Debating the Trinity
January 15th, 2008 by Sean
Last Friday I was privileged to participate in a debate over the question of who God is. I took the affirmative position that the Father is the only true God (cf. Jn 17.3). My opponent, Russ Dizdar, took the traditional position that God is three persons in one essence–the Trinity. This was my first moderated debate and it went very well for both of us. The tone was very civil and both sides were able to present their positions.
Unfortunately, the moderator, GeorgeAnn Hughes (founder of The Byte Show) was not able to participate very much because she was having some trouble with her voice (please keep her in your prayers). As a result, Mr. Dizdar and I kept track of our own time and took turns presenting our cases. The format of the debate was as follows:
20 minutes — Sean Finnegan
20 minutes — Russ Dizdar
Rebuttals
15 minutes — Sean Finnegan
15 minutes — Russ Dizdar
Direct Question and Answers
approximately an hour
This debate is a good opportunity to hear both sides of the unitarian vs. trinitarian discussion. Even though we ended up going for over two hours, there were still a lot of verses and ideas that we were not able to discuss. As a result, we will be having a part two (Lord willing) in two weeks. The subject for the next one will be the holy spirit.
To listen to or download the entire debate, please click here [2 hr 23 min] or select one of the parts from the chart below. (Unfortunately, the quality of these mp3s is very low but the full length mp3 seems to be a bit better.)
- 01 Sean’s Opening Statement [21:24]
- 02 Russ’ Opening Statement [25:27]
- 03 Sean’s Rebuttal [16:28]
- 04 Russ’ Rebuttal [15:17]
- 05 Question 1 — Isaiah 6 & John 12.41 [6:01]
- 06 Question 2 — John 17.3 [4:25]
- 07 Question 3 — 1 John 5.20 [9:40]
- 08 Question 4 — Who is Yahweh [0:47]
- 09 Question 5 — John 10.30 [1:50]
- 10 Question 6 — John 14.28 [8:49]
- 11 Question 7 — Are All Trinitarians Damned [4:17]
- 12 Question 8 — Hebrews 1.8 [3:05]
- 13 Question 9 — Mark 13.32 [1:59]
- 14 Question 10 — John 20.28 [1:56]
- 15 Question 11 — John 1.1 [8:33]
- 16 Question 12 — John 17.5 [4:50]
- 17 Concluding Remarks [8:09]
grace & peace
Good job on being the more loving person in the debate.
It seems that these things get out of hand with the Trinitarian always raising his voice and yelling or shouting accusations.
Dustin
Sean, ive told you this already but would like to say it again publicly that I thought you did an excellent job. Especially for your first debate. You were a gentleman throughout.
The format was very disorganized and would encourage you to ask for a more ridged format. Another round or two of rebuttals before the questions, time limits for question responses. Also, thinking out your questions before hand would have been a good idea for both parties.
I look forward to the purposed Holy spirit debate.
~JP
Sean
This was an interesting debate!
I thnk that if I were someone totally unfamiliar with Christianity, I would definitely not walk away from this discussion believing in a Trinity.
Seems like too much emphasis was placed on one of the 4 “us” verses, especially in light of the hundreds (if not thousands) of verses where God clearly refers to himself in the singular. To elevate the “us verse in Gen 1:26 to prove that God is 3, not 1, and ignore the vast number of “I” verses is just dishonest theology.
Rich
I was recently reading Patrick Navas’ new book, Divine Truth or Human Tradition: A Reconsideration of the Roman Catholic–Protestant Doctrine of the Trinity in Light of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures and he points out that even if someone did believe in the literal pre-existence of Jesus, the “us” verses would still be no problem and most definitely not be a clear reference to plurality within the godhead (whatever that means). Patrick’s point is that God can either be talking to the divine council or the pre-incarnate Jesus, but neither of these options has anything to do with the doctrine of the Trinity. This is the most obvious use of the word “us”: me and someone other than me.
See Colossians 1:15
See John 14:28
Hi there, Armida, could you fill in a bit more detail on those two verses?
Hi Sean,
I was wondering how folks answer questions regarding Jesus’ words recorded in Mt 18:20?
Mt 18:20 (KJV)
20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
I’ve heard this verse given as a proof for Jesus being God, seeing that only God could be present in several places … since it’s possibe that there are 2 or 3 disciples gathered at the same time in different places in the world …
Cheers,
Wolfgang
In a word (or two)…holy spirit. Jesus is not with us in the flesh any longer, but he promised in John 14-16 that he would send the spirit. That is what dwells within us and among us.
Karen,
This is my best stab at the spirit is Christ to us and for us, though you said it much more concisely
There are some interesting language switches that occur in the last supper teaching of John 14-16. In some places Jesus tells them that he will send the paraklete in others he says, “I will come to you,” note below:
The holy spirit is coming AND Christ is coming. How can this confusion be resolved?
Jesus would come to his disciples through the paraklete. “The work of Christ’s Spirit as Comforter, Advocate, and Helper was nothing other than the work of Christ Himself as Comforter, Advocate, and Helper through that divine power.” It was through the paraklete that Christ and the Father would come and dwell within the saint (even while he is in heaven). Jesus is not literally in each member of the family of God, but through the spirit his mind is projected into us to comfort, reveal truth, aid in times of temptation, and guide us to follow him. “He had been with them for a short time, but the ‘other paraclete,’ his alter ego, would be with them permanently, and not only with them but in them.” Therefore it is evident that the spirit which inspired Jesus during his ministry on earth would now enable him to be present within his disciples in a new and advantageous way.
Paul picks up where John left off and further shows the connection between the ascended Jesus and the spirit. Consider the chart below which enumerates some of the places that Paul speaks of the spirit:
Paul freely switches between these phrases as if they were synonymous. In order to demonstrate this, consider the texts below:
One of the functions of the spirit is to empower the Christian to have Christ dwell within them. The two (spirit & Christ) are intimately linked to each other in the experience of the NT saint.
This is remarkable. It is as if the spirit of God, the spirit of Christ, and Christ himself are all equivalent ways of speaking about the same essential truth. Paul does not focus on the ontological distinctions rather he sees the spirit primarily in functional terms in the experience of the Christian. From this perspective the spirit is Jesus. “The Spirit is now definitely the Spirit of Christ , the other Counselor who has taken over Jesus’ role on earth. This means that Jesus is now present to the believer only in and through the Spirit, and that the mark of the Spirit is both the recognition of Jesus’ present status and the reproduction of the character of his sonship and resurrection life in the believer .
Therefore, we conclude that the spirit is not a person but the projection of a person—the risen Christ—within the heart of the believer. Christ is the one “who searches the minds and hearts” (Revelation 2.23). He is the head of the body (Colossians 1.18) who is able to cause “the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love” (Ephesians 4.16). The risen Christ is with us always (Matthew 28.20) and in the midst of two or three gathered in his name (Matthew 18.20). Yet at the same time, he is still a man (1 Timothy 2.5) seated at the right hand of God (Mark 16.19; Hebrews 12.2; etc.) in heavenly places (Ephesians 1.20; 1 Peter 3.22; etc.). So how can Christ be intimately involved in working within his church even while he is in heaven? As the disciples asked, how could he disclose himself to them without the world seeing him (John 14.22)? Christ is present through the spirit. The spirit which proceeds from the Father connects Christ to his body like a nervous system—making him aware of what is going on and allowing him to coordinate his body. The spirit fully represents Christ and so, to me, the spirit is Christ in me.
Excellent job on the trinity debate, Sean!
You handled the scriptures and yourself very well.
I’m not familiar with the audience of this program, but if I was a regular trinitarian listener, I’d either have to examine the origin of my belief in the trinity - or the scriptures themselves. (How does one listen to these debates live?)
One passing comment he made gave me pause for thought. He mentioned something about when he’s really loving and worshipping God - it stirred me.
Because of what our Lord said, “… by this shall all men know that you are my disciples when you have love one for another,” I believe love is the most important ingredient in any debate. I realize that his statement reflected more on his love for God than believers, but sharing it with you like that did it for me.
Having this as a goal, going into a debate, can tempt one to be hypocritical and manipulative, but it can also be an honest and prayerful pursuit. I guess one’s love for God and man is the primary purpose for participating in a debate. When exactly is your debate on the holy spirit? How is it a “debate?” What are the 2 postitions?
I was so glad you confronted his calling you a cultist. Especially where you mentioned the opportunity you had to accuse him of the same. Most trinitarians don’t even realize the conflict there, or that their are a lot of Christians who are unitarian. Debates on the trinity are great for opening up people’s minds.
Valerie
Sean,
Thanks for fleshing out my post so beautifully. Concision is my middle name.
Hi Valerie,
Thank you for your comments. It is indeed just as important how we argue as it is what we argue (cf. Paul in Acts 19.8 and Peter in 1 Peter 3.15). The point of debate is to seek truth; test your ideas against someone else’s. My purpose was not to convert Russ, but to present our case and interact with his case with an open mind to the fact that I may be wrong.
You asked, “How does one listen to these debates live?” Unfortunately The Byte Show does not broadcast live. Shows are recorded over the phone with the host and then put on her website (thebyteshow.com).
You asked, “When exactly is your debate on the holy spirit? How is it a “debate?” What are the 2 positions?” I’m not sure, it has been postponed twice for different reasons and I’m out of town next week. So it may be a couple of weeks. The trinitarian position is that the holy spirit is a “person,” that is, a “he” who has an independent consciousness from the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit is the third member of the Trinity (otherwise it would just be a binity). My position is that the holy spirit is the means by which God and Son extend their power and presence in the world (in particular in the church). I believe the holy spirit is an “it” not a “he.”
“My position is that the holy spirit is the means by which God and Son extend their power and presence in the world (in particular in the church).”
Which is exactly how the average person sitting in the pew thinks of it, (or at least the average one in the pews in my church!) It seems to me that most Christians are de facto binatarians.
Yet, the Bible is de facto unitarian with the tens of thousands of singular personal pronouns and singular verbs used to describe God. The impression one comes away with from the OT is that the LORD alone is God, he is a singular being. The impression from the NT is that the LORD is now called the Father and he is called thus because he now has a son via the miracle in the womb of the virgin, Mary. If I remember correctly, over 1200 times God is used of the Father in the NT. And twice (for sure) Jesus is called God (which I believe is in a representative or functional sense). Either way, one would certainly have a lopsided binitarianism.
Karen,
I might even go a step further and say that most average church-going Christians are quasi-UNITARIANS. They hear sermons and sing hymns calling Jesus God, but if asked to explain who Jesus is - 99 out of a 100 would probably describe him as as God’s son. It is only those that go after more in-depth knowledge of just what the “trinity” means that are forced to either accept it and become defenders of it, or to deny it and become as we - HERETICS!
Sean,
“Jesus is called God (which I believe is in a representative or functional sense).”
Absolutely. And as our friend Sir Anthony Buzzard has pointed out, even then Jesus is NEVER called “ho theos” [used exclusively for the Father alone - the Supreme God], but only the regular “theos” which is used of Angels, and humans of authority (kings, rulers, judges). So Jesus as the Messiah - “God’s annointed”, God’s ultimate human representative, His “shaliach” (Agent/Ambassador), he would have every right to be called god in that sense.
Peace!
I was finally able to listen to the whole debate and I think you did a good job. However, Russ used two arguments which I believe you could have negated very easily but you chose a different defense.
First, he used Genesis 1:26 where it says “Let Us create man in Our image”. However in the very next verse where God actually does the creating it says “He created man in His image”. The singular pronouns in the actual creation verse (Gen 1:27) prove that God was not talking to Jesus (or some other God) in the discussion verse (Gen 1:26).
Secondly, Russ mentioned a LOT that in all the translations of the Bible that Jesus is referred to as God with a capital ‘G’ meaning he is almighty God and not god with a small ‘g’. Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t it true that in both the Hebrew and the Greek there was no differentiation between capital and small letters? Wasn’t there just ‘capital’ letters? So all the translations are just added something to the text that is not there. It would not matter if 1700 translations use a capital ‘G” or if 170,000 use it, if it is not in the original inspired manuscripts, it is not a valid argument.
JohnB, thank for taking the time to listen to this. I appreciate your comments and find them compelling.
Anyone wanting a good exposition of the ‘us’ in Genesis 1:26 need go no further than the excellent footnote in the also excellent New English Translation. It completely supports the traditional Unitarian understanding of this passage, which is remarkable given that the NET was written by a team of very orthodox evangelicals (Dallas Theological Seminary, no less).
Here it is:
>
47sn The plural form of the verb has been the subject of much discussion through the years, and not surprisingly several suggestions have been put forward. Many Christian theologians interpret it as an early hint of plurality within the Godhead, but this view imposes later trinitarian concepts on the ancient text.
Some have suggested the plural verb indicates majesty, but the plural of majesty is not used with verbs. C. Westermann (Genesis, 1:145) argues for a plural of “deliberation” here, but his proposed examples of this use (2 Sam 24:14; Isa 6:8) do not actually support his theory.
In 2 Sam 24:14 David uses the plural as representative of all Israel, and in Isa 6:8 the Lord speaks on behalf of his heavenly court. In its ancient Israelite context the plural is most naturally understood as referring to God and his heavenly court (see 1 Kgs 22:19-22; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6; Isa 6:1-8). (The most well-known members of this court are God’s messengers, or angels. In Gen 3:5 the serpent may refer to this group as “gods/divine beings.” See the note on the word “evil” in 3:5.)
If this is the case, God invites the heavenly court to participate in the creation of humankind (perhaps in the role of offering praise, see Job 38:7), but he himself is the one who does the actual creative work (v. 27).
Of course, this view does assume that the members of the heavenly court possess the divine “image” in some way. Since the image is closely associated with rulership, perhaps they share the divine image in that they, together with God and under his royal authority, are the executive authority over the world.
>
Excellent point, Fortigurn…glad to see you again. A few months ago I came across this same note from the NET and used it at the One God Conference we held a while back.
click here to listen/read our entire explanation of Genesis 1.26
here is the footnote from the NIV study Bible on Gen 1.26
Wasn’t the apostle Paul in two different places?
That didn’t mean he was God.
I Cor 5:4
In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered
together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus
Christ,
Remember when Jesus was not with Lazarus? Yet, he could
have been with them while he was away.
Hi Ray,
?? what do you mean with “was … in two different places”?
I’d say that the apostle Paul was NOT “in person / physically” present in two different places at the same time … and neither does 1Co 5:4 indicate such an idea.
Of course, one could say that as I am writing this note, I am present in two different places as well …
Yet, would anyone say that I am in two different places?
It would be a good idea to start using terminology in the normally accepted sense when communicating with each other on a blog like this, and not to use “one’s own definitions of terms” when employing terms in the conversation ….
Cheers,
Wolfgang
In debating the Trinity, how about this:
I know of an individual who witnessed to his pastor by e-mail and
letters about what he believed about Jesus, that he was with God
from the beginning, that he is in effect the word of God, for he had
the power, glory and manifestation of God from the beginning, God
having created all things by Jesus, for Jesus and through Jesus who did all for the Father, in his name and for his purposes.
He told of how the “goings forth” of Jesus has been from everlasting
(see Micah 5:2). Jesus came forth from God, as the Spirit of God overshadowed Mary. (see this foreshadowed in Genesis 1)
From Micah 5:2 he sees that Jesus was with God from everlasting,
therefore no matter how far back a person wants to go, Jesus is
still the Son of God, dwelling in him from before the beginning, and
that Jesus at that time did not have a form or comeliness. (see Isaiah
53:2 KJV)
So if a man wants to believe the scripture that way, a pastor must
allow, unless he can show the man that he is in error, perverting
what is written or can show him where he has some kind of reading
disability or something. But this man sees Jesus as the Son of God
no matter how far back in time one wants to go, and also , no matter how far one wants to look into the future, Jesus is still the Son of God. He has never not been God’s Son, though I suppose we
could say that during the time he was dead, he was ‘not’. I suppose
we could say that in a sense, that when he was dead, he was no
longer his Son, as he was just “Dead”, but it also can be said that
though he was dead, he was still God’s only begotten Son, still the
Messiah, still our saviour, because he was waiting to be resurrected
again by the Father, so he then could “rise again”.
I picture Jesus as bending at the waist, and placing his hands on
the ground, and rising again by his own strength that God gave him
in raising him back to life, and God rolling away the stone, to walk
out of the grave, our risen Lord and saviour.
But during holy communion, when this man was told that he had to
believe Jesus is God to be a Christian, he remembered how they gave Jesus vinegar mixed with gaul to drink, and later wrote the pastor asking him to not do that again, because telling people that
“If anyone doesn’t believe Jesus is God, then they’re not a christian.” has no place in holy communion.
The pastor did not respond. Is there any pastor that would make that stand before the congregation? Would any pastor go up against a man who claimed the Bible to be true as to the identity of
Jesus as the Son of God from everlasting to everlasting? Would any
pastor go against a man who is willing to accuse a pastor of being
of the ‘concision’ if so be that he is putting on people what does not
belong? (see Galatians 6:12)
In my opinion, telling people at holy communion that they must believe Jesus is God to be a Christian is a form of “circumcision”
that is of the flesh and not of the Spirit of God.
Yet, I see Jesus to be as God is. As God is holy so is Jesus. He never
sinned in my opinion. He never fell short of the glory of God. He never did any man wrong. He never lied. He never changed his story
about who he was. He never said he was one thing, while changing
his story to another out of guile, or fear of being stoned. He always
said he was the Son of God, because that’s who he is.
Now if a pastor wants to give out the bread, and then the wine
at holy communion, and as he’s holding the wine in hand, say,
“Now if any man here does not believe Jesus is the Son of God,
you are not a Christian.”, that’s fine with me. He will have no argument with me.
So then, brethren, let’s pursue the things that make for peace,
in Jesus’ name.
From Isaiah 53:
……he hath no form….
Luke 1:35
….shall overshadow thee…
And so I wonder…………Did God say, “Let there be light.”?
Ray,
I’m not really getting a clear picture of what you’re trying to say with your last few comment posts here. Were YOU the “individual” who witnessed to his pastor (as you described in post #21)? Are you saying that you believe that Jesus is NOT God, but that he did pre-exist his birth? I don’t want to put words in your mouth, so please correct me if I’m wrong, but from what you have posted it seems that you are hinting at a literal pre-existence of Jesus along the lines of Arianism.
If that is the case, I would ask you if you have seriously considered some of the well-reasoned article links Sean has included on his “God is 1 not 3″ page - for example:
http://kingdomready.org/topics/pdfs/TheNatureOfPreexistence.pdf
http://kingdomready.org/topics/pdfs/PreexistenceOrPreeminence.pdf
Shalom!
I remember sitting in a church not long ago and there were 3 young
men in from of me, all of them with pants with the crotch halfway
down to the knees, one big, one medium and one little.
The pastor was giving the sermon and had their attention, but then
came a trinitarian term, and immediately the big one and the medium one crossed their arms and looked away. It was a way of
saying, “I’m not with you on this and I don’t like it.”
I know there’s a generation still seeking after God. They want what’s right.
Psalm 37:11
But meek men shall posess the earth, and shall have their delight in the multitude of peace. (Pilgrim’s Bible {1599 Geneva})
It sounds like Jesus doesn’t it? The spirit of Christ was in this Old
Testament prophet.
37:12
The wicked practiceth against the just, and gnasheth his teeth
against him.
That’s about Jesus isn’t it? Jesus is the just.
37:14
The wicked have drawn their sword and have bent their bow, to
cast down the poor and needy, and to slay such as be of upright
conversation.
Those 2 young men may have been of upright conversation, or at
least have been seeking the language of heaven.
I took note of the young men and sent it on to the pastor. I wanted
him to be aware of what I saw. I know I had the interpretation of
their body language correct. I had the jist of it right.
I suppose some might feel comfortable with trinitarian terms, but
what of those that are seeking something higher? Won’t there be
trouble when young men seek some higher place than where an
elderly pastor has settled?
I always seem to come back to Romans 14 on matters like these.
Here’s something a wise man once said: Accept people the way
they are, though they don’t want God and are spiritually ignorant.
They may come to you for help. As long as they can play a game
they will. Stop being bullied and blackmailed by people telling you
what they know you don’t want to hear. (demon spirits)
Psalm 37:1
Fret not thyself because of the wicked men, neither be envious for
the evil doers.
There was a time I was invited to a breakfast with an inter-denominational group. The speaker read from Matthew1:23, “..they
shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with
us.”
So he says, “So Jesus is God. How many of you believe that? Let
me see a show of hands.” A few hands lumbered up. “OK, so Jesus
is God, Amen?”
Later on I thought of what happened. ……They took a vote….
They changed the interpretation of his name……. instead of “God
with us”,……they chose “God”. ……..just like that….with a show
of hands.
I tend to trust the translators. I think they do a good job of it.
I’m glad the meaning of his name wasn’t translated, “God with him”,
though that would seem to be good, for God was most certainly with Jesus as he went about doing good and healing the people.
But I’m glad the interpetaion of his name isn’t, “God with him, on
account o’………..I kinda………..mighta……..sorta………felt… left out.
His name means, “God with us”, Amen?
I’m sure there’s lots of stories people could tell, though we don’t
often remember them. We often see this sort of thing, but we soon
get over it and move on, yet it’s always there isn’t it?
What are your stories?
Matthew 15:26
But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s
bread, and to cast it to dogs.
Taking what Jesus said by the letter, it would mean that for Jesus
to heal the woman’s daughter would be wrong or sin. She might
just as well have gone away……..except…for the grace of God.
I remember how I was in a prayer group and there was a married
couple. The man would always pray, “Father, God..” and his wife
would always pray, “Lord Jesus..” That never changed. Week
after week, month after month. It was how they lived. They prayed
together, but always prayed differently. One always prayed to God,
(Father God) and the other always prayed to Jesus.
I believe God heard the prayers of the woman who prayed to Jesus,
and that Jesus heard the prayers of the man who prayed to God.
I wonder what would have happened if, in those years of “B.C.” ,
a man under the law, would have prayed, “Dear Son of God, you
who have been with the Father from everlasting, (see Proverbs 30:4b) who has made man in the image of God, by the power of
God working through you, hear my prayer….”?
(I wonder what would have happened in heaven, ……and on earth
for that matter.)
…….you who are without form, being in the Father, dwelling in him,
yet to be born of a woman…waiting for the fullness of time…
I just wonder what would have happened. Would God say, “So great faith”? or what?
Dear Ray,
reading your above posts, I am more or less confused by what you write … for example, I can’t figure out how you arrive at conclusions such as the one mention in the following paragraph
Who took a vote there and when? who changed the interpretation of the name? Are you sure, you actually understood what happened?
From what you yourself describe about what happened, I can’t see happening what you later say you thought happened …
Cheers,
Wolfgang
It is always helpful to remember that Emmanuel was a normal human being who lived and died in the times of Isaiah 7. Was he God in the flesh? Certainly not, but his name signified that God was going to redeem his people from foreign domination in a short while. In other words, God had not forsaken his people and he was still with them.
For how this name applies to Jesus read my post or Alex’s post or listen to this sermon.
Dear Wolfgang,
In response to the voting by a show of hands. It was a few years
ago. I suppose about 4 or 5.
I don’t want to mention the name of the organization, but there were about 40-50 of us at the meeting. It was an interdenominational group, something that I do like to see.
It’s good to see people from different denominations together in
accord. But it seems they were trinitarian.
I suppose it showed somehow that I did not fit in with their doctrine. Maybe it was body language, an expression that was
picked up. I don’t know. Maybe religious spirits get upset when
there’s something other in the room.
Anyway, the speaker read from Matthew 1:23, and it happened
like I said. He wanted to see a show of hands of how many believe
Jesus is God. He knew this group as he was one of the leaders of
it, but I suppose he wanted to see where any newcomers were from, maybe. Maybe it was pier pressure (fear of man) that was
trying to exercise itself against anyone other than a trinitarian.
I found it to be confusing and later thought about what happened,
trying to make sense out of it spiritually.
A couple of years later I remember listening to a tape by Rod Parsley talking about “faith that doesn’t canvas the crowd to
see what they believe, because they already know.” (’what the
people believe ‘, I think is what he meant)
I suppose it’s a ‘wanting to be like everyone else to feel safe’ or
accepted, or wanting the recogniton (glory) of men, like being
circumcised, everyone the same, all in the ‘in’ group, but if it’s not
of God, then it’s just a prison.
My conclusion was that the speaker seemed to be saying that Jesus is God because the interpretation of Emmanuel, is GOD with
us. (BIG EMPHASIS ON GOD, and little or no emphasis on the other
part of the interpretation of the name of Jesus, “with us”.
When God is “with” people in the Old Testament, they were victorious, prosperous, successful, etc. God is with us as we are
in Jesus, through faith in him, abiding in him who has God’s favor.
We gain this access by God’s grace, being included by faith in this
favor of God, not just worshiping Jesus as God, and that’s all.
It’s a little different perspective. It seems to me that the whole of
the interpretation of the name of Jesus should have the same
emphasis.
I know there is a time for emphasis, and that it may be good in it’s
time, but I also know that the meaning of his name can be changed
(in a person’s mind) by wrongly emphasizing some part without looking at the whole. (lacking integrity)
When God was with the people in the Old Testament amazing things happened. When we are involved with something, and
GOD is WITH US, because of Jesus, wonderful things can happen
to us too.
In responce to 21.
Paul was able to be present while he was absent, for to be
present when the church at Corinth gathered together, he
needed only to be there in spirit, for his judgment knew not
physical bounds in his apostolic ministry when he was within
the bounds of his spiritual authority. *
To use terms in different manners in order to flex wine
skins can be good. It’s good to be flexable. Sometimes we
have to stretch. Maybe sometimes I want to stetch people
more than they are willing. God often stretches me.
* Since Paul could do this, what about Jesus at the time he was
physically away from Lazarus, should Mary and Martha have gathered together? Q. Should they have known what his “judgment” would have been concerning Lazarus? Did Jesus
hope that they would have known his mind at that time?
If God is stretching us, there must be a race to be run.
God doesn’t stretch people for torture, for that wouldn’t be
in the fear of the Lord.
There’s a race to be run. There’s a purpose for everything under
heaven.
Today God was dealing with me about what I said above
about Lazarus.
Lazarus was judged according to the gospel of Paul which includes
the things Jesus said about himself, that he is the resurrection and
that those that believe in him shall not die but live. There’s even
a hint (a shadowing) of himself when he talked about the ‘day’
and seeing the ‘light of this world’.
Lazarus passed the test. He believed in Jesus. So did Mary and Martha. Jesus came and raised up their brother in Christ.
It was by faith that they had their dead restored back to life, having
faith in Jesus, though quite a trial of faith they went through.
In thinking about the trinity doctrine, I remember one church I
attended. They seemed to be well into apologetics, which they
encouraged so the people would be prepared to ‘defend the faith’.
This church has a new members class, and from what I heard, the
leadership is known to ask questions like:
Tell us what you think of the Trinity.
Isn’t that a loaded question? I wonder how I might answer it.
If they are referring to God as “the Trinity”, maybe I should say
that God is pure, perfect, just, good , light , love, goodness, and
there is not anything that is in him that is unclean. Anyone who
truely abides in him is clean. God purges those who are connected
to Christ who does abide in God.
I don’t like refering to God as “the Trinity” for many reasons. I think
there are many Christians who do not like to refer to God that way
also. For that reason, those who use that term might do well to consider their ways, and choose to refer to God according to the
words we find in the scripture.
Some people seem to be so occupied by their doctrines that they
get drawn away from the walk God wants for them. Instead of
walking right before God, they begin to ‘defend their doctrine’ when
God would rather they did not, as it might not be serving his purposes at the time. They might well find themselves off the path
of life in Christ Jesus, while only thinking that they are on course.
See the Sons Of Thunder dream/ visions revelation.
http:// www.revivalschool.com/thunder.htm
See if those who defend the trinitarian doctrine, or other doctrines
for that matter, remind you of the “officers of the law” in the Sons
Of Thunder revelation.
I once heard a man say, “Jesus is not God the Father, but he is
God the Son.”
I don’t NECESSARILY agree with that. Jesus is so much like God
the Father, that there is a: ’sense’ in which his is God, so I don’t
NECESSARILY agree with what the trinitarian said.
Also I do not agree with the term “God the Son” as I do not find
it in the Bible.
Please understand me when I say that there is a sense in which
Jesus is God the Father. I say it in a sense, so please do not make
too much of it. Jesus is so much like God, is why I say that.
Please don’t bludgeon my brow repeatedly for saying so. There’s
a bunch of hell’s messengers to draw to Christ, so they can tell me
what they make of him. I would like them to come and see.
Deut 4:2
Ye shall put nothing unto the word which I command you,
neither shall ye take ought there from, that….
This reminder of not adding nor subtracting from what God
says is a daily challenget to every Christian.
Because of additions there has been trouble. When those
additions become manditory, or imposed, there’s trouble.
People suffer.
If there are subtractions, there’s trouble too.
Today I was singing to the tune of “Stand By Your Man”, but
changing some words, changing man to pastor, and woman
to congregant, and it seemed funny, but maybe so true to what
goes on in some situations.
A religious spirit is a fuzzy thing, but it won’t make us whole as
Jesus will and does.
Q. What will heal a Church?
A. Elders ordained by the leadership to do Jeremiah 22:3, by the
gospel of Christ, pleading for mercy to the oppressing party for
one oppressed.
I think Jeremiah 22:3 is the Forest Queen. (a mine that has been
forgotten under the foot of man)
I was just watching the Daystar share-a-thon, where on 3-6-08
they were talking about the significance of these numbers, three
being significant of resurrection, 6 being significant for completion,
and 8 for new beginning.
I opened my Bible to Kings and saw a note penned with my own
hand which said “James 5:17″, which speaks of how it didn’t rain
for 3 years and 6 months, because he prayed, and how he prayed
again and it rained. (a new beginning)
So I sent a check, not for the 368 they asked for (as a seed) but
for $36.08.
Am I a part of the problem, part of the “sow a seed faith movement”
or what? I don’t want to encourage anything that’s wrong.
How about if, a man that goes to a church that imposes the trinitarian doctrine, told another that he likes some things about
that church, and but for the imposition of the trinitarian doctrine,
he might like to continue there and also give offerings, so his friend
says, “Would you like me to speak to the pastor there and tell him
that it isn’t necessary to impose that on anybody? Look, you’re a
Christian right? You believe in Jesus just as much as they do, right?
You’re born of the same spirit of Christ, right? They don’t have to
impose that on you, right? You confess Jesus as the Son of God right? You confess him as your saviour and Lord, as the Christ, right? You believe he was raise from the dead, after he was killed
on the cross, right? He died for your sins, right? …So would you
like it if I talked to your pastor about this?
Because no pastor has to impose the trinity doctrine on anybody.
He might like to do that, but he doesn’t have to do it.
In doing my taxes I was surprised to see how many ministries
I had given a little bit to. I really spread it out last year, and
so I find my mail piled up on my table, which I began to get to
now.
I just opened one up from a Christian organization and in the letter
they talked about how last year 7,000 Churches closed their doors
last year. They said 50% of pastors are discouraged enough to
want to leave the ministry.
Have you noticed some books or articles written lately about how
the Church is doing church wrong? I’ve seen a few.
Jer 22:3
Thus saith the Lord; Execute ye judgment and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor: and do no wrong, do no violence to the stranger, the fatherless, nor the widow, neither shed innocent blood in this place.
When was the last time you arrived at a new church, and the first
person that really introduced himself to you was an elder who said
in effect: “I’m an elder. Though I work in a few different places, doing
different things, ministering about, my job is to do Jer 22:3, so if
you have a brother who you have not been able to reconcile with
by the gospel of Christ, and feel you have no one who will go with
you to talk to him, feel free to call on me. I will gladly hear your case, and if your cause is just, and you are willing to forgive, repent
of your own faults as they become known, tell the truth, be willing to have what you say examined from what the scriptures say, and
want to see reconciliation, be encouraged. We believe in restoration here. We believe in the power of Christ. One of the things us elders like to do is pluck the spoil out of the teeth of the
oppressors and set the captives free, in Jesus’ name. Doing that
makes the heart of an elder sing. We love to see how God works
through us by Jesus Christ, and we like to train up others to do the
same.”?
Should such a Church ever become discouraged or want to close
it’s doors? Wouldn’t it rather have to lengthen it’s cords, and strengthen it’s stakes?
Q. Is it right that a trinity doctrine be imposed upon it’s prospective
new members? Must I eat grits? What if I prefer Cream-o-wheat
instead? Isn’t freedom in Christ essential for a healthy Church?
This morning I was remembering what happened to me about
10 years ago.
I was at a new member’s class at a trinitarin church. The class had
several meetings. I only attended the first one. They seemed to
require that we accepted the trinitarian doctrine.
I told the elder that I am a Christian but don’t embrace the trinity
doctrine. He said that their church teaches it, and let’s everyone
decide for himself what it means.
Strange, I thought, but didn’t say anything further. I did not attend
the second meeting.
Now…….Why is it that people would say, “We teach_________,
and let everyone decide for themself what it means.”, unless
whatever it is in the blank is something strange? I mean……
Have you ever heard anyone say, “We teach forgiveness, and let
everyone decide for themselves what it means”?
We all have some idea, some concept about forgiveness that we
can accept, though sometimes the concept does seem difficult to
comprehend in all of it’s glory. Yet, basically, don’t we all have some
common understanding of forgiveness, so much so that we will
likely never hear anyone say, “We teach forgiveness, and let everyone decide for themselves what it means.”
Were they trying to justify what they do, by allowing us some
“freedom”….Freedom, as long as………..we accept the doctrine
as we are required to by the church leadership? Coercion? Constraint? By law?, Requirement? I should look again at Galatians
6:12 , maybe.
So what exactly is it, this mysterious doctrine of the trinity?
Then was I led to this:
3. vague, obscure, or confused thinking or belief
It was in my dictionary, under the word mysticism.
In any religious system of man, there is a fog, a mist, of darkness.
Then, there was another Church I was attending, and our group
(Isn’t it funny how we all get separated into groups according to
outward appearances, whether age or sex. Maybe we should get
separated into groups such as those interested in worship, music,
pastoring, prayer intercessors, teachers, evangelists, more often
than by age or sex.), anyway, our group was invited to lunch after
church, and we met, socialized a bit and then it came time to eat.
Someone prayed, then a singer was asked to sing before we eat,
and he sang the “Praise him through whom all blessings flow,
Praise him all ye heavenly host,
Praise Father, Son and Holy Ghost, Amen.”
Then we started the buffet line.
I must attract these trinitarian things like a magnet or something.
Now that song there, I almost don’t want to share with you because it might tend to, “Get stuck in yer head.”, so to speak.
I’ve often found music that had a power of it’s own that took over
my mind to occupy that space that is supposed to be occupied by
true worship. It’s a religious spirit.
Be aware of songs you hear in church on Sunday, if you find on
Tuesday or Wednesday, the thing is trying to occupy your mind,
as if it had a mind of it’s own and was trying to exercise it’s presence by a force, or tendency that allures the carnal nature, and
does not give peace, but is rather a distraction you have trouble
ridding your mind of.
Take note of it, and check the words with the Word.
There was another line in it, “Praise him all ye people here below.”
I remember how we are seated in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, yet there is a sense in which we are ‘here below’, as we
are still in the days of our flesh on this earth. But, it is important
to remember where we are seated in Christ Jesus, and that time
is now, if in Christ is where we want to be. (live and move and have
our being)
Please forgive me if that song wants to stay in you mind and you
find yourself in a battle. Best thing to do is resist it, sing something
else, like “There is power, power, wonder working power in the blood of the Lamb…” or something, and pray. Thank God that it will
pass away.
I want to sing songs that will sing in Zion forever. Those kind usually
take an effort here on earth, but they do bring peace of mind.
About the term “Deity” or “deity”,
I’ve often heard Christians wrestling over this term, as if one has
to wrestle another till he submits and says, “deity”, but the
term may mean different things to different people.
If it means God-like, well yes, Jesus is very much like God in
every conceivable way, except I suppose we could say that
God never came into this world in the flesh to die on a cross,
but Jesus did, ………but in a sense, didn’t God suffer this and
in a sense, let his Word die? Would God allow his Word to die
in order to save? Would he sacrifice his Word in order to save
many souls alive? Isn’t the Word of God as much God as God is
God? I think very much so, as we discern this matter.
Those questions must have been considered by many a wise man
in the Old Testament, though lots of this was hidden. *
I don’t want to confess that Jesus is the Deity of God, because of
the way the term has been used by people to get them into their
camp, a place that God might not want them to be in.
I believe Jesus and God have the following in common:
1. Both are the Word.
2. Both are the creators of the heaven and the earth, (Jesus being
the one through whom God created everything. God was the first
to trust in Jesus.)
3. Both existed from everlasting and continue to everlasting.
4. Both are holy.
That’s pretty much God-like to me, but I don’t want to be one that
goes around wrestling people trying to get them to say, “deity”.
They don’t need to be in my camp.
I once talked about how Jesus is a god, because he received the
word of God as those in Psalm 82, (because Jesus came in the flesh
and being a man he received the word of God), and in that sense
a child of God, though he is a God above all gods, because of those
men who received the word of God, Jesus is the only Word that was
with God in the beginning. Jesus is the Word through whom the word of God came, and is far greater than any of the gods (men)
who ever received the word of God.
I sent that kind of speaking in an e-mail to a radio talk show host
which was on a “Christian” station, and it was read and not received,
but rather argued against. He said that I was wrong, leaving me
listening at home wondering, “How can he not understand my speech? Didn’t he know I was confessing that Jesus Christ is come
in the flesh”?
I remember how Jesus told us to take heed how we hear.
* In Genesis, when God said, “Let there be light.”, God foreshadowed.
Hi Ray,
I have a difficult time following some of your trains of thought … such as this comment: from above note… but in a sense, didn’t God suffer this and in a sense, let his Word die? Would God allow his Word to die
in order to save? ….”let His Word die” …????
I thought I read not long ago somewhere in the Scriptures a passage like “the Word of God, which LIVETH and ABIDETH FO REVER” (cp 1Pe 1:23)?
In your train of thought there seems to be a mixing and mis-matching of “Jesus” and “the Word” … or am I just too “simple minded” to “get it” ?
As for your comment concerning the note you sent to a radio station and it not being well received but argued against … that is very understandable to me, having read your recent notes here which appear “confused” and also “confusing” to readers like me … (see your above sample statement)
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Hi Sean,
could you please fix up my above comment? seems like once again I did not get the “blockquote” markers around the quoted passage from Ray’s note correct ….
I tried to quote the following from his note:
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Ray,
I too would echo what Wolfgang just posted to you in that is extremely hard and sometimes darn near impossible to “discern” (a word you seem fond of using) the point of your comment posts here on the blog. The majority of your posts seem to be an almost “stream of consciousness” type of meanderings that jump all over the place and make it hard for us (the reader) to figure out what you’re trying to communicate. Could you please be a little more clear and plainly tell us the point(s) you’re trying to make?
Additionally you never did answer my earlier question to you back in Post #21. But from what you just posted today in Post #38 it seems clear (in your #2 & #3 of what God & Jesus have in common) that you do believe that Jesus preexisted his birth and either did the creation himself or did so along with God the Father.
Yet Scripture is clear that Jesus could not have done the creation or even been there to help since God alone is said to be the “maker of ALL things”, the one who stretched “out the heavens by Myself” and spread “out the earth all ALONE” (Isaiah 44:24). In fact all throughout Isaiah chapters 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, & 48 it is repeated over and over again that Yahweh ALONE is God, there is no other, and the He alone is responsible for the creation of everything.
How can you reconcile those repeated clear, unambiguous statements with the belief that Jesus is the creator or a “co-creator”?
I’d also be curious to know how you see that Jesus can be around since BEFORE creation, yet also then be a DESCENDANT of Eve and David and even the younger cousin of John the Baptist. If he preexisted, wouldn’t that make him thousands if not millions of years (or more) OLDER than all of them??
Shalom!
In responce to #39,
Have you never read that Jesus is the Word of God?
The law which was God’s word, came to an end because
of Jesus.
When God repents, doesn’t he in a sense sacrifice his word?
When God repents, he shows mercy in turning from his plans
to bring judgment on his people.
Didn’t the Old Covenant end because of Jesus? Wasn’t the Old
Covenant his word?
Is there no connection at all?
God told Adam and Eve that if they ate of the wrong tree, that
they would die, yet they lived. That was God showing mercy, yet
there was also a penalty for sin. They became dead in trespasses
and sins because they sinned against God.
We could say that they did and did not die. Is that confusing? I didn’t mean to darken the gospel, but rather shed some light on
some of the things we know.
In responce to 41,
I believe God has the right to hide some of his mysteries.
From the beginning Christ has been hid in God.
When Isaiah says by the spirit of Christ that was in him,
“…I am the Lord that formed thee from the womb, I am the
Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens
alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;..”, I understand
that God did it by his own power, that he drew upon power from
no other source but himself, and that he is the one who was the
first cause of the universe and everything else, apart, and separate
from him there was no other creator, though Jesus was dwelling in
him from the beginning. That mystery was hidden and later revealed.
Let’s remember that the scriptures never work against each other,
but there is always a way that they support each other, and that
God often hides things in order that kings search them out.
Jesus often talked in parables that are hard to understand. Sometimes we hit the mark the best when we deliberately miss
the target. Sometimes God leaves a trail of clues that he intends
men to search out and put together. Often times our nature is to
take what God has made one and take it apart, to make it ‘not fit’
and why? Is it what we want?
God spoke to Israel from the Mt. that shook with the sound of his
voice, and Moses told them that God would send them a prophet
from among them that would speak differently, since they did not
want to hear the voice that shook the earth. I think that’s another
reason Jesus spoke in parables.
There are different sounds to God’s voice.
What will be our sound? I believe each of us have a unique sound.
I will try to bear with you.
Isaiah 44:25
..That frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners
mad; that turneth wise men backward, and maketh their knowlege
foolish;..
Is it any wonder? for we serve the living God and his Son who is
the same. And who are we but earthen vessels, often frustrated with the greatness of the gift of God within us because of our weaknesses.
Not long ago I was on a church site and saw something of the
trinitarian doctrine, so I clicked on the “contact” button, and asked
them to tell me what they meant by what they said. (I like to look
for fruit)
She told me that God is in three components.
I don’t think God is a stereo system. I don’t agree with the component theory.
I remember the amp, the tape deck and the receiver, but then we
also had to have speakers.
God spoke from heaven over Jesus. Jesus is the Word. The holy
spirit speaks. The scriptures speak. That’s 4.
Whether we go trinitarian, quad or something else, we are all
Christians. We are all members one of another, whether we agree
or not on things about God.
Please, don’t ever let someone tell you you are not a Christian because you don’t believe just as they do. I don’t believe God intends it to be that way. I don’t think it’s reality.
It’s no wonder some have upgraded the component theory to “persons”, but I don’t necessarily have to agree with that either to be a Christian.
Do we think God necessarily agrees with them? Yet, I believe he
accepts them as Christians.
Men may hammer out an image and say that this is what God is
like. Some will affirm that they have the right image of God. Some
want to prove they are right, but I would rather look for fruit. Does
having the right doctrine about who God is, or what he is by doctrine make us right? If we think so, I think we missed what is
right. Maybe it’s a form of self-righteousness. Even if I could have
a right doctrine about God as to who he is or how he is described
and if it was so right that no one could show me I was wrong, if
I think I am right because I could do that, I could be wrong. That
might not be what God wants me to do with my life.
If I was to hammer others into the image of God that I have, I
should know I am wrong.
But if I can bring others to Christ that would be good. If I can help
them get out of any snare, that would be good. I think if I could plead the cause of anyone oppressed and do no wrong, and
deliver them out of the hand of the oppressor, that might be best.
I have yet to find a church where the pastor says, “This is what
we believe, that God is in three persons, that God the Son is the
second person of the trinity, that the Holy Spirit is a person, (Oh
yeah, did you ever meet him, What did he say about that?) that
all three together are God, but you don’t have to believe exactly
as we do to be a Christian.”
I’ve never found a church like that.
I’d like to find a church that says, “We have elders ordained of God
to do Jeremiah 22:3, so if you have anything with a brother that you
have not been able to work out, and it’s caused division between you, and you have gone to him and he has not heard you, and you
don’t have a brother that wants to go with you, you may call upon
any of these elders we have. If you are willing to repent of your sins
that arise, are willing to be open , honest and authentic, and willing
to forgive, and be accountable to the scriptures, then you should feel
safe here. If an elder’s judgement is wrong, you may make you case
or cause plain to another, after first speaking to the elder about it.
If both elders determine you to be wrong and unrepentant, you may
appeal to me the head pastor. In cases that are too hard for them,
I take these things to God. If you believe I am wrong, you have the
church directory, and you may address the entire church by e-mail
or letter, stating your cause against me and the elders. We do believe in using a two-edged sword against the ungodly. We do
believe in the power of Christ, we do believe in God who restores.
We do believe in the power of the blood of Jesus unto all who believe in him and do repent of their sins. We do believe in accepting all on the basis of the blood of Christ.”
I think such a church should have hurting people flooding into it
for refuge, healing, restoration, and it should be a place of great
freedom and joy in Christ Jesus, having his righteousness cover all.
What if the person does not believe Jesus died on the cross?
What if the person does not believe Jesus was raised from the dead?
Responding to 46,
If a person doesn’t believe everything you do, just as you do,
please don’t tell them they are not a Christian for that reason.
I will try to be of the same mind.
Q. Is Jesus a person?
I see from Matthew 27: 24, that Pilot did see Jesus as a person.
Matt 27:24
When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a
tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before
the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person:
see ye to it.
Does this prove that Jesus is a person? I believe it proves that Pilate saw Jesus as a person. I believe Jesus is a man.
Being I believe Jesus is a man, am I not as close as Pilate was to
the truth? I believe the blood of Jesus is innocent, for he lived without sin at all times. I also believe Jesus is just, and I believe
his claims as being the Son of God. I believe he died a terrible death
on the cross because of my sins, and that God raised him up again.
Do I believe Jesus is a person? I believe Jesus is a man. Do I have
to believe Jesus is a person to be saved? Maybe believing he is a
man is good enough, or as good as believing he is a person.
I remember a man who died and went to heaven, and the Lord sent him back. He was ‘gone’ for over 1 1/2 hours according to the
medical records that called his condition during that time “cardiac
arrest”.
He told of how he saw what he described as “beings”. He said the
Lord was “strategizing” with them, the purpose being that all would
know him as both Lord and Saviour. Everything in that place was
right. He didn’t want to leave. He SO did not want to leave. He told
us about how big heaven is. He said, “If this tiny piece of paper (as he held a piece about the size of a chad) is the size of earth, then
this room is about the size of heaven.
The room could seat about a hundred I suppose, so heaven is big.
That was his perception. That’s how he saw it.
Here’s an interesting verse. I find it interesting because it goes along with the purpose the Lord was working strategy with the
“beings” (angels and / or saints, whatever).
Jer 22:16
He judged the cause of the poor and needy; then it was well with
him: was not this to know me? saith the Lord.
That is how man may know the Lord. That is a good way to do it.
The man I wrote of who died and went to heaven and back, has
free CDs he sends out and travels about giving his testimony.
On his free CDs he prints his e-mail address. His testimony is true.
If you listen to him and ask him questions, I think you will agree that
he is telling the truth.
Here is his e-mail address: DeanMarilynBraxton@msn.com
On the CD I copied that address off of, it is titled “God’s Heavenly
Government”.
One of the things I see God doing these days is breaking doctrines
we hold. I say this to prepare all of us. Expect doctrines to be broken. Everytime I come up with one, it seems God is more than
willing to break it.
Correction:
I’m quite sure Dean Braxton said he was “gone” for an hour
and 45 minutes, rather than the 1 1/2 I had said.
I remember too how he said he had to go through some dark
stuff that he didn’t even know what it was. Q. Was it the vail?
Was it hell? Was it Mist of darkness of religious spirits or what?
His experience is really worth hearing. At the time he had, I think
about 35 pages where he keeps scripture verses that speak of
the things he experienced.
I hope he writes a book. I hope to have a copy of it someday.
Ray,
What do you mean by:
Are you saying this “literally” or “figuratively”?
Jesus has always been in God’s PLAN (God’s Word) from the beginning. But Jesus didn’t literally come into actual existence until God created him in the womb of Mary as Luke 1:35 points out.
Shalom!
Ron,
I believe Jesus was really there.
Q. Is Jesus a person?
I saw from Matthew 27 that Pilot confessed Jesus as a person.
I confessed Jesus as a man.
I looked up the word person in my dictionary, and the first thing
it talks about is that literally it means an actor’s face mask, in
effect a character or ‘person’.
Q. Does God have a “face”?
If I will seek God’s face, won’t I seek Jesus? Ok, I think I’m getting
it now, Jesus is the person of God, the character of the Almighty,
Jehovah, The Mighty God, and the Everlasting Lord.
As Christians we might say, THERE IS NO OTHER GOD WITH US FOR
GOD IS ONE. THERE IS NO OTHER GOD BESIDES HIM WHOM WE WORSHIP. HE IS THE ONE AND THERE IS NO OTHER. Yet, isn’t Jesus
a God that lived among the gods (men who received the word of God- Psalm 82) Shouldn’t we worship him? But he isn’t beside God is he?
I mean, he isn’t apart from him, but rather dwelling in him. Jesus isn’t one who put God aside, is he?
If we say THERE IS NO GOD BUT ONE, we aren’t hiding Jesus are we?, but we might be keeping him secret, till we share, or share
more about him.
I think we can also refer to Jesus as a god, because he was born
into this world, born as we all have been. He came out from the womb of a woman as all of us, (conceived as we all were, in case
there are some test tube ‘babies’ out there, you’re not excluded
from Christ if you want him). Jesus in coming to us as he did and living among us as he did, earned himself an honor that shall never
be taken away, therefore, for me to not refer to Jesus as a god, might be to disrespect him. He had to receive the word by faith,
and walk in God’s ways, and he did. He did far better than any other
man or person in history. He did it right all the time, in the character
of God, for he dwelt in God’s person…..(the Holy Spirit?)
Opps! Just kidding. Not really a mistake is it?
God is Holy Spirit. Isn’t that his character also? So does God have
2 characters? What about love? a 3rd? I suppose we could go on
and on. Righteousness #4.. God is everything good in his word,
and so is Jesus.
Because I believe Jesus was with God in the beginning,
having at that time no form, (see Isaiah 53:2) I believe
he was a spiritual being from before the world was made.
He was in God, being with him and all of his glory, and in
all of his glory, being his Son.
I don’t know when Jesus was first born of God, but I saw
Luke 1:35 as Jesus proceeding forth of the Father, out
of God and into the womb of Mary. This to me looked like
a spiritual birth. (the conception)
Maybe that was his first birth, yet the scripture says that his
goings forth have been from everlasting. So I can’t actually say
that I know Luke 1:35 is in fact his first birth, but it sure looked
like a spiritual birth to me.
Some people say it’s time for Christians to get born again, like they
did the first time. Maybe there’s something to consider in that.
Q. Can a man enter again into the spirit of God and be born again,
the second time? Though being born again is a one time experience,
can we repeat the process all over again? We can confess Christ all
over again, but the seed we received has stayed with us. He never
left us.
IN THE BEGININNG WAS THE WORD.
God communicated the truth in the beginning.
The truth communicated God.
IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD.
Jesus communicated the truth of God.
God communicated Jesus.
IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD.
And the spirit worshiped God in truth by Jesus.
IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD.
And the spoken word was received by God.
In the beginning was the word.
And the word was comprehended by Jesus,
and he communicated with God.
In the beginning was the word.
God was not alone in the beginning, for he
was with the word.
In the beginning was the word.
And the word was the light of God.
In the beginning was the word.
And the word was in the spirit of God.
In the beginning was the word.
And the word had the dominion, and the power,
and the glory of God.
In the beginning was the Word.
And God blessed his Word.
In the beginning was the Word.
And Jesus spoke the word of God.
Psalm 66:12
Thou hast caused men to ride over our heads;
we went through fire and through water:
but thou broughtest us out into a wealthy place.
Because I believe Jesus was with God from the beginning,
I believe they had fellowship.
There are still mysteries about creation I don’t yet understand,
but I will by his grace trust in God by Jesus Christ.
Ray,
In believing in a literal preexistence of Jesus you’re taking a pagan belief and reading it back into the Hebrew Scriptures to match a preconceived presupposition. The Hebrew writers of the Bible always understood that the Messiah would be a real human being that would come about at a certain point in time within the human race. A preexistent divine being, whether you want to call him a member of the Godhead, a secondary little “g” god, or an angel is NOT a member of the human race. To transfer as an already existing conscious entity into the womb of a fellow human as an embryo is some kind of transforming act straight out of pagan culture - NOT that of the Hebrew people. Not to mention that it would be nothing more than an outright deception, a sham, an act perpetrated to make people believe that they were a human when they were not at all. Human beings don’t literally preexist their own births.
If you do in fact believe that Jesus was a person, you should re-check the meaning of the word where you said:
The first TWO definitions I find for the word “person” are:
1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.
2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.
- see:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/person
Yes Jesus is God’s Word (God’s plan/thought/intent) brought about in time within the human race to be his ultimate spokesman. To be the ultimate perfect human representative of God - God’s “Shaliach”. The man who would maintain the sinless connection with God by always doing God’s will instead of his own human will. But this in no way makes him God or any other preexistent god-like creature. To be any such thing would fail the qualifications of the Messiah and any possible redeemer of mankind as a linear descendent of Eve and King David.
To help understand the clarity of this, please read (if you haven’t already) Sean’s excellent article “Literal and Notional Preexistence” here: http://kingdomready.org/topics/pdfs/IncarnationPaper.pdf and you might also listen to his Dad’s sermon on “The Word” here: http://kingdomready.org/topics/audio.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.livinghopeinternationalministries.org%2Fwordspeaks%2F191a
BTW Ray, do you happen to come from a Jehovah Witness faith background?
Shalom!
When God said, “Let there be light.”, in the beginning,
I believe Jesus and God worked together.
Dear Ron,
I suppose God did require Jesus to be a part of the human race
from the beginning, even though at that time he was his Divine
Son, (an eternal spiritual being).
I believe Jesus agreed to this plan of redemption by his own
accord, and on that basis, God moved to create all, for without
Jesus, all would be for nothing.
I wasn’t aware at the time I believed in Jesus, that there were others who came from heaven into the womb of a woman, according to pagans, so I don’t know what you mean about me
reading that into the Bible.
I’ve heard about Buddha, but I never heard that he was in heaven
with God and then came into this world by divine conception, though
I’m not sure if that’s what the Buddhists believe. I really don’t know
much at all about their religion.
I’ve heard about the Hindu gods, but was never aware that any of
them were with God in the beginning, but later came to this earth
as Jesus did, through the womb of a virgin, though I don’t know if
that’s what they believe about their gods or not. I really don’t know
much about the Hindu religion either.
I do agree that all that Jesus did doesn’t necessarily make him God,
for God the Father is God, yet in a very real sense, because he is
who he is, as he is, in a very real sense I think I should consider him
as God is.
I remember Joseph who was under Pharaoh in Egypt. Pharaoh put
him under all his authority, except for the throne. I suppose a salve
or common man in Egypt could loose his life if he were to say, “Joseph isn’t Pharaoh.”, though in reality the two are two different men.
Joseph shared in the authority of the king, and so Joseph would need to be honored that way in the eyes of any prudent slave.
Though there are similarities between the position of Joseph and
that of Jesus, yet, Jesus does sit in the throne of God. We too are
seated in the heavenlies in Christ.
In the throne of heaven, I believe Jesus is the ultimate rule, for God
put him there. He is just as God is in that throne. The Pharaoh held
some things back from Joseph compared to what God gave to Jesus
in my opinion.
The Messiah’s genealogy goes through Mary as she is his mother,
the one who carried the promised seed. Mary’s genealogy goes
all the way back to Adam and Eve, who received the promise of this
seed. Mary’s genealogy went through David, and so Jesus is qualified to be the Messiah. Having been with God from the beginning did not disqualify him.
I have never been a part of the Jehovah’s witnesses, though they
came to my door many times. I remember praying to God asking
God to help me get connected to people my age, and I asked him
if there was a class on the Bible I could take. I was about 20 years
old at the time.
The first ones to knock on my door were Jehovah witnesses, but I
didn’t go to their church. The closest I got to them was half reading
a small brochure. Next, there were the Mormons. They came in and
showed me pictures that were sketches and asked me if I knew who they were. The first was a picture of a man and a woman
partly naked it seemed, but they were behind some plants or something.
I told them I didn’t know who they were. “That’s Adam and Eve” is
what they said. The next picture was of Abraham, I didn’t recognize
him either. The next after that was Moses. I recognized the two tablets of stone, and so I said, “That’s Moses.” (I was catching on)
After Moses was Jesus whom I identified. Then there was another
who I did not know. “That’s Joseph Smith.” I was told.
After hearing them, I decided that they should have stayed with Jesus.
A few weeks later, some WOW ambassadors from the Way International showed up. This was about 1980. They were my
age, and invited me to their Bible group which was held in a home.
They had a class.
I once read a book about who God is by a Jehovah witness. I read
nearly the whole book. It was very good, I thought. It went through
all the verses about Jesus and God very much like the book Jesus
Christ Is Not God by V.P. Werwille, but I looked at the end of the book, and it seemed that suddenly they forgot all that they were
teaching and decided that Jesus is an angel named Michael. How
sad. They were on the right path for so long.
Let’s remember that the gate is straight and narrow throughout our
life.
Now the question comes to me, “Is God greater than Jesus in the
throne?”
I suppose I could think that God is greater than Jesus in the throne,
and yet, shouldn’t I understand that Jesus is JUST AS GREAT AS GOD in the throne?
God and Jesus are the same in the throne.
I remember reading about a man who was in a church worship
service, and in that church, the youth had been praying that
some in that church be ‘caught up in the spirit’, an experience
some of them had experienced.
As he had his hands in the air, (if I am recalling this right) he said
he felt like he was accelerating up in the spirit. He felt another one
in the church put her hand on his shoulder as she said, “He’s going
up like a rocket.”
The man said that he went out far above the earth, and what he
saw was a throne which was made up of many thrones. He looked
on the arm of one of the thrones and it had rows of thrones. He
recognized one man who was in his church who was telling others
to get in their thrones, as they were talking and having lots of fun.
This article I read, at the time our Sunday school class was studying
the book of Ephesians. Though I had the book for years I didn’t see
the article till then. It was God’s timing. The great throne in heaven
was golden.
So Jesus is the throne of God and we are members of his body.
That causes me to wonder, When God said, “Let there be light.”
was God seated in Christ?
Now the question comes to me, Does a king get his authority from
his throne? I think a king is still a king when he leaves his throne
and goes about his business in his kingdom while he is still in power, yet there are times when a king is dethroned and looses
his power.
God had his power in the beginning while seated in Christ. It was
upon Jesus that God created everything. God rested his authority
upon Jesus. God was in Christ from the beginning, and Christ was
in God.
In the experience of the man who was caught up in the spirit, and
saw the golden throne that was larger than the earth, he saw that
it was made up of many thrones, and on even one of the thrones,
on the arm of the throne, he saw rows of thrones.
All the thrones together were one throne. God inhabited these
thrones. Now the question comes, When a man is in Christ, and
by faith he commands, and a miracle comes, who did the work,
God or Jesus or both? We most certainly can say that God did
the work. We can also say that Jesus healed, or whatever the
work was. We can say that God did it through faith in the name
of Jesus. We can say that God did it in the power that’s in the
name of Jesus through faith.
Though I don’t understand it all, I do believe that God and Jesus
worked together in the creation of the heaven and the earth, and
that some of that work shows a pattern, clues as to what God would do in the future.
Because of the light, the morning began each new day. Jesus is
the light that begins a new work in us according to the word of God.
Genesis 1:3 …
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God
divided the light from the darkness.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called
Night….
Doesn’t God speak in many ways?
Suppose two brothers in a wilderness somewhere found this
small piece of a page from the Book Of Genesis caught in the
middle of a tumble weed which wedged between the ten peg
and the rope that held up their tent. Suppose it blew there from
a storm that came up in the night.
What if one of the brothers found it and began a conversation
with his brother? What kind of questions might they have? I wonder
where the conversation could lead.
It looks to me to be type, or pattern for the rest of the days of creation. Does God speak in types and patterns?
Is anyone ready for some creative writing?
Ray,
you asked
I’ll answer: I’m obviously not ready for your creative thinking displayed in your creative writing … as I have mentioned before, your various ideas appear confusing to me. Unfortunately, you do not answer simple questions asked of you in order to clarify what you are talking about …
Cheers,
Wolfgang
I would like to answer these two questions:
1. What if we are talking to someone and they do not believe
Jesus died on a cross?
2. What if the person doesn’t believe Jesus was raised from the
dead?
As Christians, there are so many ways to go with situations like
this.
I suppose if someone doesn’t believe Jesus died on a cross, then
they either haven’t heard the gospel message, of how God sent
his only begotten Son into this world, or they heard it but decided
to not hear it anymore.
I think we will believe what we decide we will hear repeatedly.
I’m not talking about listening to the same song on the radio, but
rather about what news we will hear again and again.
To those who are saved, and to those who are being saved, it’s
a message they love to hear again and again. Each of us will tell
the story a bit differently, but it’s the same message, as long as we
hold to the truth.
God is the saviour of all men, especially those that believe. (see I Tim 4:10 KJV) Those of us who trust in God are continually delivered
out of danger, and many out of real life threatening situations. Isn’t
it Christians who especially go though these things?
Even those who don’t believe are saved by God.
Now for question #2.
Or, should I go back?
If we want eternal salvation, we must believe in the cross of Jesus.
Question #2
What if they don’t believe Jesus was raised from the dead?
I think they are still in their sins. Let’s just suppose a man who has
in his mind that Jesus did not rise from the dead……
“What if he never got up?….What then? Doesn’t it mean that God
did not find Jesus acceptable to him? Was God repulsed by his life?
Was God repulsed by his thinking to offer himself on our behalf?
Did God reject this offering by Jesus? Did Jesus sin? (If he did, I wonder what it was. There’s no accusation I would dare lay at the
feet of Jesus.)
What if Jesus just went on to heaven without a bodily resurrection?
What then? Jesus said he would raise it up again didn’t he, I mean,
his body (see Matthew 26:61…….no that’s not it. See Mark 15:48..
no that’s not it either. See John 2:19. That’s it) What if his body was
not raised up? What if Jesus did not raise up his body after God gave him life again? (I suppose he would have starved to death in
the grave, unless someone would have came to visit him and finding
the stone rolled away……..) I mean, What if Jesus were not given
the resurrection from the dead by God? What if he simply died on
the cross, and as his spirit was commended to God, that was it.?
What if the disciples never saw him again, except by some revelation or something?
What does God reveal by the bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus?
Haven’t we often heard that we are members of his body? So to the man who has heard that, but doesn’t believe in the bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus, what would that mean to him?
I suppose to him, he would think that we either are liars, or are a
part of a dead body, one that will never get up from a grave. God
did more for Lazarus, and others, so he might think he should just
walk away from Jesus and go follow some other man or something,
I suppose. If he does that, I don’t think he will be saved, unless he
repents.
But, if he believes in the cross of Christ, and his resurrection, he will
have hope, a firm anchor of hope, which passed through the vail. If
he continues with that anchor, he will be saved.
One of the strongest points that I do not think we have exploited as well as we could in these discussions is the thorough research that Darrell Bock has done on blasphemy. This is particularly useful in considering the passages where the Jews tried to stone Jesus for claiming to be God. I think you mentioned in the debate, the paucity of charges against him at his trial.
At any rate, Jesus’ admission that he was the Christ was still worthy of death in the Jewish culture. You made the point that in John 10 the Jews’ commentary is that they were stoning him for claiming to be “A” god possibly (in 10:33: su anthropos on poieis seauton theon: “you being a man make yourself a god/God”). The fact is that under Jewish thought, he could have been stoned for either claim; he could have been stoned for simply claiming ASSOCIATION with Abraham; and there are other reasons, all of which fall shy of claiming to be equal to Almighty God the Father. Here’s the skinny on Bock’s book. It’s technical reading, but it’s very thorough–the quality of stuff that we need to use in backing up our claims. Let the reader beware of the scholarly nature of this book. It is not your typical casual reading over coffee book:
Darrell L. Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism: The Charge against Jesus in Mark 14:53-65 (Biblical Studies Library) (Paperback)
at Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Blasphemy-Exaltation-Judaism-against-Biblical/dp/0801022363/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213019738&sr=8-13
The Jews seemed to be a bit picky on who they crucified for claiming to be the Messiah (no death for anyone they thought would overthrow Rome; death for Jesus because he seemed to be a wuss, perhaps, from a physically aggressive military point of view?)
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.
END OF DEBATE.