trinity revisited (for my own sake)

Originally posted by menace71
Not so much that Jesus said I am. It is the reaction of the Jews that I'm curious about. If Jesus said I existed before Abraham but I'm not God they might have said ok explain yourself. He however did not do any such thing. They accused Jesus of blasphemy.






Manny

yes but the Jews of Jesus time believed a great many things that were unscriptural, for example, the Sadducee's denied the existence of Angels and the resurrection and gave more credence to the so called 'oral law'! are we then to formulate our beliefs on what the ancient Jews held to be sacred but have no scriptural basis?

Originally posted by joe beyser
Did that include insects and salt water fishes?

i doubt that the fishes would have need to have gone anywhere, and as for insects, i do not know, perhaps they could have found homes on the floating debris? i have never seriously studied the account in detail. there are many arguments for and against, the prevalence in every culture of flood myths, blah de blah. i myself give the account credence, because the Christ himself does so! as for the intricacies, i have never really looked at them. why do you not start a thread and see what happens.

Originally posted by joe beyser
Did that include insects and salt water fishes?

fish were not on the Ark, insects were.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes but the Jews of Jesus time believed a great many things that were unscriptural, for example, the Sadducee's denied the existence of Angels and the resurrection and gave more credence to the so called 'oral law'! are we then to formulate our beliefs on what the ancient Jews held to be sacred but have no scriptural basis?

They responded to what He Jesus said. They wanted to stone Him for saying........Well Jesus said I Am. First of all what a strange sounding thing to say. At face value I am what? I Am? It's just a strange thing to say unless it has some significant meaning behind it. It did to the Jews obviously because they wanted to stone Him for it. Kill Him!






Manny

Originally posted by menace71
They responded to what He Jesus said. They wanted to stone Him for saying........Well Jesus said I Am. First of all what a strange sounding thing to say. At face value I am what? I Am? It's just a strange thing to say unless it has some significant meaning behind it. It did to the Jews obviously because they wanted to stone Him for it. Kill Him!






Manny

i dont get it Manny, first you stated , that it is not so much that Jesus said 'i am', and now you are imparting great significance to it and even greater significance to the Jews reaction, when the whole tenure of your argument rests on a equating the same words that Christ uttered with the words of God in exodus, when i have clearly shown, with references that this cannot be the case. you are clearly clinging to an interpretation, and a speculative one at that, when hard facts and evidence are staring you in the face. so be it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ahh, my friend, had you continued your study, you would have realised that in some instances he took many from the one species , not just two ! there was a poster here who loved to discuss the flood, Zahlanzi, but he has not posted for ages!

7 mating pairs of clean animals, 1 pair of unclean

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
and just for the record

Jesus—In Existence Before Abraham

Joh 8:58—“before Abraham came into existence, I have been”
Gr., (prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi)



Fourth/Fifth Century “before Abraham was I have been,

Syriac—Edition:A Translation of the Four Gospels from the Syriac of the Sinaitic Palimpsest, by Agnes Smith Lewis, Londo ...[text shortened]... possible to make an identification of Jesus with Jehovah as being the same person.—See 1Pe 2:3

Great cut and paste, however the texts being translated from are Ethiopian in nature, or Syriac, not the Greek. If those were regarded by scholars as more accurate they would have been used, but they are not, so we will have to dismiss them as erroneous copies, likely due to scribal error, or changes made for doctrinal convenience; both types of occurances are quite common and easily identifiable by biblical scholars.


The last 2 paragraphs are not attributed to anyone, so we must assume they are from the WTS, which I soundly reject as biased and uniformed. No one in the WTS makes claim to an advanced degree in ancient languages, Theology or Divinity, so I will not be trusting their interpretation thanks so much.

I researched at biblegateway all the common translations and only one comes near your translation, but falls short of supporting your argument. In all cases but one, it is translated as I Am. the same expression used in Exodus. The argument can be made that because it is in Greek that no direct correlation can be made. The trouble lies in that jesus spoke in the Hebrew tongue, and the words were translated to Greek. The contextual reading of implied blasphemy supports the translation as found in the KJV. Jesus was stating his divinity.

As for Winer and Moulten, they in no way definitively say the correct translation is "have been", they say it could be. There's is conjecture and not the final authority. There are thousands upon thousands of scholars who disagree, why should I take their word for it, when the preponderance of the evidence says differently? Sometimes the Present includes also a past tense , sometimes? I'm not sure I would want to base my belief system on a sometimes in doubt.

Originally posted by duecer
The word trinity does not appear in the bible....nor does the word Lutheraninsm, rapture, millenium, theocracy, Augustiinanism, and many other words in common usage today. To say a word that represents a concept and theology (way we explain God) does not exist therefor it is wrong, is not a valid argument.

Some people contend that trinity doctrines are of way of mutual understanding.

respectful postings only please, and I will return the courtesy

Just a couple thoughts on a couple scriptures I don't think have been discussed.

"ESV" Dan 7:13, 14. 13.

13 "I saw in the night visions,
and(A) behold, with the clouds of heaven
there came one like a son of man,
and he came to the(B) Ancient of Days
and was presented before him.

14(A) And to him was given dominion
and glory and a kingdom,
that all(B) peoples, nations, and languages
should serve him;
(C) his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away,
and his kingdom one
that shall not be destroyed.

Reading this scripture you'll notice that Jesus came "before" the Ancient of Days and was presented to him. And as a result he was "given" dominion over this Kingdom.

It seems by these verses that Jesus was not God as he was brought to him and God gave him the rule of this Kingdom. If they were the same being this scripture would not make sence. Where is the Holy Ghost at this event?

"ESV" Rev 5: 9, 10.9.

And they sang(A) a new song, saying,
"Worthy are you to take the scroll
and to open its seals,
for(B) you were slain, and by your blood(C) you ransomed people for God
from(D) every tribe and language and people and nation,
10and you have made them(A) a kingdom and priests to our God,
and they shall reign on the earth."

It would seem that what Jesus did was for "God" as is mentioned in these verses. If Jesus is God then why is this scripture written this way? Why does it not say it was done for himself? Where does this scroll come from? Maybe from his father Jehovah? It must have had new information that Jesus did not know. How is that possible if he is God? Shouldn't he know what God knows? Again where is the Holy Ghost in this event?

Maybe if there are any comments, we could just discuss these scriptures before any other scriptures are thrown into the mix and we lose the thoughts on these scriptures. Thanks.

Originally posted by galveston75
Just a couple thoughts on a couple scriptures I don't think have been discussed.

"ESV" Dan 7:13, 14. 13.

13 "I saw in the night visions,
and(A) behold, with the clouds of heaven
there came one like a son of man,
and he came to the(B) Ancient of Days
and was presented before him.

14(A) And to him was given dominion
and glory an ...[text shortened]... es are thrown into the mix and we lose the thoughts on these scriptures. Thanks.

No comments?

Originally posted by galveston75
No comments?

no, i think either they are conspiring against us, they have admitted defeat, or they have realised the error of their ways and are now making a total re-evaluation of the inner person in order to bring it into harmony with Bible truth. i wanted to ask them about this scripture, with regard to the Holy spirit.

(Luke 11:13) . . .how much more so will the Father in heaven give holy spirit to those asking him!”

Originally posted by galveston75
Just a couple thoughts on a couple scriptures I don't think have been discussed.

"ESV" Dan 7:13, 14. 13.

13 "I saw in the night visions,
and(A) behold, with the clouds of heaven
there came one like a son of man,
and he came to the(B) Ancient of Days
and was presented before him.

14(A) And to him was given dominion
and glory an es are thrown into the mix and we lose the thoughts on these scriptures. Thanks.

The Daniel passage and the Revelation passages are both visions, not somehting actually observed, it doesn't mean they are not valid, but must be dealt with contextually and not always literal.

The Daniel passage:
"One LIKE a son of man" what does this passage mean? In hind site we know that he is referring to Jesus the Christ. Notice he says like a son of man. Here he is inferring that only in appearances is he like man.
The prophet Daniel saw God in the form of a white haired man whom he called the Ancient of Days. Some say it was God the Father because of confusion over the vision in the book of Daniel. The teaching of the Orthodox Church says it is the Son of God. The Book of Daniel is the "Book of Revelation" of the Old Testament. Written more than five-hundred years before Christ, the book is purely eschatological from Chapters 7-12, with prophecies about the end times. They begin with Daniel's "night visions" in Chapter 7. The prophet saw a tribunal or judgment:

The thrones were set and the Ancient of Days took His seat…His raiment was white
as snow, and the hair of His head as pure wool…His throne was a flame of
fire...A river of fire rushed before Him...The tribunal sat and the
books were opened…And the beast was given over to the burning of the fire.
(7:9-11)
Daniel then describes a succession of great empires and nations leading to the most powerful ruler in history, the Antichrist, who "made war with the saints...for a time and times and half a time" (3.5 years] (v.20, 25), and "prevailed against the saints until the Ancient of Days came, and judgment was passed." Here we discover that the Ancient of Days will have the power of judgment at the final day. Twice Daniel tells us the beast's dominion will be utterly destroyed and the Kingdom of the Most High will be everlasting. The Ancient of Days, up to this point, is easy to identify as our Lord Jesus Christ "Who is coming again to judge the living and the dead, Whose kingdom will have no end." But there are complications--the white hair, the name "Ancient of Days", and the following vision described between the two narrations on the destruction of the Antichrist's dominion (7:13-14):


I will tackle Revelations next



edit: I hope you understood that the ancient of days is in fact Jesus, its a somewhat confusing passage, but grammer rules and previous context are what guide us. remeber my warning about cherry picking references, everything must be read in context.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no, i think either they are conspiring against us, they have admitted defeat, or they have realised the error of their ways and are now making a total re-evaluation of the inner person in order to bring it into harmony with Bible truth. i wanted to ask them about this scripture, with regard to the Holy spirit.

(Luke 11:13) . . .how much more so will the Father in heaven give holy spirit to those asking him!”

Sunday I reserve for church and then family, the children are getting ready for their first day of school, and our day is nearly done, so I may now devote a bit of time to our game of scriptural ping pong

Originally posted by galveston75
Just a couple thoughts on a couple scriptures I don't think have been discussed.

"ESV" Dan 7:13, 14. 13.

13 "I saw in the night visions,
and(A) behold, with the clouds of heaven
there came one like a son of man,
and he came to the(B) Ancient of Days
and was presented before him.

14(A) And to him was given dominion
and glory an es are thrown into the mix and we lose the thoughts on these scriptures. Thanks.

Revelations is the New Testament version of Daniel. It is a vision of the final victory of God's kingdom.

Rev 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

Jesus takes the book out of the right hand of the Father and is worshiped by the heavenly host. Only God is worshiped. Jesus is therefore God. We have discussed this fact before, you have conceded that only God is worshiped, if Christ is worshiped he MUST therefore be God.

In the chapter cited, Christ has redeemed his people from sin and purchased their salvation. Through his sacrifice he purchased our liberty, and freed us from slavery to sin and spiritual death. What words can more fully declare that Christ is, and ought to be worshipped, equally with the Father, by all creatures, to all eternity. If he is worshiped equaly to the Father, then he is the same, for does not the new testament say that he is the very same nature of God the Father. Jesus is God.


any more contextual errors from the WTS you need me to clarify for you? I would suggest you try studying God's word without "assistance" from the WTS, they tend to cherry pick scripture and twist it out of context, and not very convincingly at that.

Originally posted by duecer
Revelations is the New Testament version of Daniel. It is a vision of the final victory of God's kingdom.

Rev 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

10 And hast made us un ...[text shortened]... end to cherry pick scripture and twist it out of context, and not very convincingly at that.

I believe I just used scriptures on my comments. No WT stuff there.
But unbeilable that when it's talikng about 2 individuals so obviously, you still say it's one. Wow!! Where as I asked twice is the Holy Ghost?

Originally posted by galveston75
I believe I just used scriptures on my comments. No WT stuff there.
But unbeilable that when it's talikng about 2 individuals so obviously, you still say it's one. Wow!! Where as I asked twice is the Holy Ghost?

you again fail to realize the very nature of the trinity. you think that it 3 distinct beings, trinitarians never make that claim, yet you claim there are 2 Gods, God the father and god the son, The bible says there is one God and Jehovah (or there abouts) is his name.
You cited the passages not I, I simply pointed out the error in your logic. if you read in context and with an open mind you will see it thusly. The Daniel context is in reference to whom the ancient of days is. earlier in the book reference is made, and assigned to Jesus.
Revelations makes claim that all of creation worships the lamb. the lamb is the new incarnation of God, in other words, God has revealed his very likeness and nature to us so that He may be worshiped yes, but also so that He may be known. Do you know Jesus as you personal savior? It's a wonderful feeling to give your life to Christ, and to invite him into your heart. If you allow Him to he can free you from slavery to sin and spiritual death. Why settle for patch of ground to farm for eternity, when you can spend eternity in heaven with Christ?