I avoided thinking about pink elephants until now... because I just read it now haha.
Never mind, I defeated my own point already đ€Ł
Did you think about pink elephants?
DONâT THINK ABOUT PINK ELEPHANTS!!!
Ok we can stop the discussion, thank you for your input!
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." The term "begotten" indicates that there is a beginning but we know that there is not one who was created after God or the Father, so the term cannot mean another person but a role or when He came as a man. If we look at the 2 perspectives can we see the difference we get in our view of love? If it's One God who comes down to earth Himself to die for us, vs. one person sending another person to die for us.
Luke 1:31-35 "And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." I think the term Son of God is indicating that Jesus is not just a man but God in a human body, not conceived by man but by a miracle from God.
Understanding that, what I'm referring to is that we should read for ourselves otherwise we may be mislead if we just take what we hear as truth. While maybe this isn't a salvation issue/topic, it affects how we understand the Bible. If you read it like that then Son of God sounds like someone different from God. I don't think He is showing three.
I have to discontinue the discussion. May Jesus bless you
Why do you think God keeps showing showing three?
it seems like a plain reading too me
yes, Son of of God sounds like a different person. they have that a lot in the ot, âJoshua son of Nunâ for example
I donât understand why you used 2 Corinthians 13:5 since it is talking about making sure you are saved, but I do agree with you that we should not simply justify out beliefs. They need to line up with scripture first and foremost.
When you read the term "Son of God" is this referring to a different person to you? (Son referring to Jesus and God referring to the Father.)
I think it's similar to what you're saying with John 12:28-30, it was for people to know that Jesus was the Messiah.
I think the reason for this happening is recorded in John 1:32-34. "And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God." So it looks to me like the purpose of this was for John to know who the Messiah was.
Yes I only use KJV, I'm not 100% against using other versions but there are some spots where words are changed in other versions that make a big difference. I also try to use Strong's concordance to get better ideas of what some words mean if I don't understand.
Why else did it happen? Trying to think biblically, I thought of this: John 12:28-30 (KJV) 28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, [saying], I have both glorified [it], and will glorify [it] again. 29 The people therefore, that stood by, and heard [it], said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him. 30 Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes.
2 Cor. 13:5 tells us to "examine yourselves, whether we be in the faith; prove your own selves." I think it's important to look at what we believe to see if it's correct and not to just justify our own beliefs, so that when we find things we have understood incorrectly, we can have a better understanding. After all, we are not God and don't know everything there is to know, yet we don't know one specific thing that we are wrong about, otherwise we wouldn't think it that way.
I agree, I don't see anything in the text to suggest that God is trying to communicate that He is everywhere at once but only 3. But the principle of God being omnipresent can help us understand Him more. I understand what you are saying but realize that you are saying if from the bias of God being 3 separate persons. If we take an outside view for a minute, and understand that God (whoever He is) has all power and can do anything, what is He trying to convey by this happening? Understanding from a trinity perspective one might say He is trying to convey 3 persons, but from an outside perspective, what else do we know about why this happened?
Thatâs an interesting question. This is where the believe like a child would come into play, i think. To say it simply: that is what those verses show. God is showing three. Why? If you didnât have the bias you have, you would think three. If you didnât know about Godâs omnipresence, you would think three. i donât see anything in the text to suggest that God is trying to communicate He is everywhere at once but only three. Do you?
If I am coming across as prideful then then "killing the discussion" is a good thing, so I'm sorry if that's how I was coming across. I agree that we don't understand everything, but my question is, why is the trinity something we are supposed to accept as a true base to build off of? I do not see anywhere in the Bible where God is three persons. If I take one of the examples you used (Matt. 3:16-17), to say that because Jesus is in the water while the Spirit is in the sky, and a voice came from heaven means there must be 3 different people would make perfect sense IF God isn't omnipresent. But if He is omnipresent then He isn't bound by our laws of nature, and why then would a voice from heaven as the spirit comes from heaven, mean that there must be 3 separate people?
We know that Jesus is the messiah because He fulfilled all the many prophesies, about the messiah, as you said. Idk how many there are, but there are a lot!âSomething like a hundred or so. I heard this example once of the mathematical possibility for Jesus to have fulfilled something like eight of them: if we filled the state of Texas two feet deep with silver dollar coins and then marked one of them, mixed the coins all together thoroughly, then blindfolded someone and sent them to go anywhere in the state and choose the marked coin on the first try, thatâs the same possibility of Jesus fulfilling just those few. (Basically zero). So if He fulfilled a hundred prophesies, but only ninety-nine are understandable to you but one doesnât make sense to you, just set the one aside for now. Donât make up stuff to make it fit better into your understanding. God says plenty we donât understand. There are plenty of scriptures to show that there are more than one person of God, (and plenty to show there is only one God.)
Iâm sorry, I did not mean to kill the discussion! I just wanted to remind us to take things in a sober-minded and reverent way, remembering who weâre talking about.
Thanks LacyGene. We don't have to keep discussing it, I just want to point out that the reason it matters to me personally is because Jesus is my God because I believe that Jesus is the Messiah. And whoever the Messiah was going to be, that one had to fulfill all the prophecies of the Messiah (for example must be the seed of David), and if all the prophecies of the Messiah were not fulfilled by Jesus then He was an impostor and not the Messiah. But I believe He was the Messiah, and one of the prophecies was that He would be called the Everlasting Father.
Yeah, definitely donât take the âread it like a child ideaâ too far for sure!
Thanks! I ran across this verse and thought you guys would appreciate it: Hosea 6:6 (CSB) For I desire faithful love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.
The reason I think Dec. 25 is incorporating Roman religion is because of a lot of the similarities in the way it's celebrated and how pegan religions celebrated. But I'll leave that up to you if you want to hear my reasons for thinking that some time.
LacyGene, Yes I understand that, but one of the things to consider is that if the writers didn't believe that God was three persons then that's not what would have thought by the way it's written. A child reading Isaiah 9:6 is also going to think that the Son is going to be called the Father is that Jesus was the same one as the Father. I think it's more trying to understand what they were talking about when they were writing what they wrote because as you said, the Bible must all match.
Will, I'm not 100% familiar with the creeds either, and I'm not saying they must be wrong. All I'm saying is that I don't view them as determining and think that it's possible that they are wrong if it's not what the Bible is saying (which in this case it looks like to me.) With the Bible not saying that God is 3 separate persons it looks to me like the trinity is a theory about who the Jehovah God is based on what people find in the Bible, and same with the oneness theory. A theory can be true or not true, and I'm just saying that I disagree with that theory of who God is or how He worked/works.
Thanks Roger, we don't have to agree or think the same things but it gives us more to think about and consider when we read the Bible. It's not us that can open each other's eyes but only God can help us see more clearly one way or the other.
The reason I place emphasis on the historical acceptance of doctrine is because of verses like Hebrews 13:9a, âBe not carried about with divers and strange doctrines.â If a doctrine is Biblical, Iâll accept it. But say two contrary doctrines are biblical with one having been historically accepted and the other being âstrange.â Iâll go with the historically accepted doctrine.
@Stephen, thanks for reading the articles. About the creeds: Iâm not familiar with the Constantinople creed, but I do accept the Nicene creed. I know itâs not the Bible, I just donât see anything in it that contradicts scripture. I also would be careful about discrediting the Nicene Council. While they didnât do everything right, they did clarify that Jesus was God and unified the church on that principle. They also are the reason we have the biblical cannon that we have, and they separated the cannon from the apocrypha (not separated enough, but they did separate them). Basically, my point is that if you discount the Council of Nicea too much, you might have a hard time accepting our current biblical canon. As far as December 25, I can never understand why people think itâs incorporating Roman paganism because the intended and actual effect was the total eradication of Roman paganism. We can discuss it later if you want.
âThe fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: But fools despise wisdom and instruction.â ââProverbs⏠â1âŹ:â7âŹ. So out of a fear of the Lord, we carefully examine scripture to make sure we say what is true about Him
âCome now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.â ââIsaiah⏠â1âŹ:â18. âGet wisdom, get understanding: Forget it not; neither decline from the words of my mouth. Forsake her not, and she shall preserve thee: Love her, and she shall keep thee. Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: And with all thy getting get understanding.â ââProverbs⏠â4âŹ:â5âŹ-â7âŹ
@LacyGene, thank you for your warning. I agree that we are called to have faith like a child. I would add that we are to be careful with the doctrine we choose to accept; thatâs why we are examining scripture closely. âNow the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.â Acts⏠â17âŹ:â11âŹ. âSo he reasoned in the synagogue with both Jews and God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to debate with him.â ââActs⏠â17âŹ:â17âŹ-â18âŹa
Jesus in the water. Spirit in the sky. Father in heaven.
Matthew 3:16-17 (KJV) 16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Comforter ⊠I ⊠Father
Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father
John 15:26 (KJV) But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
âŠGOD, and his Spirit, hath sent meâŠ
Isaiah 48:16-17 (KJV) 16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there [am] I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me. 17 Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I [am] the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way [that] thou shouldest go.
I just happened to decide to listen to Hebrews 1 and even tho it wasnât what I was thinking of posting, it fits with reading it like a child. If you read it like a child, what is the child going to think? One person speaking to and of himself, or one speaking to and of another person?
As I was praying about responding to this thread, it seemed like it would be good to give a warning. The conversation here seems like it has become a fleshly exercise rather than an honest seeking to know The God of all the earth. Donât be prideful in your âknowledgeâ. I do believe this is an important issue because if you donât have the true God, you canât have salvation. However, examine your heart carefully with the fear of God before you that you are not just trying to reinforce your view rather than looking at scripture plainly for what it says. Believe like a child. It doesnât have to make sense to you to be the truth.
So, I think at this point, I'm just going to share a couple more excellent articles for you to check out, and then close out my part in the debate đ https://tinyurl.com/2d9ve8sr This first one explains the biblical nature of the Trinity very thoroughly, and has the answers to some of your questions (including about Isaiah 9:6). I think it will help you understand our viewpoint even better đ https://tinyurl.com/3emvxd5d Also, this second one contrasts the doctrine of the Trinity with polytheism, as you were asking what's the difference. But it was good discussing this with you Stephen, and I pray that God will reveal the truth to you about it đđ
*no oneâs arguing for three Godâs
Yes, basically if the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are separate persons or the same. Either way agreeing that He/they are all God.
Sorry I didn't get to everything in order. Going back to what you said Roger about what Jesus said when He was dying on the cross. I think Jesus was saying that out of fleshly nature (same as when He cried out that He felt forsaken). So His subjectivity to the fleshly nature was over as He was fulfilling being the ultimate sacrificial lamb.
@LacyGene - no one is arguing for the Gods. Weâre discussing whether to believe the Trinity or not
Roger: In verse 16 & 18 Jesus says the Father sent Him, and that's why they ask Him where His Father is. By their question it leads me to think that they knew He was telling them that His father sent Him. This is why it looks to me like John is not just referring to verse 26 but to the whole conversation that Jesus had with them, especially verse 25. If He was claiming to be the Father then we'd expect them to try to stone Him for it, but John specifies that they didn't know that's what He was talking about.
Reminder: All scripture is true. When it doesnât seem to go together, it still has to. We may not understand, but God knows who He Himself is.
when was the last time you read thru the entire Bible?
I I have not been reading everything, but is the question whether there are three but one God?
Thank you Will, I read the articles and think I have a bit better understanding of your belief of the trinity. I'm not sure what you think/believe about the early ecumenical creeds mentioned in the second article, as obviously if one believes that everything at the council of nicaea has to be correct then they must believe the trinity as that's where it was decided on. From what I've found, Pope Julius I (337ad - 352ad) declared December 25 as the birthdate of Jesus. Knowing that the Roman gods had their birthdays around the winter solstice and that Jesus was declared to be born then, (I'm assuming you don't think that's when He was born? That would be a whole other study) leads me to believe that Roman peganism had already been trying to incorporate Christianity into it. So for me, I don't look at them as fact or must be truths.
I agree with you that there is a difference or distinction between flesh and spirit. But Jesus Himself said that the Father was inside Him, and God is a spirit. I agree that the flesh aspect of Him is different than the spiritual. But the one living inside that body was the Jehovah God of the old testament. Similar to how we are more than just flesh but have a spiritual man on the inside but are yet only one person.
I think He was meaning the same one because of the response from the Jews. Jesus calling Himself and His Father one caused them to pick up stones to stone Him because they said that made Him God. I think that if it wasn't saying He was the same that they would have no reason to stone Him because He could be talking about His earthly Father.
It's also the same word used to say there is one God in James 2:19, yet we don't say that it's a different one.
I understand how one would naturally think that because when I hear that there are 3 separate persons with extra human powers that all exist, I naturally think that each one fits the definition of a God, but obviously you aren't saying that they are 3 Gods. But what if the word "and" isn't meaning an additional separate person? Why can't it be giving/saying that Jesus/God has the attributes of a Father? 2 Corinthians 6:16-18 says, "And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty."
It looks to me like He is both dwelling in us and being a Father to us.
Secondly, when it says "one", it doesn't mean "the same". In that context, according to Mounce Interlinear, the Greek word for "one" means "one virtually by union"; so essentially, "united". And there are several examples of more than one individual being called "one". For example, it says a man will become ONE with his wife. That doesn't mean that now they are the same person, does it? In 1 Cor 6:17, it says "But the one who joins himself to the Lord is ONE SPIRIT with Him." Does that now mean that we ourselves ARE the Lord? No... And that uses the same Greek word for "one" as in John 10:30. Third example is from John 17:22: "I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be ONE AS WE ARE ONE:" Again, same Greek word. And here's a quote from an article that's very well said: "The oneness of believers in this text is oneness involving distinct persons. Christ uses this same concept of oneness dealing with individual believers when He speaks of Himself and His Father ("as You Father, are in Me, and I in You"). The only way Christ's statement makes any sense at all is if He and His Father are truly two distinct persons, who are yet one nonetheless as well. How else could believers be one as Christ and the Father are one? Might they mesh into a blob of humanity that become one person and are no longer distinct persons? Of course not! Scripture teaches no such thing. Believers are one indeed in the Spirit (Ephesians 4:3-6; 1 John 4:6), and are one body (Ephesians 4:4), but they are nonetheless, at the same time, distinct persons in the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:11-12)."
Verse 27 doesn't say that Jesus was claiming to be the Father. You have to look at the context in v 26, which clearly says: "But HE WHO SENT ME is reliable, and what I have heard from him I tell the world.' They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father." So he was talking about his Father when he spoke of Him who sent him, not when he was speaking of who he claimed to be.
Roger, the reason I think He was talking about the Father is because John specifically says in verse 27 "They understood not that he spake to them of the Father." If John 10:30 doesn't mean they are the same then what does it mean?
I interpret Jesus saying that only the Father knows is referring to God's Spirit and that there is no way humanity (including the humanity He took on) is going to find the day of His return (such as people claiming Jesus is coming back a certain day). How is it possible that the Son doesn't know if He is omniscient? I don't see how both of these can be true unless He is referring to the flesh of Him. Is there another explanation for how these could both be true?
One other question on your 4th point, if the Father is the head of the trinity then do you believe they are all equal or do you believe different on that?
I'm a little confused on your 4th point. When you say Isaiah 9:6 is referring to God who is our father, are you saying that it's not referring specifically to the son? Because if Jesus and the Father are 2 separate persons and they are each our Father, wouldn't that mean we have 2 Fathers? Or are you saying that Jesus is our Father and the Father is Jesus' Father but not our Father? or am I misunderstanding what you are saying?
I will read articles you sent and reply to your 3rd point when I get a chance.
Ok but just because it's been believed for a long time or by lots of people, it doesn't make it right. The trinity idea survived the reformation but so did other things because we still have the Catholic religion today. But even during the reformation there were people who disagreed with the trinity and were burned for heresy. But our trust should be in God and the Bible over what man says. Shouldn't we continue to learn and not just follow what a religion or denomination says about everything because we agree with some points it makes.
So it seems you're saying that Jesus' flesh (the human part of him) prayed to his own spirit, the divine part of him? That doesn't make much sense, because Jesus' spirit was on earth, too. When Jesus died, he said "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit". If the Father WAS his spirit, why would he be committing it to the Father?
Naturally, if you see the word "and", it indicates more than one thing or person. So, just as an example, Roger is my middle name and Christopher is my first name. If you got a letter that said "Greetings from Christopher and Roger", you would obviously assume that it's from two different ppl. That's just the same as it is all throughout the New Testament. For example: âTo Timothy my true son in the faith: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father AND Christ Jesus our Lord.â (1Ti 1:2; cf., 2 Tim 1:2) "Grace, mercy, and peace will be with us, from God the Father AND from Jesus Christ the Father's Son, in truth and love." (2 John 1:3) Why would it keep on saying God the Father AND Jesus Christ if they are the same?
To answer some of your questions and comments, Stephen: I use the NIV1984. Regardless of whether he said "I am the one I claim to be" or "I am he", Jesus clearly was referring to who he had always claimed to be, which was the Messiah, the Son of God. Bc right after they asked him, "Who are you?" and he said "Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning." And if you look thru the gospels, Jesus never said he was the Father. Yes, he said that he and the Father are one, but that doesn't mean they are the same Person.
Very well said, Will đ
5th, how do you explain this verse: âBut about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.â Matthew⏠â24âŹ:â36âŹ. How can the Father know something the Son does not unless they are different persons? I interpret it that while the Son and the Father are wholly God, something about their separation as persons makes one able to know something the other doesnât. What distinction do you make between them to make this possible?
4th - Deut 6:4 - it does mean one in number because the Trinity is one in number (1x1x1=1). Isaiah 9:6 - the verse refers to God who is our father, and Jesus is wholly God just as the Father is wholly God despite neither being each other. Matthew 23:9 - God is our Father. The Father is the father of Jesus in the sense that He is the head of the Trinity. But the answer to this verse is that God is our Father.
3rd, to clarify, I think your understanding of the is the opposite of how I understand it. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not parts of God only unified in purpose, instead, they are each the whole of God unified in being but separate in person and purpose. So, to speak of Jesus is to speak of the whole of God, while simultaneously not speaking about and Father or Holy Spirit. The same is true of speaking about the Father and Holy Spirit. In other words, to speak of one is to speak of the whole of God and not speak of other persons. To speak of God is to speak of each of the three member, though sometimes God the Father is implied by context. Each member of the Trinity has unique purpose or person that is destinct from the other persons, but each member makes up the entirety of the whole that is God. Here is are two articles that have verse references: https://www.gotquestions.org/Trinity-Bible.html - https://www.gotquestions.org/Tritheism-Trinity.html
2nd, God definitely does hide himself at times, choosing not to reveal everything about himself. Isaiah 45:15, âTruly you are a God who hides himself, O God of Israel, the Savior.â John 1:18a, âNo man hath seen God at any time;â Matthew⏠â13âŹ:â10âŹ-â11âŹ, âThe disciples came to him and asked, âWhy do you speak to the people in parables?â He replied, âBecause the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but NOT to them.â â Also, âAt that time Jesus said, âI praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have HIDDEN these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do. âAll things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son CHOOSES TO REVEAL HIM.ââ Matthew⏠â11âŹ:â25âŹ-â27. Thatâs why I believe itâs reasonable to believe God emphasized His oneness to Israel to show Israel as different from the surrounding nations, but when God decided to include the gentiles, He revealed that he was 3 in 1. In other words, He chose to reveal what would accomplish His purpose.
1st, unlike indulgences, the doctrine of the Trinity survived the reformation, and has not only survived more than 500 years of sola scriptura, but also every major Protestant biblical scholar and every major Protestant denomination supports the Trinity. And I donât think all those scholars decided to believe the Trinity without examining scripture.
Matt. 23:9 "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."
If we have only one Father then who is it? God the Father, or Jesus?
According to Isaiah 9:6, Jesus is going to be called the everlasting Father; if it wasn't Jesus they were writing about when the apostles wrote about the Father, then when is Jesus called the Father?
I'm not saying that the trinity is contradictory to itself, but I don't think that's who God is because I don't think that's what the Bible is saying. If for example, Deut. 6:4 is not talking about 1 in number but 1 in purpose, then what do we have to say that there is only 1 God and not 3 Gods with 1 purpose?
Understanding the triads of Egypt, this is what Israel was brought out of and God was showing them who He was (provider, protector, etc.) This is part of why I think Deut. 6:4 is saying just one person or spirit rather than one triad or trinity.
I agree that we can't exhaust learning about God, but I don't think He hid who He was. I don't think they crucified Jesus because they thought He was saying He was a second person and they only believed in one, but because they thought He was saying that He was the one and they didn't think He was because they were carnally minded and looking for deliverance from Rome and not from sin. I think John 10:30 shows that they thought He was claiming to be the one person of God, because when He said, "I and my father are one" they were going to stone Him because saying this meant He was claiming to be God. (I don't see how saying that would be claiming to be God if there are 3 persons to God and He was just meaning one in purpose because He could also be one in purpose with an earthly father.)
From my understanding, in 325ad at the counsel of Nicaea is where it was formalized and officially decided on in 381 or something like that. Penance was also around in 250ad, but that doesn't mean that it was correct. Yes, there were different sects of Jews, we can even see this with the Pharisees and Sadducees. I'm not saying that because many believed in one person and one being that that's what makes it true, but the more we understand about them, the better we can understand the context.
I looked it up in a book
called
The
Forgotten Trinity
by James White, and it all made
more sense after I realized a triune entity was possible.
The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that God is three
persons in one being. â
Being
â and â
person
â are not the same
thing, which means the Trinity is not a contradiction. To
illustrate, consider this: I am one being, a human being. I am
also one person, Nabeel Qureshi. So I am one being with one
person, a human being who is Nabeel Qureshi. The doctrine of
the Trinity teaches that God is one being with three persons:
Father, Son, and Spirit.
Doctrine of the Trinity
: The
belief that God is one in being
and three in person
Being
: The quality or essence
that makes something what it
is
Person
: The quality or essence
that makes someone who he
is
In the fullness of time, and without any productive
discussion with David, I understood the Trinity on my own
terms and realized it was a possible model of Godâs nature. I
was not convinced it was the true model, since it contravened
Tauheed, but I had to concede it was viable. And when that
happened, my thoughts about God became richer
I looked around
the room, agape at their blind acceptance.
But was it really blind? The professor was teaching rarefied
science, describing the subatomic world. At that level, things
happen that make no sense to those of us who conceptualize
the world at only a human level. Even the apparently simple
idea of atoms is baffling when we think about it. It means that
the chair I am sitting on is not actually a solid object,
innocently supporting my weight. It is almost entirely empty
space, occupied only in small part by particles moving at
incomprehensible speeds. When we think about it, it seems
wrong, but itâs just the way things are in our universe. Thereâs
no use arguing about it.
I turned my glance away from the other students,
concluding they had not blindly accepted a nonsensical
concept. They had just realized before I did that there are
truths about our universe that do not fit easily into our minds.
My eyes rested on the three separate structures of nitrate
on the wall, my mind assembling the pieces. One molecule of
nitrate is all three resonance structures all the time and never
just one of them. The three are separate but all the same, and
they are one. They are three in one.
Thatâs when it clicked: if there are things in this world that
can be three in one, even incomprehensibly so, then why
cannot God?
And just like that, the Trinity became potentially true in my
mind. I looked over at David and decided to say nothing.
Later, I revisited the
doctrine of the Trinity
with a fresh
perspective. What do Christians mean when they say God is
three in one? Three what in one what?
Although the concept was easy enough to grasp, the
reality proved to be baffling. Mrs. Adamski concluded her
lesson by commenting, âThese drawings are just the best way
to represent resonance structures on paper, but itâs actually
much more complicated. Technically, a molecule with
resonance is every one of its structures at every point in time,
yet no single one of its structures at any point in time.â
The rest of the class must have had the same expressions
on their faces that I did because Mrs. Adamski repeated
herself. âItâs all the structures all the time, never just one of
them.â After another brief
pause, she afforded us some
reassurance. âBut donât worry about that. Youâre only going to
be tested on the structures we can draw,â to which the class
gave a collective sigh of relief.
But not me. I turned to David, unable to get past what Mrs.
Adamski had just said. David subtly shrugged and returned his
attention to the professor as she moved to the next topic. It
appeared I was the only one still thinking about the bomb she
had just dropped.
How could something be many things at once? Many
different things? We were not talking about the attributes of
something like a steak, which can be hot, juicy, thick, and
tender all at once. We were talking about separate spatial and
electrical arrangements. What the professor said would be akin
to saying that Nabeel is eating said steak in Texas while
simultaneously napping in a hammock in the Caribbean. As
wonderful as each would be individually, it made no sense to
say I might be doing both at once.
I was perplexed, and what made it even worse was that no
one around me seemed bothered in the least.
Projected in the front of the room were three large
depictions of nitrate in bold black and white. We were studying
resonance, the configuration of electrons in certain molecules.
The basic concept of resonance is easy enough to understand,
even without a background in chemistry. Essentially, the
building block of every physical object is an atom, a positively
charged nucleus orbited by tiny, negatively charged electrons.
Atoms bond to one another by sharing their electrons, forming
a molecule. Different arrangements of the electrons in certain
molecules are called âresonance structures.â Some molecules,
like water, have no resonance while others have three
resonance structures or more, like the nitrate on the board.
The reason 3 is associated with divinity so much is because of its prominence in creation. Here is a list of a few. Life: birth, life, death. Three elements: earth, water, fire. Three domains: earth, sky, sea. Time: past, present, future. Humans: soul, body, mind. Stories/music: beginning, middle, end. Family: father, mother, offspring. In modern science, their are even more groups of 3. For instance, we can only perceive 3 dimensions. Most notable is the literal fabric of the universe which is space, time, and matter. Each is a distinct thing, but neither exists without the other. Also, here is an excerpt from Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus by Nabeel Qureshi:
Also, it seems incorrect to use Romans 1:19-20 to say that Jews would have all believed the trinity if it were true because if everything about Godâs nature was so obvious, then they would have accepted Jesus as the Son of God. But most Jews did not and still do not accept Jesus as God, so clearly not everything about God was clear to the Jews. The verses are also supposed to be referring to the Godhead being clearly seen by gentiles and Jews so that all are without excuse. So, itâs worthwhile to explore gentile thought as imperfect interpretations of the revelation of creation. Interestingly enough, most gentiles believe in polytheism with the most powerful Gods usually being a trio. In fact, deities are in triads basically all over the world, and the number three also has near universal association with divinity. This is similar to how nearly every cultural tradition has a narrative about a world wide flood, suggesting that the event really occurred.
So, I found a bit about early Jewish thought. It seems like we canât actually know what the ancient Jews thought about the idea of trinity. This is because after Christians formalized the doctrine of the trinity in the 3rd century AD, Jews heavily censored Jewish documents that suggested the idea that God may have more than one person. However, some uncensored documents show that there were Jews who believed ideas that are closely related to the idea of the trinity. The most radical view suggested is that there are two Godâs, God the father and God the Son (the doctrine of the trinity of course rejects the idea of polytheism). Some also argue that it wasnât actually two Godâs, but that there is or will be a near divine from the Davidic line being called the Son with God being the Father. So, it seems there was some differences of opinion in Jewish thought, the prevailing one admittedly being that God is one in being and person.
Absolutely, the point of discussion is to learn more, and at the very least to understand other's point of view and where they get it from. So I'm always open to hearing from anyone. If I'm understanding something wrong I want to know because it's not about justifying ourselves but about getting to know and understand God more.
Hi, Iâve been reading this conversation for a while. Would it be ok if I answered your point about Romans 1:19-20. Iâve done some research on early Jewish thought as well as God as revealed through what has been made
I'm trying to figure out where the difference is starting from, I think it might be what we are using for definitions of "person" "being" and "God". I'm looking at person and being as the same definition. I understand that you are saying 3 persons but 1 being. I just don't know how you are differentiating a person from a being. Would you be able to explain the difference in definition that you are using for person and being?
4. I think there is a difference between the flesh part and God part of Jesus (fully man and fully God). And the flesh part of Him was still subject to humanity. Psalms 65:2 "O thou that hearest prayer, unto thee shall all flesh come." Jesus was also flesh so He must pray. I think 1Cor. 15:24 is talking about the role of sonship. In heaven there will be no sin so the blood of Jesus is no longer applied as there is no more sin to cover.
3. To clarify, I don't believe angels created, and I'm not sure if that's what is means. But that it is God alone that created as we see from verse 27.
sorry that last one should have been part of #1 not 3
3. Just to get clarification, do you believe that when it says "and" that the only thing it can be talking about is a separate thing or person? For example "what is his name, and what is his son's name?" in proverbs 30:4.
2. Can I ask what version you are using? I've looked in a few different versions and they say "I am he" rather than "I am the one I claim to be." Understanding that the "he" is italicized which means it was added to make the sentence make more sense in English, so the actual words would be just "...if you believe not that I am." This is in response to their question asking who His father is.
1. Romans 1:19-20 "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." It looks to me like Paul says that from the foundation of the world the Godhead can be clearly seen.
4. What leads me to believe that Jesus cannot be the exact same Person as Father is the fact that they are shown interacting with each other all over the place, not just when Jesus was on earth, but even now that he is in heaven. Jesus is shown praying to the Father all throughout his time on earth (especially John 17), and even now that he is in heaven, he still prays to the Father. Romans 8:34 says that Jesus âis at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.â In 1 John 2:1 we read that Jesus is our âadvocate with the Father,â and from Hebrews 7:25 we learn that Jesus âalways lives to intercedeâ for us. Why would one person talk, pray, and intercede to himself? Also look at 1 Cor 15:24: "Then the end will come, when he (Jesus) hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power." How could God "hand over the kingdom" to himself?
3. In Genesis 1:26, God could not have been talking to angels, because angels are not creators. And He wouldn't be talking to Himself in the third person plural. So, like I said, I believe this verse clearly shows the members of the Trinity conversing with each other. All three of them have existed eternally, and they are able to interact with each other, something that wouldn't be possible if they were all exactly the same Person. Now, as you pointed out, while verse 26 uses the pronouns âUsâ and âOur,â verse 27 uses the singular pronouns âHisâ and âHeâ to refer to the same God. As in Genesis 1:1 the word âGodâ in Genesis 1:26 is a plural noun, and the verb âsaidâ is a third person singular verb. The God of the Bible reveals Himself as plural in Persons but single in Being.
2. In John 8, Jesus never said that he was the Father, and Jesus never claimed to be the Father. Jesus said: "I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins.â The one he claimed to be all along was the Son of God. (see Luke 22:70)
1. In the Old Testament times, the Son and Holy Spirit had not yet been fully revealed, as they later were in the New Testament. However, they still were definitely mentioned throughout the Old Testament (including all the prophecies about Jesus.) One verse to look at is Proverbs 30:4: "Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands? Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and the name OF HIS SON? Tell me if you know!" So we see that even in Proverbs, it gives mention of God the Father AND his Son (Jesus).
What is it that leads you to believe that Jesus can't be the Father?
How do you interpret Gen. 1:26-27?
Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." verse 27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Whoever God is talking to (maybe angels?), it looks like God is still the only one who did the creating because in verse 27 when it says that God created man it goes back to singular rather than saying in "their" image or that "they" created man.
2 Corinthians 13:1 says "This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." It looks to me like Paul is saying that he witnessed 3 times but doesn't have to be 3 different people.
If we keep reading from John 8:19-27, we see that the pharisees asked Jesus "where is thy Father?" His reply to them was "Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also." He then says in verse 24 "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." The Pharisees asked Him who He was again right after this and He replies in verse 25 "even the same that I said unto you from the beginning." In verse 27 John specifies that the Pharisees didn't understand that Jesus was speaking about the Father. It looks to me like Jesus said that He is the Father in these verses.
So from my understanding, the reason that 3 is believed rather than more is because only 3 are ever mentioned in the Bible? If this is the case, then before Jesus came to earth, how did the Israelites (or anyone) know that there were specifically 3 persons in the Godhead?
Also, I'm very curious to know how you interpret Genesis 1:26, where God says "Us" and "Our".
Consider the verse that says "every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." Now, consider that in regards to the Trinity. Look at what John 8:16-18 says: "But if I do judge, my decisions are right, because I AM NOT ALONE. I stand with the Father, who sent me. In your own Law it is written that the testimony of TWO MEN is valid. I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me.â Jesus was showing that there was a distinction between himself and the Father, and that they even constituted two individuals.
I believe that the reason we believe there are only 3 persons of the Trinity is #1, the Bible as a whole only ever mentions 3, and #2, there are specific verses the list only three members. Mat 28:19: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," 2 Corinthians 13:14: âThe grace of the Lord Jesus Christ [the Son], and the love of God [the Father], and the communion of the Holy Spirit [the Holy Spirit] be with you all. Amen." Also, just as something extra, I believe the number 3 biblically represents divine wholeness, completeness and perfection, and confirmation. If ever there were a desire to highlight an idea, thought, event or noteworthy figure in the Bible for their prominence, the number three was used to put a divine stamp of completion or fulfillment on the subject.
Yes, I definitely agree that all three members of the Trinity possess those attributes.
In my mind, and from all the studying that I've done on this topic (from both sides of the argument), I'm 100% convinced of the Trinity.
Another question, if the Bible really is saying that there is only one God but He can be made up of more than 1 person, what is there to limit us and give us such confidence that there must be only three persons rather than 4 or 5 or any other number?
The article also attributes omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence to all three persons of the trinity. Would you agree that all three (if separate persons) each have all of these attributes?
I read the article you sent, one thing I'd like to point out is that in Deut. 6:4 it says "The LORD our God is one LORD." While I agree there is only one true living God, it looks to me like this verse is used to say that there is only one God but that it doesn't mean that there can't be more than one person to God. BUT it's saying not just that God is one, but that Jehovah is only one ("is one LORD").
Can I ask, is the Godhead/trinity something that (in your mind) you are willing to question or try to understand more, or is it something that your mind is made up on and everything must fit into the trinity somehow?
Ok I will read it. I'm 29
Btw, Stephen, how old are you, if you don't mind my asking?
Ok, so I found this excellent article on the Trinity, by Answers in Genesis, that does a better job at explaining everything concisely. I would strongly encourage you to read through this carefully and prayerfully, and I believe that that you'll see how the doctrine of the Trinity is 100% biblical. đ https://tinyurl.com/35rthk37
Lol, don't worry, I'll try to reply soon đ
60
Saturday, Jul 1, 2023 at 5:59 PM
remove
Merp
The word Elohiym is used for all gods and for God. If it's strictly plural then it should translate into "In the beginning Gods created the heaven and the earth." The English word "deer" is plural but when translated to Spanish can be "cierva" or "ciervas" depending on if it's talking about more than one or not. But "cierva" is singular, just like the English word "God." If Elohiym is plural and is mistranslated then it should say "Gods" shouldn't it? From what I find it's never meaning more than one when talking about the Hebrew God.
Understanding that different sources might come up with different answers, this is from Encyclopedia Britannica: "Though Elohim is plural in form, it is understood in the singular sense. Thus, in Genesis the words, âIn the beginning God (Elohim) created the heavens and the earth,â Elohim is monotheistic in connotation, though its grammatical structure seems polytheistic. The Israelites probably borrowed the Canaanite plural noun Elohim and made it singular in meaning in their cultic practices and theological reflections."
Not to be facetious but can I ask, what is the difference between there being "three distinct and separate divine persons that make up one God." And there being "three Gods that all agree with each other, have the same will, are in unison, etc."?
For your last question, I'm open to believing it if that's what it looks like the Bible is saying/teaching. But I can't believe it if it the Bible looks to be saying otherwise. I agree that if we are just debating then it won't do anything. I'm willing to study about God/the Godhead, or who God is, but in doing so we would have to look at what it looks like the Bible is saying rather than trying to make the Bible say what either of us believe.
I believe God is omnipresent, not that His flesh was, but His Spirit. John 3:13 says: "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." It looks to me like the Bible doesn't say that He was exclusively just on earth.
Philippians 2:7-8: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
[8]And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. - I think this is talking about Him becoming a man, He could have come as a king or someone powerful but He chose to come humbly and as a servant. The exact opposite of how we would expect God to be and way less than He deserves.
Ok that makes sense on what you mean by "person." Just wanted to make sure I was understanding correctly.
Also, just a question: are you even open to believing that there is a Trinity? If not, then there's really no point in debating it, since neither of us are planning to change our minds đ
8. I believe the doctrine of the Trinity stems from the fact that the Bible shows the members of the Trinity existing simultaneously, as well as interacting with one another and referring to each other in the second and third persons. None of that would be the case if the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were simply "modes" or "roles" of God that He takes on at different points in time.
7. Colossians 2:9 means that Jesus is fully God and fully man. He has a glorified body, but all the aspects of the divine nature are encapsulated in it.
6. Like I said, while Jesus was on earth, he relied on the Father, who was still in heaven, to reveal everything to him. That is how he knew all those things. The Father wasn't simply the "divine aspect of Him", as you put it, that Jesus still had on earth, bc Philippians says that Jesus emptied himself of all his glory (including his omniscience) and made himself nothing. He took on the limitations of human flesh. Plus, if Jesus referred to the Father "in heaven" while he was on earth, how could one part of Jesus be in heaven while his flesh was on earth? Jesus said he "came down from heaven."
5. Jesus is still fully God and fully man. He has a divine nature and a human nature (though not a sinful nature, to be clear). When Jesus rose from the dead, he had a glorified body, and he ascended into heaven just like that, still with a body. (see Luke 24:39: Jesus had flesh and bones after his resurrection; Phil 3:21, speaks of Jesus' glorious body, which is how our glorified bodies will be; 1 Tim 2:5 says "the MAN Christ Jesus")
4. Here is a good article that explains Isaiah 9:6, where Jesus is called "the Everlasting Father". https://tinyurl.com/27hncj4d
3. Regarding Elohyim, that Hebrew word is actually plural. And it's used right in Genesis 1 when it speaks of God creating everything. Genesis 1:26 says, "Then God (Elohyim) said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." Now, why is God saying "let US make man"? He wasn't talking to angels. And he wouldn't be talking to Himself, if He was just one Person. So clearly it was the Persons of the Trinity conversing together.
2. When I say "person", referring to a member of the Trinity, I don't mean a human being, but rather a Divine Person: a being that has a will, personality, emotions, etc. In other words, not just some "force" or "energy".
1. Concerning Isaiah. 44:24, like I said, I believe that many times in the Old Testament when the word "Lord"/"Jehovah" is used, it is referring to the entire Godhead. In other words, every time the Bible speaks of God, it doesn't have to say "the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit", bc they are all one. So they can be referred to collectively, or a specific Person of the Trinity can be referred to explicitly. So the Bible clearly says that God made everything THROUGH Jesus, who is the Word that was with God in the beginning. "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." (John 1:3)
Fyi, I'll probably be posting my response tomorrow đ
Would you agree that these are somewhat accurate recaps of what the 2 views are and where they come from? or do I have a wrong understanding of your view?
And the idea of oneness comes from the fact that in the old testament it appears that there is only 1 true God who made everything by himself. And in the new testament Jesus appears to be claiming to be God and praying to a God in heaven and the Spirit has God like attributes or appears to a God living inside of people. But knowing that there is only one God, the oneness view thinks there is only one being/person/entity to God and thinks that Jesus, the Father, and Spirit therefore all have to be that one God.
From what I'm understanding the idea of the trinity comes from the fact that in the new testament it appears like Jesus is praying to a God in heaven (His father), and also claiming to be God himself, and it also looks like there's this Spirit God that now lives inside of people and comforts and helps them. But because we know that there is only one God, they cannot be 3 separate Gods so they must be 1 God but made of 3 separate persons? If I'm not understanding correct then let me know.
These are some of the reasons it looks to me like there is only 1.
Colossians 2:9 says, "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." How is this possible if there are 2 others elsewhere?
I think Jesus is emphasizing that no flesh/man can know His return, not even the flesh side of Jesus. But we see He is omniscient because John 16:30 says "Now we are sure that thou knowest all things..." He knew the woman at the well had had 5 husbands, that Lazarus was dead, that He would die and be raised again. I agree that he relied on the divine aspect of Him (not that His human nature was so special but that part was like any other man.)
In Jeremiah 23:24 Jehovah says He fills heaven and earth, I don't think we can limit Him (whether a trinity or not) to just in heaven. I think it's referring to the fact that Jesus isn't just another man but that He was born of God. If Jesus is still fully man then how do we have him in us? "... Christ in you, the hope of glory." Colossians 1:27.
Sorry I see my wording on the baptism part was a little poor. I was not intending to make it about how we are baptized. My point there is that Jesus told them to use the name (not names) and when we look at when they baptized in the new testament, we only see them baptizing in the name of Jesus. This looks to me like either they are all the same, or they all have the same name. Also when we cross reference with Luke 24:47, Luke records this same thing as Jesus saying that remission of sins should be in His name. So I think either it's the same name, or the same one. Btw the name "Jesus" is just the English translation, I don't think it's the exact wording that matters for baptism.
3. Isaiah 9:6 says that the son (Jesus) will be called the councilor and the Everlasting Father, if Jesus isn't the Father then when is he called the Father? Throughout the old testament Jehovah is said to be their father a few times but in the new testament we see God being called the Father by the disciples many times, yet we don't see them calling Jesus the Father while He is on earth in flesh.
2. Part of the reason I believe it's just 1 is that God (Elohiym) is used as a generic term for any of the gods as well as for the God of Israel. LORD (Jehovah) is the name of Israel's God, kinda like Baal, Zeus, Astaroth, are names of gods that other people worshipped. Egypt had triads as their gods (elohiym), when Jehovah took Israel out of Egypt, He showed them that He was their protection and their provider. I think He was showing Israel who He was/is, it looks to me that when Moses said Jehovah our Elohiym is one Jehovah, he wasn't meaning one trinity (triad). Also when we look at Mark 1:1-3 we see that John the Baptist is the messenger crying "Prepare ye the way of the Lord." This prophecy comes from Isaiah 40:3 and the word for LORD here is Jehovah. so it looks like Jesus is Jehovah.
As for the Holy Spirit being a person, I'm not exactly sure what you are using as a definition of person. I naturally think of a human being but I'm assuming that's not what you are meaning by person?
1. Isaiah 44:24 Jehovah says that He made everything alone and by himself, and John 1 says that Jesus made all things. So would that not mean that if Jehovah is a trinity then Jesus is the one of the 3 that made everything? Could the "another" be that Jesus was no longer going to comfort them as a man like He had been then? If you keep reading vs 17-18, Jesus specifies that the disciples knew the other comforter because He was with them and would be in them. And then says "I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you." It looks to me like Jesus is specifying that it's from God not man.
When Jesus was on earth, He wasn't omniscient, as He emptied himself of His divine glory and power. Instead, He relied on the Father to reveal things to Him. Thus, the Father had not revealed to Jesus the day or the hour of his return.
Also, to answer a few of the other points you made: Yes, God the Father is a Spirit, but Jesus became flesh. And even now He is still fully God and fully man. He has a glorified, resurrected body. This is one aspect that makes Jesus the Son separate or unique from the Father. Jesus has a body, but the Father is a Spirit. John explains that the Word was in the beginning, both WITH God and of God. But then he says, âThe Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truthâ (John 1:14). Notice it says he came FROM the Father, meaning the Father remained in heaven, which is why we see Jesus praying to "Our Father in Heaven".
A3: There are many names that the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit have. Sometimes they even share certain names. However, they are still distinct persons. When we baptize someone in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, we can say just that. After all, those names themselves are their names. Idk why oneness ppl make a big deal about someone being baptized that way, bc it's using the exact words that Jesus spoke. How can you go wrong with that?
A2: I believe that many times in Scripture, including in Deut. 6:4, when it says "the LORD", it is referring to the entire Trinity. After all, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all one entity, so they can be referred to as one. Now, sometimes, you'll notice a distinction between the Father and the Son, when it's talking about them at the same time. For example, in Ps. 110:1, it says "The LORD (Hebrew word is Jehovah) said to my Lord (Hebrew word is Adonai): Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." It's showing the Father talking to Jesus. This is a reason why they are PERSONS of the Trinity, and not simply "roles" or "modes" of God, as you believe they are. If they were just that, then they wouldn't be able to interact with each other, as you see the persons of the Trinity doing in many places. God can't be talking to another "mode" of Himself. Also, each Person exists eternally at the same time, not just each form at one point in time.
Also, you might say that the Holy Spirit isn't a person. However, He is clearly shown as a person in multiple places in the Bible. He is not simply a force, nor energy, nor is He merely the mind of God, nor the presence of God, but He is actually a Divine Person. Here is an article that demonstrates the personhood of the Holy Spirit. https://tinyurl.com/4wafmws7
A1: The Father is the Father because He is our heavenly Father. He is our Father because He made us, He is the one who provides for us, etc. Jesus also referred to Him as Father, because Jesus is the Son of God, as He came from God to the earth through the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not the same as the Father, as shown in John 14: "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you ANOTHER Counselor to be with you foreverâthe Spirit of truth." (v. 16) Jesus referred to the Holy Spirit as ANOTHER, which indicates He is a separate person from the Father and Jesus. Also, Jesus said the Father would send the Holy Spirit. (v. 26) One doesn't send himself, so it again shows that the Holy Spirit was a separate person from the Father.
Q3: If there are 3 persons then what is the name of the Father? Matthew 28:19 tells us to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. If they are 3 separate persons then don't we need to know their names?
I do see how they are distinct roles or attributes or forms that God takes on, but I don't see how they are separate persons.
Q2: When the word LORD is used in the old testament (Jehovah or Yehovah or however it's supposed to be spelled) is that referring to one person of the trinity, or the trinity as a whole? for example Deut. 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD. Is he saying the LORD is one trinity, or the LORD is one person of the 3?
Q1: I'm wondering, according to the trinity, in what way is the Father the Father? It's the Holy Ghost that overshadowed Mary and that's why Jesus was called the Son of God (Luke 1:35) this is part of why I believe the Spirit is also the same as the Father.
#9 I think Jesus on earth is God lowering Himself to flesh, and that is the closest we can get to seeing God as a Spirit since we are sinful flesh.
#8 the "right hand" is an indication of power many times throughout the old testament. If the right hand of God is referring to a different person, then in Acts 7:59 why did Stephen call the Father, Jesus? "And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."
#7 In what way is the Father the Father of Jesus if Jesus was never created? His flesh was not going to remain on the earth and He was going to the position of fatherhood in heaven.
#6 "...Unto thee shall all flesh come." Psalm 65:2. Being manifest in the flesh, He made Himself subject to temptation. No one can overcome sin on their own and likewise, Jesus being the perfect example, could not just rely on the flesh that He put Himself into.
#5 Paul is emphasizes that it is through Jesus that we get our salvation. He is saying that there is no other way to get to God (not through priests) and the Jews mindset being that there was only one God, Paul is saying that Jesus is that one God.
#4 If they are separate and the Son is referring to a 2nd person of a trinity then would we have to say that Jesus isn't all knowing or omniscient?
#3 Jesus knew that He wasn't forsaken because He knew all things (John 18:4) but He still had the feelings of being forsaken. He said a few times that He was going to rise the 3rd day but that didn't take away from the human feelings He had.
I think there is a distinction between the flesh part of Him. In John 1 we see that the Word (Jesus) created all things and was from the beginning, but His human flesh was not always there. He was "made of a woman" Galatians 4:4
Thank you Roger, I'm not saying there is no distinction, but I don't think there are separate persons/beings. I think Jesus is fully man and fully God. God is a Spirit (John 4:24) and a spirit doesn't have flesh (Luke 24:39). So God, a Spirit, had to take on flesh, but He doesn't want people to look at the flesh aspect of Him but at who He really is.
I can provide you with MANY more verses that show the distinction between the Persons of the Trinity, but hopefully you get the idea đ
#9: âThe Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.â (Heb 1:3, cf. Heb 8:1) If the Son is the Father, then why does it say that He is the radiance of Godâs glory, and why again does it say He sat down at the Fatherâs right hand?
#8: But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. "Look," he said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God." (Act 7:55-56) If Jesus is the Father and the Father is Jesus, then how was Stephen able to see Jesus the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God?
#7: Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" (Joh 20:17) If Jesus is the Father, why did He say He was ascending to the Father, and why did He call the Father âMy Godâ?
#6: Read the High Priestly Prayer of Jesus to the Father in John 17. Why did Jesus pray to the Father in John 17 and many other places if He is the Father, since He would be talking to Himself?
âFor there is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus,â (1Ti 2:5) How can the man Jesus Christ be the one mediator between God and man, if He is the same person as the Father? How does He act as a mediator between man and Himself?
#4: "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.â (Mar 13:32) How can only the Father know something and not the Son unless they are two distinct Persons?
#3: âAbout three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, âEli, Eli, lema sabachthani?â (which means âMy God, my God, why have you forsaken me?â).â (Mat 27:46) How could Jesus ask why God had forsaken Him if they are exactly the same Person?
#2:âBut whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.â (Mat 10:33) How can Jesus disown anyone before the Father if they are the same?
#1: "I have installed my king on Zion, my holy mountain." I will proclaim the LORD's decree: He said to me, "You are my son; today I have become your Father. (Psa 2:6-7) Why does Jehovah God need to install His King on His holy mountain and declare the King to be His Son and Himself as the Kingâs Father, if there is no distinction between them at all? How could this be possible if they are not distinct from one another?
Hey, Stephen. So, first I wanna say that I definitely agree that Michael the archangel is NOT Jesus. However, I would like to show you a number of verses that prove the existence of the Trinity. Now, I want to make it clear that I do NOT at all believe that there are three Gods, but rather that there is ONE God, who eternally exists in three distinct persons.
To the 2nd point, Isaiah 9:6 says that Jesus is the Everlasting Father.
And the 2nd might have more push back but, it's said that Michael/Jesus is one of the princes in Daniel can be because He is one of the Trinity. But can I question where the Trinity comes from in the first place? Because Deut. 6:4 says: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD."
Hey just looking back at some of the discussions, can I bring up a point about Jesus being vs not being Michael? 1st point being that when Jude was written the name Jesus was now known, so why would Jude write Michael instead of Jesus if they are the same?
Iâm leaving for a while, so I wonât be able to respond đ
Revelation 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
1 Corinthians 15:24-26 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
With the view of eternal torment, Godâs justice is never satisfied, never finished, rebellion and sin exist forever, and evil continues for all of eternity. The view of actual destruction of the wicked at the final judgment would mean that Godâs justice is actually complete, that the wicked are no more, sin is done away with, and that He is ultimately victorious over evil because it is eradicated.
Every thing you're saying makes a lot of sense, however there is still some reasons I'm inclined to think that the wicked are destroyed,
I donât know how comforting that is though. I know for me, it is very disturbing to think that my uncle is not in heaven, especially since he lived such a lonely life. But he actively rejected God up until his passing, so unless something happened the last 24 hours of his life, heâs in hell. And I hate that. But, I know God is just and fair because He promises He is. And because He is greater than me, I canât put God on trial for his fairness, even for something that feels as unfair as sending my uncle to hell forever. I trust Godâs promises, and thatâs all I have
On your first question, so, I think while all unbeliever go to an eternal hell, there are different experiences or degrees of how bad it is. Luke 12:47-48 could mean hell is a less heavy punishment for some, and Luke 10:12-14 seems to say judgement will be worse for some than others. Itâs not super clear what the difference is, but it does seem like some have less harsh punishments
Second death is where I get the idea of physical vs spiritual death. Physical being the first death, and spiritual being the second death in hell
what do you think the Bible means when it talks about the second death?
hmm yeah you're Answers make sense, I can think of a few things to say back to them but never mind for now. I suppose my real confusion is still how every person who doesn't believe is going to get the same terrible punishment- e.g Hitler is going to get the same punishment as my Atheist friend?
Ok, so, Iâve answered your questions, but I donât think those are the real problem. Would you agree that the real issue is, how could a perfect, loving, and just God send someone to hell for eternity?
4. How can the wicked be judged if they all get the same punishment? You will either be judged, or not judged. In other words, you will either go to hell, or to heaven. The wicked are judged by being sent to hell, thatâs what being judged means. Note: I think what you meant is how can people with different amounts of sin get the same eternal punishment? Infinity plus infinity is infinity, so an infinite infraction plus an infinite infraction is an infinite infraction. So, no matter how many sins you have, they all equal infinity, thus having an infinite punishment.
3. Since humans havenât eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, doesnât that mean they will not live forever? Simply put, to be in hell is to be dead, utterly ruined, without hope, separate from God. How you can describe it as âlivingâ or âimmortalâ is beyond me.
2. How do you explain verses that say destruction? Example verse: âThey will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his mightâ 2 Thessalonians⏠â1âŹ:â9âŹ. This is the definition of the greek word translated as destruction: â3639 Ăłlethros (from ollymi/âdestroyâ) â properly, ruination with its full, destructive results (LS). 3639 /Ăłlethros (âruinationâ) however does NOT imply âextinctionâ (annihilation). Rather it emphasizes the consequent loss that goes with the complete âundoing.ââ The word for eternal (aiĂłnios) is also the same word used to describe eternal life, so it means eternal undoing, not ceasing to exist. (Sources: https://biblehub.com/greek/3639.htm and https://biblehub.com/greek/166.htm)
1. Any specific verses mention eternal hell for sin? âThen they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.âMatthew⏠â25âŹ:â46⏠â- eternal punishment is contrasted with eternal life. These are the same in that they are eternal, eternal meaning that the person will be conscious forever (if you believe they will not be conscious forever in hell, then they wonât be conscious forever in heaven). They are different in that one is eternal punishment separate from God, while the other is eternal life with God.
the bible also says the wicked shall be judged, but how are they to be judged if ultimately they're all going to get the same punishment of eternal hell?
Genesis clearly states that man was cast out of the garden of Eden lest after they eat of the knowledge tree, they eat of the tree of life and become immortal- does this not show that one can only live forever (in hell) if they eat from the tree of life? which the bible states only the righteous can eat of
I'm not convinced that every human deserves eternal suffering for not accepting Jesus, I see the reason in how committing sin against an infinitely good God could give reason for it, but are there any specific verses in the bible that mention this? and how do you explain the verses which clearly state destruction?
Because all their suffering will go away
how is having your soul destroyed going to another heaven-
Ok, well that was a trick question, because that means the wicked go to a lesser heaven of non-existence. So, to me either way is universalism - the belief that all people will eventually go to heaven, even if itâs not the same heaven
Do you believe the wicked/unbeliever goes to heaven after burning hell for their due time, or that they cease to exist?
Eye for eye still holds true. If you commit a sin against an infinitely good God, then youâve committed an infinite infraction. So, you get eye for eye, infinite punishment for infinite infraction
Thatâs true, I never made that connection before - the death referring to spiritual death. However I am still inclined to think that the wicked do not burn in hell forever, although I realize hell burns forever, but the verses which describe hell donât say eternal death - (which would imply spiritual death and separation from God like you said), but on a few accounts in uses the word âdestructionâ (Mat 10:28, 2 Thes 1:9). Not only do the verses never explicitly say the wicked burn forever, destruction is mentioned. I have no doubt that the wicked are punished forever with eternal separation from God, what I am conveying is that their wrongdoings would be inflicted back upon them and they should be tortured with no more pain than that they caused, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth style - and after God has his vengeance & repays (Romans 12:19), they then are cast into everlasting contempt / destruction / punishment of separation from God as mat 10:28 explicitly says with the destruction of both the wickeds body & soul (both spiritual and physical death).
Also, eternal hell has been the orthodox view from the early church to the present day
So, basically you have to distinguishing between physical death and spiritual death. Physical is the death of the body, but spiritual is the eternal separation of the soul from God, which is an existence of the worst torment imaginable and the very opposite of life
Similarly, having eternal life doesnât just mean existing forever, it means being with God forever. âFor the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.â Romans 6:23, and âBut now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.â Romans 6:22
âAnd you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedienceââ ââEphesians⏠â2âŹ:â1âŹ-â2⏠â- in this passage it says âyou were dead in your sins.â but Paul is clearly writing to people who are physically still alive, but spiritually they are dead. And they are spiritually dead because of their sin which separates them from God (Romans 3:23)
Death means separation from God, not ceasing to exist. So to say the wicked die means they are eternally separated from God
If you look through all the verses on hell, it gets really interesting because many of them don't specifically say the wicked will burn in hell forever, rather they will have everlasting "punishment" "contempt" "destruction". and when you think about it, the wages of sin is death, and reward of the righteous is eternal life, so having the wicked burn forever in hell would be strange since not only do they never die, they also have eternal life.
but is the eternal punishment mentioned in Matthew burning in hell forever, or is it separation from God forever - 2 Thessalonians 1:9 says they will experience eternal destruction "They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might"
Pretty sure that the Bible says that the wicked will burn forever and ever. In Matthew 25:46, Jesus said, "These shall go away into everlasting punishment but the righteous into eternal life."
Hey y'all I'm new, seems this group is on the brink of death so maybe you've already discussed this but how about a lively debate on whether the wicked burn forever in hell or only for a certain period of time?
Umm, why no more debates? Things were getting interesting, I can't afford this group going inactive.
ohhh ok thanks for clarifying đ
unless Avery u meant what ME said and i misread đ
Father Son Spirit one God makes sense to me but Son is Father doesnt đ
đ
yes but saying Jesus IS God the Father is different than what you said at least to me since it sounds like theyre the same person
Jesus is God and equal and one with God the Father, which is confusing, but the Father, Son and Spirit are one God, equal and unified in purpose. Even tho Jesus is God, it doesn't mean He has the exact same role as God the Father still.
are you saying Jesus is the Son of God and God the Father the same time? đ€đ€
seems like the marker group was deleted đ„Čđąđ
It's actually Will's group đ
Itâs called OSAS Affirmed
Whoops, sorry about that @franklyj đ
I forgot to make the group public again...you should be able to find it now đ
might be public again later
i think it was made private
@Will do you have your eternal security position written out anywhere else?
@markerman Where did your other group go? I really wanted to finish reading @Will 's writings.
hey, I want to know what you think about Sunday. I didnât get to read the whole thing bc Marilyn deleted it.
where did all the action go
đ there cannot be two paradises. buh bye đ
Lol, thanks for the input! đ
Just thought that needed to be said.. L O L đđ
Sorry to interrupt but, me seeing debates, really help me learn.. like, totally, I love watching and reading debates. Good stuff people đđœđđœ But in a debate, one of ya will always be wrong... Iâve read some interesting points, statements, questions, ect in this group. Whoever made this group should be thanked, now ppl like me are learning by reading posts in this group. *Really educational*
Besides, it seems you're avoiding what I showed about the rich man and Lazurus. Since Jesus NEVER used fake concepts in his parables, then that proves that what is shown about Lazurus and the rich man after death is indeed true-to-life.
Since it appears from Scripture that the righteous dead did not go to heaven before Jesus' ascension (Eph 4:8-9), then the place in Sheol for the righteous dead (Abraham's bosom) was what Jesus was referring to when he said "paradise". Jesus wasn't asleep in the grave when he died, as it shows in Eph 4:8-9 and 1 Peter 3:19. If Jesus wasn't in soul sleep, then that proves that the other dead are not.
Roger, let use some logic. You think that Jesus really ment today you will be with me in paradise. Didnât Jesus not go to heaven for three days?? So if he did not go to heaven for three days then why would he say that?? Did he actually mean today??
Sorry I saw you posted some of this. I didn't read everything.
2 Corinthians 5:8 KJV We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. Ecclesiastes 12:7 KJV Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible,
@Anonymousy, I just hopped back in because I have more time right now.đ
Yeah about the Luke 23:43 verse, how can you just change the Bible because you think it was written wrong it's still what it says.đ€ Also good point Roger, it would be completely unnecessary to say today, obviously it was that day.( sorry that was way down there)
wow! you guys really went at it!
That's debatable, so let's just look at it from the perspective I gave in my former posts âŹâŹ
first. Do you think it is not a parable?
Srry Roger! I was very busy the last couple of days so I couldnât answer your questionđ
⊠Nw to answer itâŠ
Btw, the Greek word for hell there is Hades, which means: "properly unseen, that is, âHadesâ or the place (state) of departed souls: - grave, hell." Also, when it says "Abraham's bosom" or "side" it never says that everyone was on Abraham's bosom. It just said that the angels carried Lazarus to Abraham's side. While the other righteous dead were in "Abraham's bosom" it simply indicates a place of comfort and consolation, where Abraham and the other righteous dead were.
Regardless of whether the story was a parable or not, "while the parables are fictitious, they never indulge in the fanciful or fantastic, but remain true-to-life." You have to look at it in the context of all the other parables Jesus told. Did any of them use fake or fictional concepts? Never. Not once.
Roger I ask one thing of you pls donât skim this, but read it
Jesus was using something they had known in their time as an illustration. He added some things to make is a little bit more interesting. To make it penetrating upon his listeners. Now one listening to Jesus would have thought in there wildest dreams that everything in the parable was true. It does not matter what church we belong to on earth we need to know Jesus.
Part 8. Can a person carry out a normal conversation while being tortured in flames? Like he is doing in the story? Do you think you could be tortured with fire and still have a normal conversation? No. If taken literally would it make any sense? No it doesnât. Bc Hell fire is not the main point. And death is not the main point. The point has not got to do with the state of the dead. It has to do with faithfulness it has to do with stewardship. It has to do with the gospel commission. So what we see here is Jesus is trying to straighten out some of the thinking of the jewish nation. They thought if you were a jew you had it half way to heaven. Itâs automatic. If you were a gentile you were automatically lost. If you were rich that is a sign that God is favoring you. You must be righteous bc he is favoring you with riches. If you were the poor you must a sinner and God is cursing you to poverty. Jesus totally turns the tables on them. He has got the gentiles saved and the jews lost. The rich man lost the poor man saved. He is turning the tables on them. Right?? He was showing them that if you were jewish you didnât have some automatic pathway to heaven.
Part 7. 4. Do souls have fingers, eyes, and tongues? When ppl talk about theology it is important to be consistent. When ppl say there is a really hell fire going on right now. They donât say thereâs body down there. They say thereâs an immortal soul. Something without a body. Yet in the story you got a really person with body parts. He got a tongue he wants to cool. He has a finger. He has eyes. So no it is not consistent with the own theology of it all. 5. Now he asks for a drop of water would that really help. If this story was true and he said I want a drop of water would that really help? No. Itâs not feasible that a drop of water would get there and help. Itâs not realistic
Part 6.If the story is really true letâs talk about why the story canât literal. 1.If everyone who died is righteous Abraham would have to have a pretty big possum Thatâs not were the righteous go. I donât think Abraham would like that very much 2. Is only Lazarus going to reside there?? No. 3.Can ppl in Heaven an Hell really see each other and talk? How feasibly would it under the circumstances? You know firemen have to yell over the the roar of a flame. What about a chasm big enough to hold all the unsaved? Well they couldnât hear or even have a conversation like in the story right hear. Would it really be pleasurable to be in heaven and look down and see ppl that were lost?? What if you knew those ppl?? A relative or a friend? There they were calling out to you? And wanting to have a conversation? And you see they are in agony. Would that be heaven?? No. It is no feasible under any circumstances. Itâs just a symbolic story
Part 5. I am going to point out something to you. The word hell there is not Gahanna, a place of burning, itâs the word hades that means the grave. How do we know it is a parable?âšIt starts like a parable. Luke 16:19. âA certain rich manâ Luke 12:16 He spoke a parable, âa certain rich manâ Luke 13:6. He spoke also this parable, âa certain rich man had a fig treeâ Luke 16:1. A certain rich manâ(The parable of the unjust steward) Luke 19:11,12. A parable, a certain noblemanâ Luke 20:9. This parable, âA certain rich manâ Jesus started these parable with these expressions a certain man or a certain rich man. Outside of parables Jesus never used that expression. HE reserved it for parables.
Part 4âThen he said, âI beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my fatherâs house, for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.â Abraham said to him, âThey have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.â And he said, âNo, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.â But he said to him, âIf they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.â ââ Luke 16:19-31
Part 3.ââThere was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day. But there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, full of sores, who was laid at his gate, desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich manâs table. Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abrahamâs bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. âThen he cried and said, âFather Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.â But Abraham said, âSon, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.â
Part 2 So no it is an illustrative parable it is not a story that everything is literally true. It is an object lesson. So you donât take Jothamâs story with the trees that talk and the brambles talking the fig tree talk and all that stuff literally? No, you have to let the story speak the moral lesson, but not every thing in the story is true.
Part 1. What about the rich man and lazars? It called the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. And once it is understood as a parable it takes away the confusion of it because even your scholars will emit that you donât take parable literally. Parables are meant to teach moral principles, but not everything in a parable is literal. âAnd all the men of Shechem gathered together, all of Beth Milo, and they went and made Abimelech king beside the terebinth tree at the pillar that was in Shechem.â If you have a Bible with marginal readings it will say Jothamâs parable. âNow when they told Jotham, he went and stood on the top of Mount Geirzim, and lifted his voice and cried out. And he said to them: listen to me, you men of Shechem, that God may listen to you! The trees once went forth to anoint a king over them. And the said to the olive tree, reign over us!â So we got a story with trees talking. Do trees literally talk?? No. Do they really talk?? No. Do they talk in parables? Yes. But the olive tree said unto them, - Judges 9:9 And the trees said to the fig tree, - 9:10 But the fig trees said unto them, - 9:11 The said the trees unto the vine, - 9:12 And the vine said unto them, - 9:13 Then said all the trees unto the bramble,-14 And the bramble said unto the trees,-
okay, First let my get on my laptopâŠ.. it might take awhile⊠My brother is using it r n
But, yeah, let's move on to the rich man and Lazurus.Â
That was exactly what I told you I knew you would say, but you said that wasn't what you were going to say, and it actually was đ€ And I said that that wouldn't make any sense for him to say that he was telling him today, bc that's just unnecessary. Plus, Jesus never used that expression anywhere else--"I tell you today"
there are other verses that have the same thing. they put the comma in the wrong spot. If you donât agree that is okayâŠ. Do you want to move onto Lazarus and the rich man?? or do you have questions?.
the verse with the correct punctuation should look like this âAssuredly, I say to you, today, you will be with be in Paradise â
When the Bible was written it did not have punctuations. It did not have periods, commas, and exclamation marks ect.. So when the translator translated the Bible they had to add punctuation. So the verse with punctuation is âAnd Jesus said to him, âAssuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.ââ ââLuke⏠â23:43âŹ
Where is it in the Bible?? I canât find it
Ok, let's first talk about that verse about what Jesus said on the cross.
gtg.. I will be right back in one minute
well letâs look at the verse
I know that oneâŠ. there is one thingâŠâŠ
Well then, what were you going to say?
Besides, there are many more verses I have to back up my belief. For example, the story of the rich man and Lazarus. âThe time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried.
In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side." (Luke 16:22-23)
no, that is actually not what I was going to say
I already know the whole run around with that verse you are talking about. You try to say that he was saying "I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise", but tbh, that wouldn't make any sense if he had to say that he was telling him today, bc that's kind of obvious. It makes more sense that he would be telling him, "Today you will be with me in paradise"
Exactly, while we are at home in the body (alive), we are absent from the Lord, but as soon as we die, we go to be with Him.
Sorry, but I'm not interested in having a video call to debate...
what time zone are you in?
would you be up for a zoom call or something?? it is kinda hard doing like thisâŠ.. we donât have toâŠ.. I donât know what time it is there, but if you want to that would make it easierâŠ.. I am open almost anytime of the day
I will give you a verse that you may not remember, but it backs up you beliefs if you donât understand it⊠When Jesus was hanging on the cross he told the other person next to him that he would be in heaven. Do you remember that??
if you scroll down please see what I said to memorizer
If you look before that verse it says âSo we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. For we walk by faith, not by sight.â ââII Corinthians⏠â5:6-7âŹ
Actually it does. When it says in 2 Cor 5:8, "AWAY from the body and at home with the Lord", that shows that there isn't soul sleep before the resurrection, because at the resurrection, the soul will be reunited with the body. Until then, the soul is away from the body and at home with the Lord in heaven. Also, when he says in Phil 1:23 that he desires to DEPART and be with Christ, he's showing that at death, the soul DEPARTS from the body, and goes to be with Christ.
that doesnât say that you do to eaten IMMEDIATELY
...The ones that I just gave a little while ago (2 Cor. 5:8 and Phil. 2:3), as well as others. All you said to them was "okay".
Yes, I believe that when someone dies, they immediately go to heaven or hell, not soul sleep.
I believe that when someone dies they donât go immediately to heaven or Hell.
What do you believe?? do you be that you instantly go to heaven or Hell?? I believe heaven is for the saved and heâll is for ppl who are unsaved
When Jesus said they were sleeping, it was simply a figure of speech that he was using to show that for him, raising them from the dead was just as easy as waking a sleeping person. "His disciples replied, âLord, if he sleeps, he will get better.â Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural sleep. So then he told them plainly, âLazarus is dead," (John 11:12-14)
We're debating about the state of the dead, which you believe is soul sleep, and which I believe is heaven for the righteous, and hell for the wicked.
waitâŠ. are we debate whether you will go straight to heaven?? I am kinda confusedâŠ. what are we debating??
what did Jesus mean when he told Mary and Martha that lazarus was just sleeping??.. or when Jesus told the dead girlâs parents that she was still sleeping??
@Anonymousey, I can debate with you about soul sleep đ That verse that Memorizer gave is an excellent one that proves that a believer will go straight to heaven when they die (and not into soul sleep), bc Paul is saying that he prefers to be away from the body (to die) and to be at home with the Lord (in heaven).. He also says in Phil 1:23, "I desire to depart (from the body--die) and be with Christ which is better by far." Again, he's saying that when his soul departs from the body (which is what returns to the ground) his soul will go to be with Christ in heaven.
Yeah, but I don't have time to write out everything.
that does not show that you soul goes straight to heaven
that does not show your side
but I'm done for now. I don't really have time to explain everything, but this topic has been brought up before and went into depth if you want to check that out.
I accidentally went on to a different topic
2 Corinthians 5:8 KJV We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, King James Version.Revelation 3:10 KJV Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, King James Version.
I believe your soul goes straight to heaven when you die.
Some people believe your soul just sleeps when you die until the rapture.
We WERE talking about if you go straight to Heaven or hell when you die.
ummm... I'm not sure what we're talking about. I think we're on different pages, but if your debating whether Heaven is eternal... well it is it says eternal life. So I'm not sure where your going with this.
I said what I had to sayâŠ.. what do you think?
Were you going to say something else?
This is a poignant, soul-baring moment from the apostle Paul. He is not suicidal, but he is honest about his deepest desires. He would rather be with the Lord than in his mortal, burdened, groaning, dying body. For the first time in this chapter, he describes being in his future, eternal body with Christ as being "at home." He is utterly convinced that it is where he is headed. Heaven is where he is meant to be forever. Paul's faith that the glory of his eternal life will far outweigh and outlast the suffering of earthly life makes him want that life more than this one. Of course it does. How could it not?
That same faith, though, gives him courage. Knowing his eternal fate is secure gives him fearlessness to keep going in this life. It emboldens Paul to stay on the path God has called him to. He is not actively seeking death; he is simply ready to go whenever God calls him home. Until then, he will keep working at what God has given him to do in the here and now.
Okay, if you donât want to do what I ask then at least let us pray to ask God to send his Holy Spirit to guide usâŠ.
if you don't want to talk about this just tell me.đ
ummm... I don't really think this is relevant to the discussion...
I like to find common ground with ppl/get to know themâŠ. Sooo why donât I go first. I am Anonymousey. My favorite animal is dogs. my favorite color is orange. And my favorite food is pastaâŠ. what is your favorite color, food, animal???
before I answer that question can I do something??
Now... what do you think?
Yes, but for hell its not if your bad, it's if your not save.đ
2 Corinthians 5:8 KJV We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, King James Version.
do you think you do to heaven immediately if you are good and hell immediately if you are bad
sorry for the confusion.đ
What do you think happens to your soul when you die?
You mean about the rapture, or what happens to your soul when you die?
I can change the topic⊠state of the deadâŠ.. AntichristâŠ..
If it's about the Sabbath, no, but if it's about something else, then possibly đđ
sorry Roger, but I now you will not want to do it
Memorizer, do you want to have a debate??
are you guys actually going to start a debate!!!! finally.đđ
Roger can I ask you a question??
Alright, no problem! Tho when you get a chance, I'd still like to see your full response đ
This isnât my full response - I havenât had time to write it so down. But a summary is that Iâve concluded one can lose their salvation if they inwardly reject Christ or if they kill themselves. That would mean I am close to but not really OSAS
Ok, np đ I have work, so I wouldn't even get around to responding until this weekend anyway đ
Ok. đ You in college? đ§
I have several tests this week, Iâll have something by this weekend though
Lol, yes he did quite well
Roger I want to say Well done for standing up against âThe Devilâ đđđœ Well done đđœ
Thank, that is very helpful!
4. And obviously God is the only one who can justify us. We cannot justify ourselves. "Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? IT IS GOD WHO JUSTIFIES." (Rom 8:33)
3. Jesus said: "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruitâfruit that will last." (Jn 15:16) But obviously each of us has a freewill and we can decide to reject God's calling (Luke 7:30) And it does require something on our part to believe, repent, and confess our faith in Jesus. But we are NOT saved by our own righteousness, as I have already stated.
2. You are correct that adoption does only happen once and that a parent does not disown his child every time he screws up. This will actually answer your final question, but I'll say it now, cause it ties in. Now, I will admit that I could be wrong on this point, but this is the way I see it. Everyday, you or I or any believer will commit some sin, whether it be an outburst of anger, lying, complaining, etc. I DO NOT believe that that means one has lost his salvation. That is where grace comes in. The ideal would be for us to immediately repent when we realize we have offended the Lord, but I believe God gives us grace if we don't right away. Now, if one dies right at that moment, would he make it to Heaven in that state? Only God knows, He is the Judge, not I. That's why I think it's best for us to keep short accounts with God and not allow things to get swept under the rug and forgotten about. In the case of Peter disowning the Lord, I absolutely believe he would not have made it to Heaven in that state. 2 Tim 2:12b says: "If we disown him, he will also disown us." (Also see Mat 10:33) And if we deliberately keep on sinning and allow it to build up in our lives, eventually, little by little, we drift from the Lord and fall from our steadfastness. (2 Pt 3:17, Heb 10:26-27, 2 Pt 2:20)
What I said in my posts could answer your questions, but just so everything is clear, I will answer point by point đ
1. Maybe for some, that idea could help, but I think for most, it gives them a license of sorts to say, "I'm not perfect, and I'm not aiming for perfection, but there's grace." (I actually know a Baptist who apparently thinks that way.) I believe it's a pillow to put ppl back to sleep when the Holy Spirit is convicting them; and I think it's slippery ice that allows one to stray further and further from God. We can be liberated to do good when we are saved and become slaves of righteousness (Rom 6:18, 22), without having to believe in OSAS. Peter puts it this way: "Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God." (1 Pt 2:16)
If you already answered these, and I just missed it in your response just refer me to the place so you donât have to repeat everything again đ
Before I respond I have several questions (and yes I will be thorough in my response): 1. What do you think about the idea of OSAS liberating a person to do good (beginning of 1st post)? 2. What do you believe about the idea of an adoption happening once (end of 1st post)? What do you think about the idea that believing/choosing in Christ is not an act of our righteousness but an act of God alone (7th post at Romans 3:10-12 to 8th post)? What do you think of the idea that justification is an act of God alone (post 9)? Finally, just to clarify you believe that we are not saved from the moment we commit a sin until the time we repent of it, correct?
Now, I don't want a rushed answer from you. Please take the time, as I did for you and read carefully through my comments to fully absorb everything. Then state your rebuttal or answer đ
And God says clearly in 2 Chron 7:14, "IF my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and TURN from their wicked ways, THEN WILL I hear from heaven and will FORGIVE their sin and will heal their land."
For, keep in mind, when Isaiah said, "Seek the LORD while he may be found; call on him while he is near. Let the wicked forsake his way and the evil man his thoughts. Let him turn to the LORD, and he will have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will freely pardon", he was speaking to those who were once God's ppl but who had turned away.
You said--and I quote--"if a Christian does not repent of a [repeated] sin, at the very least I think they should question whether they believed at all." Maybe so, but don't you think they should rather say, "Have I believed in vain?" 1 Cor 15:2: "By this gospel you are saved, IF you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. OTHERWISE, YOU HAVE BELIEVED IN VAIN." Or, "Am I standing firm in my faith?" (Is 7:9b) "If you do not stand firm in your faith, YOU WILL NOT STAND AT ALL." Or, "Do I have, 'a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God'? One that has been, 'hardened by sin's deceitfulness'? (Heb 3:12-13)
And Jesus said, "For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But IF you DO NOT forgive men their sins, YOUR FATHER WILL NOT FORGIVE YOUR SINS." (Mat 6:14-15) What happens if God does not forgive our sins?
Now about your statement that we are not to live in condemnation and fear--again, you're absolutely correct! We are to live in freedom in the Lord! And do you also believe that because we love the Lord so much, we are to live to please the Lord? I'm sure you do. So, in that case, our obedience comes from love, not fear. (Jn 14:15) However, there actually is that healthy balance of the fear of the Lord in there as many verses in the Bible indicate including Phil 2:12b, which says, "continue to work out your salvation with FEAR and TREMBLING". When a child loves his father, he will do what he says, and when he does wrong, will he just go on as if nothing happened? No, he will go to his father and say, "I'm sorry, please forgive me", just as the prodigal son did. If he doesn't do that and says to himself, "My father knows I love him. He will overlook this wrong even if I don't apologize." Don't you think the father would be left wondering why his son did not take the time and show the remorse to repent? When we sin, we should feel the need to go to God and repent. If we don't, that shows a big problem on our part, not on God's. "Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, PROVIDED that you CONTINUE in his kindness. Otherwise, YOU ALSO will be CUT OFF." (Rom 11:22)
Well, that verse says it pretty plainly. But also doesn't Jesus address this when he says: "Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken your first love. Remember the height from which you have FALLEN! REPENT and do the things you did at first. IF YOU DO NOT REPENT, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place." (Rev 2:4-5) And in chapter 3:15-17: "I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are LUKEWARMâneither hot nor coldâI AM ABOUT TO SPIT YOU OUT OF MY MOUTH. You say, âI am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.â But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked." Later on in verse 19, He pleads with them to "be earnest and REPENT".
So, in light of all I just said: What happens to a carnal Christian who doesn't repent?
âCoincidentally, my Bible reading today included these verses, "âIt is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God; and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him. THE LORD WILL PUNISH MEN FOR ALL SUCH SINS, AS WE HAVE ALREADY TOLD YOU AND WARNED YOU. For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit." (â1 Thess 4:3-8â)â
Back to my point that God will not let carnality into Heaven, Revelation clearly states that we must wash our robes if we are to be allowed to enter. âBlessed are those who WASH THEIR ROBES, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood." (Rev 22:14-15)
But moving on from that, I'd like to briefly address what you said about "some carnal Christians" using grace as a license for sin. You are absolutely correct! I actually believe that a great number who believe in OSAS do. That begs the question: will God allow anything carnal to enter His kingdom? I think not! Revelation 21:27 says: "NOTHING impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life." Please don't say that everyone who has ever said the sinner's prayer or at one point was saved still has his name in the Book of Life. If you think so, take a look at these verses where Jesus is rebuking the church in Sardis: "Wake up! Strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your deeds complete in the sight of my God. Remember, therefore, what you have received and heard; OBEY it, and REPENT. BUT IF YOU DO NOT WAKE UP, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come to you. Yet you have a FEW people in Sardis who have not soiled their clothes. They will walk with me, dressed in white, for they are worthy. He who OVERCOMES will, like them, be dressed in white. I WILL NEVER BLOT OUT HIS NAME FROM THE BOOK OF LIFE, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels." (Rev 3:2-5) Notice this promise comes only to those who overcome, which obviously means that there will be those who don't, and it is very possible for someone's name to be blotted out of the book of life.
Alright, whew, I can get my thoughts in order nowđ I'm back, and I have read thru your posts more thoroughly. Now I see exactly what you are saying. I want to absolutely make it clear that I am by no means saying that we are saved by our own righteousness. I was only using those verses to point out what the parallel is today.
Anonymousey, well, we're already having a debate right now, so maybe we can save that discussion for later đ
đ
what do u think about the anti-christ?
Will, that's quite a bit for me to read thru, especially when I have a lot going on already. So I didn't read every detail, but I get your point. I absolutely agree that we are not saved by our own righteousness and it's only through God's grace, but you also have to balance it out with other Scripture as well. There is SO MUCH I could and want to say, but I'm a bit weary right now, and my brain doesn't want to think đ
So, allow me some time, and then maybe I can collect my thoughts and give you a clear answer as opposed to a bunch of garble đ
After God did all that for us, what did we do?
Since the righteousness came from God, we are not trusting in our past righteousness to save us, but Godâs work of righteousness. The act of justification, then, is also entirely the work of God. âFor those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30 And those HE predestined, HE also called; those HE called, HE also justified; those HE justified, HE also glorified.â
Also, consider these verses about God doing the work of salvation. Acts 5:31; Acts 11:18; Acts 13:48; Acts 16:14
31 God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to giveÂ
repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.
18 When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, âThen to the Gentiles also GodÂ
has granted repentance that leads to life.â
48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing andÂ
glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.
14 One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was aÂ
worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention toÂ
what was said by Paul.
2. OSAS do not trust in their past, present, or future righteousness to do anything for them at all, let alone save them from sins. Most OSAS, including me, believe in the doctrine of Total Depravity, which is the idea that we are at our core perverted and evil (ie fallen), this evil nullifies any good that we do. Isaiah 64:6 - âAll of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.â Romans 3:10-12 also explains that no one seeks after God, âAs it is written:
âThere is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.â - Since we do not seek God naturally, it is the next conclusion that God enables us to seek him and to put our faith in Him. It is not a work that we do, but an act of God. It was not by our righteousness that we had faith, but through Godâs righteous enablement. Ephesians 2: 8-10 - âFor by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.â - We are saved for good works, not by good works. And these works were prepared by God, not us.
Iâll get to my second point in a bit. I have to leave for a while
Some carnal Christian do use OSAS as an excuse to do evil. But Paul answers the question when he says, âWhat shall we say than? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be!â Romans 6:1-2, notice the sinning would cause grace to increase, though we are told by Paul not to do this on purpose. Also, it does not make sense for Paul to address whether people should keep sinning, if they would be condemned to hell for their sin because then it would be obvious why they shouldnât keep sinning. The next part of that passage shows that the grace is there so that we may live free from sin through Christ. Romans 6:7 for he who has died is freed from sin.â
2 Corinthians 3:4-6, 4 Such confidence we have through Christ before God. 5 Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. 6 He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenantânot of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
Hebrews 2:14-15, "14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of deathâthat is, the devilâ 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death."
Romans 8:15 - âFor you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, âAbba!â Father!â
@Vera, two things, 1. It seems like you believe that OSAS is an excuse to do evil. It isnât. Instead, it liberates us to persevere in doing good without the fear of being in condemnation over and over again. When people live in fear and shame and guilt, each fall is harder to get up from. But when failure is not such a big deal, people can get up again and start over easily. I know how this goes having lived a good portion of my life with intense guilt and shame over the tiniest infractions. But God did not give us a Spirit of Fear, but a spirit of adoption. Adoption happens once, otherwise it is not an adoption. Imagine disowning your adopted child every time they screwed up? Thatâs cruel, not parental. Abusive, not instructive.
It's quite a plain verse to me đ
It's the same as when a wicked man turns from his sins; he will not go to hell for the sins he's repented of
Will, the point of that verse (Ez 33:12-13) is this: if God tells a righteous man (i.e. someone made righteous by Jesus' death on the cross) that he will SURELY LIVE, but then that man trusts in his righteousness (i.e. OSAS; see Jer 7:3-11) and does evil, he will not be allowed into Heaven just bc he at one time professed faith and was made righteous
That sounds convincing to me
So, for me, this says it pretty plainly. I don't know how much more direct it can get: "Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple." (1 Corinthians 3:16-17) So, only Christians are God's temple. So if a Christian destroys God's temple (themself), God will destroy them. Obviously, they won't be making it into heaven.
Iâm actually not sure. Some peopleâs mental problems physically prevent them from experiencing happiness. But if they donât have a mental problem the act shows a lack of transformation. what verses you got?
Oh, well yes suicide would not be repeatable đ
Well except suicide đ
And btw, do you believe that a Christian who commits suicide will go to hell? I do, and I have down-right proof of it in the Word.
I meant a repeated sin, all sins are repeatable
@Roger if a Christian does not repent of a repeatable sin, at the very least I think they should question whether they believed at all. Because when we are transformed at the moment of salvation, our lives should reflect this transformation or else their is no evidence of a transforming faith. It is possible they have fallen away from their relationship with God, though they are still his child, in which Christ would intercede for them but they would not have a healthy father/son relationship with the father: âIf any manâs work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.â ââ1 Corinthians⏠â3:15⏠- the carnal Christian might be saved, but theyâll be saved barely
@Vera, Iâm not one hundred percent sure what your point is. I havenât made any argument that works of righteousness save a person. We are saved by grace and not by works. I donât trust in my previous righteousness to intercede for me when I sin, I trust Christ to intercede as said in Hebrews 7:25. My righteousness has nothing to do with justifying me, but Christâs sacrifice has justified me through His righteousness. âMore than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith,â ââPhilippians⏠â3:8-9⏠â
Ez 33:12-13: âTherefore, son of man, say to your countrymen, âThe righteousness of the righteous man will not save him when he disobeys, and the wickedness of the wicked man will not cause him to fall when he turns from it. THE RIGHTEOUS MAN, IF HE SINS, WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO LIVE BECAUSE OF HIS FORMER RIGHTEOUSNESS.â IF I TELL THE RIGHTEOUS MAN THAT HE WILL SURELY LIVE, BUT THEN HE TRUSTS IN HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS AND DOES EVIL, NONE OF THE RIGHTEOUS THINGS HE HAS DONE WILL BE REMEMBERED; HE WILL DIE FOR THE EVIL HE HAS DONE.â"â
I'd like to just add this one piece of food for thought into the mix, but I'm not gonna say much cuz I'm really short on time. I think these verses really bring everything together very concisely. And plz don't give the excuse that it's from the OT, bc isn't the second half of the verse still applicable? I'm sorry, but you can't pick and chose
But if a Christian continues in sin and doesn't repent at all, it is definitely possible for them to fall away and end up in hell. Do you agree with that?