The Trinity?

[John317]

There is but one Yahweh,YHWH, and but one that can claim that name!

Yes, Yahweh is one. But do you mean "one" or "1"? There is a difference. Jesus said that He and the Father are "one," not "1." Similarly, Jesus prayed that His followers would be "one," not "1."

[M. T. Cross]

Originally Posted By: EmptyCross

The more accurate question is how many people have I tried to persuade to become pagans or leave Christianity. I challenge you to find a single post from me telling anyone here that they should give up their beliefs and/or become a pagan.

That's rarely done straightforwardly.

Umm what exactly is that supposed to mean?

[epaminondas]

Originally Posted By: Gibs

There is but one Yahweh,YHWH, and but one that can claim that name!

Yes, Yahweh is one. But do you mean "one" or "1"? There is a difference. Jesus said that He and the Father are "one," not "1." Similarly, Jesus prayed that His followers would be "one," not "1."

I am sorry, but there is only one way to describe this: utter nonsense. 1 can be seen as a "number" data type on which numeric operators can operate and "one" as a String or alphabetic data type. But that's in programming languages. In talking one cannot make a distinction between one and 1, unless one specifically states that one is talking about the String or alphabetic data type which cannot be used for addition, subtraction, modulo, etc. Jesus didn't do that. When talking about one, one mostly means it as the numeric data type, except if the context is clear, like with the word one in bold, where it really means "a person".

It is exactly this playing with words and smoke and mirrors that keeps the trinity going.

[epaminondas]

This is a high level overview of the trinity and its origins. This work is not original. I sourced it from the Internet. Some phrases are even verbatim.

The concept of a traid of gods was familiar in many pagan systems. This paved the way for the entry of the trinitarian dogma into Christianity. If you don't believe it, Google "pagan trinities." The only reason not to do so would be that you don't want to hear of anything which might undermine your belief in the trinity - in other words, you'll believe in the trinity despite the facts.

Not only had many pagan systems triads of gods, but the number 3 had special significance in many pagan religions. This link will take you to the significance of three in only Norse mythology. There is hardly a better way than creating a trinity for winning over the pagans.

Of course, the Greeks were another important group. For them, too, the number three was significant. In Plato’s Timeus,

Quote:

The Supreme Reality appears in the trinitarian form of the Good, the Intelligence, and the World-Soul.

The utter complexity of the Christian trinity has been laid at the door of the Platonists. But it did bring in many Greeks.

When Constantine converted to Christianity the Roman world was starting to fall apart. Whether or not his conversion was genuine, Constantine also wanted to use Christianity as a unifying force in the Roman Empire. The problem was, Christianity was not unified. So Constantine called the Council of Nicea where the Christian dignitaries could hammer out their differences and come up with a unified Christianity.

At this council were three groups: Eusebius of Nicomedia presenting the Arian view of the Trinity, Alexander of Alexandria presenting the Athanasian version, and a very large ‘middle party’ led by Eusebius of Cesarea who didn't agree fully with any of the former two groups and had a "baptismal creed."

Eusebius of Nicomedia submitted the Arian creed first, then Eusebius of Cesarea submitted the Cesarean baptismal creed. When their turn came, instead of submitting a creed of their own creed in an unadulterated form, the anti-Arians modified Eusebius’ creed to contain their own trinitarian creed, thereby compelling Eusebius of Cesarea to sign it and completely shutting the Arians out. Those Arians who did not sign were deposed and exiled. This was cunning any politician and lawyer would have lauded and much admired.

But all was not sunlight and roses for Eusebius of Cesarea. His conscience was maybe moribund, but not totally dead yet. He deemed it necessary to justify himself to his own people in a long letter in which he states that he

Quote:

resisted even to the last minute’ until the words were examined and it was explained that the words ‘did not mean all they seemed to mean but were intended simply to assert the real deity of the Son...

So we can see that "magic words" (words not meaning what they seem to mean and/or meaning just what you want to them to mean) were part of the trinitarian dogma very early on.

The result of the Council of Nicea was not the Christian unity Constantine had hoped for. The majority of Eastern bishops sided with Arius in that they believed Christ was the Son of God ‘neither consubstantial nor co-eternal’ with his Father. Following the Council of Nicea there was unrest in the Christian world and Durant said: ‘Probably more Christians were slaughtered by Christians in these two years than by all the persecutions of Christians by pagans in the history of Rome.’

There are three creeds illustrating the progression of the trinitarian dogma. The first is the apostles' creed, as used in the first two centuries AD, which was not really written by the apostles:

Quote:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:

And in Jesus Christ, his only son our Lord: who was conceived by the holy ghost (spirit), born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell (the grave); the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God, the Father Almighty: From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:

I believe in the holy ghost (spirit); the holy catholic (general) Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

Then there was the Nicene creed in response to the Council of Nicea and revised at the Council of Constantinople in 381:

Quote:

I believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth; and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God; begotten of his Father before all worlds; God of (or from) God; Light of (or from) Light; Very God of (or from) Very God; begotten, not made; being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven; and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the virgin Mary; and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father: and he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, (the Lord and Giver of life; who proceedeth from the Father (and the Son); who is with the Father and the son together is worshipped and glorified; who spake by the prophets).

And I believe [in] one catholic and apostlic [sic] church: I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins: and I look for the resurrection of the dead; and the life of the world to come. Amen.

The Athanasian, or Trinitarian creed was probably written sometime in the fifth century. Although it bears the name of Athanasius, it was not written by him. This is the creed of trinitarians today. It is also, of course, used by the Catholic Church.

Quote:

Whosoever [sic] will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith; which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

And the Catholic Faith is this: that we worship One God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost, the Father uncreate, the son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate; the Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal; and yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal. As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty; and yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet they are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord; and yet not three Lords, but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every person by himself to be God and Lord; so we are forbidden by the Catholic religion to say, There be three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another, none is greater or less than another; but the whole three persons are co-eternal together, and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He, therefore, that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation, that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man; God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man, of the substance of his mother, born in the world; perfect God, and perfect man; of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting; equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father, as touching his manhood; who, although he be God and man, yet is he not two, but one Christ; one, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ: who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead; he ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead; at whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved. Glory be to the Father and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

We can clearly see the development of the trinitarian idea from absent, or at most slightly hinted at, in the apostolic creed, present but without all its modern details in the Nicean creed and fully developed in all its virulence in the Trinitarian Creed.

Right from the beginning trinitarians had problems: their creed is not spelled out in the Bible and has no clear Biblical support. What is more, there are many clear passages in the Bible negating essential aspects of the trinity, most notably the equality of its members. If only one essential aspect of any system is negated, that system cannot exist, at least not without modifications. Furthermore, a consequence of the trinity is that for it to be true, certain facts known to be false must also be true. I'm talking here about 1 + 1 + 1 which must be one for the trinity to be true, but is not, and 1/3 which must also be one for the trinity to be true, but also is not.

So, what did these trinitarians do? First of all, from their tactics at the Council of Trent and other things people like Athanasius did, we know that these were not honourable people. They were not above subterfuge. And this is what they did. The most clear-cut problem they had was the mathematical one. Athanasius simply stated that if the trinity was beyond understanding, then so be it. It was a mystery of God. This is of course invoking magic to change a lie into a truth. Trinitarians still do it today. They lesser intelligent among them also resort to illogical subterfuge, like saying three people can all be part of one family. Of course, one can't add three of one data type and arrive at another data type. They also never claimed that the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one family of gods, but one God. Similarly, they move arbitrarily between the common noun, god, and the proper noun, God, making no distinction between the two. As their position is so devoid of a Biblical basis, they have to employ subterfuge like this.

To gain a Biblical basis for their position, they use passages not in any way supporting the full blown trinitarian concept, like Mathew 28:19 where the three entities are only named, as proof for the full blown trinitarian concept. Apart from the Comma Johanneum version of 1 John 5:7:

Quote:

Douay-Rheims Bible

And there are three who give testimony (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.)

as found in all King James Bibles (new and old) and the various Catholic Bibles, Matthew 28:19 is the strongest support for the trinitarian concept in the Bible, and it doesn't mention the essential attributes of the trinity, like the equality between the members. The part in parentheses in the 1 John 5:7 quote is not in most modern Bibles as it is recognised to be a late addition. Nevertheless, it us used by all Catholics and some other trinitarians as support for the trinity, even tough many of them know it was not in any early Greek manuscript. The dearth of clear support for the trinity in the Bible is a problem for trinitarians.

So, what to do if there is no or very little support for the trinity in the Bible? Three things: the first is scrape the bottom of the barrel and use what even remotely looks like support, as has been mentioned in the previous paragraph. The second is to translate passages in such a way that they give the most support possible for the trinitarian concept. Think about John 1:1 which has been translated to say something like: 'and Peter (the word) was with John (God) and Peter was John. This is the problem of common nouns and proper nouns, referred to earlier. Another passage is John 8:58 where Greek words used many times in the Book of John are translated in just this one instance as "I am" even though an alternative legitimate translation would have made more sense. The third is to add trinitarian content to the Bible. The comma Johanneum has been mentioned. Even though this has been proven to be a late addition, many refuse to let go of it. There is also some substance to the idea that Matthew 28:19 should read "in my name" instead of "in the name of the Father, the Son and The Holy Spirit." Search the Internet for "matthew 28:19 corrupted." As Matthew 28:19 is as it is in all the oldest Greek manuscripts, there is no definite case to be made that it has been corrupted.

And what does one do with so many clear passages negating essential aspects of the trinitarian dogma? First of all, the trinitarian's great three in one friend, many empty words, smoke and mirrors, and lastly obfuscation. When Jesus says the Father is "the only true God," the trinitarians say yes, but that was only while Jesus was down here on Earth. They don't even notice that Jesus excluded the Holy Spirit from being a true God, as well. And when Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:28 that in the final set-up Jesus will be subjected to the Father (read verse 24, as well), they just ignore it. I wonder how they explain it to themselves. So, in short, the many clear objections to the trinity are either talked to death or just ignored.

How come then, if the trinitarian dogma is such transparent nonsense, has it been accepted by so many and is still going strong? The trinitarian dogma started out as the property of the church. This church became the Catholic Church. The two most prized possessions of the Catholic Church were Sunday and the trinitarian dogma. The Catholic Church dominated the World for more than 1,000 years as an absolute dictator. To question it very often meant burning at the stake. Is it any wonder Sunday and the trinitarian dogma survived? Furthermore, the vast majority of humanity doesn't care one way or another about either the trinity or the Sabbath/Sunday question, so these questions don't get much attention. It's possible that Sunday as a holy day has even wider support than the trinity. The Jehovah's Witnesses, who are Unitarians, support Sunday. The reasons for the widespread Sunday support are identical to the reasons for the widespread trinitarian support. Many people accept what they have been told and don't follow Paul's advice to question everything, and if it's good, keep it. A great many people have never seriously investigated the Sabbath or the trinitarian question. And this includes professional theologians. Furthermore, theologians are not equipped to determine truth and apply the highest levels of logic. This knowledge is found only in the sciences, more particularly mathematics, which is what our Universe is built upon. And very few people of science have an interest in religion nowadays. The few that do won't sway the masses. A few theologians have discovered that the trinitarian concept doesn't hold water. They wrote books on the subject clearly pointing out the fallacies of the concept, just as there are books on the Sabbath/Sunday question. But most Christians still keep Sunday and most still believe in the trinity. In our time political correctness has become the new god. One of the precepts of this system is that the ignorant are not ignorant. A hate towards knowledge and intelligence has developed. Aggressive ignorance is the order of the day. And this is encouraged. Don't expect to see the truth triumph any time soon.

[Johann]

pardon me for intruding here even though I have not been with you from the beginning. I have heard an indication that those who reject the trinity also reject the ordination of women. Is this true or false^

[Gibs]

Johann, It is false I'm sure as true ordination comes from God and not man, He is the one who moves and sends his teachers.

Take EGW, was she ordained of men? No, but finally men did recognize she was sent. She didn't need their ordination papers, she got them when most were beginning to pull away from her council and that began in 1901 and she lost almost full control after 1904

I don't know the yr she was given papers, may have been several yrs before 1901.

Now, our ordination service can only be a recognition of the fact Yah has ordained this one.

However we are all to be His witnesses, and what we witness we want to make sure it is the truth of His word, as it is a very grievious thing to teach error.

I have no problem telling in just a little hearing a presentation from one to know who sent them or were self sent for a way to make a living. I do not regard the ordination given of men, not a sure foundation.

I studied with a young man once who was studying for the priesthood. After a while he says to me, yes I am convinced the seventh day is the true Sabbath. Then he goes on and tells me, he is not to study with me no more and that he wants to do this as an easy way to make a good living. He would not see me no more, truth he could see but wasn't converted and maybe never happened I do not know.

It may be true that Yah don't send women often, and He did call two men before EGW.

So it has come down, that the last man called had said that God told him, then He would send the weakest of the weak.

True it turns out as Ellen was a sick frail woman with only a third grade education.

Yah doesn't need His teachers to have a world high class education as it is mostly of no use for His purpose.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[Windsor]

epa,

You mean there are similar points of belief in Christianity and other religions? Is that supposed to somehow invalidate those points of belief? I'm pretty sure most other religions frown on stealing, too.

[phkrause]

pardon me for intruding here even though I have not been with you from the beginning. I have heard an indication that those who reject the trinity also reject the ordination of women. Is this true or false^

False, I believe in the Trinity and after listening to DB accept how he sees it. Personally think that we should not ordain either, because as Gibs says, they are already ordained by God.

[Gibs]

It don't take any great long essay of some prolific writer to explain who the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are. Jesus has told us and He is the one you should hear as I am sure if anyone can tell us the absolute truth, He is the one!

Lu 10:22 All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.

He said,

Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.

Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

Just those tell me with surity that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one and the same one. Yahweh-Messiah is the Father extended for our salvation!

2Co 5:19 To wit, that GOD was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[epaminondas]

epa,

You mean there are similar points of belief in Christianity and other religions? Is that supposed to somehow invalidate those points of belief? I'm pretty sure most other religions frown on stealing, too.

Did I say that? Christmas nowadays is very different from the way pagans celebrated it. But that does not mean Christmas doesn't have pagan roots.

[epaminondas]

pardon me for intruding here even though I have not been with you from the beginning. I have heard an indication that those who reject the trinity also reject the ordination of women. Is this true or false^

I don't suppose it will be true of all of them. Although those who reject the trinity on a factual basis - it's not in the Bible and there are many passages in the Bible negating essential elements of the trinity - will most likely also reject female ordination, like I do. Admittedly, there is far less against female ordination in the Bible than against the trinity. I suppose it's because it was not an issue and had no bearing on important points of dogma. The trinity also was not an issue, but who Jesus was and who the Father was and their relationship to each other, were issues. Just think how many times the relationship of the Father to Jesus is described as a father-son relationship.

Emotion, not fact, is the big driving force in being a trinitarian. Few will admit that they've been so wrong for so long.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

Just those tell me with surity that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one and the same one. Yahweh-Messiah is the Father extended for our salvation!

Whatever you want to say, however you want to look at it, the above quote does mean Jesus prayed to himself and when the Father said "this is my beloved son...", the Father was really speaking of himself.

How can a rational person believe this?

[epaminondas]

Quote:

True it turns out as Ellen was a sick frail woman with only a third grade education.

She was an avid reader. Stupid people don't read much. And she lived to 87, belying her frailty.

I've always taken her health history with more than a pinch of salt. The stone throw to the nose also has me a bit baffled. Blows to the nose don't usually result in a coma, let alone one for three weeks. And I don't see any "severe" disfigurement of her nose. I've also looked at her photos well and don't see any facial asymmetry, which may indicate a facial nerve paralysis or weakness.

How people can diagnose petit mal epilepsy and other diseases over a century away, I don't know. I've seen enough patients with very fanciful diagnoses referred to me by GPs who have actually seen the patients to have very little faith in GPs. Now put a century in between and not actually having seen the patient... And what did the GPs of the 1800s know? And what special investigations did they have available?

These stories sound to me like urban legends, admittedly SDA urban legends.

[Gibs]

No Jesus did not pray to Himself, He had to overcome in our shoes and He in our shoes prayed to His Father as we must. Yes He even showed us how to pray.

Yes with full absolute surety the Father was in Him in fullness, but not for the purpose of Him overcoming the devil and living our life from where we have fallen, and that dear ones is what Jesus did. He assurredly overame from where we have fallen to!

The purpose of the Father in Him in fullness was to be mediator that we might communicate to the Throne. Yes and more, as only God can forgive sin and more that Jesus did for mankind as God with us.

You must see at repentance our sins are forgiven by the loving Grace of God. But now realize there is no remedy for sin. So Jesus imputs to us His Merits, His White Pure Robe of Righteousness, and this covers our past forgiven sins. We are covered at great cost by His Blood and washed in it and then we are seen clean with His Merits covering us.

Our sins committed will ever be before us in this life even though we know by faith we are forgiven. But we can know this, that in the resurrection of the righteous, then is when all remembrance of them will be wiped out!

1Jo 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

1Jo 3:3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

1Jo 3:4 ¶ Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

1Jo 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

1Jo 3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

1Jo 3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

1Jo 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

1Jo 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Those verses above are the True Word of God, take heed!

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[skyblue888]

Quote:

True it turns out as Ellen was a sick frail woman with only a third grade education.

She was an avid reader. Stupid people don't read much. And she lived to 87, belying her frailty.

I've always taken her health history with more than a pinch of salt. The stone throw to the nose also has me a bit baffled. Blows to the nose don't usually result in a coma, let alone one for three weeks. And I don't see any "severe" disfigurement of her nose. I've also looked at her photos well and don't see any facial asymmetry, which may indicate a facial nerve paralysis or weakness.

How people can diagnose petit mal epilepsy and other diseases over a century away, I don't know. I've seen enough patients with very fanciful diagnoses referred to me by GPs who have actually seen the patients to have very little faith in GPs. Now put a century in between and not actually having seen the patient... And what did the GPs of the 1800s know? And what special investigations did they have available?

These stories sound to me like urban legends, admittedly SDA urban legends.

Adventist urban legends!!! I thought we had heard it all!!

Did not the Lord choose her because she was obviously the weakest of the weak?

"For when I am weak then I am strong." 2 Cor.12:10.

In other words when I realize how weak and feeble I am before the Lord then He can be my strength. God was her strength because she made Him to be her strength and wisdom by acknowledging her utter weakness and nothingness before Him and by trusting wholly in the MERITS of her Redeemer.

Her bodily presence was weak but she was mighty in the Scriptures. See 2 Cor.10:10.

sky

[Johann]

Originally Posted By: Johann

pardon me for intruding here even though I have not been with you from the beginning. I have heard an indication that those who reject the trinity also reject the ordination of women. Is this true or false^

I don't suppose it will be true of all of them. Although those who reject the trinity on a factual basis - it's not in the Bible and there are many passages in the Bible negating essential elements of the trinity - will most likely also reject female ordination, like I do. Admittedly, there is far less against female ordination in the Bible than against the trinity. I suppose it's because it was not an issue and had no bearing on important points of dogma. The trinity also was not an issue, but who Jesus was and who the Father was and their relationship to each other, were issues. Just think how many times the relationship of the Father to Jesus is described as a father-son relationship.

Emotion, not fact, is the big driving force in being a trinitarian. Few will admit that they've been so wrong for so long.

This is what I hear from someone on the large ordination committee that these two questions might get associated:

Anti-trinitarianism and

Anti-female ordination

Will these two anti- sections be united in the final end?

Which one will then remain as the original Seventh-day Adventism?

[joeb]

Originally Posted By: Johann

pardon me for intruding here even though I have not been with you from the beginning. I have heard an indication that those who reject the trinity also reject the ordination of women. Is this true or false^

False, I believe in the Trinity and after listening to DB accept how he sees it. Personally think that we should not ordain either, because as Gibs says, they are already ordained by God.

Who is DB? Doug Batchelor?

[Gibs]

Only God ordains, all men can do is have a recognition service that the one being presented is ordained at least in their eyes and understanding, many of the congregation may not see that, that the person is.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[joeb]

The more accurate question is how many people have I tried to persuade to become pagans or leave Christianity. I challenge you to find a single post from me telling anyone here that they should give up their beliefs and/or become a pagan. Go ahead and look through my posting history, do so in an honest manner. Just one post.

Sorry I haven't answered you sooner. I just now saw your answer to me as I had forgotten the post you replied to.

The point I was making was, not that you are trying to evangelize for paganism, but that you're here every day debating against Christians and Christian beliefs. At the same time you have nothing good to say about intra-Christian theological debates.

I just thought it was an interesting juxtaposition and my question to you to was to see if you saw the irony in it yourself.

[phkrause]

Who is DB? Doug Batchelor?

Yep

[epaminondas]

"Ego eimi" should be translated as "I am," and it is so translated in both John 8: 58 and John 9: 9.

John 9:9

... He kept saying, "I am he." Or: "I am the man."

It wouldn't make sense for Jesus to say, "Before Abraham existed, I am he." Nor would Jesus have said, "Before Abraham existed, I am the man."

The only way that it makes biblical sense to translate it is, "Before Abraham existed (or was born), I AM"

"Eimi" occurs over 100 times in the New Testament, and it is almost always translated "I am."

"Eimi" is the first person singular present verb, "I am" or "am".

"Ego" is the first person singluar pronoun, "I."

Jesus uses "ego eimi" in such statements as:

"I AM the light of the world," "I AM the door...," "I AM the good shepherd...," "I AM the Son of God," "I AM the resurrection and the life," "I AM the way...," "I AM the true vine...," "I AM Alpha and Omega..."

In a few places (Mark 6: 50; Matt 26: 22, 25; 14: 27; John 6: 20), it is translated "it is I," and in one place (Luke 19: 22) it is translated, "I was." Even in those verses,however, it would make sense to translate "ego eimi" as "I AM." For instance, Luke 19: 22 would then read, "You knew that I am [ego eimi] a severe man..."

In John 14: 9, "ego eimi" is translated "have I been so long with you?" If we translate it literally, it reads, "Jesus said to him, 'For such a long time I AM with you, and yet you have not known Me, Philip?'" Jesus was telling the disciples that He and the Father are exactly alike. Again, Jesus is "the I AM."

Jack Blanco's paraphrase doesn't give the words their literal translation. The Greek does not mean "Before Abraham was born, I existed." It's translated literally as, "Before Abraham existed, I AM."

It will make sense if you compare it to Exodus 3: 14, where God tells Moses "I AM THAT I AM." The Jews knew exactly what Christ was claiming by calling Himself "I AM." He was claiming to be the self-existent One. He commanded Moses to tell the Israelites that "the I AM" had sent him to them. It was Jesus Christ who saved the Israelites out of Egyptain bondage.

Jude 1:5 (ESV)--

Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.

1 Cor. 10:9 (ESV)--

We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents...

English has 12 tenses in reasonably common use. Biblical Greek had six, one used very infrequently. Both Biblical Greek tenses used for past actions, perfect and pluperfect, indicated finished actions. They could therefore not have been used in John 8:58. The present tense in Biblical Greek could also indicate an indefinite action with no clear end point - past, present, future, all of them, who knows?

The proof of the pudding is how many Bible translators have translated it otherwise. This shows beyond any doubt that I AM is not the only acceptable translation. And if it is not, no-one can base any argument on the misconception that it is. Another pillar of the trinitarian position bites the dust.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

Did not the Lord choose her because she was obviously the weakest of the weak?

"For when I am weak then I am strong." 2 Cor.12:10.

The answer to your question above is, no. There were people totally paralyzed, blind and deaf, at that time. This is much closer to "the weakest of the week."

And I don't see how 2 Cor 12:10 says Ellen White was of frail health, sickly, an invalid or anything about the health of Ellen White.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

No Jesus did not pray to Himself, He had to overcome in our shoes and He in our shoes prayed to His Father as we must. Yes He even showed us how to pray.

Yes with full absolute surety the Father was in Him in fullness, but not for the purpose of Him overcoming the devil and living our life from where we have fallen, and that dear ones is what Jesus did. He assurredly overame from where we have fallen to!

But you say Jesus is an "extension" - magic word, like begotten - of the Father. That is to say there is no separate Jesus. Was it then a case of the Father, using the alias Jesus, prayed to himself? Did the Father divide into two, one part in heaven as the Father and one part on Earth as Jesus? These are basic questions. Before you take care of them, your postulate is still in the starting blocks.

[whatisthis]

It seems to me that this subject of the Trinity, (which is really the subject of God,) is so rich that I never fail to learn something new every time the subject is opened! Jesus prayed for us to be allowed to be one even as He and the Father are one, and that is mind-boggling! To think that prayer not only puts us in touch but glues us like superglue, (only closer,) to God our Father in Jesus is amazing! I don't think I've begun to really realize the riches of prayerfully uniting with God like that, --but I'm longing to learn more and more and

[Gibs]

To the comment, of Jesus praying to Himself, no He did not, even thougth the fulness of the Father dwelt in Him He prayed as a man, one of us, He as our example prayed unto His Father in Heaven. He taught us how to come to the Throne of Grace which was actually through Him as He was the mediator that we might do so. The fulness of the Father in Him was one of the purposes of Him being fully God with us. He was made Mediator God for us. Otherwise we could never aproach the throne of grace. He is our high Priest at the Throne in Heaven now, and by His Spirit He continually is with us.

With one hand He reaches us and with the other the Father and the Throne of Grace.

Joh 14:18 ¶ I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

Mt 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Yes for sure, to see Jesus is to see the Father for the Father dwelt in Him in all fulness.

Col 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.