Trinity Proof Scriptures

[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.

My accusation was specifically that so-and-so is a hypocrite for despising the PHRASE, "the Trinity." But, you don't read well, so you didn't notice that when you reacted to what I wrote. The accusation that I wrote--to which you reacted--wasn't that so-and-so is a hypocrite for despising the Trinity. Do you not understand the difference between a phrase and its referent?

It's interesting, though, that you say that you "despise the trinity": there, you are admitting that you despise God.

 

[7djengo7]

In post #320, I stated that one of the forum posters--Dartman--is a Christ-hater, because Dartman hates Christ. Another forum poster sent me a behind-the-scenes "Reputation Comment", saying:

I don't agree with his interpretation but he's hardly a "Christ-hater." He just hasn't recognized who Christ is. A personal attack like that isn't going to persuade anyone...

Dartman proudly avows being a despiser of the Trinity:

Those of us that LOVE the Truth, despise the trinity, and oneness .... and ANY OTHER FALSE "GOD" ..... because these theories contradict the Truth.

Now, since the Trinity is God--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit--to despise the Trinity is to despise the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

According to John's Gospel, Jesus made Himself equal with God, and was hated for it by certain Jews who "sought the more to kill" Jesus for it; Dartman, just like those Jews did, contradicts Jesus, making Jesus not equal with God, and less than God.

Someone who "just hasn't recognized who Christ is" is someone who is a Christ-hater, just like Saul (later, Paul) had been a Christ-hater, before he became a Christian.

 

[Dartman]

John 5:18 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.

John, here, states that, by saying that God was Jesus' Father, Jesus was making Himself equal with God.

No, John was recording the accusation made by the Jews.
John in no way agreed with them!
You shouldn't either!

 

[Dartman]

My accusation was specifically that so-and-so is a hypocrite for despising the PHRASE, "the Trinity."

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

If this isn't what you meant, why did you post it?

It's interesting, though, that you say that you "despise the trinity": there, you are admitting that you despise God.

The trinity is a false "God", "another Jesus" ...... it isn't the truth. Jesus makes it VERY clear, his God is the "ONLY true God".

 

[7djengo7]

No, John was recording the accusation made by the Jews.
John in no way agreed with them!
You shouldn't either!

You shouldn't engage in eisegesis against Scripture! However, as a despiser of Truth, you're going to do what despisers of Truth are wont to do.

On the contrary, John was recording the things Jesus did/said that stirred up the hatred of the Jews against Him, that pricked them with a hot desire to kill Jesus. They were angered that He

• broke the sabbath,
• said that God was His Father,
• by saying that God was His Father, made Himself equal with God.

The Jews hated Jesus for the same reason you hate Christians: Jesus, and Christians, make Jesus equal with God.

In John 5:18 KJV, John didn't record any accusation of any Jews. Only an abject liar, and hater of Truth, could claim that John did so, seeing as there is not even the slightest shred of a hint, in the text, that John was doing so. Nothing in the text gives even the slightest appearance as though John were quoting, or even paraphrasing, some rationale in the Jews' minds/tongues.

You say the Jews, in John 5:18, were accusing Jesus of something. So, why don't you tell us exactly what you imagine it was that they were accusing Jesus of.

And, you tell us, according to your mishandling of John 5:18, what you think angered the Jews into seeking the more to kill Jesus.

 

[Dartman]

...
On the contrary, John was recording the things Jesus did/said that stirred up the hatred of the Jews against Him, that pricked them with a hot desire to kill Jesus. They were angered that He

• broke the sabbath,
• said that God was His Father,

• This isn't "on the contrary", this is exactly what I said.

• by saying that God was His Father, made Himself equal with God.

• Again, this is an ACCUSATION they made .... and when they actually stated this TO Jesus, he CORRECTED THEM;

John 10:33-36 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, "I said, Ye are gods"?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

 

[7djengo7]

Again, this is an ACCUSATION they made .... and when they actually stated this TO Jesus, he CORRECTED THEM...

"The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."

In John 10:33, why did the Jews mean to stone Jesus? They specifically accused Jesus of blasphemy--of NOT being God WHILE MAKING HIMSELF GOD. They hated Jesus because, while He was making Himself God, they had a raging desire for Him not to be God, and for Him to be a mere man. And, with all the things they had witnessed of Him, that was a really hard, desperate desire for them to live with--they were given over to irrationality.

They weren't just desiring to kill Jesus merely for His making Himself God; they were wroth at Him because they despised believing that the One Who was making Himself God was actually, indeed, God--just like you (Christ-hater that you are) despise believing that Jesus is God.

Do you think that these Jews considered Jesus to be God? Yes or No?
Was Jesus saying, "Look, Jews, you guys believe that I'm God, and I must correct you on that: I'm NOT God"? No, He wasn't saying anything like that.

Also, nowhere does Jesus say, or imply, "You've got me all wrong, Jews! By saying that I am the Son of God, I am NOT making myself God, so don't think that I am making myself God!"

Nowhere does Jesus say, or imply, "I am NOT making myself God!" And, contrary to your Christ-hating lie, John, in John 5:18 specifically states that Jesus WAS making Himself equal with God.

 

[7djengo7]

This isn't "on the contrary", this is exactly what I said.

No, it is not exactly what you said. What I said was, indeed, contrary to what you said.

I said that, according to John, in John 5:18 KJV, Jesus

• broke the sabbath,
• said that God was His Father,
• made Himself equal with God by saying that God was His Father,

and Jesus' doing these things enraged the Jews, making them seek to kill Him all the more.

Again, John, in John 5:18 KJV did not record any accusation made by the Jews, and there is not a shred of a hint that he did. Rather, John recorded the things that Jesus said/did which enraged the Jews.

 

[Dartman]

"The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."

That' what they accused.

In John 10:33, why did the Jews mean to stone Jesus?

The reasons varied .... like the reasons people today reject the Truth.

Matt 27:18 For he knew that for envy they had delivered him.


Mark 15:10 For he knew that the chief priests had delivered him for envy.


John 11:48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.


Matt 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

Do you think that these Jews considered Jesus to be God?

Of course not! Some, in their faulty thinking, equated being the son of God, to being God. Some merely saw an opportunity to try and stop Jesus from criticizing them, and threatening their power.
And, Christ's apostles were given a perfect opportunity to call Christ "God"...
Matt 16:15-17 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.


Mark 8:29-31 And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ. 30 And he charged them that they should tell no man of him. 31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.


Luke 9:20-22 He said unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Peter answering said, The Christ of God. 21 And he straitly charged them, and commanded them to tell no man that thing; 22 Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day.


John 6:67-69 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? 68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

Was Jesus saying, "Look, Jews, you guys believe that I'm God, and I must correct you on that: I'm NOT God"? No, He wasn't saying anything like that.

Incorrect. That is almost EXACTLY what Jesus said.

What Jesus did NOT say .... ever ..... is , "Well, DUH, of course I am God"!

 

[7djengo7]

JudgeRightly wrote:

Please specify what I have said that comes from pagan philosophy.

Otherwise, retract your false claim.

And, you reacted to what he wrote by saying:

I said "trinitarians", I didn't say "you".

What a puerile way for you to react! When you said "trinitarians take 90% pagan philosophy..." to Judge Rightly, do you expect us to believe that you did not consider him to be a Trinitarian? Don't lie to us like that.

Or, did you, instead, consider JR to be a Trinitarian, while you were saying that to him? If so, then, you have to explain how you were absolving JR from the "pagan philosophy" charge, which, as you and I, and everyone else reading this knows, you would have no hope of rationally explaining. Obviously, you'll be a fool to say, "Oh, no, JR, I did not mean that YOUR Trinitarianism comes from pagan philosophy; I only meant that other Trinitarians' Trinitarianism comes from pagan philosophy!"

So, again, please specify what Judge Rightly has said that you would claim "comes from pagan philosophy."

Otherwise, retract your false claim.

 

[Dartman]

JudgeRightly wrote:
Please specify what I have said that comes from pagan philosophy.

Otherwise, retract your false claim.


And, you reacted to what he wrote by saying:
I said "trinitarians", I didn't say "you".

That isn't a "retraction" it is a "correction".

What a puerile way for you to react! When you said "trinitarians take 90% pagan philosophy..." to Judge Rightly, do you expect us to believe that you did not consider him to be a Trinitarian?

JR wasn't complaining that I considered him a trinitarian, he was falsely accusing me of CLAIMING he PERSONALLY had said something from pagan philosophy.

Don't lie to us like that.

 

[glorydaz]

That isn't a "retraction" it is a "correction".[/COLOR]


JR wasn't complaining that I considered him a trinitarian, he was falsely accusing me of CLAIMING he PERSONALLY had said something from pagan philosophy.

Don't lie to us like that.

Stop falsely accusing people. :baby:

 

[7djengo7]

That isn't a "retraction" it is a "correction".[/COLOR]


JR wasn't complaining that I considered him a trinitarian, he was falsely accusing me of CLAIMING he PERSONALLY had said something from pagan philosophy.

Don't lie to us like that.

You claim that Trinitarianism is/comes from pagan philosophy.
You admit that JudgeRightly is a Trinitarian.
In a forum titled "Trinity Proof Scriptures", JudgeRightly has been PERSONALLY promulgating Trinitarianism (which YOU claim is/comes from pagan philosophy).
Yet, now, you're trying to lie to us and say that you didn't mean that JudgeRightly has been PERSONALLY saying something from pagan philosophy.
By acknowledging that JudgeRightly is a Trinitarian PERSONALLY speaking Trinitarianism, and by claiming that Trinitarianism is something from pagan philosophy, you are, indeed, claiming that JudgeRightly has said something from pagan philosophy.

As it is with all Christ-hating errorists, you have an abysmal aversion against striving for coherence among your affirmations.

 

[Dartman]

You claim that Trinitarianism is/comes from pagan philosophy.

Yes, among other things.

You admit that JudgeRightly is a Trinitarian.

It's not an admission, it's an observation.

In a forum titled "Trinity Proof Scriptures", JudgeRightly has been PERSONALLY promulgating Trinitarianism (which YOU claim is/comes from pagan philosophy).

Yes.

Yet, now, you're trying to lie to us and say that you didn't mean that JudgeRightly has been PERSONALLY saying something from pagan philosophy.

JR's protest was specifically that HE PERSONALLY had not said something from pagan philosophy. So, I pointed out to him that I had not SAID; "JR" is quoting/teaching pagan philosophy.
JR was pretending that my statement was inaccurate, specifically because HE had not YET stated something blatantly pagan in origin.

 

[glorydaz]

Yes, among other things.
It's not an admission, it's an observation.
Yes.
JR's protest was specifically that HE PERSONALLY had not said something from pagan philosophy. So, I pointed out to him that I had not SAID; "JR" is quoting/teaching pagan philosophy.
JR was pretending that my statement was inaccurate, specifically because HE had not YET stated something blatantly pagan in origin.

Squirming is so unpleasant to see. :chew:

 

[Rosenritter]

That' what they accused.The reasons varied .... like the reasons people today reject the Truth.

Matt 27:18 For he knew that for envy they had delivered him.

Mark 15:10 For he knew that the chief priests had delivered him for envy.


John 11:48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.


Matt 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!


Of course not! Some, in their faulty thinking, equated being the son of God, to being God. Some merely saw an opportunity to try and stop Jesus from criticizing them, and threatening their power.

So the JEWS, being Jewish, and Jesus speaking to a Jewish audience, didn't understand the term, and the Christians, reading the Christian bible, don't understand the term, and John and Paul and Jesus just say the darnedest things that you keep having to explain away ...

Why again do you have a more appropriate perspective as to what "the Son of God" means? Than the Jews or the apostles or Jesus?

And, Christ's apostles were given a perfect opportunity to call Christ "God"...

And you would believe Christ's apostles when they call him God? No, you wouldn't, because they have, and you don't.

John 1:1 KJV
(1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 20:28 KJV
(28) And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

1 Timothy 3:16 KJV
(16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

John, Thomas, and Paul... they were apostles, were they not? They were given opportunity and that's what they declared him. Please don't tell us that you would believe if they only said it, because it's said so many different ways, and you are exercising the choice not to believe.

 

[Dartman]

So the JEWS, being Jewish, and Jesus speaking to a Jewish audience, didn't understand the term

Only MOST of the Jews. There were a "few", like the apostles, who understood, and proclaimed Jesus as "the Christ", "the son of the living God".

... and the Christians, reading the Christian bible, don't understand the term

Only MOST of those calling themselves "Christian" don't understand, there are "a few" that do.

and John and Paul and Jesus just say the darnedest things that you keep having to explain away ...

You mean Like,

John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
Or,


John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent.


John 17:20-22 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:


John 18:4-5 Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye? 5 They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them.


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.

John 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.


John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.


LOL ..... you guys must HATE John's gospel!


You do keep bringing up the same distorted interpretations of perfectly good verses, and I have to keep showing you what the Scriptures REALLY say.

 

[NWL]

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"?

I am not trying to insult you here, but are you blind? You yourself mentioned and acknowledged that I was clearly not admitting that what I said was my original point.

You stated in one of you previous posts to me "Your claim is that Jesus should not be called the Most High God. That is the claim you have pretended to base on what an unclean spirit spoke". I pointed this out as false as nowhere did I make the claim that Jesus was should not be called the most high, my only points was that he is called the son of the most high and is never called the most high. YHWH nowhere in the bible is called the bravest God or the most intellectual God, would I deny God of those attributes based on the lack of scripture saying so? No. Likewise Jesus is nowhere called the "most high", was I attempting to argue that "he should not have that name", no, I was merely stating facts, THEN you started accusing me of making a claim I did not make. All I was stating in my previous posts to you, prior to you accusing of making a different claim to the actual one I made, were facts! No reasoning was involved.

I am well aware of what point I reason one, and I did not appreciate your falsehood that I was making point I never made. Here you are now attempting to tell me what I meant by what I said when I fully well know what I was saying and why I was saying it.

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

Based on scripture no, since as mentioned Jesus is never called the "most high" but is rather called the son of the "most high".

 

[NWL]

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?

Where in the bible does it state you can't worship a created thing? Show me such a verse for you to imply that it is wrong to worship God through the created man Jesus. If YHWH himself commands that we are to worship him through a person who perfectly images him are you to say that YHWH is wrong?

Jesus has become the high priest (Hebrews 6:20, Heb 9:11) and is the person who people should go to, to offer up worship to God, this resembles the means of worship that God commanded to the nation of Israel, this is clearly explained in Hebrews.

(Hebrews 9:24-26) "..For Christ did not enter into a holy place made with hands, which is a copy of the reality, but into heaven itself, so that he now appears before God on our behalf. 25 This was not done to offer himself often, as when the high priest enters into the holy place from year to year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise, he would have to suffer often from the founding of the world. But now he has manifested himself once for all time at the conclusion of the systems of things to do away with sin through the sacrifice of himself.."

People approached and gave worship to God through the High priest for sin offerings, since the High priest was the only one who could approach God directly in the tabernacle. Jesus has become high priest and is thus the person we go to when offering worship to God.

Once again, scripture states "No one comes to the Father except through me [Jesus].” (John 14:6)

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

Trinitarians worship the Father, Son and HS equally, as this includes Jesus yes you worship him. I would not call this proper worship though, since for one, you worship the HS, when this is never commanded, and you give worship to Jesus with the thought that he should receive ultimate worship when he does not, only the Father does. True worshipers worship God with the view the Father receives all worship according to accurate knowledge of the scripture.

(John 4:23) "..[Jesus said] Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for indeed, the Father is looking for ones like these to worship him.."

No mention of true worshipers worshiping Jesus or him stating that ultimate worship should be given to anyone but the Father.

 

[NWL]

Yes, you did that very thing:

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?

I modified the word Jehovah by the phrase Father? Really that's what you're going with? Once again, I did not do the modification, scripture did.

Does Isaiah 64:8 say that Jehovah is the Father, yes or no?

(Isaiah 64:8) "..But now, O Jehovah, you are our Father.."

And I don't despise the word "trinity" nor do I like it, its just a word buddy.