JCA's thoughts on the Trinity

[JCA]

I wanted to put this out because Old Shepard had pointed out that I hadn't put down a proper explanation of what I meant when talking about the Trinity.

I also want to put it down so that some of the more involved scholars can look at it and discuss it with me.. HOWEVER, although I am open to debate and discussion about it, I am as snesitive about this kind of thing as anyone else.. accusations, name calling, debasing, craning, and various other things need not appear in this thread.. and I ask that if that is what you intend to do, you do indeed not bother to post a reply.

Those who feel they can express Fruits of the Spirit, and are willing to sit down with another Christian and go over doctrine, in the spirit of Christ, and allow me to make my own choices without condemnation, please feel free to respond.. in fact, I welcome it.

If I set to high a standard, please let me know.. :teeth:



The Trinity as revealed to me

I would like to try and put down my total core belief of the "Trinity" as I see it. When I say "As I see it", that means what I have studied of the Bible and the verses therein..

This, according to scripture, is a good thing, something to be encouraged:

Acts 17:11
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

We are also to do this when listening to others Doctrines, and test them against the Fruits of the Spirit..

1 John 4:1
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

I also believe that people should be ready to give reasoning for their beliefs, when asked, and then do so with some respect etc:

1 Peter 3:15
But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

Also.. what books/scriptures are to be held as 'inspirational'? Which things fall into this category:

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God_breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

If it is not in the Bible, how is one to know it is 'inspirational', and therefore God-breathed? If one wants to use documents outside of the Bible to make their doctrine, who says they are reliable? Man? Or are their places in the Bible that say they are reliable? Does this also include the writings of St. Thomas the Heretic? After all, only man says he is a heretic, I can find no mention of him directly in the Bible..

And so, taking into fact that the Bible is the only documents I should be searching and seeking through, that is what I do. his does not mean that I do not try to find the right contexts either..


What the Bible says to me on the Trinity subject:

In the beginning there was God, the Word, and the Spirit.. God is the creator.. His commands (Word) are brought through Gods Morality or conscience (The Holy Spirit). And so, as it describes in Genesis, God created all with his Word, and instilled it with His Spirit. There is no Christ at this point.

People have tried to use this verse to qualify that CHRIST, God, and the Holy Spirit are one, but the text doesn't quite line up with that thinking when I read it:

1 John 5
6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Here you are told that Christ did NOT come as divinity (the water) alone, but also as blood (man) - so far no problem.. it is the Spirit that will be shown through Him.

Yes, there are three things that bear record in heaven, and these three are indeed one... God, His morality (Holy Spirit), and His expression of it (Word).. The Word is NOT seperate from God, nor can it be seperated from God, unless God is not as unchanging as we are told. And so when Christ and the Word are formed as one, it doesn't mean (IMHO) that Christ is God, but rather that Christ and Gods Will and expressions are in perfect sync.. Add the Holy Spirit, and not only is Christs will in sync with God, but His morality as well.. as befitting the Son of the Creator.

And so, you get Christ on Earth, bearing witness of the Creator, with whom His Spirit/Will and Morality, do indeed agree as one.

But Christ is also of Blood (man), and FULLY man at that.. and to be FULLY man, one must have a free will. To have free will means that you have the ability to go against your own morality.. to make contrary judgments.. if you cannot do this, you have no free will, and are NOT fully human.. Christ DID have free will, and was still able to overcome sin!! Praise the Lord!

And yet, if Christ did have free will, and so WAS living by example to us and not just using Divinity to overcome temptation etc., then He also had the ability to create evil. The fact that He never did - becaue of His observence of His Fathers Will and Morality - doesn't mean He couldn't.. But here's the difference.. GOD cannot commit sin.. God cannot go against His divine nature of being ALL good.. and so Christ HAD to be a seperate entity.. and that is why He is called the SON.

We are made in Gods image, so to a degree I would assume that our family relations also mirror this 'image' to some degree.. My children are an extension of me.. while they are young, they are taught my morality (be it right or wrong), and the rules of my house pertaining to my will.. imagine how much more symbiotic the relationship between God and HIS son would be.. also, things are hereditary amoungst Man.. is this also a part of Gods image? If so, how is it that people cannot understand that Christ can be divine just by being Gods Son? Why is it that if Christ is NOT God, then Salvation is broken? Where does it teach this in the Bible? It doesn't.. Man does though.

Moving on..

John 1
18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Not only has no one seen God, but Christ - who they have seen - is going about declaring Him. Are people seeing Christ? Also, this passage also states that God is within God (if Christ is indeed God).. why does John not just say "No man hath seen God at any time, except now, where He comes as the Son to declare Himself"? Why? because that isn't what was happening, is why.

The word used in the passage 1 John 5:7 for "Word" is:

G3056
λόγος
logos
log'-os
From G3004; something said (including the thought); by implication a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extension a computation; specifically (with the article in John) the Divine Expression (that is, Christ): - account, cause, communication, X concerning, doctrine, fame, X have to do, intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason, + reckon, remove, say (-ing), shew, X speaker, speech, talk, thing, + none of these things move me, tidings, treatise, utterance, word, work.

This points to The Word as being the "Divine Expression".. and this is exactly what Christ was begotten for.. so that He could Declare God.. express Gods Will and Morality to us..

SO in this sense, yes Christ has indeed been with God since the beginning.. He is the Son of God, begotten of the father, made of the 'stuff of God'. He has become what has always been.. or rather became..

People try and say this Word is special.. and yet the appearance of this word happens in different places, and depicts a few different things..

Matthew 5
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause ( λόγος, logos ) of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Matthew 5
37 But let your communication ( λόγος, logos ) be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

Matthew 7
24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings ( λόγος, logos ) of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

All the same word, all meaning the divine 'talk' and 'expression'.. an interesting use of it comes in this verse:

Matthew 8
8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word ( λόγος, logos ) only, and my servant shall be healed.

This is an interesting choice of words.. as the Centurion is is asking Christ to speak the word.. the Divine Expression, the Will of God.. ONLY.. and yet this would mean that there was the belief or at least something alluding to the possibility that Christ could speak something else! If Christ where indeed God, would this not them be corrected? Would not Christ try to convonce the man more of the Trinitarian stance by telling the man something like "I am the word, and all I speak IS the word" or something similar?

Why are these things overlooked? People will argue for context at this point, and discussions and disagreements etc. arise.. it comes down to examining and micro-analyzing everything.. and most of the time it has been my experience that the big picture becomes forgotten.

Someone once noted:

If there is no Trinity, the Word Incarnate (the Son) would not have been able to be born into time...He would not have been able to transcend time. Heaven (for want of a better word) would have been empty if a non Trinitarian God came to earth. Additionally, we would not exist now. When Christ died on the Cross (If there is no Trinity) then God would have died and all creation would have ceased to exist.

The Trinity is a matter of faith, but it is also a matter of faith worked out by reason (theology). Once the idea of the Trinity is worked out its easy to see that the Economy of Salvation does not work without a Trinitarian theology.

This is supposition! Salvation works fine without recognising that Christ IS God..

It says if there was no Trinity, then God would have died on the cross etc.. I have no idea how this logic works.. This is not a doctrine of Christ..

It is also possible that all three are infinite and Eternal, and the only essence shared between them is the Holy Spirit, while all three are indeed divine.. God as the Divine Creator, The Holy (divine) Spirit, and the Begetton Son - who's divinity is given by His Father, just as I pass on some of my genes to my children.

Still.. even this is only *MY* understanding.. we each have our own, which only goes to show that the Doctrine of the Trinity itself is not defined in the Bible.

What is given in the Bible though, IS the Word.. the Divine Expression, through Christ our Lord.. it is His Doctrine.. Given and begotten from, and so the same as His fathers, and breathed of the Holy Spirit.. Given to us while teaching us the lessons of Free Will and consequences of our choices, with His righteousness.

Ephesians 1
11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
15 Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints,
16 Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers;
17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

How does God have a God? Why did this not say "The the Father of our Lord.." if the distinction between them was only that of 'aspects of the same person' as the Orthodox Trinity says?

Christ's Doctrine ~ It is the ONLY Doctrine we should be following:

Romans 16
17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

1 Timothy 4
16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

2 Timothy 3
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

But the warning comes here:

2 Timothy 4
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

And this is why such a warning:

2 John 1
9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

What is also interesting about this, is that this also distinguishes Christ from God the Father, BUT if Christ where the Word as GOD, He would not say this:

1 John 7
16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.

Why would God deny that His Doctrine (Word) was not His own? He wouldn't.. Christ was quite content telling them the truth, that His Doctrine was given to Him by His Father, God.

Matthew 5
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

From here, what about the OT Commands and Doctrinal positions? Well, there is no Law left in the OT for Christians.. Love and Christ have fullfilled the Law, and anyone who follows Christ and His doctrine, also fullfill the OT Laws..

Romans 13:8
Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

Romans 13
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

This does not discount them as proof for correction, or profitable for Doctrine etc..

Rom 15:4
4 For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.

But only where they line up with Christs Doctrine, as given to Him by God.. because if you don't have that, you will not have salvation through Christ.

However, there is no explicit Doctrine of the Trinity in the NT and Christs Doctrine.. at least none that I have found, or had revealed to me. But then, I am not perfect, nor a teacher, or apostle etc.. I'm just a man, trying to make the narrow gate like everyone else.. I can only have Faith and Hope that I stay on the narrow path (if I'm not already far off it).

Also, this post does not address all the verses the Trinity uses for it's own enforcement.. I do know what they are, but I find them to not bear up against the passages and things I have mentioned, and most other peoples interpretations have not led me to believe any different than I do now. (Does not mean I am not open to correction) ..Such things as when people say to me that if Christ is not God, then how can He give salvation? Well..

Revelation 7:10
And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.

And who is the Lamb?

John 1
29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Note: This does not say "behold the Lamb God", but "Behold the Lamb of God".

But I am not perfect, as I say, but I am telling you what has been revealed to me.. I am not an Arian, I stil believe that there are indeed 3 parts to the Divine Morality or Universal Truth, and that there is a family, to which the Church will be the Bride of the Son.. but I do not see the need, or indeed the proof, of a God who IS Christ..

2 Corinthians 11
30 If I must needs glory, I will glory of the things which concern mine infirmities.
31 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.


Thank you for your consideration..

In Love and Peace


JCA ~ Tony

Some References Examined:

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001. - Trinity, doctrine in Christianity
"..fundamental doctrine in Christianity, by which God (http://www.bartleby.com/65/go/God.html) is considered as existing in three persons. While the doctrine is not explicitly taught in the New Testament, early Christian communities testified to a perception that Jesus was God in the flesh; the idea of the Trinity has been inferred from the Gospel of St. John. The developed doctrine of the Trinity purports that God exists in three coequal and coeternal elements—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit (http://www.bartleby.com/65/ho/HolySpir.html) (see creed (http://www.bartleby.com/65/cr/creed.html) 1). It sees these “persons” as constituted by their mutual relations, yet does not mean that God in his essence is Father, or a male deity. Jesus spoke of a relation of mutual giving and love with the Father, which believers could also enjoy through the Spirit. The Trinity is commemorated liturgically in the Western Church on Trinity Sunday (http://www.bartleby.com/65/tr/TrinityS.html). For systems denying the Trinity, see Unitarianism (http://www.bartleby.com/65/un/Unitarnsm.html).

See studies by L. Hodgson (1960) and A. W. Wainwright (1962); G. L. Prestige, God in Patristic Thought (repr. 1964); J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (1977); E. Jüngel, God as the Mystery of the World (1983). FROM http://www.bartleby.com

Development of Trinity Doctrine from the Old to the New Testament. (http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-development-old-testament.htm) ~ The Trinity (Gen 1:26 = Jn 1:1; 20:28; Mt 28:19)

Is the Trinity Doctrine taught in the Bible? (http://www.heaven.net.nz/answers/answer08.htm) ~ Revelation 7:10 (English-NIV) And they cried out in a loud voice: "Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb."

More upon request..

[o2bwise]

Hi JCA,

Thanks!

Do you believe the Son of God existed prior to the incarnation? Just wondering...

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[JCA]

Today @ 10:47 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=147899#post147899)
o2bwise:

Hi JCA,

Thanks!

Do you believe the Son of God existed prior to the incarnation? Just wondering...

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

Hi o2 :smile:

Yes, in the same way my children existed before I had them..

You see, I had always thought of having a child one day.. how they would change my life, how I could watch them grow.. How I can give them a head start with the things that I have learnt; teach them what I know.. so they start with more than me..

And not only that, but to be able to give them something, the things either I never had, or was able to obtain etc..


In other words, yes, I believe the Son of God existed with God before He became Christ.. He has always been part of Gods Plan, and when all was built and created, it was done so with Christ in mind.. and this is why the Son of God, and the Word are so intwined.. as Christ is indeed Gods Word (Divine Expression and Doctrine) made flesh.. Given to Christ by His Father, God.

I know that this part would definitely be unsupported by Scripture, but I have often wondered if indeed the whole Universe was built so that Christ could experience something the Father could not.. Free Will as a Man.. just as I would do what I could to have my children experience things I could or have not.

I do not know the mind of God.. I only know what He has made and given me.. and if I am indeed formed in His image in some of these respects, then I can only assume that God feels a similar way with His Son; if not infinitely more so.

Look at the Father at His Sons baptism.. there is a certain sense of Pride (not the Sin, Pride - which is generally pride reserved for oneself, but the righteous proudness of Love for another fulfilling their destiny).. God is pleased that His Son is handling His Human choices and Free Will, and still following Gods Holy Spirit as it shines within Him..

Matthew 3
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:
17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

SO if you will, yes, Christ was a twinkle in the Fathers eye from the very beginning, and what would later be given (like Doctrine, it is given, but not lost) to Christ, was what was used to make all.

IMHO.


In Love and Peace

JCA

[OldShepherd]

Yesterday @ 12:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=147758#post147758)
JCA:

I wanted to put this out because Old Shepard had pointed out that I hadn't put down a proper explanation of what I meant when talking about the Trinity.

I also want to put it down so that some of the more involved scholars can look at it and discuss it with me.. HOWEVER, although I am open to debate and discussion about it, I am as snesitive about this kind of thing as anyone else.. accusations, name calling, debasing, craning, and various other things need not appear in this thread.. and I ask that if that is what you intend to do, you do indeed not bother to post a reply.

There have been no accusations, name calling, or debasing from me. I don’t know what “craning” means. Perhaps you are just over sensitive about being proven wrong. OBTW my name is SHEPHERD, I don’t know what a Shepard is.

Those were interesting scriptures and IF those were the only scriptures in the Bible you might be close to proving your assertion. But there are many other verses that are relevant to the topic that you have not examined. Do you believe that Trinitarians are completely unaware of the verses you posted? Nothing you have posted contradicts the Trinitarian view of the Bible.

While it is good that you have presented scripture which appears to support your argument, the next step is to examine those scriptures which do not support your argument and discuss why they do not or cannot be interpreted as the church has interpreted them for about 2000 years.

Is the Trinity Doctrine taught in the Bible? (http://www.heaven.net.nz/answers/answer08.htm) ~ Revelation 7:10 (English-NIV) And they cried out in a loud voice: "Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb.”

More upon request..

Why would anyone want any more of this? I previously visited this site you have linked to again here. I stated that its treatment of Constantine and the Nicaean council was a pack of lies, easily verifiable by simply reading the Encyclopedia Britannica, and the contemporary histories of Eusebius and Lactantius. You objected. I visited it again.

Here is a short quote from section five, “Scriptures used to prove the Trinity.” The first scripture quoted is, of course, John 1:1-14. And the writers say this about that passage.
The Greek word translated "God" is "theos." The Greek does not have a different word to show possession. Therefore, theos can be translated "God" or "God's." The possessive form makes this verse so clear and in harmony with the phrase "the word was with God."
I am not making any accusations, name calling, debasing, or craning against you but this statement, from the site, you linked, is a blatant lie, straight from the pits of hell. Whoever wrote this does not know doodly squat about the Greek language.
Herbert Weir Smyth, A Greek Grammar for Colleges

Part II: Inflection: DECLENSION

§201. Cases.--There are five cases: nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, and vocative. The genitive denotes from as well as of, the dative denotes to or for and also by, with, on, in, at, etc. The other cases are used as in Latin.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007&query=chapter%3D%2311&layout=&loc=189
The genitive, i.e. the possessive, of “theos” is “theou” and it is used in the same chapter, vs. 6. In the Greek verse it is the fifth word.
John 1:6 There was a man sent from God qeou, whose name was John.

John 1:6 egeneto anqrwpoV apestalmenoV para qeou, onoma autw iwannhV:
God said, in Isaiah, there is no God before Him, no God beside Him, and no God after Him. He said “I know not any.”
Isa 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Isa 44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

Isa 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

Isa 45:14 Thus saith the LORD, The labour of Egypt, and merchandise of Ethiopia and of the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto thee, and they shall be thine: they shall come after thee; in chains they shall come over, and they shall fall down unto thee, they shall make supplication unto thee, saying, Surely God is in thee; and there is none else, there is no God.

Isa 45:21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.
Therefore that forces the question. Is Jesus God? If so, how can Jesus be God when God said there is no God before Him, no God beside Him, and no God after Him?

Are there NT passages which call Jesus God? Note, John 1:18, the oldest most reliable Greek manuscripts call Jesus the “only begotten God”
John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten [God] Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament

No man hath seen God at any time (qeon oudeiV ewraken pwpote). "God no one has ever seen." Perfect active indicative of oraw.. Seen with the human physical eye, John means. God is invisible (Exodus 33:20; Deuteronomy 4:12). Paul calls God aoratoß ( Colossians 1:15; 1 Timothy 1:17). John repeats the idea in John 5:37; John 6:46. And yet in John 14:7 Jesus claims that the one who sees him has seen the Father as here. The only begotten Son (o monogenhV uioV). This is the reading of the Textus Receptus and is intelligible after ws monogenous para patros in verse John 14. But the best old Greek manuscripts (Aleph B C L) read (monogenhV qeoV (God only begotten) which is undoubtedly the true text. Probably some scribe changed it to o monogenhs uios to obviate the blunt statement of the deity of Christ and to make it like John 3:16.
In 1 Tim 3:16, Jesus is called God manifest in the flesh.
1 Tim 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Some people have argued that God, "Theos" in this passage should be the reflexive pronoun oV. Even so, it IS a reflexive pronoun and refers back to the nearest noun in the proper case, person, and gender. In this case that noun is “The living God” in verse 15. Therefore the Living God was manifest in the flesh. Not His thoughts, plans, or the gleam in His eye.

There are approximately 40 OT passages addressing God as YHWH used of Jesus in the GNT. Here is one verse where YHWH is applied to Jesus in the NT, by all four evangelists.
Isa 40:3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD יהוה, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.

Matt 3:3 For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. Mark 1:3, Luke 3:4, John 1:23

More upon request.

[o2bwise]

Hi JCA!,

(Huh! I don't know how to pick icons.)

Well, your view certainly demonstrates a willingness to see for yourself, what things the word says. If I understand it right, I think Wycliffe interpreted John 1:1 (i.e. the Word "in the beginning") being God contemplating, in His mind, an eventual Son.

I wonder if you might be open to the idea that God bore Christ before the incarnation, at which time Christ became the Son of God and that the incarnation is a time NOT when Christ became the Son of God, but when He became the son of man.

Anyway, my chief reason for bringing this up is to consider the incredible love involved. What would be included in such a view is that Christ, being a perfect representation of the Father's person, indicates a willingness to condescend that is infinite. From having the attributes of deity itself, to condescending to mere manhood.

And that one "like God" (being His begotten Son and thus acquiring His nature on that account) would be the same "One" who would be willing to die for us, even the death of the cross.

Anyway, feel free if you concur that, at least on an intelelctual level, this seems to paint divine love in a beautiful way.

God Bless Ya...

Tony (o2)

[Piebald]

believe the Son of God existed with God before He became Christ.. He has always been part of Gods Plan, and when all was built and created, it was done so with Christ in mind.. and this is why the Son of God, and the Word are so intwined.. as Christ is indeed Gods Word (Divine Expression and Doctrine) made flesh.. Given to Christ by His Father, God

But isn't everyone in God's plan which was decided before our births? What is to distinguish Christ's "pre-existence" from ours, if this is the case?

[JCA]

Today @ 09:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=148339#post148339)
o2bwise:

Hi JCA!,

(Huh! I don't know how to pick icons.)

Well, your view certainly demonstrates a willingness to see for yourself, what things the word says. If I understand it right, I think Wycliffe interpreted John 1:1 (i.e. the Word "in the beginning") being God contemplating, in His mind, an eventual Son.

I wonder if you might be open to the idea that God bore Christ before the incarnation, at which time Christ became the Son of God and that the incarnation is a time NOT when Christ became the Son of God, but when He became the son of man.

Anyway, my chief reason for bringing this up is to consider the incredible love involved. What would be included in such a view is that Christ, being a perfect representation of the Father's person, indicates a willingness to condescend that is infinite. From having the attributes of deity itself, to condescending to mere manhood.

And that one "like God" (being His begotten Son and thus acquiring His nature on that account) would be the same "One" who would be willing to die for us, even the death of the cross.

Anyway, feel free if you concur that, at least on an intelelctual level, this seems to paint divine love in a beautiful way.

God Bless Ya...

Tony (o2)

I agree O2bwise.. the level of love that must be between Father and Son must be so much beyond what we can imagine.. and indeed are only capable of making an image thereof..

To me, it can only edify Christ and God more to understand that yes, indeed, God was putting His Son in a position of 'danger' with being Human, and free will and such, and that Christ would choose to do so, for us of all creatures.. and that Christ could provide such an example for us of how to live with Free Will, taking upon Himself abilities His Father will have nothing to do with - the ability to create sin - so that He could indeed be fully man..

And yes.. to die upon the Cross for us.. the ulitmate expression of His love for us.. Love shared with His father and the Holy Spirit.. so that we too can become part of that family, and Love..

I agree.. intellectually and spiritually the Divine Love is a beautiful thing :smile:


In Loveand Peace

JCA

[mickiel]

[to do so, for us of all creatures.. and that Christ could provide such an example for us of how to live with Free Will, taking upon Himself abilities His Father will have nothing to do with - the ability to create sin - so that He could indeed be fully man..


will you show me in the word of God where Jesus deceided to live with free will? Every where i read he relinquished free will, denied it, gave it up, didnot want it, didnot teach it. All he wanted was Gods will. SHOW me anywhere Jesus took on free will or practiced it. Just plainly show me the scriptures if you please.

[JCA]

Today @ 10:05 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=148351#post148351)
Hamster:

believe the Son of God existed with God before He became Christ.. He has always been part of Gods Plan, and when all was built and created, it was done so with Christ in mind.. and this is why the Son of God, and the Word are so intwined.. as Christ is indeed Gods Word (Divine Expression and Doctrine) made flesh.. Given to Christ by His Father, God

But isn't everyone in God's plan which was decided before our births? What is to distinguish Christ's "pre-existence" from ours, if this is the case?

Yes, I believe we all where in Gods plan from the beginning.. as indeed, he knew each of us before we where born, right?

What differentiates us is that God gave Christ His FULL Word.. Christ became Gods Human representation of the Word for us.. carrying with Him Gods Will and Doctrine as His own.. Plus, being Gods Son, He too was fully infused of the Holy Spirit from Birth/Creation.. We are only made in that image..

1 John 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.


Christ, being Born (begotten) FROM God, as a Son.. whereas we are but part of the overall creation.. made to tend what is then given to Christ.

I hope that helps to explain how I see it.. let me know what you think.

In Love and Peace

JCA

[JCA]

Today @ 03:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=148592#post148592)
mickiel:

[to do so, for us of all creatures.. and that Christ could provide such an example for us of how to live with Free Will, taking upon Himself abilities His Father will have nothing to do with - the ability to create sin - so that He could indeed be fully man..


will you show me in the word of God where Jesus deceided to live with free will? Every where i read he relinquished free will, denied it, gave it up, didnot want it, didnot teach it. All he wanted was Gods will. SHOW me anywhere Jesus took on free will or practiced it. Just plainly show me the scriptures if you please.


This is more to do with what it is to be Fully Human.. and unless you can show me the verses, I don't see Chrtist relinquishing free will, I see him acting upon it and denying Sin. After all, how can one religuish something one does not have?? If you say He relinguishes it, you have to agree that He had it in the first place!

Plus, to make a choice to not act a certian way, or not do something etc.. is indeed an act of Free Will.. What you do see in the Bible is Christ acting on His Free Will and choosing to preserve Gods plan and His morality..

At least, that's how I see it.. maybe if you post the verses where you see Christ actually giving up Free Will, I can examine them..

Thank you for your response..

IN Love and Peace

JCA

Edited to add: I guess what I'm saying is, all through the Bible descriptions of Christ, you see Him excersizing Free Will.. His will was to follow His Fathers plan and will! To show you individual scripture would take up pages and pages.. instead, I ask as I have above, that you show a few where Christ gave it up.. Thank you, and God Bless.

[JCA]

Today @ 03:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=148232#post148232)
OldShepherd:

SNIP



Thank you, but no thank you. I fail to see why anyone would want to go through something that they consider to be "Dog Puke", and quite frankly, I would rather not examine my Doctrine with one who would take such an attitude.

I address this in the other thread, which I read before this one.. I would rather not have you attitude sully my seeking, and although the scripture and points you make are good, and I CAN reply to, I would ask with all politeness that you respond no more to this thread, as I will not be responding to you again within it.

Thank you, and God Bless.


If others would like to use Old Shepherds post to make some points with, please feel free.. I will address them, or if you like, ask and I will just respond to the whole post..

In Love and Peace

JCA

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 05:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=148607#post148607)
JCA:

Thank you, but no thank you. I fail to see why anyone would want to go through something that they consider to be "Dog Puke", and quite frankly, I would rather not examine my Doctrine with one who would take such an attitude.

I address this in the other thread, which I read before this one.. I would rather not have you attitude sully my seeking, and although the scripture and points you make are good, and I CAN reply to, I would ask with all politeness that you respond no more to this thread, as I will not be responding to you again within it.

Thank you, and God Bless.

In Love and Peace
JCA

I don't believe I used the term "dog puke" in the post you are responding to but I did call the information from you link a pack of lies and a lie straight from the pits of hell. And I proved the latter from a recognized Greek grammar. But if you want to use that as an excuse to avoid answering something you don't like. Be my guest. You are so strong in your faith that "my atttude" will sully your thinking. Yeah, right.

[JCA]

I will answer this, only because if I don't, it will be reason for you to walk around with another proud feather in your hat..

Today @ 03:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=148232#post148232)
OldShepherd:

There have been no accusations, name calling, or debasing from me. I don’t know what “craning” means. Perhaps you are just over sensitive about being proven wrong. OBTW my name is SHEPHERD, I don’t know what a Shepard is.


I would say calling someone a cultist is an accusation, I would say that calling someones doctrine heresy before you have even examined it all, debasement..

And once again, it comes out what your whole reason for your replies are.. to prove me wrong.. thank you for your kind intentions and Christian thoughts.. And so far, as I have said, you have said nothing to prove me wrong either.. you have only kept repeating that becasue the Church said it is so, then it is.. no matter what the Bible says.. And you have shown how (although nothing new) the Church got it's understanding of the Trinity... while I continue to say that this is only what the Bible has revealed to me, and ask that people show me where I have missed something..

As I said, this attitude is exactly why I don't think I would learn anything from you.. you are too combatative, and that leads to arguments instead of learning..


Those were interesting scriptures and IF those were the only scriptures in the Bible you might be close to proving your assertion. But there are many other verses that are relevant to the topic that you have not examined. Do you believe that Trinitarians are completely unaware of the verses you posted? Nothing you have posted contradicts the Trinitarian view of the Bible.


I also did not quote and go through the 100 verses in the NT that assert what I am sayinmg.. I picked only a few.. I also know there are other verses that go towards the Orthodox Trinitarian view. I also expect Trinitaians to be aware of those verses, which is something I mentioned before.. Also, there is nothing I have posted that contradicts scripture either.. You seem to say that because I stop at Christ being Gods Son, and can explain all of the questions that I have seen that are asked when someone wants to say why do you only see it that way, that it is wrong, and that God will punish those who do not fully understand His full Trinity.

If this is the case, then there are many who will never see God.. as well as many who have come to God but not discovered this for themselves yet.. and seems even more cruel than some of the Atheists paint God out to be..

Think about it.. you are unsaved and will burn in Hell because you did not see the Full Trinity as was put so plainly in the Bible.. no matter that Christ does not make it a requirement, man has said it is, and so it is..

So much for the Gospel of Joy.. I will pray that the end does not come tomorrow, so that all those in Bible school who have led Christian lives, but are only just learning about the Trinity will have time so they can be saved.. no matter that they believe in Christ etc.


While it is good that you have presented scripture which appears to support your argument, the next step is to examine those scriptures which do not support your argument and discuss why they do not or cannot be interpreted as the church has interpreted them for about 2000 years.


Yes, I would like to do so.. but with people less inclined to try and stand on my head and look down at me before they even get past 2 posts. As I have explained, unfortunately, your attitude and bitterness towards anyone who would seek for themselves -or rather, just me I will say, as that is truly how you came across to me - does not encourage me that we would have a fruitfull discussion.


Why would anyone want any more of this? I previously visited this site you have linked to again here. I stated that its treatment of Constantine and the Nicaean council was a pack of lies, easily verifiable by simply reading the Encyclopedia Britannica, and the contemporary histories of Eusebius and Lactantius. You objected. I visited it again.


I objected to you making the History posted there the focus of my reference.. It wasn't, and I said so, but you carry on with it as if it is a major point with me.. it isn't.. the verses and the Bible are.. and a lot of what is posted on the site I linked to - meaning the verses quoted and possible interpretations - supports what I have said.

When or how Trinitarianism, or any other 'ism for that matter, came about, isn't as important to me as the verses in the Bible itself, and what they say to me. THAT is what I am discussing, and open to review upon.

What you say next, up until I quote next, really didn't have anything to do with me.. as I said, I was talking about the scriptural references.. I never claimed the site had everything 100% either.. however, I will still address the scriptures you post..


John 1:6 egeneto anqrwpoV apestalmenoV para qeou, onoma autw iwannhV:[/list]
God said, in Isaiah, there is no God before Him, no God beside Him, and no God after Him. He said “I know not any.”
[b]Isa 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Isa 44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

Isa 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

Isa 45:14 Thus saith the LORD, The labour of Egypt, and merchandise of Ethiopia and of the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto thee, and they shall be thine: they shall come after thee; in chains they shall come over, and they shall fall down unto thee, they shall make supplication unto thee, saying, Surely God is in thee; and there is none else, there is no God.

Isa 45:21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.
Therefore that forces the question. Is Jesus God? If so, how can Jesus be God when God said there is no God before Him, no God beside Him, and no God after Him?


Indeed.. interesting questions.. do go on..


Are there NT passages which call Jesus God? Note, John 1:18, the oldest most reliable Greek manuscripts call Jesus the “only begotten God”
John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten [God] Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.


Cannot the word God that is used here also mean Deity (Divinity, Divine)?

I would also ask, what Hebrew was used there.. if we know.


Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament

No man hath seen God at any time (qeon oudeiV ewraken pwpote). "God no one has ever seen." Perfect active indicative of oraw.. Seen with the human physical eye, John means. God is invisible (Exodus 33:20; Deuteronomy 4:12). Paul calls God aoratoß ( Colossians 1:15; 1 Timothy 1:17). John repeats the idea in John 5:37; John 6:46. And yet in John 14:7 Jesus claims that the one who sees him has seen the Father as here. The only begotten Son (o monogenhV uioV). This is the reading of the Textus Receptus and is intelligible after ws monogenous para patros in verse John 14. But the best old Greek manuscripts (Aleph B C L) read (monogenhV qeoV (God only begotten) which is undoubtedly the true text. Probably some scribe changed it to o monogenhs uios to obviate the blunt statement of the deity of Christ and to make it like John 3:16.


Any text that has an ending that says probably does not denote definity.. in other words, we are not 100%. However, I shall review it myself some more.

Also, I do not deny that God and the Holy Spirit are one, just as Christ and the Holy Spirit are one.. Both share the same spirit, and have no trouble understanding this as pointing to Christs Holy Spirit, which is of God and IS God. That is what is being seen.. as indeed no one has seen God the Father.. But seeing the Holy Spirit alive in Christ certainly does reveal God the Father and His Sprit.. IMHO. To see the Holy Spirit is to see God, and to see the HS in Christ is to see the shared spirit that is of God.

Still, I don't see how this points to Christ Himself being THE GOD. It is indeed a matter of interpretation.. and subject to many peoples 'fiddlings'.. just as is suggested as 'possibly' happening..


In 1 Tim 3:16, Jesus is called God manifest in the flesh.
1 Tim 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.


Yes, God was manifest in the flesh.. I have already stated that this could mean Gods morality as was manifest within Christ..

MANIFEST
G5319
φανερόω
phaneroō
fan-er-o'-o
From G5318; to render apparent (literally or figuratively): - appear, manifestly declare, (make) manifest (forth), shew (self).

FLESH
G4561
σάρξ
sarx
sarx
Probably from the base of G4563; flesh (as stripped of the skin), that is, (strictly) the meat of an animal (as food), or (by extension) the body (as opposed to the soul (or spirit), or as the symbol of what is external, or as the means of kindred, or (by implication) human nature (with its frailties (physically or morally) and passions), or (specifically) a human being (as such): - carnal (-ly, + -ly minded), flesh ([-ly]).

Seems to me that this could be saying that God was apparently manifesting his nature and morality through His Son, Christ. Gods morality and nature made Flesh.. begotten of God.. shared with His Son - who was a Human Being (Fully Human).


Some people have argued that God, "Theos" in this passage should be the reflexive pronoun oV. Even so, it IS a reflexive pronoun and refers back to the nearest noun in the proper case, person, and gender. In this case that noun is “The living God” in verse 15. Therefore the Living God was manifest in the flesh. Not His thoughts, plans, or the gleam in His eye.

There are approximately 40 OT passages addressing God as YHWH used of Jesus in the GNT. Here is one verse where YHWH is applied to Jesus in the NT, by all four evangelists.
Isa 40:3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD יהוה, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.

Matt 3:3 For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. Mark 1:3, Luke 3:4, John 1:23

More upon request.

Once again, I do not deny that Christ was Divine, and indeed had many properties of the Father. When I look at the bulk of the Scriptures for and against Christ being God the Father, as one person, *I* see that first of all there is no requirement for salvation to see it either way.. as long as you get that Christ is indeed Divine, and part of Gods family, then that part is covered..

What I do see the WHOLE of the scriptures, both for and against, is the idea that both God and Christ indeed share the Holy Spirit.. and when that is applied to the understanding of the Scriptures for both sides, it makes more sense that this is what is being alluded to when the verses talk about Christ and God being one - and NOT that they are exactly the same entity.

There are many ways to have put many of the 100 NT verses that I have linked to that would have made it more obvious as to what was being said.. The fact that it can even be said that "possibly" someone decided to have scripture say what they thought it should, opens up a bucket of worms.. has this type of thing been done before? If so, where, and to what? If scripture has "possibly" been altered, then maybe lots of people are "possibly" in a lot of trouble, because we can no longer trust ANY translation.. possibly. :teeth:


Still.. I have answered your post.. and now ask that you honor my request and let it go.. I'm not here to fight.. nor am I here to teach.. I come to T-Web to share, and maybe learn something..

If I have offended you, I apologise.. I will pray about it tonight.. However, I stand by my judgment of our relationship so far.

IN Love and Peace

JCA

Edited to move a quote bracket, and some spelling

[Jezz]

JCA:
Once again, I do not deny that Christ was Divine, and indeed had many properties of the Father. When I look at the bulk of the Scriptures for and against Christ being God the Father, as one person, *I* see that first of all tehre is no requirement for salvation to see it either way.. as long as you get that Christ is indeed Divine, and part of Gods family, then that part is covered..
Your paragraph here reflects a misunderstanding of the Trinity.

No Trinitarian thinks that Christ was God the Father as one person. Trinitarians think that Christ was God the Son/the Word of God/the Wisdom of God. They further believe that the Father and Son are separate persons, but together make one God. Jesus himself said "I and the Father are one" (for which they wanted to stone him). He did not say "I am the Father."

Without meaning to be rude, it seems to me that you are attacking a strawman representation of the Trinity.

[JCA]

Yesterday @ 10:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=148891#post148891)
Jezz:


Your paragraph here reflects a misunderstanding of the Trinity.

No Trinitarian thinks that Christ was God the Father as one person. Trinitarians think that Christ was God the Son/the Word of God/the Wisdom of God. They further believe that the Father and Son are separate persons, but together make one God. Jesus himself said "I and the Father are one" (for which they wanted to stone him). He did not say "I am the Father."

Without meaning to be rude, it seems to me that you are attacking a strawman representation of the Trinity.

Jezz.. no offense taken,

In fact, you have revealed something that should be apparent by what I have said.. and probably the misconception that people are having.. and this comes from not looking before they leap to conclusions :smile: (Not that you are.. you have at least given me some benefit of the doubt by your "seems")

I am not attacking the Trinity.. I have not once said that the Orthodox view of the Trinity is incorrect.. I have only stated that I am sharing what I have had revealed to me by the Bible. If putting that down is considered to be an attack, then I would go out on a limb and say that is becasue it is being looked at through blinkers in the first place..

Some people here seem to expect that each post that disagree's with what they say, automatically presumes them to be wrong.. I'm not sure how many times I have to state that I do not say I am right, or have a full grasp of the Objective Mind of God..

but still, that's not really between you and I..

I do agree that Christ said He and the father are one.. but looking at the overall picture, that seems to mean by way of the Holy Spirit, and not so much that they are the same 'entity'..

My reasoning for differentiating God and Christ is one I have explained.. Gods very nature points to Him not being able to commit sin.. even if God wanted to.. it is not within Him to do so.. are we agreed on that point?

If we agree on that, then we have to address what it means to be Fully Human.. To be Fully Human, IMHO, would mean a Free Will, and the ability that comes with it, to be contrary to our own natures and have the ability to Sin, as well as NOT sin.. to follow Gods morality, or not.

Christ was both OF God, and part of God, but HAD to be seperate to be fully human and have the possibility to turn against His own nature and indeed sin. Someone mentions that Christ didn't have Free Will, or gives itnup in several places.. a reply to this would be not only that you have to have something to give it up, but that it must also be a symbolic giving up if it happens more than once! Such as giving ones will to God.. this doesn't mean that God now decides what socks you wear in the morning.. or does it? :teeth:

Jazz, I know this seems like a lot to rely to your short post, but trust me when I tell you that it is written with soft tones, and there is no accusations here against you or anything, so I hope you aren't taking it that way :smile:

Now, if you are saying that the Trinitarians believe that when they say "one God" they mean one "family" of God.. then I would say that my view then matches theirs closely.. which is a good thing..

I will try an analogy that I thought about earlier..

The Holy Spirit is the sap that feeds The Great Oak that is God.. they are indeed one.. of each other, needing each other, part of each other.. and God has many branches that bear Fruit.. all of them Fruits of the Spirit.. no other fruit can be made..

But to have an object lesson for Man, one must be Fully man. and so when God begat the Word in Flesh, He in effect created another Tree.. fed of the same Sap, spirit of Gods spirit, Gods Word given life.

Except this tree, although part of the same forest, CAN bear different fruits, and in fact has two Trunks.. one Divine bearing only the fruits of the Spirit, and the other of Man, able to produce BOTH fruits of the spirit, and the fruits of sin - as man can.

But Christ did not tend His tree to grow any other fruit than that of the spirit, even though it was within His power to..

Does this part make sense so far? There is scriptural support for how one tends their trees', as well as examples of Christ excersizing His Free Will (The temptation of the Devil in the desert coming to mind immediately).

So maybe that helps to understand my quandry, when Christ and God are made one entity, you give God the ability to commit Sin, and I cannot seem to draw myself away from that conclusion.. and I believe it is something Christ was trying to point out when he states that "only one is good" etc..

Still, thank you for your reply.. it helped bring to light something I have been trying to say.. this is NOT an attack on the Trinity.. believing it to be so will only cause confluct that isn't necessary.. this is one man who has studied the Bible and the words and context, and come to an opinion.. one that I am willing to share so that it can be examined..

It's not a professed gospel.. it's not something I'm running in the streets telling people is Ultimate Truth.. I don't even claim that it is all correct!

maybe coming at this from the other direction will be easier..

What do people believe being "Fully man" entails? And when this is applied to Christ, what are the implications?

In Love and Peace, Jezz..


JCA

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 11:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=148866#post148866)

JCA:
I will answer this, only because if I don't, it will be reason for you to walk around with another proud feather in your hat..

If I have offended you, I apologise.. I will pray about it tonight.. However, I stand by my udgment of our relationship so far.

Since you have responded so cordially, I will respond equally cordially. I apologize to you for my abrasive comments.

I would say calling someone a cultist is an accusation, I would say that calling someones doctrine heresy before you have even examined it all, debasement..

Here I must disagree with you. I have not called you a cultist. I did imply it but I have never said, "You are a cultist." To call someone's doctrine heresy is debasing the doctrine but it is NOT debasing the person. I would ask that you learn the difference.

And once again, it comes out what your whole reason for your replies are.. to prove me wrong..

How is it you think you know why I am posting? Do you somehow think that you, alone, are posting what you believe to be the truth? The reason I am posting is to expose what I believe to be false and to post what I believe to be truth, in response.

And so far, as I have said, you have said nothing to prove me wrong either..

Nothing that you will admit, apparently.

you have only kept repeating that becasue the Church said it is so, then it is.. no matter what the Bible says..

This is a deliberate blatant false statement and you know it to be false. I have corrected you several times on this point already. Don't you think it is about time you told the truth on this?

And you have shown how (although nothing new) the Church got it's understanding of the Trinity...

I am sure that you did not know that the Trinity, of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, originated in Judaism before the Christian era. I have posted the link to the Jewish Encyclopedia more than once to verify my point. The link you posted said that Constantine was responsible for forcing the Trinity on the church in 325 AD. Just a point of information, Constantine was an Arian, not a Trinitarian.

You seem to say that because I stop at Christ being Gods Son, * * * that God will punish those who do not fully understand His full Trinity.

I have never stated nor implied that.

I objected to you making the History posted there the focus of my reference.. It wasn't, and I said so, but you carry on with it as if it is a major point with me.. it isn't.. the verses and the Bible are.. and a lot of what is posted on the site I linked to - meaning the verses quoted and possible interpretations - supports what I have said.

And as I said in another post I visited that site again, section five, How the Trinity Started. The very first verse I saw listed, John 1:1, was misinterpreted and the writer made the false statement that Greek did not have any way to express the possessive and tried to claim that "Theos" could be translated as possessive. The very first "possible" interpretation at the site you linked to, which you say supports what you said, was false. Anything further built on what is false can only be false.

What you say next, up until I quote next, really didn't have anything to do with me.. as I said, I was talking about the scriptural references.. I never claimed the site had everything 100% either..

You said, "the verses quoted and possible interpretations - supports what I have said." I proved that the very first verse quoted was interpreted wrong. Please explain how that didn't have anything to do with you?

Cannot the word God that is used here also mean Deity (Divinity, Divine)?

Is that a possible definition according to any recognized lexicon? I will answer, no it is not. qeoV is a noun not an adjective. There is a perfectly good adjective in Greek for divine or divinity that is qeioV/theios. If John had meant to say divine this is the word he would have used. Or either qeiothV/theiotes or qeothV/Theotes.

qeoV/"Theos" is never used as an adjective.
2304 qeioV theios thi'-os
from 2316; TDNT-3:122,322; adj
AV-divine 2, Godhead 1; 3
1) a general name of deities or divinities as used by the Greeks
2) spoken of the only and true God, trinity
2a) of Christ
2b) Holy Spirit
2c) the Father

2305qeiothVtheiotes thi-ot'-ace
from 2304; TDNT-3:123,322; n f
AV-Godhead 1; 1
1) divinity, divine nature

2320 qeothV theotes theh-ot'-ace
from 2316; TDNT-3:119,322; n f
AV-Godhead 1; 1
1) deity
1a) the state of being God, Godhead

I would also ask, what Hebrew was used here..

Elohim אלהים but I know you do not want to go where you are thinking of going, that road is washed out, see Is 41:21.
Isaiah 45:21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God [אלהים] else beside me; a just God [אלהים] and a Saviour; there is none beside me. [Also Isaiah 44:6, Isaiah 44:8, Isaiah 45:5, Isaiah 45:22, and Deuteronomy 4:35]

Any text that has an ending that says probably does not denote definity.. in other words, we are not 100%. However, I shall review it myself some more.

I think you should more closely examine the text you are so lightly dismissing. There is no doubt that the earliest most reliable manuscripts have qeoV. What Robertson said was “probably”, was "why" later scribes changed qeoV to ouioV
John 1:18 No man hath seen God [qeoV] at any time; the only begotten Son [qeoV], which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Robertson, Word Pictures in the N.T.

The only begotten Son ( o monogenhV uioV ). This is the reading of the Textus Receptus and is intelligible after wV monogenouV para patroV in verse #14. But the best old Greek manuscripts (Aleph B C L) read monogenhV qeoV (God only begotten) which is undoubtedly the true text. Probably some scribe changed it to o monogenhV uioV to obviate the blunt statement of the deity of Christ and to make it like #3:16.
Also, I do not deny that God and the Holy Spirit are one, just as Christ and the Holy Spirit are one.. Both share the same spirit, and have no trouble understanding this as pointing to Christs Holy Spirit, which is of God and IS God. That is what is being seen.. as indeed no one has seen God the Father.. But seeing the Holy Spirit alive in Christ certainly does reveal God the Father and His Sprit.. IMHO. To see the Holy Spirit is to see God, and to see the HS in Christ is to see the shared spirit that is of God.

This paragraph could have been written by a Trinitarian but somehow you cannot bring yourself to say this IS the Trinity. You have just said somehow the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct from each other but somehow they are one. That is exactly what Trinitarians say.

Still, I don't see how this points to Christ Himself being THE GOD. It is indeed a matter of interpretation.. and subject to many peoples 'fiddlings'.. just as is suggested as 'possibly' happening..

Please read the passages from Isaiah again. There is no God before יהוה, there is no God beside Him, there will be no God after Him, God does not know any other God. If Christ, the savior, and the Holy Spirit are God as you have said, how can they not be THE GOD? There is no other living God or savior, Is 42:21.

”It is indeed a matter of interpretation.. and subject to many peoples 'fiddlings'.. just as is suggested as 'possibly' happening.” Still misstating what Robertson said. The later manuscripts WERE changed. The only possibility was, why they were changed.

Yes, God was manifest in the flesh.. I have already stated that this could mean Gods morality as was manifest within Christ..

Now who is "fiddling" with the text? Paul did not write, "Gods morality as was manifest within Christ." What it "could" mean and what it does mean is exactly what Paul said, "God was manifest in the flesh" Why are you trying so desperately to change what is actually written in the scripture? Unlike you I believe that Paul wrote exactly what he wanted to here. If he had intended to write what you say, that is what he would have written.
1 Tim 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Seems to me that this could be saying that God was apparently manifesting his nature and morality through His Son, Christ. Gods morality and nature made Flesh.. begotten of God.. shared with His Son - who was a Human Being (Fully Human).

"Seems to me that this could be saying" You are still "fiddling' with the text trying to make it say what you want it to, instead of acknowledging what it actually does say.

Once again, I do not deny that Christ was Divine, and indeed had many properties of the Father. When I look at the bulk of the Scriptures for and against Christ being God the Father, as one person, *I* see that first of all tehre is no requirement for salvation to see it either way.. as long as you get that Christ is indeed Divine, and part of Gods family, then that part is covered..

The Greek word for "divine," qeioV, is never used to refer to Christ. The word that is used, is qeoV/Theos, not "divine" but God.

What I do see the WHOLE of the scriptures, both for and against, is the idea that both God and Christ indeed share the Holy Spirit.. and when that is applied to the understanding of the Scriptures for both sides, it makes more sense that this is what is being alluded to when the verses talk about Christ and God being one - and NOT that they are exactly the same entity.

The scripture I have posted do not "allude" to anything. They very clearly state. "God manifest in the flesh". "The only begotten God." "Prepare the way for YHWH." Perhaps it is your "proof texts" which allude to something else.

The fact that it can even be said that "possibly" someone decided to have scripture say what they thought it should, opens up a bucket of worms.. has this type of thing been done before? If so, where, and to what? If scripture has "possibly" been altered, then maybe lots of people are "possibly" in a lot of trouble, because we can no longer trust ANY translation.. possibly. :teeth:

Still "fiddling" with the text and the responses, trying to make them say what you want them to. Robertson said the earliest most reliable manuscripts of John 1:18, have "the only begotten God" The later less reliable manuscripts have "only begotten son." "God" WAS clearly changed to "son" in the later manuscripts. The scholars recognize the counterfeit because they know what the genuine looks like. Just like people who work with money.

No counterfeiter makes a phony $300 bill. There is no such thing. They counterfeit real currency, and professionals who handle money for a living, such as banks and credit unions, are so familiar with the real thing, it is easy for them to recognize the fake. Scholars know that the earlier manuscripts are the real thing. They are so familiar with the real thing that they know which ones are not real. Robertson said the manuscripts with "Theos/God," instead of "uios/son," are the real thing.

Still.. I have answered your post.. and now ask that you honor my request and let it go.. I'm not here to fight.. nor am I hear to teach.. I come to T-Web to share, and maybe learn something..

If you are sharing, you are teaching. As for letting it go. As long as doctrines, information, beliefs, teachings, opinions, etc. which counter historic evangelical, Trinitarian Christianity are being posted, I will try to refute it and post what I know and believe to be the truth.
 

[JCA]

So basically, Old Shepherd, even when asked politely not to post in a thread I started, or may start, you will do so anyway?

I have no issue with you starting your own thread that refutes what I say, but I will take offense if you are harassing me for sharing..

You are a big one on words, so maybe you can tell me where sharing and teaching are the same thing, and in the context I have stated I have meant it..

SHARING
v. shared, shar·ing, shares
v. tr.
1) To divide and parcel out in shares; apportion.
2) To participate in, use, enjoy, or experience jointly or in turns.
3) To relate (a secret or experience, for example) to another or others.
4) To accord a share in (something) to another or others: shared her chocolate bar with a friend.

v. intr.
1) To have a share or part: shared in the profits.
2) To allow someone to use or enjoy something that one possesses: Being in daycare taught the child to share.
3) To use or enjoy something jointly or in turns: There is only one computer, so we will have to share


If your understanding of words used, and context used, even when given directly to you, is as clear as your understanding of sharing, then you and I have less to say than I thought.

I politely request again that you do not partake in this thread, I would find it tantamount to harassment, and only go towards pointing out your bitterness. Bully whomever you like in your own threads, but I ask that you leave mine alone.. this isn't a matter of Doctrine on my side, it is because I find you rude, and abrasive, and do not wish to have pointless squabbles with you.

If you cannot accept that, although I apparently have to accept your Dog Puke inferences, I at least ask that you honour the simple request.. Thank you.

ὕβρις ἄνδρα ταπεινοῖ, τοὺς δὲ ταπεινόφρονας ἐρείδει δόξῃ κύριος. (that may not look right - be a shame if my fonts are messed up)

However.. maybe this:

superbum sequitur humilitas et humilem spiritu suscipiet gloria

Or maybe even this:

גאות אדם תשׁפילנו ושׁפל־רוח יתמך כבוד׃

But this more will understand:

Proverbs 29:23
A man's pride shall bring him low: but honour shall uphold the humble in spirit.


In Love and Peace

JCA

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 03:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=149797#post149797)
JCA:

So basically, Old Shepherd, even when asked politely not to post in a thread I started, or may start, you will do so anyway?

First, I was invited to this thread twice, by you.

07-14-2003 @ 04:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=148215#post148215)
JCA:

Still, the offer is open.. if you would like to discuss with me what it is I have missed, or why certain things say certain things and not others, and can do so in a manner more befitting, then I would welcome it.

07-14-2003 @ 03:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=148182#post148182)
JCA:

I started a new thread, in which you are free to come and dicuss with me what I beleive..

I believe we can probably talk about it and find out what it is I am missing.. but as I said, not with that attitude

It's not hard to find.. it's called JCA's thoughts ion the Trinity.

In Love and Peace

JCA

Second, I have the right to post in any thread which begins with my name. See the first post on this thread.

07-13-2003 @ 12:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=147758#post147758)
JCA:

I wanted to put this out because Old Shepard had pointed out that I hadn't put down a proper explanation of what I meant when talking about the Trinity.

In Love and Peace

JCA

Third, I have the right to respond when you, or anyone else, make deliberately false statements about me, which I have objected to more than once previously. Two deliberately false statements in this quote.

Yesterday @ 11:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=148866#post148866)
JCA:

[1.] And once again, it comes out what your whole reason for your replies are.. to prove me wrong.. thank you for your kind intentions and Christian thoughts.. And so far, as I have said, you have said nothing to prove me wrong either..[2.] you have only kept repeating that becasue the Church said it is so, then it is.. no matter what the Bible says..

IN Love and Peace

JCA

I have no issue with you starting your own thread that refutes what I say, but I will take offense if you are harassing me for sharing..

Hasrassment is NOT posting to any open thread or post. Harassment IS targeting specific persons in a post or thread, making deliberately false statements about that person, and then insisting, that person not respond.

You are a big one on words, so maybe you can tell me where sharing and teaching are the same thing, and in the context I have stated I have meant it..

SHARING

3) To relate (a secret or experience, for example) to another or others.

"maybe you can tell me where sharing and teaching are the same thing." Don't ask me to tell you something at the same time you tell me not to respond to your posts.

"and in the context I have stated I have meant it.." See definition for teach, you can use any euphemism you like, if you are causing someone to know something, you are teaching. If you are as old as you say then you should know that someone can teach without saying a word. A child learns many things by simply watching what their parents do and do not do. Note the similarity between, "Sharing 3)" and "Teach 4a."
Main Entry: teach
Pronunciation: 'tEch
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): taught /'tot/; teach·ing
Etymology: Middle English techen to show, instruct, from Old English t[AE]can; akin to Old English tAcn sign -- more at TOKEN
Date: before 12th century
transitive senses
1 a : to cause to know something <taught them a trade>b : to cause to know how <is teaching me to drive> c : to accustom to some action or attitude <teach students to think for themselves> d : to cause to know the disagreeable consequences of some action <I'll teach you to come home late>
2 : to guide the studies of
3 : to impart the knowledge of <teach algebra>
4 a : to instruct by precept, example, or experience b : to make known and accepted <experience teaches us our limitations>
5 : to conduct instruction regularly in <teach school>
intransitive senses : to provide instruction : act as a teacher

© 2003 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
Merriam-Webster Privacy Policy

I politely request again that you do not partake in this thread, I would find it tantamount to harassment, and only go towards pointing out your bitterness.

Politely, get my name off the thread, don't refer to me by name or implication, and most of all do NOT make false statements about me.

FYI try [greek]ouioV[/greek], with the text between the codes for Greek. Which will display as ouioV

[JCA]

Today @ 03:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=149842#post149842)
OldShepherd:

First, I was invited to this thread twice, by you.


And in the same thread you where asked in, I then withdrew the offer because I find you rude and contemptuous.


Second, I have the right to post in any thread which begins with my name. See the first post on this thread.


So if someone mentions a rapist in their thread as a reference to something, rapists are now called to post in that thread? If the post is DIRECTED at you, then yes.. however, I used your name as a rerference for something that was said..

As I said.. you just seem like a bitter old man.


Third, I have the right to respond when you, or anyone else, make deliberately false statements about me, which I have objected to more than once previously. Two deliberately false statements in this quote.


Oh do grow up.. ther's no diliberatly false statements.. your intention is clear from this statement:

You Said:
There have been no accusations, name calling, or debasing from me. I don’t know what “craning” means. Perhaps you are just over sensitive about being proven wrong.

Sure, no intention there that I can make a 'deliberatly false' statement out of.. :ponder:

And the second part is true too.. you told me more than once that what the Church has been saying for 2000 years is what I should believe.. and seeing as I said that my finding was from the Bible itself, you told me again that the Church has been saying the same thing for 2000 years and I should follow that, it is easy to conclude that it doesn't matter what I read in the Bible myself, I am to follow what the Church has said for 2000 years anyway..

You need to look at your own posts and see what you are actually saying sometimes.. Go back to the other thread and read for yourself.. I can't even be bothered to post the link for you.


Hasrassment is NOT posting to any open thread or post. Harassment IS targeting specific persons in a post or thread, making deliberately false statements about that person, and then insisting, that person not respond.


:lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo:

You do add your own qualifiers to just about everything.. :lmbo: and then insisting that person not respnd.. (see the word "Harass" below - I posted it to help you)

As I said, you don't seem to be able to understand what English words actually mean.. but I'll prove that again in a minute..


&quot;maybe you can tell me where sharing and teaching are the same thing.&quot; Don't ask me to tell you something at the same time you tell me not to respond to your posts.

&quot;and in the context I have stated I have meant it..&quot; See definition for teach, you can use any euphemism you like, if you are causing someone to know something, you are teaching. If you are as old as you say then you should know that someone can teach without saying a word. A child learns many things by simply watching what their parents do and do not do. Note the similarity between, &quot;Sharing 3)&quot; and &quot;Teach 4a.&quot;
Main Entry: teach
Pronunciation: 'tEch
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): taught /'tot/; teach·ing
Etymology: Middle English techen to show, instruct, from Old English t[AE]can; akin to Old English tAcn sign -- more at TOKEN
Date: before 12th century
transitive senses
1 a : to cause to know something &lt;taught them a trade&gt;b : to cause to know how &lt;is teaching me to drive&gt; c : to accustom to some action or attitude &lt;teach students to think for themselves&gt; d : to cause to know the disagreeable consequences of some action &lt;I'll teach you to come home late&gt;
2 : to guide the studies of
3 : to impart the knowledge of &lt;teach algebra&gt;
4 a : to instruct by precept, example, or experience b : to make known and accepted &lt;experience teaches us our limitations&gt;
5 : to conduct instruction regularly in &lt;teach school&gt;
intransitive senses : to provide instruction : act as a teacher

© 2003 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
Merriam-Webster Privacy Policy


:lmbo: :lmbo:

First you say:

If you are sharing, you are teaching.

Now you say:

"and in the context I have stated I have meant it.." See definition for teach, you can use any euphemism you like, if you are causing someone to know something, you are teaching. If you are as old as you say then you should know that someone can teach without saying a word. A child learns many things by simply watching what their parents do and do not do. Note the similarity between, "Sharing 3)" and "Teach 4a."


And you don't see where you are off base? As I said above, teaching and sharing are two different things.. ther is a similarity between apples and oranges too in the Dictionary.. go look them up, they both mentions plants and fruit... :bonk:

You obviously don't know the difference, so I made a seperate thread about it.. maybe you will understand then.. somehow I doubt it though..

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7276

And you are wrong because sharing does NOT necessarily cause anyone to know something in the context of Teach.. you can twist it how you like.. Just because something gets learnt, does not make it have to be taught.. when two peolpe (or more) share with each other, it can be like a discovery session.. none of the people involved may know what will be discovered (unless of course one of them already thinks they know everything there is to know), so there is no "teacher"..


Politely, get my name off the thread, don't refer to me by name or implication, and most of all do NOT make false statements about me.


Yes your royal bitterness.. however, I cannot edit the first post as the time has elapsed..

I would ask that a Moderator please remove the Words Old Shepherd from my first post, and replace it with "Some Grumpy Old Guy" please.. I would do it myself, but, there it is..

And get of your horse about the false statements.. the only thing false about any of this, is your pretending to want to help in a sharing manner.. as I posted before, you don't know what sharing means, and your pride won't let you. IMHO, of course.

But seeing as you are going to continue to be a bitter old man, and continue, I will no longer respond to this thread, and will start it again, sans your grumpiness.. and if the Admin staff want to know why, it will be because you continue to harass (see below) me..

ha·rass ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-rs, hrs)
tr.v. ha·rassed, ha·rass·ing, ha·rass·es
To irritate or torment persistently.
To wear out; exhaust.
To impede and exhaust (an enemy) by repeated attacks or raids.

By the way, any question in this post that you feel is directed at you, is rhetorical.. they require no answer.. no need for you to waste your time, or mine..


In Love and Peace

JCA

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 11:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=149970#post149970)
JCA:

So if someone mentions a rapist in their thread as a reference to something, rapists are now called to post in that thread? If the post is DIRECTED at you, then yes.. however, I used your name as a rerference for something that was said..

1 John 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Oh do grow up.. ther's no diliberatly false statements.. your intention is clear from this statement:

See 1 John 2:4

And the second part is true too.. you told me more than once that what the Church has been saying for 2000 years is what I should believe.. and seeing as I said that my finding was from the Bible itself, you told me again that the Church has been saying the same thing for 2000 years and I should follow that, it is easy to conclude that it doesn't matter what I read in the Bible myself, I am to follow what the Church has said for 2000 years anyway..

See 1 John 2:4

[Rusty T]

I have found Old Shepherd's post to be passionate, but not unfair. Why you wish to exclude him from this thread is beyond me. He has not personally attacked you (at least not beyond reasonable bounds) as far as I can tell. It is you who are now being unreasonable. You've turned this thread into a "you can't play on my side of the park" argument rather than a discussion of your original post.

I wanted to participate in the thread as it was originally intended, but to exclude someone seems a bit childish at best - at least for the reasons cited.

Maybe when this thread gets back on track, I will post my thoughts on your original arguments.

tizzi

[jpholding]

Hmm,

If it is not in the Bible, how is one to know it is 'inspirational', and therefore God-breathed? If one wants to use documents outside of the Bible to make their doctrine, who says they are reliable? Man? Or are their places in the Bible that say they are reliable?

How would you feel about outside documents and concepts that the writers of the Bible clearly alluded to in order to make their points?

If you answer "no problem" I'll provide a more detailed reply to your original post.

If you answer "no way" then I expect you to throw away your concordances and lexicons. :smile:

[JCA]

Today @ 10:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=150038#post150038)
tizzidale:

I have found Old Shepherd's post to be passionate, but not unfair. Why you wish to exclude him from this thread is beyond me. He has not personally attacked you (at least not beyond reasonable bounds) as far as I can tell. It is you who are now being unreasonable. You've turned this thread into a &quot;you can't play on my side of the park&quot; argument rather than a discussion of your original post.

I wanted to participate in the thread as it was originally intended, but to exclude someone seems a bit childish at best - at least for the reasons cited.

Maybe when this thread gets back on track, I will post my thoughts on your original arguments.

tizzi

I appreciate your reply Tizzidale, however my response to OS wasn't only from this thread, it started in another thread, where I did not do anything but ask OS a question, and then got told how what I was saying was nothing more than Dog Puke.

I'm sorry, but I'm only human, and I too react to people, and not always in the best way.. I find that I tend to react badly to people I find to be overly judgmental and condescending, especially before they have even began to talk to me..

When I ask OS not to participate because I see that it will only cause more strife, and no real learning will be done, I say it not only because I have come to not like such people, but also because it will do is draw away from my finding the answers I seek.

I have nothing more to say to OS, purely because even seeing his name at the top of a post right now makes me want to just close T-Web and say "forget it".. Which it seems would be just fine. If his attitude was supposed to have "taught" me anything, it obviously wasn't what he was looking for.

I have also said that OS has some good information to share, and agree it is my loss if I do not get it from him.. but who's gain is it if I just say sod this, and give up bothering because I am fed up with overbearing attitudes and pride?

As I have said, my request for OS to not partake is not for one of doctrinal reasons.. there are plenty of other people here who could take his place in this thread with as good info - JP, Socrates etc.. and the first part of my first post clearly states and asks for:

Those who feel they can express Fruits of the Spirit, and are willing to sit down with another Christian and go over doctrine, in the spirit of Christ, and allow me to make my own choices without condemnation, please feel free to respond.. in fact, I welcome it.

I had even invited OS here myself at first, giving him the benefit of the doubt that in the other thread he was just getting tired of it and lashing out.. but as that thread continued, I realised that I wouldn't get anywhere with OS, for the reasons I have stated above. Please note that I do NOT judge OS and have even stated that it is only my opinion on his relationship with me.. how he acts with others (you say only passionate, some others here don't feel that way) is not anything I can deal with, or comment on in depth.

As far as you posting, the thread is back on track.. at least in my eyes.. and I welcome your post and opinion. Your participation is up to you..

ADDED: Think about this.. how would you feel if I had you go and translate some words for me, just so I could test if you where worthy of my time and effort.. before I started to 'teach' you? Even though you requested no such 'teaching'?

Well, I was.. I was given a greek line to translate "if I could", and then I would be worthy.. and when I did translate it.. the stake got moved.. now that isn't good enough, I need to be using the exact same books as this person etc.. maybe you don't see the progression of "I have to appear above you to be able to teach", but I do.. and it disturbs me.. especially when I haven't asked to be taught, but to share (of which apparently there is no difference).

SO now I've wasted a lot of time and text, to defend why I have asked OS to not participate, instead of reading more on T-Web, and maybe finding the answers I seek without all this crap.

Not your fault tizzidale.. you where well within your rights to say what you did.. I only hope you understand what I mean.


In Love and Peace

JCA

[JCA]

Today @ 03:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=150266#post150266)
jpholding:

Hmm,

If it is not in the Bible, how is one to know it is 'inspirational', and therefore God-breathed? If one wants to use documents outside of the Bible to make their doctrine, who says they are reliable? Man? Or are their places in the Bible that say they are reliable?

How would you feel about outside documents and concepts that the writers of the Bible clearly alluded to in order to make their points?

If you answer &quot;no problem&quot; I'll provide a more detailed reply to your original post.

If you answer &quot;no way&quot; then I expect you to throw away your concordances and lexicons. :smile:

All that I ask if you are going to refer to documents or religious texts outside of the Bible, is that I be allowed a list of such things to review before I would have to make a reply.

I had asked for a list from someone else, but all I got in response was rudeness, IMHO.

As I have stated, I have done only what millions of other people have done before me, and continue to do today, and that is pick up a copy of the Bible and read it, and come to conclusions based upon what is inside.. true enough, I have done a few steps more than most.. checked some lexicons, searched for context in some places etc.. but as I have stated, I in no way say that I have everything correct etc.

If there are other documents and things that others SHOULD be reading, my obvious question is, why are they not as available, or even given, with the Bible? But enough on that.. I'm waffling a bit.. am at work.

As you know, I am not adverse to being given some information to research and read.. we spoke on this before, you and I. So yes, no problem, only please give me at least a partial list of the references you will be using, so I can have a chance to review them and make my own adjustments before I would respond to your post.. does that sound fair?

In Love and Peace

JCA

[OldShepherd]

Yesterday @ 11:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=149970#post149970)
JCA:

And the second part is true too.. you told me more than once that what the Church has been saying for 2000 years is what I should believe.. and seeing as I said that my finding was from the Bible itself, you told me again that the Church has been saying the same thing for 2000 years and I should follow that, it is easy to conclude that it doesn't matter what I read in the Bible myself, I am to follow what the Church has said for 2000 years anyway..

Love and Peace

JCA

Here are all my posts which supposedly say what you claim. Please show the forum where I said or implied, “it doesn't matter what I read in the Bible myself, I am to follow what the Church has said for 2000 years anyway..”
”I choose to go with the consistent definition by the church for about 2000 years. Rather than ideas which have grown up in the last 100 years or so. After all the early church fathers, Polycarp and Ignatius, were disciples of John the apostle, and Irenaeus was a disciple of Poycarp, and they spoke the Biblical languages. And I trust their definition over yours. Whether or not you choose to see it that way, is entirely up to you..”

“Oh But I am interested in decent discussion. What I am not interested in is anybody's and everybody's private interpretation of the scripture. Interpretation which generally goes something like this, "I don't care what a bunch of guys said 1000 years ago. The church has been wrong for 2000 years and only I have the correct understanding."

post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=147858#post147858)

“But I will not be convinced when someone ignores church history and tells me "I don't care about what someone said a thousand years ago" and attempts to tell me that the truth is really some heretical belief which is around 100 years old.”

post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=148191#post148191)

“How can you be sure of what happened 2000 years ago without any historical references, which you have already blown off without even reading them? Maybe you have a crystal ball or a souped up DeLorean? Unless you can “prove” that the disciples of John clearly contradict the Bible you are just blowing smoke, as you have been all along. Hey everybody lets throw out the entire history of the early church because we have another JW here who is sure that they were wrong but his society 2000 years later is right. And their light keeps getting brighter and brighter, what they teach today may be rejected tomorrow.”

post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=141819#post141819)

“One of the things I like to do in these discussions is review church history. When people disagree over whether or not, e.g. the Trinity, is scriptural we can go back and read the record of the early church, immediately following the time of the apostles, the late first and early second century and see how they interpreted those disputed passages on the nature of Christ. Do you know what we will find?”

post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=147272#post147272)

“If, for example, I want to know what something written in Greek means I ask a person who knows the language. And taking this a step further, if, for example, I want to interpret a passage from the writings of John, I could consult the writings of someone who was taught by John, who read and wrote Greek, Polycarp or Ignatius, for example. Their writings do NOT contradict the scriptures but do contradict beliefs which have been formulated by people within the last 20-30 years, or less.”

post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=148308#post148308)

Today @ 05:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=150302#post150302)
JCA:

ADDED: Think about this.. how would you feel if I had you go and translate some words for me, just so I could test if you where worthy of my time and effort.. before I started to 'teach' you? Even though you requested no such 'teaching'?

Well, I was.. I was given a greek line to translate “if I could”, and then I would be worthy.. and when I did translate it.. the stake got moved.. now that isn't good enough, I need to be using the exact same books as this person etc.. maybe you don't see the progression of “I have to appear above you to be able to teach”, but I do.. and it disturbs me.. especially when I haven't asked to be taught, but to share (of which apparently there is no difference).

SO now I've wasted a lot of time and text, to defend why I have asked OS to not participate, instead of reading more on T-Web, and maybe finding the answers I seek without all this crap.

In Love and Peace

JCA

”I was given a greek line to translate “if I could”, and then I would be worthy..” A blatant and deliberate falsehood.

”the stake got moved.. now that isn't good enough, I need to be using the exact same books as this person etc..” Another blatant contemptuous falsehood.

”’I have to appear above you to be able to teach.’ And yet another damnable falsehood. The quotation marks indicate I actually said this. Show us where.

Please see my previous post.

Politely, get my name off the thread, don't refer to me by name or implication, and most of all do NOT make false statements about me.

maybe finding the answers I seek without all this crap.

Yours is the only kuonou eceramou crap here.

And OBTW you want to know who started with the attitude and bad mouthing? And note when you apologized I got nice. See how that works?

07-12-2003 @ 04:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=147309#post147309)
JCA:

Discussion by link violates the rules of this forum. I'm here, present your discussion here. I have time.

Oh do stop being silly.. I'm not discussing by link...

In Love and Peace

JCA

[mickiel]

Learn this; unscriptural doctrine needs unscriptural words to support it. NOWHERE in scripture is God refered to as a trinity. 3 is never used in reference to who or what God is. Nowhere in scripture is God refered to as a person. The Holy Spirit is NEVER called God nowhere in the bible. inspite of these amazeing facts, christians still teach this doctrine found nowhere in scripture.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 01:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=150664#post150664)
mickiel:

Learn this; unscriptural doctrine needs unscriptural words to support it. NOWHERE in scripture is God refered to as a trinity. 3 is never used in reference to who or what God is. Nowhere in scripture is God refered to as a person. The Holy Spirit is NEVER called God nowhere in the bible. inspite of these amazeing facts, christians still teach this doctrine found nowhere in scripture.

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

John 8:17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

Ex 15:3 The LORD [יהוה] is a man of war: the LORD [יהוה] is his name.

Acts 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

[JCA]

I'm no longer responsding to this thread, and starting it elsewhere..

I ask that Old Shepherd does NOT come to the new thread.. and any attempt to will be looked at as harassment..


If it was one of the Moderators friends that was having this type of issue, I'm sure it would have already been stopped.. sorry, but that is how I feel.

JCA

[AVmetro]

:bulb: This issue has nothing to do with any moderator's 'bias' towards any individual. We simply can't exclude individuals from making posts in forums where they are allowed to post. JCA's best option is to place Old Shepherd on "ignore". As stated before, elsewhere, any further complaints regarding any poster's character should be taken up in the Locker Room (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&forumid=30). Thank you.

Today @ 09:45 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=150964#post150964)
JCA:

I'm no longer responsding to this thread, and starting it elsewhere..

I ask that Old Shepherd does NOT come to the new thread.. and any attempt to will be looked at as harassment..


If it was one of the Moderators friends that was having this type of issue, I'm sure it would have already been stopped.. sorry, but that is how I feel.

JCA

[AVmetro]

Learn this; unscriptural doctrine needs unscriptural words to support it. NOWHERE in scripture is God refered to as a trinity. 3 is never used in reference to who or what God is. Nowhere in scripture is God refered to as a person. The Holy Spirit is NEVER called God nowhere in the bible. inspite of these amazeing facts, christians still teach this doctrine found nowhere in scripture.

Using theological "shorthand" to denote a biblical doctrine does not make the doctrine "unscriptural".

God bless

[jpholding]

Hmm,

All that I ask if you are going to refer to documents or religious texts outside of the Bible, is that I be allowed a list of such things to review before I would have to make a reply.

I'll drop in these to start:

The Wisdom of Solomon
Wisdom of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)

If there are other documents and things that others SHOULD be reading, my obvious question is, why are they not as available, or even given, with the Bible?

If all contexual data needed to completely interpret the Bible in its context were attached to it, the Bible would have to be moved in a fleet of vans. Every copy. A basic understanding is possible without such context but you miss out on the richness of meaning in the text.

The above can be found online easily. Let me know when you're set.