Transfer of Trinity discussion from Judaism Forum

[Bowman]

Also, even Jesus reminds us that we are also gods, though we are still on the earth and in a physical mortal body. Best regards,

jo

What Biblical verse states this, sister?

[franktalk]

What Biblical verse states this, sister?

John 10:34

King James Version (KJV)

34Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

It is an easy thing to look up a verse. I use esword which you can download for free. It might stop some of these questions you have. So now that you have the verse what is your comment? Or were you just looking for a Bible lesson?

[jo7241974]

John 10:34

King James Version (KJV)

34Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

It is an easy thing to look up a verse. I use esword which you can download for free. It might stop some of these questions you have. So now that you have the verse what is your comment? Or were you just looking for a Bible lesson?

Here is the source of what Jesus was referring to:

Psalm 82:6 KJV

I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

Best regards,

jo

[xcav8tor]

Hi franktalk,

xcav8tor, You seem to be getting frustrated in this thread.

You could say that I am becoming somewhat weary of jo's reluctance to simply spell out her take on what the Trinity doctrine is so that we can know we are on the same page and not talking past each other. She was so indignant when I said I didn't believe she understood it that one would think she'd jump at the chance to back up her claim and obtain my promised apology.

Please don't take anything personal. There is no intent to attack you or your beliefs. I have made myself clear on how I feel about the Trinity matter and how it affects salvation. (it does not)

Are you sure about that franktalk? How else would one interpret jo's words here:

...my experience with Trinitarians is that they are so close-minded about any other possibility

This a cheap shot which is fodder for another thread, as it has nothing to do with the trinity theory.

I believe it to be wrong and the very vehicle of the adversary to cause division among believers.

My purpose in attacking the trinity is to expose its fruit.

...it is my belief that the trinity theory takes moments where the Heavens have opened... and turns Father's words into a lie. I do not believe that Father's attributes would allow Him to do such a thing, especially seeing as how the trinity theory has caused conflict, confusion, causing man to usurp Jesus' right and authority to Judge, unnumbered deaths, etc. Father is NOT the author of confusion, conflict, usurping His own Son's rights, etc. Nor would Father be the cause or source of creating the circumstances where those who believe in His Son would die at the hands of other believers. No! This stinks of Satan's handiwork.

So, tell me again how it is that the trinity theory has the power to trump the mind of the Lord? Or how the trinity theory has the power to be His counsellor? Or how does the trinity have the power to capture and define the wisdom and knowledge of God, since we are told quite clearly that his judgments are unsearchable and his ways past finding out! Oh ye hyprocites and den of vipers!!

The animosity is almost palpable - nothing whatsoever like our discussion with OC and nrajeff on the Basketball Court.

You have asked that jo define in her own words what the Trinity is. The problem is it has been a moving target and although the churches say they all agree about the issue I will state they do not.

Even if what you say was true, it is totally beside the point. Jo said she understood what the Trinity doctrine is - well enough to even confront her Lutheran pastor about it. ALL I AM ASKING IS FOR HER TO SHARE THE UNDERSTANDING THAT SHE HAD AT THAT TIME, or EVEN NOW.

IF she understands it - which she insists she does - then she SHOULD be able to explain the BASIC BIBLICAL ARGUMENT FOR IT - even though she doesn't believe it. IOW, she should be able to say, "A) This is what the doctrine states; B) This is the alleged support for it; and C) This is WHERE AND WHY I disagree."

So far, all I have gotten from her was "C." AFAIC, she is not entitled to share "C" unless she has first presented "A" and "B."

Regards,
xcav8tor

[Bowman]

John 10:34

King James Version (KJV)

34Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

It is an easy thing to look up a verse. I use esword which you can download for free. It might stop some of these questions you have. So now that you have the verse what is your comment? Or were you just looking for a Bible lesson?

E-sword also informs us that only Jesus is God (‘theon’ – accusative singular masculine) in the juxtaposed preceding verse John 10.33.

Jesus’ usage of the lower-case gods (‘theoi’ – nominative plural masculine) of John 10.34, clearly distinguishes false deities from Himself.

Again, in 10.35, the lower-case false gods (‘theous’ - accusative plural masculine) are distinguished from the one God (‘theou’ – genitive singular masculine).

Your wanting to be a lower-case god is not a good thing, sister.

It’s a bad thing.

Remember that Jesus is stating this to the Jews. The very same people that He directly called liars, murderers, and offspring of Satan.

Is this what LDS aspire to become?

[jo7241974]

Hi franktalk,

You could say that I am becoming somewhat weary of jo's reluctance to simply spell out her take on what the Trinity doctrine is so that we can know we are on the same page and not talking past each other. She was so indignant when I said I didn't believe she understood it that one would think she'd jump at the chance to back up her claim and obtain my promised apology.

Hi Xcav8tor:

I have not been reluctant to spell out my take on the trinity theory. In fact, my questions reflect waht I DO understand. I also took Bowman's post on the Trinity Shield and made comments on that. I have also presented the fact that there is more than one take on the trinity theory among those who accept it. I need no apology from you for the words you have used against me. You are the one who is hanging to a strange request, which is, for me to present Biblical passages which supports something I don't believe the Bible supports to begin with. Do you realize how strange a request this is??? In fact, you have already explained to Bowman who it is that I am referring to when we speak about either the Father, the Son or the Holy Ghost. So why do you need further clarification to make sure you and I are "on the same page"??

Your refusal and reluctance to answer the questions is an indication that you are actually not able to answer them; because the trinity does indeed fall apart under those questions, as well as the observations we have made from Tertulian, as well as verbage from the first Council of Nicea, and from statements made by the RCC. Why are you so afraid to go there? Trying to re-establish what I remember about how my Pastor answered my questions over 40 years ago and to point to Biblical passages used to support the trinity is merely a rabbit trail. I recognized this and first refused to go down it. But then, in defference to our friendship, I reconsidered and decided to do it anyway. I went so far as to use the very passages YOU used in support of various aspects about the trinity. And that is still not good enough for you. I thought that you were going to present an honest discussion even if you were in disagreement.

The animosity is almost palpable - nothing whatsoever like our discussion with OC and nrajeff on the Basketball Court.

This discussion has nothing to do with the Basketball Court discussion. This is a brand new thread which is presenting some pretty tough questions for a Trinitarian to answer. It looks like you are not up to the task. In fact, I find it strangely quiet in that only one or two other posters are even willing to address this thread. And none have even approached the actual questions; which, I believe sincerely is because no one knows how to answer them. How odd that those who are convinced that the trinity must be believed in order to be saved are so willing to condemn my soul to an eternity of damnation, while at the same time no one is willing to answer direct questions about the very theory they claim damns me. Who is kidding who here???

You are getting frustrated because you think I have not responded to your questions; when in reality I just haven't done it in a specific format you want to find it. You described my comments as filled with animosity. I am sorry you feel that way. Well, I AM unloading a lot of frustration here NOW, in this post. However, I would like to point out that my "animosity" pales in comparison with the condition of my eternally damned soul which Trinitarians point out to me with such great ease and without thought about what they have just done, or how it might appear to me.

Even if what you say was true, it is totally beside the point. Jo said she understood what the Trinity doctrine is - well enough to even confront her Lutheran pastor about it. ALL I AM ASKING IS FOR HER TO SHARE THE UNDERSTANDING THAT SHE HAD AT THAT TIME, or EVEN NOW.

Again, since I have already shared my comments on the very same passages you used to support the trinity, I have already provided much Biblical support to show why I don't believe they support the trinity. Therefore, it should be discernable by my negating those passages, to be able to understand what I think the trinity does try to teach merely by reading my refutations.

Additionally, before the Basketball Court thread, you and I had several pm discussions where you were teaching me your concept of the trinity theory. During that time I asked many questions. Do you think you were not able to teach me the trinity during those discussions? Or is it because I still refused to accept it that you are trying to make such a big deal out of my position now? Because all you are successfully doing at this point is trying to make me look like the bad guy (girl) by making it appear that I don't understand the trinity; which shields you from any necessity to actually address the issues and problems with the trinity which have been presented.

IF she understands it - which she insists she does - then she SHOULD be able to explain the BASIC BIBLICAL ARGUMENT FOR IT - even though she doesn't believe it. IOW, she should be able to say, "A) This is what the doctrine states; B) This is the alleged support for it; and C) This is WHERE AND WHY I disagree."

You just don't want to see that my responses have already addressed these issues; it is just that I have not presented it in the exact manner you wish to see it. So you are being hardnosed about it; which still sounds to me like you are merely avoiding unanswerable questions which have caused you to painfully look at what you have believed for so long.

I feel badly for Trinitarians who had no idea what the real history of the trinity looks like. I feel badly that they are not able to reconcile the trinity with the questions being asked. I especially feel badly that so many posters insist that the RCC and the Protestant denominations are all content and happy under the umbrella of "essential" core doctrines; only to find out that the RCC still does not really believe that the Protestants are saved even though many Protestants DO adhere to the trinity. It is difficult for anyone to consider that perhaps the beliefs they have held so dearly to for so long are flawed. But rather than trying to hide from this, people should face it head on and make adjustments in their beliefs so that their relationship with Father can grow rather than stagnate in the disappointment of finding out they have been lied to by their religious leaders and teachers.

You are responsible for what you believe to be true. If you find out that what you have believed is not true, you become responsible for that knowledge as well. As I have said all along, the trinity has gone too far by judging mankind as eternally damned if they do not accept it. I personally don't care what a person thinks Father, Son and Holy Ghost "look" like, because I don't believe you have to be 100% correct - especially inasmuch as this is impossible to begin with. I DO care when, due to their holding onto their belief in the trinity, they then Judge others unsaved, especially in light of these questions and information which they may not have thought of or heard before. Nobody can know and understand God while in the flesh. So people need to stop thinking that they do. They need to stop judging others as well. And THAT is the purpose of my posts; to expose the inherrent problems with the very theory which causes Trinitarians to huff and puff their superior knowledge about God by declaring themselves saved and others not saved merely because they will not accept something which man has developed through their personal interpretations of the Bible; rather than allowing Father to guide each of us personally through the power of the Holy Ghost. How preposterous for man to believe he can do the work of the Holy Ghost.

IOW, it doesn't matter that there are many versions of the trinity theory which people adhere to. If they are ready to condemn others for NOT accepting ANY version, however, then they need to be aware of the discrepancies and the problems surrounding the trinity within Christendom. They also need to be aware that their happy camping with the RCC is NOT what they think it is. In the eyes of the RCC, the Protestants are just as damned as the Protestants and the RCC think the LDS are.
It seems to me the LDS Church is the only one that isn't damning anybody.

For ALL readers, put THAT in your pipe, and smoke it!

Regards,

jo

[franktalk]

E-sword also informs us that only Jesus is God (‘theon’ – accusative singular masculine) in the juxtaposed preceding verse John 10.33.

Your wanting to be a lower-case god is not a good thing, sister.

Remember that Jesus is stating this to the Jews. The very same people that He directly called liars, murderers, and offspring of Satan.

First of all your reading skills are just terrible. If you look at the right side of the title bar on my post you would read that I am a male. But then again when has accuracy ever stood in the way of one of your posts.

You are reading way too much into my post. When did I say I am a god in any form? But I will say that the Bible does use the term god as a title. And of course there are false gods. But look at the way scripture is written, when someone has power they may be referred to as a god. In the case of the judges they misused their power. So they are false gods. But if they had power and were righteous then the title of god would not be false. But it would still be a title. By the way what gives you the justification to mix Psalm 81 and 82.

Jesus came not for the righteous but for the sinners. You seem to imply that Jesus hates the Jews. And Romans 11 tells us that all Jews will be saved. Go figure.

[jo7241974]

E-sword also informs us that only Jesus is God (‘theon’ – accusative singular masculine) in the juxtaposed preceding verse John 10.33.

Jesus’ usage of the lower-case gods (‘theoi’ – nominative plural masculine) of John 10.34, clearly distinguishes false deities from Himself.

Again, in 10.35, the lower-case false gods (‘theous’ - accusative plural masculine) are distinguished from the one God (‘theou’ – genitive singular masculine).

Your wanting to be a lower-case god is not a good thing, sister.

It’s a bad thing.

Remember that Jesus is stating this to the Jews. The very same people that He directly called liars, murderers, and offspring of Satan.

Is this what LDS aspire to become?

Hi Bowman,

I thought I would present the entire Psalm from E-sword so that you can see the very same Hebrew word for "God" is used through-out the entire Psalm:

Psa 82:1 A PsalmH4210 of Asaph.H623 GodH430 standethH5324 in the congregationH5712 of the mighty;H410 he judgethH8199 amongH7130 the gods.H430
Psa 82:2 How longH5704 H4970 will ye judgeH8199 unjustly,H5766 and acceptH5375 the personsH6440 of the wicked?H7563 Selah.H5542
Psa 82:3 DefendH8199 the poorH1800 and fatherless:H3490 do justiceH6663 to the afflictedH6041 and needy.H7326
Psa 82:4 DeliverH6403 the poorH1800 and needy:H34 ridH5337 them out of the handH4480 H3027 of the wicked.H7563
Psa 82:5 They knowH3045 not,H3808 neitherH3808 will they understand;H995 they walk onH1980 in darkness:H2825 allH3605 the foundationsH4146 of the earthH776 are out of course.H4131
Psa 82:6 IH589 have said,H559 Ye are gods;H430 and allH3605 of youH859 are childrenH1121 of the most High.H5945
Psa 82:7 ButH403 ye shall dieH4191 like men,H120 and fallH5307 like oneH259 of the princes.H8269
Psa 82:8 Arise,H6965 O God,H430 judgeH8199 the earth:H776 forH3588 thouH859 shalt inheritH5157 allH3605 nations.H1471

Then in the verses in John, we see that the Greek words are also the same for God:

Joh 10:34 JesusG2424 answeredG611 them,G846 IsG2076 it notG3756 writtenG1125 inG1722 yourG5216 law,G3551 IG1473 said,G2036 Ye areG2075 gods?G2316
Joh 10:35 IfG1487 he calledG2036 themG1565 gods,G2316 untoG4314 whomG3739 theG3588 wordG3056 of GodG2316 came,G1096 andG2532 theG3588 scriptureG1124 cannotG1410 G3756 be broken;G3089
Joh 10:36 SayG3004 yeG5210 of him, whomG3739 theG3588 FatherG3962 hath sanctified,G37 andG2532 sentG649 intoG1519 theG3588 world,G2889 Thou blasphemest;G987 becauseG3754 I said,G3004 I amG1510 the SonG5207 of God?G2316

I have already pointed out in a previous post which is on the original thread this thread broke off from, that there is a distinction between real gods and false gods. False gods are real gods; but they are not true gods because they are not righteous and they lie, etc. Jesus never says that we are false gods. We are already real gods as He taught in Psalms 82; AND we are children of the Most High God (which would be the Father; i.e., Jesus' Father). This fits right in with our Father in Heaven being the Father of eternal spirits - we came forth from Him; we are His children. We are gods. However, while in our earthly estate, we are not usually given the title or powers of a "god" unless there is a purpose we need to fill; such as when Moses was given the power and title of "god" over Pharaoh. Satan is a real god, but he is a false god due to his unrighteousness and his lies; yet he does have god powers (many of the same powers which Christ manifested while in the flesh).

Regards,

jo

[Little Shepherd]

I have to go along with scripture and say that God is really beyond our comprehension. Yes we have little pieces that we see but on whole we have no idea what it is to be truly a God. Even the Trinity or not to me is a silly discussion. I think that no matter how much we try we will never know enough to embrace the true essence of what it is like to be a God.

I see at least two problems with what you're saying.

The first is a strawman. No one who holds to the Trinitarian model claims to perfectly understand God. What we do claim is to hold to the model that we currently have that fits all of the bits of information concerning God's nature that He has deigned to reveal to us.

The second is a false humility. What you are claiming is to simply not understand everything about God's nature to a degree that makes it senseless to claim to hold to any model of God. However, why your humility is false is that certain facts about the nature of God have been revealed, enough to construct at least a basic model of God's nature for one to adhere to, even if that model is potentially incomplete.

The simple fact is that the historical Christian doctrine of the Trinity fits the information given. It accepts all of the information given in the Bible and resolves anything that might be considered a discrepancy by people unfamiliar with concepts such a hypostasis and at least the basics of ancient Jewish Wisdom theology.

The Mormon concept of God, which you apparently don't hold to either if you truly believe that you cannot know enough about God to hold to any particular model(yes, it does have its own particular model), outright denies some of the facts about God revealed in the Bible. For example, the Mormon model denies that God had no beginning, which the Bible is quite clear on.

[Bowman]

Hi Bowman,

I thought I would present the entire Psalm from E-sword so that you can see the very same Hebrew word for "God" is used through-out the entire Psalm:

Psa 82:1 A PsalmH4210 of Asaph.H623 GodH430 standethH5324 in the congregationH5712 of the mighty;H410 he judgethH8199 amongH7130 the gods.H430
Psa 82:2 How longH5704 H4970 will ye judgeH8199 unjustly,H5766 and acceptH5375 the personsH6440 of the wicked?H7563 Selah.H5542
Psa 82:3 DefendH8199 the poorH1800 and fatherless:H3490 do justiceH6663 to the afflictedH6041 and needy.H7326
Psa 82:4 DeliverH6403 the poorH1800 and needy:H34 ridH5337 them out of the handH4480 H3027 of the wicked.H7563
Psa 82:5 They knowH3045 not,H3808 neitherH3808 will they understand;H995 they walk onH1980 in darkness:H2825 allH3605 the foundationsH4146 of the earthH776 are out of course.H4131
Psa 82:6 IH589 have said,H559 Ye are gods;H430 and allH3605 of youH859 are childrenH1121 of the most High.H5945
Psa 82:7 ButH403 ye shall dieH4191 like men,H120 and fallH5307 like oneH259 of the princes.H8269
Psa 82:8 Arise,H6965 O God,H430 judgeH8199 the earth:H776 forH3588 thouH859 shalt inheritH5157 allH3605 nations.H1471

Hi Jo,

Psalm 82 uses the word elohim.

This is a flexible term and (since you claim to have esword) you can easily check the definition to mean ‘rulers’ & ‘judges’ – of which, no doubt it applies to by context when talking about the people.

Then in the verses in John, we see that the Greek words are also the same for God:

Joh 10:34 JesusG2424 answeredG611 them,G846 IsG2076 it notG3756 writtenG1125 inG1722 yourG5216 law,G3551 IG1473 said,G2036 Ye areG2075 gods?G2316
Joh 10:35 IfG1487 he calledG2036 themG1565 gods,G2316 untoG4314 whomG3739 theG3588 wordG3056 of GodG2316 came,G1096 andG2532 theG3588 scriptureG1124 cannotG1410 G3756 be broken;G3089
Joh 10:36 SayG3004 yeG5210 of him, whomG3739 theG3588 FatherG3962 hath sanctified,G37 andG2532 sentG649 intoG1519 theG3588 world,G2889 Thou blasphemest;G987 becauseG3754 I said,G3004 I amG1510 the SonG5207 of God?G2316

The term in Greek (likewise, you can verify on esword) can, and does, mean ‘magistrates’ & ‘judges’.

Contextually, you can easily see that it is referring to the Jews – and thus, cannot possibly relate to divinity.

I have already pointed out in a previous post which is on the original thread this thread broke off from, that there is a distinction between real gods and false gods. False gods are real gods; but they are not true gods because they are not righteous and they lie, etc. Jesus never says that we are false gods.

Rather than using ‘false gods’ perhaps the best rendering for both Psalm 82 and John 10 should be ‘rulers/magistrates/judges’.

We are already real gods as He taught in Psalms 82; AND we are children of the Most High God (which would be the Father; i.e., Jesus' Father).

No, sister.

Not gods, rather rulers and judges and people.

This fits right in with our Father in Heaven being the Father of eternal spirits - we came forth from Him; we are His children. We are gods. However, while in our earthly estate, we are not usually given the title or powers of a "god" unless there is a purpose we need to fill; such as when Moses was given the power and title of "god" over Pharaoh. Satan is a real god, but he is a false god due to his unrighteousness and his lies; yet he does have god powers (many of the same powers which Christ manifested while in the flesh).

Regards,

jo

No, sister.

We are not gods.

Genesis never states that we are gods. In fact, a careful reading of Genesis clearly shows that only Adam & Eve were created (bara) in the image and likeness of Yahweh – an no mention that they were gods. Genesis 5 tells us that we are in the fallen image of Adam…in his likeness and image….hardly a god….merely begotten humans.

[franktalk]

I see at least two problems with what you're saying.

The first is a strawman. No one who holds to the Trinitarian model claims to perfectly understand God. What we do claim is to hold to the model that we currently have that fits all of the bits of information concerning God's nature that He has deigned to reveal to us.

The second is a false humility. What you are claiming is to simply not understand everything about God's nature to a degree that makes it senseless to claim to hold to any model of God. However, why your humility is false is that certain facts about the nature of God have been revealed, enough to construct at least a basic model of God's nature for one to adhere to, even if that model is potentially incomplete.

The simple fact is that the historical Christian doctrine of the Trinity fits the information given. It accepts all of the information given in the Bible and resolves anything that might be considered a discrepancy by people unfamiliar with concepts such a hypostasis and at least the basics of ancient Jewish Wisdom theology.

The Mormon concept of God, which you apparently don't hold to either if you truly believe that you cannot know enough about God to hold to any particular model(yes, it does have its own particular model), outright denies some of the facts about God revealed in the Bible. For example, the Mormon model denies that God had no beginning, which the Bible is quite clear on.

Please read my post again.

"I have to go along with scripture and say that God is really beyond our comprehension. Yes we have little pieces that we see but on whole we have no idea what it is to be truly a God. Even the Trinity or not to me is a silly discussion. I think that no matter how much we try we will never know enough to embrace the true essence of what it is like to be a God. "

I said "we have no idea what it is to be truly a God"

I said "we will never know enough to embrace the true essence of what it is like to be a God"

Are you telling me that you think scripture is enough for us to know the essence of what it is like to be a God? Can you tell me what goes on in the head of the Father? Can you tell me what it is like to be perfect? Can you tell me the mechanics of creation? Arguing over what is told about God is one thing but to claim that we can know what it is like to be God is a vast stretch. I think you thought I was talking about a correct interpretation of what is in scripture. But that is not what I wrote.

[xcav8tor]

Hi Salty,

Even though you may feel it inappropriate to participate in this forum, I still feel you deserve an answer to the questions you asked me.

TO TANAKH: You seem to have overlooked a scriptural exception that was touched on earlier that I would like to draw to your attention.

We read Genesis 18 that Abraham was approached by three "men," one of whom he addressed as "my Lord" (vs 3) and "the Judge of all the earth" (vs 25) and who is identified throughout the text as YAHWEH (vs 1, 13, 22, 26, 33) and identifying Himself as the One Who chose Abraham to be a blessing to all the nations of the earth (vs 18, 19). He was also requested by Abraham to spare the lives of those in Sodom indicating he recognized his visitor's power over life and death - the ultimate divine prerogative. Note that Abraham saw Him, spoke to Him, and provided food for Him, demonstrating that this was not a vision, but a real-life physical encounter.

There have been other similar instances where a visible and/or physical being has been identified as the G-d of the Jewish scriptures (the Angel of the LORD appearing to Moses at the burning bush in Exodus 3; the "man" Jacob wrestled with until dawn in Genesis 32).

So we have special situations in which G-D appears visibly or physically in the presence of Biblical characters and interacts with them. There is no doubt that YHWH is personally present and being worshiped in these accounts. So the question is, "When G-D decided to appear temporarily in physical form to these people, was it idolatry for them to worship Him?" and if not, "Were G-D to choose to take on a permanent physical form, would it still be idolatry to recognize Him as G-D?" (keeping in mind that nothing is too hard for the LORD - Gen. 18:16)

You say that, "To direct worship to a physical form is a type of rebellion against the Creator," but if the Creator Himself appears in physical form, how can it be rebellion to worship Him?

I disagree with all that position because it overlooks, as you claim TK has done, other verses which explicitly state He has no form, that no man can see Him and live. For at least the 3rd time in this thread, I offer Deut. 4:15-18, which clearly says you cannot make an image of G-d because He has no image to copy. And then there are verses such as Numbers 23:19 and Exodus 33:20. And if you're more convinced by the NT (I'm not but you probably are), look at 1 John 4:12.

I did not "overlook" the verses you cite. They were just not relevant to the point I was discussing, which was that WHEN G-D DID decide to take on a temporary visible and physical form (as described several times in the Old Testament), would it still be inappropriate to worship Him? Because of this, the question of His typical, invisible, omnipresent existence was not at issue.

The passages you provided are in perfect agreement with the teaching of the Trinity regarding G-d's omnipresent and immaterial nature:

You saw no form of any kind the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air, or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below. And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars—all the heavenly array—do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshipping things the LORD your G-d has apportioned to all the nations under heaven. (Deut. 4:15-19 NIV)

G-d is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? (Num. 23:19 NIV)

No-one has ever seen G-d; but if we love one another, G-d lives in us and his love is made complete in us. (1 John 4:12 NIV)

Let's add the following:

"But will G-d really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built! (1 Kings 8:27 NIV)

"Do not I fill heaven and earth?" declares the LORD. (Jer. 23:24 NIV)

No-one has ever seen G-d, but G-d the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known. (John 1:18 NIV)

God is spirit, and his worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth." (John 4:24 NIV)

Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only G-d, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen. (1 Tim. 1:17 NIV)

These verses DO establish that apart from these exceptional instances, G-d HAS NEVER BEEN SEEN and indeed CANNOT BE SEEN by us in His ESSENTIAL NATURE. In fact, the Glory of His personal presence would kill us.

But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no-one may see me and live." (Exod. 33:20 NIV)

As for G-d's "image" in the Genesis creation account, it was obviously not a physical image because it says, "So G-d created man in his own image, IN THE IMAGE OF G-D he created him; MALE AND FEMALE he created them." (Gen. 1:27 NIV) If mankind were created in G-d's image in the "physical sense," as in Mormon theology, that would make G-d's image visually both male and female. We bear the image of God in that we have each been given an immaterial spirit/soul, self-consciousness, creativity and freedom of choice.

So, how do you reconcile these passages that seem to contradict each other, saying both that He has appeared in a form and yet He does not have a form? Several different ways, depending on the context. For passages like Genesis 18, angels/messengers are sent. Angels are kind of like a spiritual telephone, where you are talking directly with G-d through the angel, just like you talk with your friends on the phone. But G-d is no more the angel than your friend is the phone. Other passages are anthropomorphic, in other words, metaphoric and symbolic.

Trinitarians would understand passages which speak of G-d appearing in physical and visible form as "theophanies" - instances where G-d's Son appeared prior to His incarnation (as the Angel of the LORD for example). IOW, verses which speak of God not being seen and having never been seen are referring either to the person of the Father, or to the Triune G-d in His essential nature as Spirit, whereas those which speak of His being seen apply to the Son, who is the tangible and visible manifestation of G-d (in both testaments, before and after His bodily incarnation). For instance, those who saw G-d as The Angel of the LORD recognized Him as G-d and addressed Him as such were meeting with the pre-incarnate Son of G-d and He spoke to them as YHWH. If He were not also G-d (but a mere angel), He would quote the LORD, not say "I am, I will, I said." (Exodus 3:2-5 / Judges 2:1-4)

What is one conspicuous aspect that separates Judaism from all other religions of the world? Only Judaism has a G-d with no form, and no name, just a declaration of existence. All other gods have a form, like Zeus or Krishna or Quetzalcoatl, but it is forbidden to even try to make an image of G-d. Why would He then make one of Himself for us to worship? Is He a hypocrite, a Father who says, "do as I say, not as I do?" Nope.

The G-d if Israel IS the G-d of Christians. He is an immaterial, omnipresent Spirit. His name is YHWH, as revealed int the OT scriptures (Exod. 3:14 and 6:3). G-d manifesting Himself in human form does not equate to G-d making an image for us to worship - as if it were something "other" than Himself. Since Jesus is YWHH incarnate, it cannot be idolatry, any more than when YHWH visibly manifested His presence in the OT.

If Jesus was G-d in the same manner as you assert is the proper interpretation of Genesis 18, then how is it he did not know all that G-d knows, and had no power until G-d gave it to him?

Because He took upon Himself the mortal form of a servant so He could live a sinless life and then sacrifice Himself for our sin once for all. In order to do this He gave up His prerogatives as G-d and veiled His glory. This is part and parcel of the Incarnation. He lived in dependence on God the Father as an example for us (Heb. 2:14-16 / 1 Pet. 2:19-24 / Phil. 2:3-11). Since His resurrection, the Father has restored Christ's divine honour and glory, and Jesus once again fully exercises all His divine Power and Wisdom (John 17:5 / Matt. 28:18 / Col. 2:3, 9).

While I don't expect what I have said will change your mind, I hope it at least helps you better understand the Trinitarian POV.

Regards,
xcav8tor

[jo7241974]

Hi Jo,

Psalm 82 uses the word elohim.

This is a flexible term and (since you claim to have esword) you can easily check the definition to mean ‘rulers’ & ‘judges’ – of which, no doubt it applies to by context when talking about the people.

Hi Bowman,

Psalm 82 KJV

1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.

3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.

4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.

5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

I would have to disagree with what you think is the context. It doesn't make any sense for Jesus to remind a congregation of men who are serving as rulers, magistrates, and judges that they are "rulers, magistrates and judges" as opposed to "gods" and then tell them that they are going to die like men. Men serving as rulers, magistrates and judges would already know that they are going to die like men. But it WOULD make sense for Jesus to tell them they are going to die like men if His meaning in telling them "Ye are gods" was the literal interpretation of "god". Remember, Jesus also taught them immediately after saying that they were gods, that they were also the children of the most High. As an aside, it is interesting to note that Jesus says "I have said" - almost as though He may have told them this before; that this was not the first time He told them that they were gods.

The term in Greek (likewise, you can verify on esword) can, and does, mean ‘magistrates’ & ‘judges’.

Contextually, you can easily see that it is referring to the Jews – and thus, cannot possibly relate to divinity.

Why do you say that since Jesus is talking to the Jews that His meaning cannot possibly relate to divinity??? We are ALL children of the most High God - He is the Father of our spirit. It is thus we are His sons and daughters.

Rather than using ‘false gods’ perhaps the best rendering for both Psalm 82 and John 10 should be ‘rulers/magistrates/judges’.

No, sister.

Not gods, rather rulers and judges and people.

No, sister.

We are not gods.

Genesis never states that we are gods. In fact, a careful reading of Genesis clearly shows that only Adam & Eve were created (bara) in the image and likeness of Yahweh – an no mention that they were gods. Genesis 5 tells us that we are in the fallen image of Adam…in his likeness and image….hardly a god….merely begotten humans.

First of all, not everything is revealed in Genesis. Therefore the argument that Genesis never states we are gods is an empty argument. Line upon line, precept upon precept, is how the scriptures are laid out. It is the physical beings of Adam and Eve which ate the forbidden fruit. The consequences were both physical and spiritual. Previous to eating the fruit, Adam and Eve had walked and talked with God. After they ate the fruit, they became knowledgeable of the difference between good and evil. Thus, they knew they had sinned and that they were naked and were ashamed when God came looking for them. The physical consequence of their sin was that they lost their immortality. All of mankind suffers physical death as a result of their sin. They also experienced a spiritual death because they no longer were able to interact with God in the same way. After they are sent out of the Garden we find Adam building altars in order to worship God - something they didn't need to do in the Garden because they were able to converse with God face to face. Their spirit, housed in their temple of flesh, however, is eternal. It is only physical death which their body suffers. Their spirit lives on. Their spirit is what came from Father. Even thou they had a physical body of flesh, their eternal spirit dwelled inside the tabernacle of flesh. As you continue to read the OT it becomes more clear that even though man (physical) has fallen, the spirit is still a child of God; thus our spirit self is still a god held captive in a body of flesh which body is subject to the temptations of the flesh. And so, we die like men; IOW, our physical body dies while our spirits live on.

When Jesus said "Ye are gods" and are children of the most High, He was being quite literal and was using the definition of the word "god" which was NOT to be taken as pointing to "rulers, magistrates, and judges".

John 10:31-36 KJV

31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

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

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Without getting too stuck on each word's possible meaning, just read the message itself. The Jews were upset with Jesus and accusing Him of blasphemy because, although He was a man, He "makest thyself God". So Jesus asks them if they haven't been taught that they are also gods, as it is written in their law (which He is the one who first said that they were gods, which is where those words came to be written in the law). He continues to reason with them. Since it was God who told them they were gods, then how could it be blaspheme for Jesus to say that He is the Son of God? IOW, they were all gods; and being the most High's children, then if the person Jesus was talking to was a man, then that man is also a son of God. They just weren't THE sanctified Son of God, or the only Begotten Son of God, which Jesus is. Of course, the Jews were quite offended; one of the reasons no doubt was that they didn't understand their own scriptures. IOW, they did not believe what had been taught in the OT in that they were gods. So naturally, they would think that Jesus was blaspheming. If they had been able to recognize who Jesus was, and they would have recognized Him if they had understood scripture, then they never would have desired to get rid of Jesus.

So we can see it is easy to believe that if they got the big teaching wrong from their scriptures - that being that Jesus WAS the promised Messiah - that they would easily get other teachings wrong. In fact we know that by the time Jesus was proselyting, He teaches that the scribes and Pharisees were teaching as doctrine the commandments of men. So, I wouldn't depend too heavily on the interpretation the Jews have of the OT, since they were teaching the commandments of men; and especially because they didn't recognize Jesus' true identity even though they had several thousands of years of scripture which prophesied of His coming. I would offer that it is good to study the Hebrew language and their traditions while studying the Bible. However, seek the guidance of the Holy Ghost before placing any stakes in the ground as to what you will or will not accept when you are interpreting scripture for yourself. Not only does the Holy Ghost witness to us that Jesus is the Christ, He is also the Comforter who has been sent to lead us to all truth.

BTW, just because we recognize that Jesus taught us that we are gods, and that we are the children of the most High, this does NOT equate into our thinking ourselves equal with Jesus or with Father. Our being gods does not take away from who the Father is or from who Jesus is. We worship and glorify the Father, we reverance, love, and obey our Savior and Redeemer who is Christ the Lord. We cannot comprehend Them; thus we cannot begin to comprehend how we fit into the big picture. We are not meant to be able to figure this all out here in the flesh. Our journey is made in faith. Part of walking in faith includes believing what Jesus has taught. Since He teaches that we are gods and are children of the most High, I have faith that these things are true; even though I don't know what that actually looks like. These teachings also amaze me. They do not make me think I am something great. Rather, these teachings humble me; and I am in awe that such Supremacy as the most High God, who is our Father in Heaven, has so much love for us that He sent His Only Begotten Son to be crucified for our sins. Likewise, I am in awe of what my Beloved Savior went through. I look forward to the day when Jesus will finally be able to reign over the new earth and be recognized by all that He is truly King of Kings and Lord of Lords.


Regards,

jo

[Bowman]

Hi Bowman,

Psalm 82 KJV

1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.

3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.

4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.

5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

I would have to disagree with what you think is the context. It doesn't make any sense for Jesus to remind a congregation of men who are serving as rulers, magistrates, and judges that they are "rulers, magistrates and judges" as opposed to "gods" and then tell them that they are going to die like men. Men serving as rulers, magistrates and judges would already know that they are going to die like men. But it WOULD make sense for Jesus to tell them they are going to die like men if His meaning in telling them "Ye are gods" was the literal interpretation of "god". Remember, Jesus also taught them immediately after saying that they were gods, that they were also the children of the most High.

The entire discourse addresses mere mortals, not gods.

· They know not
· They understand not
· They walk in darkness
· They are people
· They will die
· They will fall

Jesus quotes this Psalm as He directly addresses the Jews who wish to stone Him.

Most assuredly, neither in the OT or the NT can this be construed as relating to gods – rather it applies to the ignorant Jews.

As an aside, it is interesting to note that Jesus says "I have said" - almost as though He may have told them this before; that this was not the first time He told them that they were gods.

If Jesus had said this before in the Psalms then this would make Him God.

Can you accept this?

Why do you say that since Jesus is talking to the Jews that His meaning cannot possibly relate to divinity??? We are ALL children of the most High God - He is the Father of our spirit. It is thus we are His sons and daughters.

Context, sister.

Jesus is addressing the Jews that want to kill Him.

What ‘divinity’ in the Jews would cause them to be murderers of the promised Messiah?

None, sister.

As already seen in the NT, Jesus calls-out the disbelieving Jews as liars, murderers, and belonging to their father, Satan (John 8.44) long before chapter 10. Therefore, if Jesus already confirmed previously, in the very same Gospel account, that Jews belong to the Devil, how is it possible that you want the Jews to belong to God?

[jo7241974]

To All:

The following is from the Catholic Dictionary. As I was reading it it became obvious why there are so many different interpetations of the trinity. Since the theory was first written about in circa 150AD, it has continued to evolve. This evolution had a stake placed in the ground every once in awhile which changed all previous understandings and stakes which had been placed in the ground. Tertulian, for instance, was insistant that there was an heirarchy; that Father was first, Jesus came from Father's reasoning, and the Holy Spirit was the second to come forth from the Father through the Son. Today, this nuance is considered heresy. Today, the trinity proclaims that all three have the same equality; there is no heirarchy. Here is what I was reading:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm#IV

The trinity as a mystery

The Vatican Council has explained the meaning to be attributed to the term mystery in theology. It lays down that a mystery is a truth which we are not merely incapable of discovering apart from Divine Revelation, but which, even when revealed, remains "hidden by the veil of faith and enveloped, so to speak, by a kind of darkness" (Constitution, "De fide. cath.", iv). In other words, our understanding of it remains only partial, even after we have accepted it as part of the Divine message. Through analogies and types we can form a representative concept expressive of what is revealed, but we cannot attain that fuller knowledge which supposes that the various elements of the concept are clearly grasped and their reciprocal compatibility manifest. As regards the vindication of a mystery, the office of the natural reason is solely to show that it contains no intrinsic impossibility, that any objection urged against it on Reason. "Expressions such as these are undoubtedly the score that it violates the laws of thought is invalid. More than this it cannot do.

It appears to me in accordance with the above, that any man who claims to fully understand the trinity is simply lying, because the above is pretty clear that there is mystery involved in the triinity; that the trinity is an attempt to present an understanding of God. In fact, it states "even when revealed, remains 'hidden by the veil of faith and enveloped, so to speak, by a kind of darkness". As for me, I don't think I would used the word "darkness" - as God is Light and Truth. Probably a better word to have used would have been "blindness" so as not equate the theory any comparison to "darkness" at all - as Satan is the father of all lies and his prinicipalites are those of darkness.

At any rate, the trinity has been incorporated with mystery whereby no man CAN fully comprehend it. Therefore, I find it even more amazing that mankind claims that unless you accept the trinity, you cannot be saved. IOW, if you don't accept a theory which is incomprehensible, your soul is damned for eternity. Do you not see some glaring inconsistencies here? Those who have developed the trinity over time trying to keep it from being a moving target, still admit it cannot be fully understand. Yet if a man won't except this thing which cannot be understood, their soul is lost forever.

I have even more thoughts about problems in the trinity. It seems that now I am focusing on the trinity, the passages I am studying for other purposes, seem to also be connected with information I can use against the trinity.

Isaiah 42:5 KJV

Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

This seems to confirm that it is our physical body which was "created" - we even know that it was created from the dust of the earth. However, "breath" is GIVEN to the people on the earth, AND SPIRIT to them that walk therein. IOW, it appears our spirits are uncreated even though breath (life) and our spirits are GIVEN to our created bodies. There is a distinct separateness to first having our physical body created, and then receiving of life (breath) and the receiving of our spirits. Our spirits are not created; but our physical body is. I would go so far as to fay that satan's spirit was placed into a "form" which was a place which made his spirit movable and identifiable; and that it was the "form" which was created wherein Satan's spirit now dwells. Even though his form is a spiritual form, that form was still creatd in order to have for his spirit to dwell. Since Satan IS a spirit, and we are spirits, and Jesus is a spirit, and Father is a spirit, I would say a spirit is an uncreated entity. The spirit is eternal, having always co-existed with Father, but not always in the state of "being" as a spirit. Tertulian is very clear in explaining that Jesus came froth from Father; Father creates a form for spirits to dwell in. That form is in the image of Father. Jesus also went to the trouble of creating our physical body in the image of the spirit forms of the Father and the Son. It is interesting to note that the Holy Ghost has manifested Himself as a Dove; which is something I don't the Son ever manifested as.

Hebrews 2:9 KJV

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

Here we learn that as a man, Jesus was made a little lower than the angels. Of course, He is above them now. However, their is similarity in what we have been taught about ourselves, which totally mimics Jesus' position in the flesh, but in the spirit His powers are completely different. WE are told we who are lower than the angels now in this earthly estate, but are going to wind up judging angels, which would, at that time, also place us above the angels.:

1 Corinthians 6:3 KJV

Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

So, who is able to be above the angels insomuch that they will also be given the power and authority to judge them? In our resurrected and glorified bodies which will be united with our spirit, we will have the same power and authority that Jesus already has. But recall that while on the earth in His physical body, Jesus was made lower than the angels; just as we are lower than angels in our physical body. And see how we have power and authority over the angels once we are resurrected; just like Jesus had again after He was Resurrected; though Jesus has many other powers and authorities than us.

1 Peter 3:22 KJV

Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

I have two points to make on this verse. First, we can see that Jesus has power and authority over angels; which is something we will also have inasmuch as we will be able to Judge the angels -a pretty hefty assignment for just a man; however not such a hefty assignment since we are gods and children of the most High.

The other point is actually a question. How is it that "angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him"? If Jesus is also the Father, then why is it necessary to make angels and authorities and powers subject to Jesus? Wouldn't the angels and authorities and powers already be subject to Him? But we see that they are "made subject" to Him. This certainly does not appear to me that angels and authorities and powers believe that the Father and the Son are one and the same God. Of course they have different perspective than we do because we are stuck in our earthly bodies, and the veil placed upon us prevents us from remembering anything before our physical birth. The angels, however, do not have this limitation. Since they are serving Father, it is Father who would have to make it clear to them that they have been made subject to the Son. If Jesus were equal to God in the eyes of the angels and authorities and powers, then Father wouldn't need to make them subject to Jesus. They would do so automatically without Father needing to make this so.

Romans 8:16-17 KJV

16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Paul speaks pretty clearly here. The Holy Ghost bears witness to our spirit that we are the children of God (Just like Jesus taught). As Children of the Father we are also Father's heirs. Likewise, we are joint-heirs with Christ. If we suffer with Jesus, we will also be glorified together. So does mere man EVER receive glory? No! However, gods DO. And it is our spirit which comes from Father werein the scriptures teach us we are gods and the children of the most High. We are taught to give glory to the Father; Jesus receives Glory from Father; and if we suffer with Jesus, we will also receive glory from Father.

Regards,

jo