Biblical Common Sense – Jesus – Not Equal, Not the Same!
July 29th, 2011 by Ron S.
Installment #8 in my “Common Sense†series.
Biblical Common Sense – Jesus – Not Equal, Not the Same!
The following common sense arguments regarding how The Bible clearly demonstrates that God and Jesus are not the same being are ones that tend to come up quite often among those promoting Jesus as God. Many times I have been told in discussions with those wishing to support a Trinitarian or even a Oneness/Modalist viewpoint that these are simply tired old arguments. Yes, the arguments are centuries old and people often tire of them. But that doesn’t mean that they still aren’t valid objections. And their validity remains all the more significant due to the fact each of these are easily answerable when one uses common sense as their guide.
Scripture calls Jesus a man while telling us that God is NOT a man.
Acts 2:22 “Jesus of Nazareth was a man commended to you by God with mighty deeds, wonders, and signs, which God worked through him in your midst, as you yourselves know.â€
Acts 17:31: “Because He has established a day on which He will judge the world with justice through a man he has appointed, and He has provided confirmation for all by raising him from the dead.“
Vs.
Numbers 23:19 “God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent;..â€
Hosea 11:9 “…For I am God and not man, the Holy One in your midst,…â€
Scripture tells us that Jesus prayed to and has a God. Yet God doesn’t pray to anyone because He alone is God.
John 17:3 “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.â€
John 20:17 “Jesus said to her, “Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'”
Rev. 3:12 “He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he will not go out from it anymore; and I will write on him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God, and My new name.â€
Vs.
Isaiah 44:6 “”Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me.â€
Isaiah 45:6 “That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun That there is no one besides Me. I am the LORD, and there is no other,â€
Isaiah 45:18 “For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited), “I am the LORD, and there is none else.â€
Scripture tells that Jesus was tempted. Yet God cannot be tempted.
Matt 4:1 “Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.â€
(see also Mark 1:13 & Luke 4:2)Hebrews 4:15 “For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.â€
Vs.
James 1:13 “Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.â€
Scripture tells us that Jesus died. Yet God is immortal – incapable of dying.
1 Cor. 15:3 “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scripturesâ€
Vs.
1 Tim 1:17 “Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.â€
Unless you are forcing yourself to hold onto the post-Biblical creeds of man, the honest, logical, and common sense conclusion should be that Jesus is NOT literally God himself. Jesus is just who God promised His Messiah to be, a special human MAN who would be brought into being at a point in time from the Hebrew people and “anointed†with God’s Spirit so that he could accomplish all the God wanted him to do. This is said perfectly several times in the book of Acts.
Acts 2:22 “Jesus of Nazareth was a man commended to you by God with mighty deeds, wonders, and signs, which God worked through him in your midst, as you yourselves know.â€
Acts 10:38: “how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power. He went about doing good and healing all those oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.â€
Acts 17:31: “Because He [God] has established a day on which He will judge the world with justice through a man he has appointed, and He has provided confirmation for all by raising him from the dead.“
Jesus is the promised HUMAN Messiah – the descendent of Eve, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, & David. He is the greater Moses who was to come FROM his own people. He was to speak and do all that God assigned him to do. Does God tell Himself what to do? Does God anoint Himself? Does God pray to Himself? Does God go directly against what He promised and foretold about HIS begotten Son? NO. Let the plain common sense truth of Scripture speak for itself.  Jesus is the Son OF God, the Messiah. Jesus is not God Himself.
1. Intro
3. Jesus – “This is MY Sonâ€
4. Jesus – The Anointed of God
Amen!!!
Excellent, Ron! So plain and simple, a child could understand who Jesus was and is! This series of articles could be turned into some great curriculum/Bible studies! Great job summing up these great truths that will bring the Bible alive to its readers! 🙂
Ron
Solid article but, as you and most on here know, trinis have an answer for all of these “common sense” arguments: Jesus’ Double Nature.
What I have been trying to do is find holes in their own doctrine and/or keep asking questions like: “how many YHWHs are there?” etc.
God has children, Jesus has no children
Not equal!
Just curious, in Hebrew tradition, what were the social or customary views of a man in his 30s with no son to carry on the family name? Jesus would have been looked down upon since he was the eldest son but no heir…correct? It is important here because it clearly makes the case that the Father is much greater than the son because God has children, Jesus does not. Not only that but we are co-heirs with Christ!
Rom 8:15-17
For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!†The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.
Here’s the ultimate proof that the Son and the Father are not equal as the theory of the Trinity claims:
“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.”
–Jesus (John 14:28)
Trinitarians claim that the Father and the Son are “co-equal, co-eternal, and of one substance.” But Jesus said the very opposite in the clearest possible language: “my Father is GREATER than I.”
In what way isn’t Jesus God? Because he’s his Son….that’s about all isn’t it? Isn’t he God to us in every other way?
So we have this one revelation we want to build so much on.
Let’s hold on to the truth but not make too much of one thing at all times, shall we?
What might we become if we did?
God did say something about keeping the Sabbath didn’t he, and shouldn’t people wash their hands before they eat?
Xavier,
you mention above
indeed …. this “dual nature/double nature” argument is to what trinity adherents retreat when any common sense or logical approach to understanding these plain Scripture passages is set before them.
In reality and truth, however, their type of “dual nature” talk is illogical and makes no sense; it in fact makes their Jesus to be somewhat of a “dual personality” disorder person …
I would think that they will just answer “one”, just as they would answer if you asked them “how many Gods are there?” because there is only one “God”…. ?
Aside from the “dual/double nature” talk, I think that the unclear and “change meaning according to a question” approach of trinitarians of how they use the term “God” is another trinitarian defense mechanism … one time “God” is like a “person/personality”, another time “God” is like a “family, group, team”, another time “God” describes “the nature of a being”, etc … Sometimes, it has helped a bit to make such folks realize what they are doing in terms of how they “multi”-misuse their terms …
Wolfgang
The problem for them is that unlike the word “God”, “YHWH” is not a title, its a Personal Name and as such used with personal, singular nouns/pronouns all over the place. So while they have gotten away with making the word “God” somehow to mean “triune”, you simply cannot do that with the Divine Name of YHWH. Hence, if you dig long & hard enough, you will find that there is a split amongst trini scholars themseleves regarding this matter. I would recommend people reading this find out for themselves and see how many trinis would agree with one or the other.
A good example being the recent debate Anthony had with Michael Brown and James White where Brown was hesitant to say “Jesus is YHWH” and White is not. Probably due to Brown’s Hebrew heritage.
Xavier,
that “YHWH” is a personal name, seemed to not shake someone with whom I was discussing this recently at all …
He pointed me to Mt 28:19, claiming that because “name” was used in the singular there (“name [singular] of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”) showed that the three were of course just one “triune” Godhead. He then continued and claimed that if my non-trinitarian understanding was correct, then Mt 28:19 would read “the names [plural] of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost” …. Since “name” was in the singular there, and since YHWH was the only name of God mentioned in the Scriptures, obviously “YHWH” was that name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost …
The following is from G. R. Beasley-Murray’s Baptism Today and Tomorrow:
The same thinking can be applied to Matthew 28:19. Matthew 28:19 was not meant to be a formula, but simply a description of what the new disciples would be baptized into. The Jews knew of the Father, and were aware of the workings of the holy spirit, but the identification of Jesus as the Son of God was now crucial to their baptism. Gentiles, on the other hand, may or may not have known God as a Father, or His holy spirit working in the world, and would need to be introduced into that knowledge as well as that of Christ. This would be a reasonable description of the Commission to preach and teach to “all nations.†All three, God, Jesus, and the holy spirit (which is also called the spirit of Christ) are instrumental in the entire plan of salvation. Thus being baptized as a response to the Gospel can certainly be described as being baptized “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy spirit,†since there is no reference in that verse to the Trinitarian concepts of coequality, coexistence, or triune persons.
Understanding it this way also eliminates the seeming contradiction between Matthew 28:19 and all of the records in Acts, in which the disciples baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ.”
Mark C.,
“… baptized into …” ?? Yes, I see from what you quoted above that scholars of certain backgrounds seem to interpret the phrase “in the name of” in a sense which might then be translated as ” … INTO the name of”, BUT is this what the text does mean?
It seems to me that the most common meaning or sense of the phrase “in the name of” indicates “with the authority of” or “in the authority of” …. Were not the apostles commanded to carry out what they did “in Christ’s name”, that is “as authorized by him” ?
Mark C.,
maybe it is because I am growing older … but I no longer deem it correct to read the Scriptures trying to understand what I read from the oftentimes rather sophisticated background of theologians’ or scholars’ views. Why? Because I don’t think that — for example — the apostles understood what Jesus told them from a theological / word study / etymological or other background devised or composed 18, 19 or 20 centuries later by those who approach the Scriptures from their theological / linguistic expertise basis.
Is it not possible to read the Scriptures from the perspective of the writer, and in the case of quoted conversations or teachings to read them from the perspective of the speaker and his/her audience at the time? I would think that only then will one arrive at a true understanding of what is written and communicated …. reading from one’s own perspective of a reader 2 millenniums later and on the basis of one’s own background (culture, language, religious affilitation, etc) is oftentimes the main reason for misunderstanding what is communicated in the Scriptures.
Wolfgang
What do you think these people are trying to do? What do you think a history teacher teaches students to do in their classes? I was taught/trained to alwatys, ALWAYS, cite primary & secondary sources and not just make stuff up off the top of my head. This is simple history/biblical teaching 101.
To have a distrust of ALL scholars ammounts to those people who have a distrust for ALL of modern medicine and its practitioners.
Xavier,
it seems that you missed what I endeavored to communicate …
Do you really think that Peter had those thoughts expressed in the quoted scholarly work going through his mind when he heard Jesus speak ?
Wolfgang
What “thoughts” exactly? I think most scholars, like historians, try to do their best when it comes to whatever they have to work with. Although I would grant you that you do come across biased commentary from time to time. But it is our job to test their conclusions with the evidence at hand.
One thing I notice from the tone of most of your comments is that you seem to THINK you know better than everyone else. Why is that? You keep questioning as if you are a better witness of the scriptures than those who either wrote it or were actually there.
Xavier,
??? “better witness of the scriptures than those who either wrote it or were actually there” … are you trying to tell us that some of the theologians and scholars writing commentaries were actually there?
In my previous post I did encourage to read the Scriptures from the viewpoint of those who wrote it or who were actually there … how could that be twisted (as you do) to mean I “know better” than those who were there?
I will say that I do think that I know better than quite a number of folks who claim to be theologians and scholars and who perhaps have even been paid nice salaries for their work … for example, take all those trinity adherents among the theologians and scholars, where I would claim that I know the Scriptures on that topic better and more accurately than they do.
Wolfgang
No. But you sure sound like you were. 😛
I think most people do geniunely try “to read the Scriptures from the viewpoint of those who wrote it or who were actually there”. That is what most of these biblical scholars/historians spend their lives studying and doing it for so they can do that very same thing. You, on the other hand, seem not to think so.
I never said these people got everything perfectly. What really bothers me about your comments [and I am probably not the only one], is that you seem to think you do. Apart from the fact that you question everything and don’t really offer anything in the way of constructive analysis or answers.
The Messiah testified that “He had a G-D and Father”, and that “His G-D and Father was also the G-D and Father” of His Brethren…….
There is Only ONE True Living G-D, Father(Creator) of ALL, and HE has no g-d for HE IS The Only True G-D, and HE has no father for HE IS Father(Creator) of ALL…….
The Messiah testified, “That they would know YOU, The Only True G-D”…….
“Only” = without others or anything further; alone; solely; exclusively…….
And Truth IS, as Paul testified, “G-D was in The Messiah”, Paul did not testify that ‘g-d was the messiah’…….
And Paul testified of “ONE G-D, Father of ALL”…….
The Messiah testified of “The Only True G-D”, and The Messiah testified that He had a “G-D and Father”, and The Messiah’s G-D and Father was, is and always will be The ONE and Only True Living G-D, Father(Creator) of ALL…….
Paul testified, “And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world has been hid in G-D, WHO CREATED ALL things by The Messiah”…….(Eph3:9)
And The Father(Creator) spoke The Word “Let there be Light” and “there was Light”…….
LIGHT begot Light…….
The Messiah, “The Light which enlightens every man”, was “The Beginning of The Creation of The ONE and Only True G-D, Father(Creator) of ALL…….(Rev 3:14)
There is Only ONE True G-D, Father(Creator) of ALL, and HE IS The G-D and Father(Creator) of The Messiah and His brethren…….
John 17:3 “And this is Eternal Life, that they might know YOU The Only True G-D, and The Messiah, Whom YOU have sent”…….
Mark 12:32-33 “And the scribe said unto The Messiah, Well, Master, You have said The Truth: for there is ONE G-D; and there is NONE OTHER but HE. And to love HIM with all your heart, and with all your understanding, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and to love his neighbor as yourself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices”…….
Rom 3:30 “Seeing it is ONE G-D, WHO shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith”…….
1 Cor 8:6 “But to us there is but ONE G-D, The Father, of WHOM are all things, and we in HIM; and one Master, The Messiah, by Whom are all things, and we by Him”…….
Rev 3:14 The Messiah was “The Beginning of The Creation of The ONE and Only True G-D, Father(Creator) of ALL”…….
Eph 4:6 “ONE G-D, Father of ALL, WHO is above all, and through all, and in you all”…….
John 4:24 “G-D is A SPIRIT: and they that worship HIM must worship HIM in Spirit and in Truth”…….
Luke 24:39 The Messiah testified after He was “raised from among the dead”, “Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself, handle Me and see, for A SPIRIT DOES NOT HAVE FLESH AND BONES, AS you see I HAVE”…….
The ONE and Only True G-D, Father(Creator) of ALL can not die…….period…….
The Messiah died and “The ONE and Only True G-D, Father(Creator) of ALL raised Him from among the dead”……. And The Messiah’s incorruptible body ascended into the clouds…….
James 1:13 “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of G-D, for G-D CAN NOT BE TEMPTED with evil, neither tempts HE any man”…….
Heb 4:15 “For we do not have a High Priest(The Messiah) Who cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, for He WAS in all points TEMPTED like we are, yet without sin”…….
The ONE and Only True G-D, Father(Creator) of ALL, HE CAN NOT BE TEMPTED with sin AS THE MESSIAH WAS…….period…….
1 Tim 2:5 “There is ONE G-D, and one mediator between G-D and men, the man-The Messiah”…….
James 2:19 “You believe that there is ONE G-D, you do well, yet the devils also believe, and tremble”…….
John 20:17 “The Messiah said unto her, Touch Me not; for I have not yet ascended to My Father: but go to My brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto My Father, and your Father; and to My G-D, and your G-D.”
Mark 3:33-35 “The Messiah answered them, saying, “Who is My mother, or My brethren”? And He looked round about on them which sat about Him, and said, “Behold my mother and my brethren! For whoever shall do The Will of G-D, the same is My brother, and My sister, and mother””…….
Rom 8:29 “Whom G-D did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of HIS Son, that The Messiah might be the firstborn among many brethren”…….
Hope is you are one of the brethren of The Messiah…….
The brethren of The Messiah know there is Only ONE True Living G-D, Father(Creator) of ALL…….
And Truth is as The Messiah tesified, ” My(Our) Father is greater than I”…….(John14:28)
And Truth is as Paul testifed, “The HEAD of The Messiah is The ONE and Only True G-D, Father(Creator) of ALL, and The Head of the man is The Messiah, and the head of the woman is the man”…….(1Cor11:3)
Those who would pervert The Order of The ONE and Only True G-D, Father(Creator) of ALL will have to answer to HIM…….
For The ONE and Only True Living G-D, Father(Creator) of ALL, “HE Created all things by The Messiah” and The Messiah was “The Beginning of The Creation of The ONE and Only True Living G-D, Father(Creator) of ALL…….
Truth is “The Messiah is The Son of The ONE and Only True Living G-D, Father(Creator) of ALL”…….
The Messiah testified that He had a “G-D and Father” and that His “G-D and Father” was also the “G-D and Father” of His Brethren…….
And The ONE and Only True Living G-D, Father(Creator) of ALL, HE has no god, for HE IS G-D, and HE has no father, for HE IS Father(Creator) of ALL, and HE has no brethren, for HE IS Father(Creator) of ALL…….
Hope is there would be those who experience The Miracle that is receiving “the love of The Truth” for they will “experience The Messiah and The Power(Our Father) that raised Him from among the dead”…….
The Faith of those who have received “a love of The Truth” is grounded in Miracles, not mere colored marks(words) written on a dead tree(page) and bound in a book…….
Thankfully The ONE and Only True G-D, Father of ALL, HE yet communes with HIS Children, HE yet reveals all things…….
Father Help! and HE does…….
Peace, in spite of the dis-ease(no-peace) that is of this world and it’s systems of religion, for “the WHOLE(not just a portion) world is under the control of the evil one” indeed and Truth…….
Truth IS, a lie never was and is not…….
Abide in Truth……. francis asimpleandspirituallife.org
francis,
Welcome to K.R!!! I don’t remember seeing you post here before.
You said, “Hope is you are one of the brethren of The Messiah…….”
I agree, but I think people who have been fooled into believing mistaken doctrines are also our brothers in Christ. This includes Trinitarians, Oneness believers, Christadelphians, JW’s, etc…
You also said, “Truth IS, a lie never was and is not……. ”
I agree. I try my best to abide in the truth (as I’m sure everyone else on this site does as well). May the peace and love of God (“OUR” Father) be with you and with us all…
I just read a very good article entitled “Jesus Christ: Incarnated or Created?”
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=213
It’s a very long article, but I think it is well worth the read for anyone that is interested…
So much of what I read here likely explains why I saw in a Trinitarian description which had written “God” in the center of it, and around it, Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit, and around the outside, were the words, “is not”, while on the inside it said “is.
I think they were trying to explain that there is a distinction between Jesus and God, and Jesus and the Holy Spirit, as also there is a distinction between God and the Holy Spirit, but that
God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit may each be referred to as , or called “God”.
I’m thinking that maybe they were doing this by comparison, comparing Jesus to the Father, and saying in effect that they are the same, though there is also a distinction between them.
Though I’m not certain, it seems to me that they may have been attempting to communicate that through the diagram.
Do you think it could be so, or is there something more to it?
Ray,
You asked, “I think they were trying to explain that there is a distinction between Jesus and God, and Jesus and the Holy Spirit, as also there is a distinction between God and the Holy Spirit, but that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit may each be referred to as , or called ‘God’…Do you think it could be so, or is there something more to it?”
There is more to it than that. They are not just saying that God, Jesus and the holy spirit may each be referred to as, or called ‘God’, they are saying that Jesus and the holy spirit “ACTUALLY ARE” God. They are not making some sort of comparison between Jesus and God. They believe Jesus was God himself who took on human flesh and was in reality “God the Son” and not just the son of God as the bible teaches. They believe he was actually a “God Man” that walked among us on the earth.
As biblical Unitarians this goes against our basic beliefs that there is “ONLY” one God (The Father) and that Jesus was His son sent to be our Messiah, Lord and King in order to redeem us all from our sins and save us from our sinful nature. That is why I have repeatedly told you it is very confusing when you say “Jesus is God” when you really mean to compare Jesus to God. Implying that they have so much in common with one another, and that they are one with each other is so many different ways.
I hope you have a great week-end and God Bless…
Thomas,
I think the way this game is played, is that you first get a game board and make it the way I described it in the first paragraph of
#20 above, and then you have two game pieces, one representing the Trinitarian, and another one representing a Unitarian, and you take turns, keeping on the game board, going around either the outside on the “is not” walkway, or the inside track on the “is” path.
As you take turns, the object is to stay ahead of your opponent, taking whatever walkway or path that would appear to keep you in the lead.
There is no prize to win, but if you persist until the end…and it never seems to end, you could be eligible to become some kind of a leader in an unwholesome kind of Dojo or something, as long as you are the kind that will show no mercy.
I wonder…Maybe you get some kind of self-righteousness, pride, self-justification, or religious kind of thing, but that’s hardly any kind of prize.
I didn’t see anything on the board that said, “by comparison”. If it was there inherent in something that was already on the board, I’m thinking it would be nice if it were explained or spelled out that way.
But maybe that would be the end of the game and no one would appear to be in the lead over the other one.
That’s kind ‘o what it’s looking like to me.
Ray,
You said, “I wonder…Maybe you get some kind of self-righteousness, pride, self-justification, or religious kind of thing, but that’s hardly any kind of prize.”
I can’t speak for others, but the only prize I’m looking for is to be included among the sheep on the day of judgment. I want to be considered to be among the wheat that is gathered together in God’s barn. All of my beliefs come from my studying of the scriptures. I came to my Biblical Unitarian beliefs long before I had ever even heard of the word “Unitarian”. I didn’t even know that I was a Biblical Unitarian until I went on different web sites looking for people with like minded beliefs that were similar to my own.
I don’t believe anyone on this site is playing some sort of board game or are involved in some sort of unwholesome Dojo or something. From what I have seen everyone on this site speaks from their hearts what they believe to be the truth revealed by God’s holy scriptures. We believe that throughout history man made doctrines/ideas that don’t originate from the scriptures have infiltrated most of our modern day churches.
There is no scripture that says God is three separate persons who in reality is just one being (or one God). There is no scripture that says that Jesus considered himself to be equal to God (his Father). The scriptures actually tell a completely different story of how Jesus constantly humbled himself to his Father’s will, to the point that he freely gave his life in the most painful and horrible way imaginable in order to fulfill the prophecies that were made of the promised Messiah.
I have repeatedly told you that I (and others on this site) believe it is wrong to say things like, “Jesus is God”, or to call Jesus God. God (Yahweh) is the name of Jesus’ Father. Jesus has his own name precisely because he is a distinct individual separate from God (Yahweh). Of course everyone on this site realizes that our views constitute the minority, and that the majority of Christians would disagree with us.
But, being in the majority does not necessarily ensure that you are in the right in the eyes of God our Father the creator of everything that is good, righteous and honorable. Y’shua/Jesus said in Luke 13:24;
“Strive to enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.” (ESV).
Like I have repeatedly said before, I don’t believe that this is necessarily a salvation issue. It is just of interest to people who are seeking the truth about the nature of God and His relationship to His Son our Messiah, King and Savior…
With a game board like that, wouldn’t Ambitious Rivalry be an appropriate name for it?
Ray,
Like I said before. I can’t speak for others, but I am not looking to play some sort of “Ambitious Rivalry” game. I’m just looking for the truth. I don’t pretend to know everything and will readily admit that there are many things that I don’t understand and probably never will understand (at least in this lifetime). But, I do look forward to the day when “all” of my questions will be answered and “all” of my doubts will be resolved. At that time I will no longer have any more doubts about anything.
Of course in the coming kingdom I will have to come up with a different blogging name… 🙂
The circle thing that represents the Trinity has “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Ghost” or “Holy Spirit” around the outside. “IS NOT” is between each of them, thus, the Father IS NOT the Son, the Son IS NOT the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost IS NOT the Father. BUT the Father IS GOD, the Son IS GOD, and the Holy Spirit IS GOD. That’s how the official definition of the Trinity works. So they will explain differences between the Father and the Son by citing this definition.
The problem is, however, that there are verses that say that ONLY the Father is God. Plus, the Son is only called God in two verses for sure (and a handful of others that are grammatically ambiguous), and then it is in a representative sense, the same as Old Testament representatives (such as the Judges) are called God. And thirdly, the Holy Spirit is a way of referring to the personal presence and power of God working in people or situations. These are concepts that are in the Hebrew Scriptures and mindset. If people had only understood them, there’d have been no need for the doctrine of the Trinity. This is why the abandoning of Hebrew thought in favor of Greek/Pagan thought led to false doctrines.
I agree with Mark C., we have to read the New Testament from a Hebraic perspective or else we’re going to misinterpret key concepts. Beginning with Justin Martyr in the mid-second century a Greek philosophical framework was increasingly used, all the way down to Nicea and beyond, and this had disastrous effects. We see this with the Trinity doctrine.
Speaking of which, those of us who reject the Trinity ought to make it a point to spend more time in our debates with Trinitarians pointing out the real (not apparent) logical contradictions in the doctrine. I feel like we give them half the victory simply by letting their claim that the doctrine isn’t illogical go unchallenged.
For instance, they are quick to claim that it is not illogical to claim that God is both 1 and 3 because the way in which God is 1 is not the same way in which he is 3. This is true, because the claim is that God is 3 PERSONS in 1 SUBSTANCE. They are not saying that 3 persons are 1 person, and vice versa. However, where they get into trouble is by claiming that each member is fully God, but each member does not equal the other member. This results in 4 definitions of the “one true God”: The Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. According to Trinitarian doctrine, each of the three can rightly be termed the one true God, while the Trinity as a whole is also the one true God. This is illogical. Here they ARE claiming that 1 person = 3 persons.
Also, the claim that Jesus is both 100% man and 100% God at the same time must be challenged logically. God knows all things, man does not know all things. Thus, for Jesus to be both God and man at the same time, he would have to know all things and not know all things at the same time. This is a logical impossibility.
That’s just a sampling of some of the contradictions. Of course, it’s always entertaining to see the creative ways Trinitarians try to get out of these dilemmas.
Hi Greg,
Welcome to K.R.!!! I don’t remember seeing you post here before.
You said, “Beginning with Justin Martyr in the mid-second century a Greek philosophical framework was increasingly used, all the way down to Nicea and beyond, and this had disastrous effects. We see this with the Trinity doctrine.”
I agree. This idea that God is 3 persons predates Christianity and is taken from pagan mythology. From what I understand the Nicene Creed originally stated that God, Jesus and the holy spirit were “one person”. About 50 years or so later this evolved and changed and the “NEW” Trinity doctrine began to state that they were 3 separate persons but one essence (or being/or God).
The fact that the Trinity doctrine was still evolving and changing some 300 years after Y’shua’s death and resurrection demonstrates that it was a new idea that was not part of the original teachings of the early Christians. The fact is the word Trinity is not found in any early Christian writings and doesn’t make an appearance until near the end of the second century. I believe it is a case of human mythology being fused together with the early (original) Christian religion.
Of course like always this is just my own humble opinion. May the peace and love of God (“OUR” Father) be with you and with us all…
Greg, don’t most Trinitarians say that each member of the Trinity is equal to the other in so many ways, too many to number? If they don’t come right out and say so, isn’t that the way of thinking by so many of them?
It seems to me that it could be so.
Hi Thomas, I am new here. I’ve been aware of the site for some time but haven’t ever posted before.
You wrote:
“From what I understand the Nicene Creed originally stated that God, Jesus and the holy spirit were “one personâ€. About 50 years or so later this evolved and changed and the “NEW†Trinity doctrine began to state that they were 3 separate persons but one essence (or being/or God).”
Defenders of the Trinity doctrine are very careful with how they use language to define what they’re talking about. For instance, they are emphatic that the 3 persons of the Trinity are “distinct” but NOT “separate.” The former is the “truth”, the latter is “heresy.” So they would totally dismiss your characterization as a straw man and feel vindicated. But doesn’t common sense tell you that God would never have one’s salvation hinge on something so technical as using the word “distinct” rather than “separate” to describe him? All we need to know is that God the Father raised Jesus, his uniquely begotten son, from the dead, and has installed him as Lord over all creation. We don’t have to confess Jesus as God, nor do we have to confess the Trinity doctrine, nor any other manmade creed. And I’m getting this straight from God’s word.
I’m not aware of the Nicean creed calling Father, Son, and Holy Spirit “one person” as you say. As far as I’m aware, they’ve always made a distinction between the persons. Modalism, on the other hand, did teach that there was one God person who manifested himself as Father, Son, and Spirit. But of course the modalists lost the battle ultimately. The truth is, though, early church history is murky, indeed, because those guys often killed and burned the people and writings that they disagreed with. So what we have is the victorious Trinitarian version of church history. They even went so far as to go back and change parts of early texts like Ignatius’ writings to have him say Trinitarian things. That’s why I trust the Catholic Church with their handling of the truth about as much as I would a serial rapist in the presence of my daughter. I think it’s an evil, corrupt institution and I wouldn’t hesitate at all to identify it with the great whore of Revelation, “she that sits upon many waters.”
Hi Ray, yes you are correct, Trinitarians declare complete equality between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They are coeternal, coequal, coessential, and so on. None can exist without the other two.
What’s amazing to me is that the Bible consistently presents a Jesus who is in all ways inferior to the father, NOT equal. God has always existed, the Son came into existence at a point in time; God is all-powerful, the Son can do only what the father grants him to do; God is immortal, Jesus died; God is not a man, Jesus was a man; and so on. But despite all the evidence, Trinitarians still teach that the Son is exactly equal to the Father.
Greg,
You said, “…they are emphatic that the 3 persons of the Trinity are ‘distinct’ but NOT ‘separate’.â€
I didn’t realize that. I’ve always had a hard time understanding the fine points of the Trinity doctrine since it really doesn’t make much sense to me.
You also said, “But doesn’t common sense tell you that God would never have one’s salvation hinge on something so technical as using the word ‘distinct’ rather than ‘separate’ to describe him? ”
I agree. From my point of view the Trinity doctrine fails the common sense test.
You also said, “I’m not aware of the Nicean creed calling Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ‘one person’ as you say.”
I recently read a book entitled “When Jesus Became God” by Richard E. Rubenstein in it he talks about the many creeds that were adopted after the Nicean Creed. There was even an Arian creed adopted under Constantius in 357 A.D. In 381 A.D at the Council of Constantinople the last creed was adopted.
– quote from page 222 – Using Nicene language, the Creed of Constantinople affirmed that Jesus Christ was “the only-begotten Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, homoousios with the Father, through Whom all things came into existence.”
Unlike the Nicene Creed, however, which referred very briefly to the Holy Spirit, the statement of faith went on to proclaim belief in “the Holy Spirit, the Lord and life-giver, Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son is together worshiped and glorified.” It affirmed the Christian belief in “one holy Catholic and apostolic Church” as well, and concluded; “We confess one baptism to the remission of sins; we look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.”
The new statement eliminated the Nicene Creed’s list of anathemas, which contained the confusing (and, in light of the new theology, erroneous) ban on belief in separate hypostases, but the canons adopted by the council denounced two types of Arianism, among other heresies. – end quote –
To be quite honest I don’t understand some of the words from the above quote, but it does seem to prove that the Trinity doctrine was still changing and evolving for some 50 years after the Nicene Creed was first written. I got what I said from the last paragraph above where it said “the Nicene Creed’s list of anathemas, which contained the confusing ban on belief in separate hypostases…”
The way I had interpreted this was that the original Nicene Creed had a list of anathemas which banned a belief in God being being 3 separate/distinct persons. I didn’t realize that there was a difference in meanings between the words separate and distinct. I’m just an uneducated layman, but to me these words mean the same thing… 🙂
DT,
I’ve been studying this issue of the nature of God and Jesus for almost two years now. I was a lapsed Christian but got serious about it again when my father died in the summer of 2009. To me, the absolutely fundamental question that I had to answer was, Who is God? I can’t worship a being if I don’t have some understanding of who or what it is that I’m worshipping. So that’s what set me down the path of studying Trinitarianism, Binitarianism, Oneness, Arian, and Socinian views. I endeavored to be as open minded and fair as I could in my analysis. I wanted to correctly understand what a doctrine was teaching before I rejected it. So, that’s the long way of saying that I spent a great deal of time making sure I understood what the Trinity actually teaches, rather than what its opponents claim that it’s teaching. So it was upon truly understanding the doctrine that I finally had to reject it because I felt it wasn’t logical or biblical.
I have read WHEN JESUS BECAME GOD. Just finished not too long ago, in fact. It was very interesting, and definitely showed all the diversity of opinion in the early church regarding these issues of God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit. You made a good about about the hypostasis issue. I would have to go back and read that part in the book again to know what to say about it. I know the use of “distinct” vs. “separate” is vehemently stressed today, but I’m not sure about the 4th century. Like the book shows, there were all sorts of different views on God and Jesus. That’s what annoys me about Trinitarians…they act like it’s obvious from church history that the doctrine has been around since the time of the apostles, but that is clearly not true. The fathers in the first couple of centuries were mostly subordinationists. meaning that they believed the Son was divine but that he was inferior to the Father. I don’t think the Holy Spirit began to be looked at as a person until the 4th century. But I do believe that it was the importation of Greek philosophical concepts that actually complicated the situation and made it worse, leading to all the debates and different points of view. This began early on. Wouldn’t it have been so much easier and better if they would have accepted the testimony of the Hebrew Scriptures that God was one and that he would send a Messiah — someone obviously other than himself — to be savior?
Greg,
You said, “. That’s what annoys me about Trinitarians…they act like it’s obvious from church history that the doctrine has been around since the time of the apostles, but that is clearly not true. The fathers in the first couple of centuries were mostly subordinationists. meaning that they believed the Son was divine but that he was inferior to the Father. I don’t think the Holy Spirit began to be looked at as a person until the 4th century.”
I agree. That’s what I get from my studying of church history as well. The other thing I try to keep in mind is that the R.C. church was notorious for destroying the writings of anyone that disagreed with their doctrines. One of the first things that Constantine did was to begin persecuting the Jewish Christians and to see to it that all of the Jewish Christian writings were destroyed.
According to Constantine and the early R.C. church it was impossible for someone to be a Jewish and Christian. They perceived these 2 religions as not only being polar opposites to one another but as also being archenemies. They were kinder to the Jews who they just tried to force-ably convert to Christianity. The Jewish Christians on the other hand were virtually wiped out by the repeated and constant persecution on the part of the Romans.
You also said, “Wouldn’t it have been so much easier and better if they would have accepted the testimony of the Hebrew Scriptures that God was one and that he would send a Messiah — someone obviously other than himself — to be savior?”
Again I agree. It seems to me they weren’t looking for guidance from the Hebrew Scriptures. They got their beliefs from other places and then tried to force read these beliefs back into the holy scriptures and into the writings of the early church fathers. Any early Christian writings that would have proved their doctrines to be wrong were destroyed. Of course like always this is just my own humble opinion.
God Bless and again welcome to K.R…
DT,
It may be your own humble opinion, but I think it happens to be right 🙂
And you are absolutely right about the early church’s treatment of the Jewish Christians. What was originally orthodox belief (basically Judaism with Jesus as Messiah added) became the epitome of heresy in the early church. One church council anathematized anyone who would “judaize” by resting on the Sabbath day. Isn’t that amazing? That means that Jesus and his disciples and all the first Christians, who were mostly Jews, would have been condemned had they lived a few centuries later!
Greg,
You said, “One church council anathematized anyone who would “judaize†by resting on the Sabbath day. Isn’t that amazing? That means that Jesus and his disciples and all the first Christians, who were mostly Jews, would have been condemned had they lived a few centuries later!”
It is ironic. All of the early Christian leaders were Jewish Christians and within a few centuries it was widely believed that it was impossible to be Jewish and to be Christian at the same time. The beliefs were supposedly incompatible with one another.
BTW – I am a Sabbath keeper myself. From what I understand Joseph (who is a Messianic Jew that posts here sometimes) and myself are the only two Sabbath Keepers here on K.R. Of course I respect all the people that disagree with me and who try to keep Sunday as a holy day to grow closer to God and to contemplate His holy word and His magnificent majesty…
DT,
I grew up a Sabbath keeper. I don’t presently do a very good job of observing it, I’ll be the first to admit, but I do accept that it is God’s official day of rest according to the fourth commandment, and I find nothing in the New Testament that indicates it was changed. Of course, that gets into the whole debate of law vs. grace and what gentiles are expected to do or not do, but personally I simply look to Jesus and his example and the early church as recorded in Acts and I see Paul observing Sabbath even if his writings include nothing about it being necessary in order to be in right standing with God. I also can’t ignore the conclusion to the prophets Isaiah and Zechariah, where it seems to indicate in the Kingdom that the Sabbath and holy days will be observed. My reasoning is, if they are to be observed then, why wouldn’t they be observed presently? It seems like the logical thing to do. But, like you, I absolutely do not condemn anyone who disagrees on this issue, and would never say that they are not true Christians because of that.
Greg,
I agree completely. Have a great night and God Bless… 🙂
Hi Greg,
My friend Jaco recently signed me up to a site entitled “Who is Jesus?” There is some interesting conversations going on there. There are J.W.’s, Oneness believers, Trinitarians and of course Biblical Unitarians all sharing their different views with each other. If you are interested in checking it out I will paste the link below for you.
http://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/293377121294/
It is a closed group so I’m not sure if you can just jump into the conversation or not, but if you can’t post let me know and I will ask Jaco to sign you up the same way he signed me up.
May the peace and love of God (“OUR” Father) be with you and with us all…
DT,
Thanks for the invite. I assume I have to have a facebook account, though, am I right? I no longer have one, after experiencing some hacker trouble.
I just now tried to sign on to the above site, (# 40) but I couldn’t type fast enough to get by their security system so I couldn’t get on.
What do you think about a Trinitarain that says that Jesus is God, but not by comparision?
Didn’t John make a comparison when he talked about the Word being the same that was in the beginning with God?
I was in a conversation in a blog with a Trinitarian on this but I see my comments are still waiting moderation.
I suppose that means that I am the only one who can see them.
What I’ve often found while interacting with others on this subject, is that it’s like a man who has a dollar bill in his hand, but if the same bill is in the hand of another, it doesn’t have the same value.
It’s like a dollar might be worth $1.55 if they have it, but if another has the same bill, it’s only worth about $ . 87.
It seems to be economic.
Maybe it’s not that important.
To coin a well used phraze, I suppose it could simply be the nature of the beast.
Greg,
I do believe you need to have a facebook account. Sorry to hear about the hacker problems…
Ray,
You said, “It’s like a dollar might be worth $1.55 if they have it, but if another has the same bill, it’s only worth about $ . 87.”
I think you are right. I believe it is part of our human/prideful nature to think that our own opinions are worth more than other people’s opinions. There does seem to be a human tendency for people to think that they are the center of the Universe (so to speak). I think that’s why the O.T. and Y’shua, Peter and the apostles always stressed the importance of being humble whenever possible…
A man who goes along with an unequal measure is like one who walks having one leg shorter than the other.
A man that bounces when he walks can be seen coming for a country mile.
Ray,
You said, “A man that bounces when he walks can be seen coming for a country mile.”
I never heard that one before. I like that… 🙂
Correction:
1. God is not a man and does not change (The Word became [changed] into flesh [man]).
2. Prayer is conversation. God converses with Jesus (Hebrws 1:1-14).
3. God cannot be tempted by evil.
4. God is immortal and it does not matter how you define death (as unconciousness or as conciousness because God simply cannot die and this would be avoiding the question). Also, if one argues that Jesus splits into two persons at death, they deny Jesus’s death with it their salvation (1 Corinthians 15:2-3).
Strike your second objection and expound on your other objections.
DT. Again, no one can die for another man’s sin, in Ezekiel 14:14-21, and in Jeremiah 31:30. YHWH is not contrary, to then turn around, and say, that a man will die for us, think, and reason, people, this is a change from YHWH, and remember He does not change taught in Malachi 3:6.
People have been doing jc for over 2000 years now, from the 1st, and 2nd centuries, and our world has gotten even worst, something is not right here, reason for yourselves, this idol is not of YHWH that is why, it angers YHWH, giving His praise to another.
It was prophesied by Daniel 11:39-45, of the strange gods that will rule over many, for our times now, the 4th kingdom, today people. YHWH told the prophet Hosea 6:1,2, that in this time He will return to us to get us straight with the truth, it is for a little while now as said in Isaiah 10:25, as He also states in Isaiah 34:8
YHWHs righteousness is near, in Isaiah 51:5.
Lorraine,
I have NEVER taught that Yeshua paid the penalty for your sins! NEVER! QUIT MISREPRESENTING MY VIEW ON THE ATONEMENT!
Yeshua DID die in order to save us from the DEVIL and to demonstrate that WE TOO can overcome our sins! And so in THAT sense, Christ died for our sins.
DT
Say….can you guys give a biblical explanation of “Atonement” ?? And DT…what do you mean by saying Jesus never “paid the penalty for your sins”? I guess it’s pretty well etched into my brain that “Jesus died for your sins!” so your statement was eye-catching to say the least. Thanks, Sheryl
DT, who is Yeshua, oh, I see it is jesus to you, and the atonement, is for us to do the law of YHWH is what He ask of us all through this book, to do His law of righteousness, the 10 commandments, the sabbath, and the passover, in Exodus 12, as He said to all nations in Isaiah 56. Again YHWH says that no man, or no one can die for another man’s sin, and that we are all responsible for our own righteousness, so why would YHWH go back on His Word that specifically states this in Ezekiel 14:14-21, and Jeremiah 31:30, of no man can die for another? Rationalize and think for yourselves people, YHWH is not contrary, YHWH changes not in Malachi 3:6.
This is how the NT teaches, it goes back, and forth, using truths, with lies, and is why DT, first said that jc never paid the penalty for our sins, and then said he did. The NT must fulfill the OT, but it does not, the NT has many changes, and YHWH changes not is what we are taught. Devil, nonsense, read the truth in Jeremiah 17, preferably 17:9,10, of the wicked hearts of mankind.
Read Genesis – Malachi, study, pray, and do the law as said in Malachi 4:4.
Lorraine,
The Ezekiel 14 passage you have cited many times now:
I believe this is referring to the ‘first death’, which is of the flesh. The righteous cannot save the unrighteous from death in the flesh, I don’t disagree with that. We all die this death, including Noah, Daniel, Job and Jesus. But when Christians talk about Jesus dying for them, they are talking about the second death.
You also keep citing Malachi and saying YHWH doesn’t change. I don’t disagree with that either, but His statutes have. There was no circumcision until Abraham. There was no ‘Law’ until Moses. I don’t think you can use Malachi to dismiss a ‘new covenant’ that was put in place with Jesus, otherwise, would you not have to rule out circumcision and the Law as they too would be seen as YHWH changing from what had existed before?
Good point Tim (aka Antioch)!!!
… 🙂
Tim(akaAntioch),
I second Doubting Thomas(actual): Good point and well written.
8)
Lorraine(aka What Now),
What state do you live in.
Where I live it is illegal to sacrifice live animals by law.
and
The animal cruelity groups wood string you up for bleeding animals to death.
Just how many animals are you cruelly killing/sacrificing each phys-cal year?
YHWH bless,
Timothy
Sheryl,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christus_Victor
Lorraine,
Christus Victor atonement doctrine DOES NOT tell us that Yeshua paid for our sins! NOR does it disagree with the WEIGHT of Old Testament evidence demonstrating that we must also obtain our OWN righteousness! You are MISREPRESENTING my beliefs at EVERY POSSIBLE ANGLE! AND IT’S EXCEPTIONALLY ANNOYING! I have NEVER disagreed with the Old Testament passages demonstrating how we, as Christians, must attain our own righteousness. Christ’s death is exemplary that WE can do what HE did and in THAT sense, we can say that Yeshua died for our sins because he died to PROVE WE could do what HE did! So STOP misrepresenting!
DT
Lorraine,
Just for you:
http://www.maplandia.com/france/lorraine/meurthe-et-moselle/toul/toul/toul-google-earth.html
Timothy
I know what you mean, DT, about “working out our own salvation with fear and trembling.” I believe the NT teaches that Jesus died to absolve us of the inherited sin of mankind brought on by Adam and Eve (is this the Atonement?) But once “saved” we are obligated to live a life according to God’s will, with Jesus as our model.
I think, not really sure if this is biblical, that once we are “born again” we are filled with the holy spirit and now have eternal life. Even though we will never die (not die spiritually) we still could lead a sinful life and not be allowed to enter the Kingdom of God.
DT, I have no idea why you think that I am misrepresenting you personally, this is not what I’m doing sir, or mam, please don’t take this personal.
I am quoting the scripture from Ezekiel 14:14-21, this is all. But, for the life of me, I cannot understand that you first agree with this scripture in Ezekiel 14:14-21, and then you say that Jesus died for sins, so which is it? Not intended to insult anyone, but it can’t be both you know that would be a contradiction. And, Christ us Victor, are these apocrypha books?
No need to fret, for this is all to magnify YHWH in His day of what is true,and what is not, as taught in Malachi 3:18, and Malachi 4.
timothy, the sacrifices are no longer allowed, they were stopped, this will not happen until after the day of YHWH comes, the great destruction comes. First that will come is after the first gathering, which has already been done, and next a second gathering prophesied in Isaiah 60, 65, and in Isaiah 52, of the watchmen, has to come, the future.
Have you ever heard of the last battle its taught in Ezekiel 38. There is much to unfold before all of this will take place, but the prophecys are in process as we speak.
Tim, DT, you may not agree with YHWH does not change, Malachi 3:6, but do you have the authority on this to do? You are of flesh, and blood, and this is ones pride. But, in Isaiah 24:5, YHWH tells us of how He is angry with the change of His statues, which brought on the sword on earth, in Jeremiah 25, until this day, we are under it.
And, the new covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-36, this is the same law, the only difference is that it is now written, read Deuteronomy 5 of Moses. This new covenant began with Moses. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, had the law within them, they spoke to YHWH often in those days, as taught in Genesis 26:5. They obeyed the ‘voice’ of YHWH. We do the written law from Moses until this day, this is all that the new means. Praise unto YHWH.
Oh guys, sorry, the sword was also prophesied in Genesis 27, with Isaac, and esau.
Lorraine,
I said I agreed with you that YHWH does not change. But I think you are mixing his ‘nature’ with his covenants. The former does not change, the latter has in the past and I suspect could as well in the future. YHWH instituted circumcision at the time of Abraham, so why could he not repeal it at some later point? That doesn’t mean YHWH is changing, that means his covenant is.
Doesn’t YHWH change his determination to do a thing based on prayers or pleadings from his children? Like when he was going to burn Sodom and Gomorrah to the ground, but listened to the pleadings of Abraham. And seems to me YHWH said he would never have mercy on his children because they kept going back to idol worship…but when they begged and pleaded he brought them out of bondage. I believe YHWH is receptive enough to our prayers to change his mind on an action he determined to take. Am I in error here?
Hi Sheryl,
I think you are definitely correct – that at least in some cases, God will change His plans, based upon our actions. After all, consider this passage, from the “potter’s wheel” account in Jeremiah 18:
Jeremiah 18:7-10 (NIV):
7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned.
9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.
That certainly seems to indicate that God does sometimes change His plans – depending on the actions that we take.
Brian
Sheryl,
Hi and hello.
You wrote:
*Am I in error here?*
No! You are not in error!
First use of *lovingkindness*(mercy):
Genesis 19: (nasb)
19 Now behold, your servant has found favor in your sight, and you have magnified your lovingkindness, which you have shown me by saving my life; but I cannot escape to the mountains, for the disaster will overtake me and I will die;…..
First use of *lovingkindness*(mercy)……..with Lot and his two
“virgin daughters”(Ruth is a descendant of the firstborn Moab)
Genesis 19:
37 The firstborn bore a son, and called his name Moab; he is the father of the Moabites to this day.
GOD(YAHWEH), still has lovingkindness…from sinning Israel to his new family: today’s Christians.
Luke 15:
7 I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.
Luke 15:11-32
24 for this son of mine was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found.’ And they began to celebrate.
James 5:
19 My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth and one turns him back,
20 let him know that [s]he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.
Sin is broken fellowship with GOD(YAHWEH):
1 John:
5 This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.
6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth;
7 but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.
8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.
This is how Christians maintain fellowship with their Heavenly father GOD(YAHWEH).
1950’s Southern Gospel Song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahTZ83tDjxE
Timothy 🙂
Lorraine,
Over and over and over and over again you have written:
*Rationalize and think for yourselves people, YHWH is not contrary, YHWH changes not in Malachi 3:6.*
You then write:
“timothy, the sacrifices are no longer allowed, they were stopped,…….”
You write this, yet you refuse the New Testament scripture and are remaining:
apistia=unbeliever or even worse
apeithia=unpersuaded
You seem to be ignorant of the *MYSTERY* and just as catastrophic do not know:
Romans 10:
3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
Galatians 3:
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
Galatians 5:
3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
You have stumbled onto a place where there are faithful Christians who can help you to be delivered from the power of darkness.
Read this, spoken by Jesus Christ(to enlighten the eyes of your understanding too and *HUAHB*):
Matthew5:
2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,
3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
GOD(YAHWEH) loves you exactly the same 100% as he loves each person you have communicated with here on KINGDOM READY blog.
Timothy 🙂
DT, timothy, and Sheryl, and Brian Keaton, well, this was not a changed in the sacrifices, they were simply, ‘Stopped’ because as was said in Malachi 1:6-14, and in Daniel 12:11, the people were snufing YHWH. This is totally different than being a change.
The circumcision is perpetual, for YHWH is always adamant about cleansiness, and in Genesis 17, it states that this convenant is for the ‘generation(s), to come, and it also reads that this covenant is everlasting, (no change here guys).
And, yes YHWH did make an exception in the case of Abraham, looking out for Lot, his cousin, but dose anyone realize who Abraham is? Abraham was YHWHs friend, in Isaiah 41:8, just as with Moses, YHWH gave us the grace, and mercy because of him as well, but Moses was His prophet, and in Amos 3:7, YHWH does nothing without His servants the ‘prophets.’ This says YHWHs ‘PROPHETS’ in Amos.
But, thanks for that scripture in Genesis 18, it is an enlighten one to know that YHWH will bend for us, as long as we have someone with YHWHs authority of permission, to ask for us. And or will convert to Him, meaning ‘change’ our ways.
In Jeremiah 18:7,10, YHWH did make another exception to this nation only because they turned from their path of evil, and disobeying YHWH, and well, of course this YHWH says, and does all through the book of remembrance, if we turn back to the law of righteousness, He will give us salvation as taught to us in Isaiah 55:6,7. YHWHs mercy He will give, but this is not a change, it is under a condition that we convert unto Him, YHWH. This also happened in the book of Jonah.
But to think that we ourselves the flocks can just change things, without th Word of YHWH, I’ve never seen this in the book. Oh, yes over into the NT=not true book.
No hard feelings, I hope, this is just how I see both books, there is a contradiction going on, and YHWH would not have given us the scriptures in Malachi 2, Ezekiel 20, Jeremiah 23:1-5, and Ezekiel 34, if He were not angry with the shepherds, the priest, the pastors, and the popes, this is not only speaking of the old days, even until today, the flocks are being mislead.
Also, even the name of YHWH is being profaned, in Ezekiel 36:22,23, this is still going on today, calling Him everything but His name YHWH, subtitles are: The Strong One, The King, The Almighty. His name was removed 6800 times from this book, without His permission, need I say from the beginning writing of this NT, 200bce.look it up.
The flocks are being mislead by giving YHWHs praise to another.
Lorraine,
How do you reconcile Isaiah 53:5-6 with respect to no man can save another or taking on the sins of another?
For what its worth, I do see your main focus (per Deu 6:4+) is on YHWH and I hope that is what comes through as my focus as well. That is most important. I do not see Jesus as God. I see him as the son of God and repeatedly saying that everything he did was because of God and for God.
Peace and Love
Tim(aka Antioch),
I reconcile it Isaiah 53:5,6, by seeing this servant as who will work for YHWH to be His intercessor, to pray for the transgressors. This servant cannot in no way take away another man’s sin, but, he can pray for them the transgressors, to pray that they awaken to the truth, to the law of YHWH, and then turn their ways, and their understanding, unto YHWH.
The intercessor is to pour out his soul to pray for the transgressors, and also to pray for the innocent who died, as he was once one of them who transgressed, he’ll justify many to guide them towards the righteousness of YHWH, as said in Isaiah 53:11. But, each individual, each man is still responsible for their own righteousness, to turn their ways around, to humble themselves to the law, to YHWH, and to seek YHWH wholeheartedly.
For this work, the intercessor will be given the spoil to divide with the strong to work for YHWH also, all from YHWH, as said in Isaiah 53:12. This is why all the praise is to go to the most high YHWH, never to anyone else. Praise YHWH.
Tim(aka Antioch),
If you see jesus as being the son of YHWH, no disrespect of one’s beliefs, but then tell me who is this that YHWH says in Exodus 4:22,23 is? vs.22: And thou shall say unto Pharoah, thus said YHWH, ‘Israel’ is my son, even my ‘firstborn’ vs.23: And I say unto you, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if you refuse to let him go, behold I will slay your son, even your firstborn. This son of YHWHs is Israel, the chosen people. To my understanding, there cannot be two firstborn sons.
To confirm, this is where Zechariah 12 comes in at, YHWH is talking here, and from all of the piercing that has been done to YHWH, in Zech.12:10, from the sufferings, and torcher done to His son, YHWH will manifest a cry of mourning so great destroying the nations that are against the house of David His son, the chosen people, destruction will go against these nations that abused His son, who is Jacob, Israel, and Jerusalem.
Sheryl,
There is no “inherited sin” and if there is, then you are not at fault for your sins.
DT
DT — By “inherited sin” I mean the sin passed on through Adam and Eve. Because we have that “sin nature” we are tempted to sin and very often succumb to one degree or another…which would be our fault. What made Jesus a perfect sacrifice to absolve us of our sins is that he, having the full measure of God’s holy spirit from conception, was better able to refrain from sin. He was certainly tempted but he emptied himself of his human ego and allowed himself to be governed by the holy spirit. Sheryl
Hi Sheryl,
I agree with your post about “sin nature”.
Jesus, was just like Adam, being the second/last Adam and was tempted by sin, but he did not sin.
John the baptist was born with holy spirit.
Luke 1:
15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb.
Jesus received holy spirit when his cousin John baptized him.
Matthew 3:
11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:…..
The apostles were first to be baptized, “at Pentecost”, by the resurrected/ascended Jesus Christ
Acts:
3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
With” fire from heaven” shows GODs acceptance.
4 And they were all [filled] with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
pleroo=filled to overflowing with holy spirit
There is no record of more tongues of fire.
However those who were baptized with holy spirit, received holy spirit into manifestation. And the book of Acts has at least five accounts where each manifested by speaking in tongues/prophesy.
Timothy 🙂
Sheryl,
Yes, Yeshua did inherit the sin nature of Mary. For a second, I thought I was on a site dealing with those who embraced a Catholic lie that ultimately denies Yeshua came in the sarki (flesh).
DT
Lorraine,
Re: post 73, good question. I’ve been meaning to go deeper in what ‘son of God’ might have meant to a first century Jewish audience. May take me some time but I plan on doing just that. If anyone has links on that, please provide them, thanks.
Timothy, I hope I don’t take this thread off topic, but I’ve been thinking about baptism. I was baptized as a believer several years ago and feel like I have met that requirement. I’m just wondering now… did the method of baptism change, do you think, after Pentecost? When we first believe and are first filled with the holy spirit which truly brings about a change in our lives is this our “baptism by fire”? I can see how this “baptism” would ignite the flame of passion toward living a new life according to God’s will. Or, on the other hand, is water baptism in a public venue correct? Thank you for your insight.
Sheryl,
Yes, and I was baptized by sprinkling when I was 12 years old.
And then when 39 years old I was baptized with holy spirit by Jesus Christ.
Please, carefully, re-read the post # 76(above) I made to you.
I believe, the Greater, holy spirit, has replaces the lesser, water.
I believe what Jesus Christ said:
Acts 1:
5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost(spirit) not many days hence.
Timothy 🙂
When I first read your post Timothy, was the first time I ever even considered that water baptism may not be for believers today. Apparently this is something God is teaching me and I thank you again for your words. The more I learn, the more I realize I don’t know!!
Sheryl,
I understand what you mean about learning more.
There are a lot of “subjects”, with many beliefs, resulting in over 30,000 different denominations in the USA alone. This is all contrary to GODs word where unity is commanded.
Romans 12: (kjv)
16 Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits.
Romans 14:
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
Romans 15:
6 That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Philippians 2:
2 Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.
Water Baptism falls in to a “there are some that do and some that don’t
division”. It is so easy to read what John the baptist said, what Jesus said and see what happened in the first days of the 1st century church. And this can be confusing when one has not considered/learned about
the *MYSTERY* the apostle Paul reveals in Ephesians.
There was a progression of revelation establishing the Church of Grace, so to speak.
Ephesians 3:3
How that by revelation he made known unto me the *mystery*;…………
The main thing is that Johns baptism was with water and Jesus’ is of holy spirit, being done “in the name of Jesus Christ”. Details about what you get when baptized are given in teaching segment:
Session 13 “The Spirit of Truth”
http://lhim.org/resources/classes.php?id=31
The whole, “free” on line class will be/should be worth your time. It was with a Great Grand Father of this class that I learned what I now believe(in Miami, Florida 1981). This is especially good for learning how to read the bible and have it all logically fit together in your mind. And “to know that you know, that you know”!
Well at least just listen to session 13.
Bless you,
Timothy
Timothy, Tim(aka), DT, no one has responded to the question of why does YHWH say in Exodus 4:22,23, that this is His Son, and even His Firstborn, the chosen people “Israel?” And how can there be two firstborn sons? Does anyone here have an explanation of this scripture? YHWH Bless, Praise YHWH.
Lorraine,
Ancient Israel was God’s firstborn as far as Pharaoh was concerned; that was a temporal matter. Jesus Christ however was God’s firstborn as far as Satan was concerned, and that was an eternal matter.
Perhaps the reason people don’t respond to your questions is that you are so off base in some of your ideas, and simultaneously so entrenched in them, that no one knows exactly what to say to you that could be helpful.
As long as you remain determined to reject the New Testament, you have no other source to which you can reasonably look for affirmation that the God who made the promises found in the Hebrew Bible is able also to perform them.
Salvation is indeed from the Jews, and most notably and specifically that Jew called Joshua Messiah – better known as Jesus Christ.
Timothy,
If water baptism ended when Christ came, why did the apostles continue to baptize with water in the book of Acts?
Lorraine,
From my research, I am seeing that being a ‘son of’ someone (or something) is not always literal. Before Israel was a nation, Genesis 6:2 refers to the ‘sons of God’. How could Israel be the firstborn if someone else was already a son?
So it seems ‘sonship’ can mean ‘closely affiliated’. I expect ‘first born’ can also mean that the affiliation is not only close but especially close since the first born son had birthrights and other priveleges in that culture.
That makes sense to me, which means the passage in Exodus is God speaking to pharaoh in terms pharoah would understand. Israel is ‘like a’ first born son to me.
Mike and Mike Gantt,
I apologize for offending you and pray for your forgiveness.
Regrettably I do not wish to debate with you.
You have yourself to debate.
Timothy 8)
Mike Gantt, I totally disagree with you on YHWH saying let go His son, and firstborn, as being a temporal matter. He talks of this son ‘Israel’ all through this book. And, satan, well I find him to be menial compared to YHWH, he if it is even such a being, is very afraid of YHWH, and needs permission to play, if it is a he, or it were actually real. I find the word satan to be just a metaphor for what people do themselves, from desire, or temptation, as in just the way their hearts are, in Jeremiah 17:9,10, the heart is wicked, we can’t always know it, and in Jeremiah 17:5-8, this is how we humble ourselves from the wickedness of the heart.
I don’t find what I say to be from my idea, the knowledge I get is from the scriptures. Or, one may say it is how I preceive the scriptures, but I think that the comprehension is clear to my understanding. I was mainly stating the scriptures, and some of my views, but the only question I had addressed was to one other poster. Maybe as you say they were confused as to which was a question, or which was a view.
Your statement about the NT is exactly why I do not follow it. It has so many changes in it, and YHWH has not changed any of His Word, or law, the 10 commandment of Moses. You say Joshua is jesus, well, there are only two Joshuas in the so called OT, truly named the book of remembrance, in Malachi 3:16. One was Joshua, the son of Nun, who was with Moses, as his protege. The name Joshua, means YHWHs help, and the other Joshua was the son of Josedech the high priest.
First in the NT, they call jesus, Emmanuel, then the son of YHWH, then they say He ‘is’ YHWH, and then they call jesus Michael the angel, now Joshua, which is it? There are too many spins in the NT, and saying that jesus is jew, which is true, for right in Matt.2:2, it says he’s born in Judea Bethlehem a city for which they claim is in another Bethlehem, what? Sounds like the Maccabees. But in Micah 5:2, YHWH says this child will be born in Ephratah Bethlehem in Judah(Yhwhudah), just where David the son of Jesse was born, and they were Hebrew Israelites, for YHWH is the strong one of the Hebrews as taught in Exodus 3:18, and 5:3. So, this, and many other changes have been made to the NT, not of YHWH.
For right on the introduction page, just before Matt. it reads Our lord, and savior, implying to say that YHWH is not, and YHWH specifically states in Isaiah 49:26, and in Isaiah 60:16, and others that ‘only’ He is our Savior, and Redeemer, and in Isaiah 43:13, He teaches that no man can be delivered from out of His hands. Praise YHWH.
Tim (aka), Now, no offense, but this sounds like double talk, but I will reconcile as much as I can here. Sons of God(YHWH), were nothing but the men of the pure line of Adam, who knew, and did the law, and obeyed YHWHs voice. This is why they called the women in Gen.6:2, strangers, or daughters of men, they were not of YHWH. As in Genesis 26:5, it teaches that Abraham knew the law from the voice of YHWH. Example is when in Job 1:6, and in Job 2:1, the Sons of God(YHWH), these were Job, and His three friends, they were of YHWH, and the law, and the voice of YHWH.
Therefore, this term ‘Sons of God'(YHWH), means the men who were of YHWH, and His law, and obeyed YHWHs voice, as in Genesis 26:5, as Abraham did. And it is in Exodus 4:22,23, as “Israel’ being the son, and the firstborn of YHWH, also meaning the nativity of the first man Adam, which is described in Ezekiel 16:1-14, of our beginning. Also, YHWH proclaims ‘Israel’ as His chosen people all through this book of remembrance.
Sarah,
I read it as though they did not immediately remember/understand what Jesus had told them, and “Water Baptism” was a well established tradition that started with Moses. Only men could baptize with water. Jesus never baptized anyone before the day of Pentecost, and then with holy spirit. Jesus Christ is the only one who can baptize with holy spirit.
And what happened in the first days of the 1st century church, water is mention, and this can be confusing when one has not considered/learned about the *MYSTERY* the apostle Paul reveals in Ephesians. The Apostles were following the only revelation they had been giving before Pentecost which was to baptize and they only could baptize with water. And only Jesus Christ can baptise today and with holy spirit.
There was a progression of revelation establishing the Church. Water baptism appears to be replaced as the apostles learned more. They certainly saw that people received holy spirit into manifestation with out water, even with just hearing the right teachings about Jesus and GOD raising him from the dead. (Romans 10:9 & 10)
Ephesians 3:3
How that by revelation he made known unto me the *mystery*;…………
The main thing is that Johns baptism was with water and Jesus’ baptism is of holy spirit, being done “in the name of Jesus Christâ€.
John the baptist said:
Matthew 3:
11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:….
Ten days before Pentecost Jesus said:
Acts:1
5 For John truly baptized with water; but(de=now) ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
The apostles were first to be baptized, “at Pentecostâ€, by the resurrected/ascended human being Jesus Christ:
Acts:
3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
With†fire from heaven†shows GODs acceptance.
Leviticus 9:
24 And there came a fire out from before the Lord, and consumed upon the altar the burnt offering and the fat: which when all the people saw, they shouted, and fell on their faces.
2 Chronicles 7:
7 Now when Solomon had made an end of praying, the fire came down from heaven, and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices; and the glory of the Lord filled the house
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
There was no water as John the Baptist had prophesied:
Matthew 3:
11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Then Peter addressed all present at the temple, with:
Acts 2:14—41
14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
All these people responded to verse 38 and were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ….”no water is mentioned”.
Acts 4:
4 Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand….Water not mentioned.
Acts:5
14 And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women….No water mentioned.
Acts 8:
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus….And again without water being mentioned.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied…No water.
12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women….Water not mentioned.
13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done….No water mentioned.
15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost…Without water.
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
The water tradition still continued here.
Acts: 9
17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.
18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized….Again no water mentioned.
Later, Cornelius and his household received holy spirit into manifestation when Peter spoke GODs word. There was no water baptism beforehand.
Acts 10:
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
Acts 11
15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Acts 10:44
16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but(de=now) ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Acts 1:5
17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?
They were baptized with holy spirit when they received/manifested while hearing GODs word….
Acts 18:
8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized….Water not mentioned.
What happened in the first days of the 1st century church? And this can be confusing when one has not considered/learned about
the *MYSTERY* that apostle Paul reveals in Ephesians.
There was a progression of revelation establishing the Church. Paul’s revelation was that there was a need to focus on the new baptism of the holy spirit.
Ephesians 3:3
How that by revelation he made known unto me the *mystery*;…………
Ephesians 4:
4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, *one baptism*,
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
The reality of baptism in holy spirit, done by Jesus Christ, makes you a new person in Christ, gets you saved, gives you spiritual power, that is the reality of the one baptism.
Paul wrote:
Galatians 1:
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
The main thing is that Johns baptism was with water and Jesus’ baptism is of holy spirit, being done “in the name of Jesus Christâ€.
There were disciples who had only heard about Johns baptism:
Acts 19:
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
They were baptized with holy spirit and manifested….Water not mentioned.
The difficult verses:
ACTS 8:37,38
Acts 10:47
Acts 11:16,17
The symbol of water Baptism was finally replaced by the reality of the baptism of the holy spirit.
Timothy 🙂
Timothy, one thing that sticks out is how in the Hebrew Bible (OT) God showed his acceptance of sacrifice by burning it up with fire. I can see how the sacrifice of our very lives as we bow down before the cross can be “burned up” by the fire of the holy spirit as we are baptized into grace. A foreshadowing of how we can still offer sacrifices today by avoiding sin and maybe doing something, or not doing something, that might make us a little uncomfortable…but pleasing to God causing his holy spirit to flare up within us. …or maybe I’m going off the deep end a bit… !! 😮
Sheryl,
Here is part of the renewed mind:
Romans 12:
12 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
GOD bless,
Timothy 🙂
timothy,
There is nothing for me to forgive. You have not offended me and owe me no apology.
Lorraine,
What do you think of the Septuagint?
Thanks for your comments, Timothy. I can see you’ve researched and thought about this subject carefully. I have more study to do on the subject of baptism and always appreciate input from other believers.
Mike Gantt, it the Septuagint, has revealed that christianity is nothing but an off-shoot of Judaisim, it was the rewriting of the Hebrew book of remembrance in the 3rd century by the Alexandrian Jews, and also was the beginning of this writing of the NT, all into Greek.
Also, as we know christianity was legalized in 311bc by Constantine, the beginning of the control of the masses for gain, and what is propheseid in Daniel 11:39-45, of both christianity, and of islam, strange gods not known of the covenant of Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, also taught in Deuteronomy 32:17, from Moses, through YHWH, of these idols, devils, to come in the future generations.
There was no christianity before the 4th century. For the most part I do not take to, nor trust apocrypha books for they are known to hide many things, and YHWH has not hidden anything from us that we need to know, for in Deuteronomy 29:29, “the secret things belong to YHWH our strong one: but those things that are revealed, belong unto us, and our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.” All praise goes to YHWH the King. YHWH Bless.
Lorraine,
Thanks for the response but I’m not sure what you’re saying so permit me some follow up.
The Septuagint was, of course, a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek by the Jews for sake of making those writings more accessible to the Jews who had been scattered from their homeland into regions where Greek was the predominant language.
This translation was undertaken in the late 3rd Century B.C. and thus pre-dated Jesus of Nazareth and the movement that bears his name. It thus can be viewed as a thoroughly Jewish work, and any later use by followers of Jesus, no matter how great, cannot change that heritage.
Leaving aside the Apocrypha with which I understand you have qualms, can you agree with all this?
To put the question another way, if I were to quote you a passage from, say, Deuteronomy in the LXX, would you immediately reject it as a tainted source or would it have pretty much the same authority for you as if I’d quoted it from an English translation of the Hebrew Scriptures?
Mike Gantt, that is exactly what I am saying about the Septuagint, it is a transliteration of the Hebrew Scriptures, which means that there were things either taken out, or added that were not of YHWH. This was Prophesied in Deuteronomy 4:2, not for us to do.
It the Septuagint was the beginning of the rewriting of the Alexandrian Jews of the Hebrew scriptures, and of the NT, allowed by the Romans to begin the controlling of the masses for gain, chiefly an off-shoot from Judasim,this is idolatry, just as any religion is which was prophesied in Daniel 11:39-45, of both christianity, and of islam; these are the strange gods that YHWH gave Daniel the vision of to warn those of us who know YHWH, and how He works, of His Word.
This is why you are not sure of what I’m saying, because many scholars are cut off from understanding this, prophesied in Malachi 2:12. They see mainly with their carnal eye, and not the eye of the anointed.
As for Deuteronomy LXX, what we do have of this book of remembrance, named in Malachi 3:16, is ‘exactly’ what YHWH wanted us to know, and have, for YHWH knows all things, before any of us could ever understand, as He tells us in Isaiah 40:28, there is no searching of YHWHs understanding. But, scholars continue on thinking that they know, or can, and well, this is unfortunate, as is taught in Isaiah 29, and in Deuteronomy 29:29.
This book is distributed all over the world in over 2000 languages, who do scholars think does this?, why would this book, not the others written, be so wide spread?, not because of the control of the masters, so they think, but it is for those who ‘know’, and will ‘know’ YHWH of His anointed. Therefore, the Deuteronomy LXX isn’t in this book of remembrance, the so called bible, and this is because it was not needed by YHWH for us to know, or else it would be in the so called OT, bible, truly named the book of remembrance, it’s obsolete, and remember YHWH changes not, in Malachi 3:6.
Many of the prophecies have either come to pass, and or are currently happening, in over 29 states they are in drought in the U.S.,taught in Isaiah 47, this was prophesied all in the book of remembrance. And also many of the future prophecies that will come, my favorite is Jeremiah 16:14-21, that will come for YHWHs righteousness is near, said in Isaiah 51:5. One prophecy to hold on to, that has come to pass is in Genesis 9:12-16, and until this day, the rainbow shows in the sky to remember this covenant from YHWH. YHWH Bless, and praise YHWH.
This is all fascinating to me. The reason I am on this blog site is due to learning my bible as been deliberately mis-translated to support a trinity doctrine. How deep does this go? How do we really know we have the absolute truth? I guess what makes me, for one, confident in the gospel truth of the NT is that Jesus fulfilled all the prophecy of the OT, and there is much extra-biblical evidence of the real man existing. And the fact that Jesus’ life, death and resurrection caused a profound historical change in humanity speaks volumes as well. I am glad to have my convictions challenged…it only strengthens my knowledge.
Lorraine,
I’m too perplexed by your point of view, and too enamored with Jesus Christ, to continue. Thanks for engaging with me.
Susan, I hear christians say this a lot, that jesus fulfilled all of the prophecy. When?, and How? Especially when the NT book does not fulfill the OT book. I do not understand this, not at all.
Mike Gantt, many are enamored with jesus because it was prophesied that many would be, read in Daniel 11:39, it says that this strange god will be acknowledged, and increased with ‘glory’ for it will ‘rule’ over many, prophecy fulfilled. This was all done by ‘flatteries’ in Daniel 11:21.
The best part of this is that all of this YHWH knows, for it is being allowed by Him, for He will magnify Himself from it all in the end. So, I again hope that there are no hard feelings, this is all about learning from one another.
Sheryl,
Did you recently discover the truth about the trinity? I was raised Baptist but had my suspicions for a long time, and those doubts lurked in a corner of my mind until a few years ago.
We are led to believe that to question trinitarianism is to question the NT itself. And to lose your trinitarianism is to lose your salvation! No wonder so few people dare to look into the issue. Yet because trinitarianism is nothing more than an interpretation of scripture, one can wholeheartedly affirm the NT as God’s word and still objectively examine whether or not it is in fact an accurate interpretation of God’s word.
I agree Sarah,
I’ve had well meaning (and loving) Trinitarians tell me that if I reject the fact that Y’shua was God, then I am rejecting Y’shua, and that this will negatively effect my salvation. They sincerely worry about my eternal salvation. I find it hard trying to explain to them that I am not actually rejecting Y’shua as the son of God at all. I am just rejecting this idea that Y’shua is (or was) God, but instead the “human” son of God…
Sarah, I was raised in a non-church home but was “saved” in my 20s (in my 50s now) and was mainstream orthodox evangelical. Tried many different churches and denominations. I never lost my faith but I wouldn’t say I was really living according to God’s will. As far as organized religion, since there were so many different doctrines I just ended up believing in the ones that sounded biblical and went off by myself (no more church) and tried to learn from the bible and the holy spirit by myself. I bought a Young’s Literal Translation and prayed my guts out for the real truth. During the same time I was looking into (of all things) the 9/11 Truth movement and stumbled upon a website called Truth or Tradition…and that opened my eyes to monotheism. Seemed to me like the floodgates of biblical truth opened and I’ve been trying to digest as much as possible. Of course, the more I learn, I realize I need to learn a lot more!!
Hi sheryl,
GOD bless.
I just re-read your post # 79 and above and found this *teaching* which explains about being “baptized with holy spirit and fire”
The “tongues as of fire” at Pentecost were NOT “baptism with fire”. This baptism is in the future after Jesus Christ returns. I cannot make an easy explanation.
However my believing is based on the scriptures and as taught in:
*Spirit and Manifestation* (carefully follow how to click)
http://www.kingdomready.org/teaching_notes.php?id=163&page=5
I still use my “Youngs Analytical Concordance” which is based on the “King Jame(kjv)” version. For our most recent teachings we are now using the “New American Standard Bible(nasb)”. My memory data base is on kjv English dialect and I fell the words are more salted. Something you may be noticing is that many here use GOD and YAHWEH interchangeably. Both kjv and nasb still have a clue to YAHWEH, GODs name, when LORD, Lord, etc are used. I do not know about the Youngs version.
I am more “teaching” oriented than “Sermon” and KR is connected to a vast archaive of teachings.
Timothy 🙂
Sheryl,
Thanks for sharing a little more about yourself and your faith journey thus far. Sounds like you have the heart of a truth seeker. You’ll find a lot of like-minded folks on this blog and plenty of material for study. So, welcome aboard!
Timothy,
I’m going to listen to the link you provided in #106. However, as far as I can tell the church practiced water baptism from the NT onward. In the Didache, an ancient Christian document dated around 90 AD, an entire section is devoted to instructions about water baptism.
P.S. Timothy,
Meanwhile, what is your opinion on Dr. Buzzard’s response?
http://focusonthekingdom.org/articles/baptism.htm
Sarah,
I am suspicious on anything coming from the RCs and especially so after watching “Agora” and reading about the early church philosophies.
I have no opinion to give about Buzzards doctrines.
This is # 1: (of teaching above(#2))
â€Baptism of Spirit†http://www.kingdomready.org/teaching_notes.php?id=164&page=5
I was sprinkle baptized when 12 years old’
Then, 37 years later, just to make sure, baptized again with
*holy spirit* in the name of:
*Jesus Chris*
Timothy
Lorraine,
How about I answer your “Israel is firstborn” and “Yeshua is firstborn”, therefore, Christianity is false argument right here?
“Firstborn” can mean “one holding highest status” or it can mean “first in the order of something”. Yeshua is “first in the order of creation” (first created being) contrary to what Mike Gantt will try to have you believe. Israel is “the nation having firstborn rights”.
But note: the dispensation changed a lot of things. God divorced Israel. It’s status as “firstborn” was only conditional. This is why the Gentiles have rights to “firstborn” status right now.
DT
Mike Gantt,
The Bible speaks of a high price for idolatry (Revelation 21:8). My recommendation – don’t buy into this “you need spiritual revelation” crap that people love to buy into and actually critically examine what a text is trying to say (2 Peter 3:15-16, Acts 17:11).
DT
Sarah,
Tell us about the thief on the cross (Luke 23:42-43).
DT
After all this I am persuaded that water baptism is correct, but not an absolute. I believe it is an act of obedience, and is part of our spiritual baptism. And also it is a proclamation to the public that we have decided to live a brand new life. I appreciate all the teachings provided here. It is a source of joy to find that we can discuss without condemnation! Halleluia!
Lorraine,
There are two primary schools of interpretation on Daniel 11:39.
a) That this is strictly dealing with Herod and not a future king.
b) That Herod is an ante-type and that the type is NOT the Messiah but the anti-Messiah.
First off, if there is a break in the prophecy of Daniel 11, then it is unnecessary to conclude that this break occurs anywhere except at Daniel 11:31.
Second, the first interpretation has problems in it due to the fact that it is at the arrival of the Messiah (Michael the Archangel who is the pre-existent Yeshua see John 6:38-39, 1 Thessalonians 4:16, John 5:27-29, and Daniel 12:1-2 and connect the dots) there is a resurrection which there contains no historical evidence for.
Therefore, I go with the second. Some also suggest that Antiochus IV is being described in Daniel 11:39 but there is no mention of Herod or the anti-Messiah, some also suggest Antiochus IV is the ante-type as opposed to Herod.
DT
P.S. When I say Herod, I mean “Herod the Great”.
Sheryl,
I think (know) you’re right.
DT
DT …. Do I understand that you believe Jesus was pre-existent as Michael the Archangel? If so, how do you handle Heb 1:4-7?
DT,
There is nothing incompatible about “actually critically examining what a text says” and “seeking revelation” from God’s Spirit. After all, Peter wrote that “the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful search and inquiry, seeking to know…” going on to say, “It was revealed to them that…” Thus diligent study and sensitivity to the Spirit go hand in hand. Of course, the other important factor is obedience to what God has already revealed. God’s design is not to make us “the smartest ones in the room” but rather to conform us to the image of His Son. This means pure hearts, true words, and good deeds.
Sheryl,
How do I handle Hebrews 1:4-7?
First off, how do you handle Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 9:6?
Second off, how do you handle Psalm 82:7, Luke 21:29, and Acts 23:9?
Now, to actually handle it:
Doctor Watts:
“The other text that I have heard urged to prove that Christ never was an Angel, is Heb. 1:5: ‘For unto which of the Angels said he at any time, thou are my Son, this day have I begotten thee.’ Although this text abundantly proves that Christ is exalted above all other Messengers, it by no means proves that he never was a Messenger himself. If I should say of General Washington that he was made superior to all the officers of the Revolutionary army, for to which of the officers said Congress at any time, thou shalt be commander-in-chief, and again when they brought him into the army, they said, let all of the officers obey him, and of the officers it is said that the government gave them commissions and appointed them wages, but to Washington it said, thou hast loved thy country, and hated treachery, therefore the government, even thy government, hath exalted thee to honor and office, above thy fellows; such conversation would go just about as far to prove that I thought Washington never was an officer in the army of the Revolution, as the first chapter of Hebrews goes to prove that Christ never was a Messenger of God. In fact the above text taken in its connexion [connection] goes rather to prove, then to disprove, that he is one of God’s Angels, or Messengers, because the writer, after speaking of him in connexion [connection] with the Angels several times, finally asserts that he was anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows, by which he must mean his fellow messengers [angels] for there are no others mentioned in this connexion [connection].â€
DT
Mike Gantt,
Eternal life is knowing the true God AND the one he sent. You confound the true God to make it that the true God IS the one he sent. Therefore, you deny both the Father and the Son.
In regards to obedience, you are correct about that.
Matthew 25:14-30 – “Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them. To one he gave five talentsa of money, to another two talents, and to another one talent, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. The man who had received the five talents went at once and put his money to work and gained five more. So also, the one with the two talents gained two more. But the man who had received the one talent went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money. “After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. The man who had received the five talents brought the other five. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.’ “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’ “The man with the two talents also came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with two talents; see, I have gained two more.’ “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things.14 Come and share your master’s happiness!’ “Then the man who had received the one talent came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’ “His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest. ” ‘Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ (NIV)
Basic point: God does not judge us based on what we know, he judges based on what we do with what we know and in this area you are correct. But you err grievously. Now that you have been shown that the Son is not the Father, do you continue to believe that the Son is the Father or do you CHANGE your theology swimmingly?
Okay…I’m no bible scholar but with what I have to work with and what I know so far, this is how I would interpret the following:
Mal 3:1 – God sent his messenger….why can’t we call a newly generated human man a messenger of God? Weren’t the prophets also messengers of God, delivering God’s message to his people?
Isa 9:6 – Not sure which title bestowed upon Christ you want me to interpret, but I’m guessing it might be “eternal father.” Emphasis on “eternal.” As I understand, in Hebrew culture (and today as well) the title “father” does not always literally mean someone’s dad. The Father of our Country just means he helped establish our nation. Eternal…yes, Jesus “fathered” the Messianic age and he will live eternally. It doesn’t mean that he has always existed…but that he was granted eternal life…just like we believers are granted eternal life. We could easily say Jesus is the father of our eternal life.
Ps 82:7 – ?? From the limited familiarity I have with this Psalm, it is addressed to men, maybe high-ranking men who can be called “little g” gods and just affirms that even though they are called “gods” they will die like any other human being.
Luke 21:29 begins the parable of the fig tree…a lesson that the sign of the end times will be visible. Not sure how this relates to Jesus’ pre existence…?
Acts 23:9 – What if a spirit or an angel was speaking to Paul … this is what the Pharisees were saying. But wasn’t it truly the holy spirit of God which indwelt the risen Christ that was speaking to Paul? This doesn’t signify that Jesus himself was an eternal spirit.
That’s my take on these verses anyway. God Bless you!! Sheryl
DT,
You misrepresent me. What I am saying is the Father became the Son that the Son might become the Father.
Irrespective of perceptions of the Father and the Son, however, we are called to obey Jesus Christ in all things. Therefore, for all practical purposes, “he is god to us.” That is, whether you are a Unitarian (of any stripe), Trinitarian (of any stripe), or anything else (of any stripe), Jesus is Lord. And if, as you rightly say, obedience is key – then let us obey him, regardless of whatever else one may believe about his ontology.
Sheryl,
Regarding Malachi 3:1, the word מַלְ×ָכִ֔י which means “angel”.
Malachi 3:1 – Behold I send my angel, and he shall prepare the way before my face. And presently the Lord, whom you seek, and the angel of the testament, whom you desire, shall come to his temple. Behold he cometh, saith the Lord of hosts. (Douay-Rheims)
Regarding Isaiah 9:6, I am talking about the Septuagint title “μεγάλης βουλῆς ἄγγελος ” (angel of great counsel”).
Regarding Psalm 82:7, please re-read your statement.
“From the limited familiarity I have with this Psalm, it is addressed to men, maybe high-ranking men who can be called “little g†gods and just affirms that even though they are called “gods†they will die like any other human being.”
The Hebrew reads:
×כן ×›××“× ×ª×ž×•×ª×•×Ÿ וכ×חד ×”×©×¨×™× ×ª×¤×œ×•×ƒ
“you will die like one of the princes and fall”
My point is that if you use Hebrews 1:4-7 to disprove that Yeshua is an angel, you have to use this verse to disprove that God was not addressing this to men.
Regarding Luke 21:29, you asked me about Hebrews 1:4-7, not Jesus’s pre-existence. “the fig trees and all the trees”? If Hebrews 1:4-7 demonstrates that Yeshua is not an angel, then Luke 21:29 demonstrates that the fig tree is not a tree.
Regarding Acts 23:9, the Pharisees ask “what if a spirit or an angel…” If we are to use Hebrews 1:4-7 as proof Yeshua is not an angel, we need to use this as proof that angels are not spirits. And yet they are (Hebrews 1:14).
DT
Mike Gantt,
If you say “the Father became a Son” then I do not misrepresent you by calling you a Modalist. However, your unwillingness to answer to verses that which contradicts your theology and your insistence that we obey Christ demonstrates that you hold to a false teaching. While it is a duty to obey Christ, we are also told to correct others who are in error.
2 Timothy 3:16 – Every scripture inspired of God [is] also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.
DT
DT,
Here are the first three definitions of modalism I found on the internet:
“Modalism states that God is a single person who, throughout biblical history, has revealed Himself in three modes, or forms.”
“Sabellianism, (also known as modalism, modalistic monarchianism, or modal monarchism) is the nontrinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons in God Himself.”
“Modalism, also called Sabellianism, is the unorthodox belief that God is one person who has revealed himself in three forms or modes in contrast to the Trinitarian doctrine where God is one being eternally existing in three persons.”
I subscribe to none of them. Besides, modalism is nothing but a variation of Trinitarian doctrine anyway. Anyone who reads the Scripture with an honest heart knows that neither that doctrine, nor any of its offshoots, can be found there.
Go back to the Scriptures and see that something profound was happening at the turn of the ages we call New Testament times.
At Paul quoted Habakkuk at that time: “‘BEHOLD, YOU SCOFFERS, AND MARVEL, AND PERISH; FOR I AM ACCOMPLISHING A WORK IN YOUR DAYS, A WORK WHICH YOU WILL NEVER BELIEVE, THOUGH SOMEONE SHOULD DESCRIBE IT TO YOU.'” – Acts 13:41
All things were handed over by the Father to the Son (Matt 11:27; John 3:35; Heb 1:1-2).
DT,
Those who believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ should not be dismayed at your portrayal of Him as an angel. For if He could become a man, He could just as easily become an angel before He became a man.
Therefore, demonstrating Christ as an angel no more disallows His deity than demonstrating Christ as a man disallows it.
Nevertheless, no matter what we think h/His origin, let us all love and obey h/Him today with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. This we have in common and no one can take it away from us.
Hi DT, I had a feeling I wasn’t “getting” what you were trying to impart.
In all due respect…here are my responses:
Malachi – I looked up the verse in Greek and the word “messenger” in the Interlinear on biblos.com is “malaki.” That changes the whole meaning to me now…if I’m reading this verse right then this is God sending his messenger, the prophet Malachi, and this is not necessarily a prophetic verse of Jesus’ coming, although it could easily be since Jesus did deliver God’s message.
Is 9:6 – Again the Hebrew Interlinear does not say “angel” in this particular verse. I’m no scholar, but I’m thinking you are going by the Greek translation and it doesn’t surprise me that the Greeks would interpret “Messenger of Great Counsel” as Angel.
I’m not quite understanding the point you are making about the fig tree… I think I know what you mean, but I am still not convinced this is helpful in making Jesus a pre-existent angel.
And finally, as for Acts 23:9 I still don’t see where Jesus is mentioned at all. God speaks to men with his holy spirit and also with messenger angels. At this point Jesus now was in his glorified body which I am guessing is made of spirit since he walked through walls. So angels are spirit, as God is spirit, as the resurrected Jesus is spirit. This does not convince me that Jesus was a pre-existent angel.
Aside from these verses, the sense of the prophecies in the OT and the gospel of the NT seem to provide the meaning that Jesus was to be a human son (as he calls himself “Son of Man” or human being) and that he had an origin or genesis at the time Mary was overshadowed by God’s spirit. In fact, just knowing that Jesus called himself Son of Man so many times makes me think he knew there would be controversy in this area and he was making a strong point that he was human…and not a pre-existent angel or spirit. And to call him angelic would deny his humanity. …at least to my childlike understanding.
Thank you, DT, for your input and challenge. This helps me (and others I hope!) to exercise our minds…and at my age I need all the exercise I can get!
Sheryl
Sheryl,
As for Malachi 3:1 – it is fulfilled by both Yeshua and John in Matthew 10-13 (somewhere in there).
Also, “malaki” is the Hebrew word I referenced which means “angel”.
Also have a look at Revelation 14:1-6.
As for Acts 23:9, again, there is no Yeshua mentioned in this passage. I gave out Acts 23:9 because you asked about how I understand Hebrews 1:4-7. If Hebrews 1:4-7 is disproof that Yeshua is an angel then Acts 23:9 proves that angels are not spirits.
DT
Mike Gantt,
I find it strange how you harp on me for stating that your beliefs are antichrist yet you make that very claim about the Trinity on your website!
http://blogforthelordjesuscurrentevents.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/the-trinity-is-an-antichrist-doctrine/
Or was this forged?
DT
Mike Gantt,
I also notice on your website “There is no Trinity, There is Only Christ”. And that you affirm Jesus is God.
So either
a) you believe Jesus is the one person of God (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) which is Simultaneous Modalism or
b) you deny the deity of the Father and the holy spirit.
I should warn you that if you deny the deity of the Father, you ARE antichrist (John 17:3, 1 John 2:22-23).
DT
DT,
I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Could you please elaborate?
DT,
My beliefs are very much pro-Christ. Only if you don’t understand them could you consider them to be anti-Christ.
I say that Trinitarian doctrine is against Christ because it replaces the Bible’s emphasis on Christ with an emphasis on a triune concept of God in which Christ only plays a part, and the second part at that.
The message of the Scriptures is Jesus Christ (John 5:39-40 and elsewhere). To give any other entity preeminence is to do something against him.
“that he himself might come to have first place in everything.” – Col 1:18
The preeminence of Christ is not my idea – it’s God’s.
DT,
You are trying to shoehorn me into a box that won’t fit. I believe neither a) nor b).
Trinitarians do this all the time. That is, they have developed a taxonomy of what they view as all the wrong doctrinal positions about God (the Trinity being the only right one to them). Then when someone disagrees with the Trinity, they just look up in the taxonomy (they’d call it a pathology or heresiology) until they find a match, or what they think is a match, and voila – heresy rebuffed!
Calvinists and Arminians do the same thing.
‘Round and ’round they all go, always learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth.
All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are found in Christ. He who has the Son, has the Father.
“Any one who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ does not have God.” – 2 John 1:9 This is why it’s so bad to be anti-Christ.
Sarah,
I am talking about baptism as necessary for salvation. The thief wasn’t baptized.
DT
Mike Gantt,
First off, I am not shoe-horning you into a ategory of false belief. Since you have never actually stated what you are, I can only go based off of what I have read from your blog. That is, that you believe the Father became his own Son. You even stated you believe this so I will continue to classify you as a Modalist unless you state what it is you actually believe.
As far as Christ being pre-eminent, you are assuming that only Modalists like yourself actually believe in the pre-eminence of Christ since everyone else also (except you) believes Jesus has a Father who he responds to. We DO believe in the pre-eminence of Christ and thus, you are again, “shoe-horning” those who do not agree with you.
The only problem is, we also believe Jesus when he says he has a Father and a God (John 20:17, Revelation 3:12). You are a neo-atheist/Modalist and this is a fact until you can prove that you do not believe Jesus is God the Father in the flesh. Additionally, it was GOD who made him pre-eminent (Matthew 11:27, Acts 2:36, 1 Corinthians 15:25-28). By asserting that there is no Trinity, that God is one person, and this one-person God is Jesus, it is you and not I who have defiled the Biblical doctrine of Jesus’s pre-eminence and hence, you are the one who is antichrist (1 John 2:22-23).
Now note: in the full context of John 5:30-44, Jesus speaks of having a witness who is not himself. This witness is the Father. Therefore, by asserting that Jesus is the Father, you again deny Christ’s testimony. The scriptures he is speaking of are found in Deuteronomy 18:15-19 where Jesus is called a prophet like unto Moses who was raised up by Yahweh. So again, you are denying that the Father made Jesus pre-eminent. The Father did not become the Son as you assert.
Therefore, the only logical conclusion that I can reach here Mike is this – I believe the Bible, you do not.
DT
DT,
I didn’t say that I thought baptism was necessary for salvation.
Sarah,
Sorry, misunderstood you.
DT
DT,
I think I can effectively bow out of your dialogue with me because you seem to be supplying my part as well as your own.
Moreover, arguments about the ontology of God are not my primary concern. Rather, my primary focus is to be simply and purely devoted to Christ (2 Cor 11:3). In this regard, I hope I am no different from you or anyone else on this blog.
Mike Gantt,
I supplied your view because you never gave your view. Speak for yourself or I will speak for you. Again, I can only know what your view is based on your blogs. You have given no further information. From what I can tell, you are a Modalist unless you can prove otherwise. You haven’t said much. You are free to “bow out” but understand that you haven’t given me much of anything.
DT
DT,
My blogs are filled with information on the questions you ask. I’ve said plenty…and will continue saying it. If you think I haven’t given you much of anything, so be it.
I keep pointing us to Christ. You keep saying, “Yes, but…” That’s not a pro-Christ answer.
Mike Gantt said:
““Yes, but…†That’s not a pro-Christ answer.”
Your going to have explain this. I have said obedience is key. Yes…however, we also need to know the right God. You do not.
DT
How can he who knows Christ not know the right God? Christ came for this very purpose that he who would be right with Messiah would be right with God.
DT,
How do you get to know the ‘right God’? In Acts 2, how much about Jesus’ christology was shared before they were filled with the spirit? I don’t see a whole lot. Were those people not saved?
Salvation, to me, is for members of the ‘true church’. Any earthly church is a fallible interpretation of that true church. Members of the true church are those that God has called as evidenced by the holy spirit. The evidence of that, to me, is their fruit – are they loving their neighbor? Are they attending to the widows and the orphans and the oppressed? Are their hearts focused on God and his son?
I disagree with Mike Gantt’s theology and I also disagree with trinitarianism, but I see trinitarians manifesting fruit of the holy spirit, professing Christ and being loving. That, to me, is consistent with the most important commandment (De 6:4, Mk 12). That, to me, makes me consider them as brothers and sisters in the true church.
Going beyond that, to me, is just repeating the pattern of legalism that characterized the pharisess of Jesus’ day and that took over the early church and has remained until this day.
Tim (aka Antioch),
You said, “That, to me, is consistent with the most important commandment (De 6:4, Mk 12). That, to me, makes me consider them as brothers and sisters in the true church.”
I’d like to say a huge “AMEN” to that… 🙂
Tim (aka Antioch),
Your questions:
(1) How do you get to know the ‘right God’?
2 Timothy 2:
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
(2) In Acts 2, how much about Jesus’ christology was shared before they were filled with the spirit?
Group one were the twelve Apostles. Jesus shared with them during the 3 years of his ministry. And gave further teaching, from the washing of their feet, on to his ascension. You can read about it or listen to a perfect expounding for 52:39 minutes =session # 13
*The spirit of Truth*=HERE:
http://lhim.org/resources/classes.php?id=31
(3) Were those people not saved?
The 12 were saved when they received holy spirit into manifestation: Acts 2:4
Acts 2:14–37 *38-39*
About three thousand were saved when they heard, and acted on:
Romans 10:
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Tim I have posted, the link to teaching session 13, *The Spirit of Truth* more times than I can remember. If you would take the time to listen I am sure you would get just as excited as I am.
I have two horses here, and know for sure, “you can lead a horse to water, but you can not make him drink”.
Timothy 🙂
Tim (aka Antioch),
I agree with you. You do not feed an animal the entire haystack at first. These people in Acts 2 were told certain things about Yeshua and then they find out more things.
However, the Bible also teaches us that deviation from sound doctrine is evidence that a person is immature in faith (Acts 18:25-26) or that a person never really came into a genuine saving relationship with Christ in the first place (Romans 16:17-18).
All doctrines must be put to the test and subject to Biblical correction. Many Trinitarians do not allow this with their doctrine.
DT