Scriptures teach.
Of course Jesus isn't "the prince of devils"..... the only people who thought that, also accused him of making himself equal to God!!!

I don't know what you are talking about. I agree with ALL writers of Scripture.

I totally agree, which is why I believe in the "Jesus" that the book of Acts records the apostles preaching. NEVER .... NOT ONCE ... do the apostles preach ANY trinitarian/oneness "Jesus".

Absolutely.
1 Cor 15:24-28 and Rev 20, 21 and 22 are in total harmony regarding Jesus returning to destroy the governments of this planet, set up the immortal righteous as rulers;

Ummm...only ONE is immortal...the Other is Begotten in Spirit then Eternal...then reborn into flesh...so that we born in flesh might be reborn into spirit...and Eternal

Man was never immortal...but dependent on tree of life if obedient...man will be dependent again still not Immortal but Eternal...and be a brother with Him Who was begotten but also reborn...is why “OUR Father”...He included Himself in His example of prayer...

 

[Dartman]

You modified the word 'Jehovah' by the phrase 'the Father'. Why, as an anti-Trinitarian, would you do that?

That isn't a modification, that is precise identity, stating that Jehovah is "the father";

Isa 63:16 For thou art our Father, though Abraham knoweth us not, and Israel doth not acknowledge us: thou, O Jehovah, art our Father; our Redeemer from everlasting is thy name.

You're a hypocrite for despising the phrase, "the Trinity", for its being a phrase not found in Scripture,...

Once again, you are confused. No one despises the trinity "for its being a phrase not found in Scripture". Those of us that LOVE the Truth, despise the trinity, and oneness .... and ANY OTHER FALSE "GOD" ..... because these theories contradict the Truth.

It is very pertinent that the trinity is NOT found in Scripture, but that's not why the doctrine is despised.

 

[7djengo7]

Of course Jesus isn't "the prince of devils"..... the only people who thought that, also accused him of making himself equal to God!!!

John, in John 5:18 KJV, wrote:

Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

John, here, states that, by saying that God was Jesus' Father, Jesus was making Himself equal with God. So, you've just accused John, the writer of the fourth gospel, of being one of the people who thought that Jesus was "the prince of devils".

Obviously, according to Scripture, as well as to the Jews who "sought the more to kill" Jesus, for Jesus to say that God is Jesus' Father is for Jesus to make Himself equal with God.

See, you're on the side of the people who "sought the more to kill" Jesus; they were denying that Jesus is equal with God, just as you deny that Jesus is equal with God.

 

[Rosenritter]

Your post is an empty claim. Not a shred of credible evidence is provided.
Are you denying that the context is about Christ's resurrection???

No, but rather it is obvious that such context is irrelevant. Whomever was "my Lord" was also "my God" and there was only one person standing there.

 

[Rosenritter]

1 Cor 15:23-28 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming,
24 then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power.
25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.
26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death.
27 For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, "All things are put in subjection," it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him.
28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all. NASU


This is mostly true.... but still tainted by your confusion..... AND, in direct contradiction to any Jesus is the Father notions. Jesus was GIVEN power by his God. Jesus submitted to his God, obeyed his God, and worships his God. Jesus is not a "mere" man.... Jesus is the ideal man ..... Jesus is NOT God, which would destroy the example the Scriptures teach.
Of course Jesus isn't "the prince of devils"..... the only people who thought that, also accused him of making himself equal to God!!!

I don't know what you are talking about. I agree with ALL writers of Scripture.

I totally agree, which is why I believe in the "Jesus" that the book of Acts records the apostles preaching. NEVER .... NOT ONCE ... do the apostles preach ANY trinitarian/oneness "Jesus".

They certainly do, which was the explanation given by one Unitarian that said he accepted the whole New Testament except for anything written by John. And Paul. And Peter, because he called Paul's writings scripture.. But he accepted the whole scripture, just not those false writers.

But if you are not like that person, consider how you would write to the churches that Paul wrote to. As a Unitarian, you certainly wouldn't write like Paul wrote, who when he quoted the Old Testament chose to put the name Jesus where the Hebrew said LORD.

 

[7djengo7]

That isn't a modification, that is precise identity, stating that Jehovah is "the father";

Isa 63:16 For thou art our Father, though Abraham knoweth us not, and Israel doth not acknowledge us: thou, O Jehovah, art our Father; our Redeemer from everlasting is thy name.


Once again, you are confused. No one despises the trinity "for its being a phrase not found in Scripture". Those of us that LOVE the Truth, despise the trinity, and oneness .... and ANY OTHER FALSE "GOD" ..... because these theories contradict the Truth.

It is very pertinent that the trinity is NOT found in Scripture, but that's not why the doctrine is despised.

You don't love Truth; you despise it. You despise, and blaspheme, Jesus Christ because, by saying that God is Jesus' Father, Jesus was making Himself equal with God. You're a Christ-hater, and a hater of Christ's Father, and thus, you're a non-Christian, and a hater of Christians and Christianity.