Puritan Belief

The Puritans are the men of God who started in the 16th century building on the purity of the gospel message that Salvation is by Grace alone.

Language: Father, Son, Holy Spirit

Most of the questions from the last post (Lord of Lords and King of Kings) are based on language:

Let me rephrase your questions into one.

"Why use the language Father, Son, Holy Spirit? doesn't this mean 3 different people in the scripture?"

The greatest moment in history was when the one true God of heaven became a man. He humbled himself even to the point of death. Jesus prayed as a man, learnt as a man and was tempted though He is the Lord of Glory.

He called God His Father and used this language as a man though He is this God in the flesh.

Now this language is used so that the wise and learned don't know Him.

"... No one knows who the Son is except the Father and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and all those to whom the Son wills to reveal Him." Lk 10:22

To this day the Father is not known universally or by catholics (catholic means universal).

The Father is not known by cleverly formulated doctrine nor accepting as truth something you don't understand.

The Father is known by His children. The Father is known by all those who cried out on His name for Salvation.

Every Child of God cried out JESUS.

Jesus says to you:
If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him Jn 14:7

When Jesus made Himself known to you then you Belieive in Jesus for you are believing in the Father. Lift up Jesus for you are lifting up the Father. Worship Jesus and you are worshipping your Father.

Add Your Comment(152)

Language: Father, Son, Holy Spirit
Posted by Correy Sunday, September 03, 2006


Blogger takin said...

When Jesus told the disciples that they had seen the Father in Him (Christ), He was not saying that He was the Father. Jesus never claimed to be the Father. Rather He was stating what the writer of Hebrews later said of Him:

The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being... Hebrews 1:3.

John is the one who recorded the words of Jesus in John 14:7. Are we to believe that He was contradicting himself. For in John 1:18 he said that no one has seen the Father.

No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known. John 1:18

September 03, 2006 2:44 PM   Edit
Blogger Paul G said...

Exodus 24:10+11
Seventyfour Israelites saw the God of Israel.
Exodus 33:11
The Lord would speak to Moses face to face as a man speaks with his friend.
Tell us! what person or god did they see, or speak face to face to?

September 03, 2006 8:19 PM   Edit
Blogger takin said...

John infadically declares that no one has seen God (the Father):

No one has ever seen God... (John 1:18a)

Therefore, Moses and every other Old Testament saint who experienced a theophany did not see the Father. Otherwise John is wrong.

Since Christ is God (but not the Father), He is “the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being...” (Hebrews 1:3) and “He is the image of the invisible God” (Colosians 1:15), He is always the Person that is seen. He is the one who has made the Father known.

...but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known. John 1:18

Moses saw Christ. Abraham saw Christ. Isaiah saw Christ. They did not see the Father. “No one has...”

September 04, 2006 12:38 AM   Edit
Blogger Stan said...

Is it fair, right, correct to claim "Puritan Belief" while denying the Trinity which was a certain Puritan belief? Just seems wrong somehow.

September 04, 2006 12:51 AM   Edit
Blogger Modern Day Magi said...

well pointed out Takin.


September 04, 2006 6:39 AM   Edit
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since you folks seem to hold to Hebrews as a preferred reference point, I will ask for your response to 2 passages from Hebrews.

[Please do NOT continue to insult our intelligence by hiding behind the "it was a figure of speech" reply unless you are prepared to explain WHAT Truth God intended the 'figure of speech' to convey to His readers.]

Passage One:

Hebrews 7:25 Consequently He(ie, Jesus Christ) is able for all time to save those who approach God through Him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

Passage Two:

Hebrews 9:24
For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made by human hands, a mere copy of the true one, but he entered into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.

Passage One questions:

Please respond to the highlighted portions and their relation to our present debate.

Passage Two questions:

Please comment on this scripture and its relationship to John 20.17. (Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.)

Please explain why scripture took the time to use this example. If there is no distinction within the Godhead, as you claim, then this is a superfluous statement.

September 04, 2006 10:58 AM   Edit
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Have you not noticed that even the quote you post, Luke 10.22, states that the Son can be known, And the Father can be known.

Yet you eschew even the tattered cloak of modalism which some would cite to reconcile this verse.

September 04, 2006 11:07 AM   Edit
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, let us examine the verse that is one of PB's favourites in this discussion: "...if you knew Me, you would know My Father also." (John 8:19)

Leaving aside PB's failure to address the function of the word *also* in that verse, let us examine the CONTEXT of this verse.

Immediately preceeding the verse is Jesus's dispute with the Pharisees. He has just claimed to be the Light of the World. (And rightly so.) They challenged the claim.

Picking it up at verse 17,
"In your law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is valid. (18)I testify on my own behalf, and the Father who sent me testifies on my behalf."

To illustrate:

Imagine a modern courtroom in which the defendant has chosen to represent himself.

The prosecution lays its charges. The defendant is sworn in, takes the stand and testifies in his own defence. The judge looks around the room, and asks "Have you any other evidence to present in you defence?"

This story can proceed in one of two ways:

With our ending, the defendant calls his father to the stand, and the defendant's father substantiates his evidence.

With PB & JG's ending, the defendant steps out of the witness box, crosses the room, perhaps changes his tie and jacket (or not, as PB claims he is not a modalist) and proceeds to take the stand again.

If Jesus and the Father have ZERO distinction between them, Jesus must either foolish or a liar... unless PB&PG would have us doubt the validity of Scripture?

Do you see one witness or two, and why?

September 04, 2006 11:42 AM   Edit
Blogger Correy said...

You assume I follow men.

Perhaps there is something about John 1:18 you are missing.

My Job is not to explain each verse of the bible to you. Perhaps you could re-read your verses and try telling yourself the meaning in a way that lifts up Jesus to the highest position. This is the true meaning of your verses and if I had time to explain them to you is what I would do my best to point out.

Figure of speech carries a lot more weight then you think. A figure of speech/ parable or proverb are used all throughout scripture for one purpose.

To hide the meaning from the reprobate and to reveal the meaning to the elect.

The witness thing is so easy to explain try reading it without the premise God is 3 people. I have done it in other posts.

To all:
The reprobate has the spirit of antichrist or speaks negatively when Jesus is exalted.

The elect love Jesus and lifts Him up constantly and rejoices when the Jesus that saved them is exalted.

Which are you doing, is your Jesus exalted on high or demoted?

At the end of the day an exalted Jesus is Christian doctrine.

September 04, 2006 12:08 PM   Edit
Blogger Modern Day Magi said...

As you have done in the past with posts such as True & Only Canon of Scripture, By the Spirit and Not the Letter, and Measuring Stick when confronted with clear, sound and strong biblical evidence against your position you simply claim that there is a problem with the biblical language.


September 04, 2006 1:49 PM   Edit
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PB said:
"The witness thing is so easy to explain try reading it without the premise God is 3 people. I have done it in other posts."

--you have yet to do so intelligently, within context of Scripture.

--You have not addressed "to My God" and your God. (John 20:17)

--You have refused to acknowledge the divided will paradox during His prayer in Gethsemane. ("not My will")

--You have refused to address the cry on the cross "My God, My God why hast Thou forsaken Me?"

You both seem to like tossing the adjective 'antichrist' around like a midget in a mosh pit. But it seems likely that neither of you have read the rest of the chapter the 'spirit of antichrist' reference comes out of. (perhaps not even that verse, as the application is usally misquoted)

I acknowledge Christ's divinity, authority and majesty. You deny His Sonship by claiming He has no Father. *I* refuse to call Jesus Christ a bastard. You do not.

First John Four:
Verse 15: God abides in those who confess that Jesus is the Son of God, and they abide in God.

Verse 12: No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God lives in us, and his love is perfected in us.

(note, this was written after the Ascention, and Jesus' having referenced 'seen Me/seen the Father')

"Seen" is used *figuratively*. Finally, a place you can use 'figuratively' without corrupting the original meaning of scripture, but you pass up the opportunity because it doesn't fit your assumptions.

September 04, 2006 1:56 PM   Edit
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pb said: "Theophilus
My Job is not to explain each verse of the bible to you."

--You lack the capacity.

September 04, 2006 2:12 PM   Edit
Blogger Correy said...

I have been re-reading your comments.

I know you think that John infadically declares that no one has seen God (the Father)

Jesus tells you talkin
If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.

I would love for you to see God but not with your natural eyes.

Thanks for your comments.

September 04, 2006 2:21 PM   Edit
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My goal here is not to “convert” you to my way of thinking. What I am trying to do is show you that the Scripture I read says what it says. When I read the New Testament, it speaks to me of a triune God. That is obvious to me. What I don’t understand, (and would like to understand,) is how you don’t see that. I am not trying to “trip you up” with verses or with “crafty” doctrine, nor do I want you to perform exegesis of Scripture for me. I am simply showing you how I see Scripture. What I would like is for you to do the same in kind. So far, you have avoided any directed questions regarding the basics of language, i.e. Pronoun usage, Prepositions, Conjunctions. When I read the Bible, basic grammar is necessary to me. The Word of God would be gibberish without it. And yes, I read the New Testament in Koine Greek, so Greek grammar is also important to me. (See posts on "Lord of Lords").

I can practically hear the ripping of the pages as you tear Scripture out of context. (That is figurative language. I can’t actually hear the pages rip, but you ARE taking things out of context.) I will use one of many examples. You often refer back to John 16.25, but you do not refer to any of the other verses in the same chapter that obviously show three distinct personalities. (John 16.3, 5,7,8,10,13,14,15,17,23,26,27,28) (This is an example of how you pick and choose which verse you want, when the Bible was not written verse by verse, but as whole documents. The Bible is a collection of documents bound in one volume. We are to treat each book as a whole document. The chapter divisions and “little numbers” indicating verses are merely reference points.) Nor do you reference John 16.29-32:
“His disciples said, ‘Yes, now you are speaking plainly, not in any figure of speech! Now we know that you know all things, and do not need to have any one question you; by this we believe that you came from God.’ Jesus answered them, ‘Do you now believe? The hour is coming, indeed it has come, when you will be scattered, each one to his home, and you will leave me alone. Yet I am not alone because the Father is with me.’” Did the disciples think Jesus was speaking plainly? Yes. If Jesus was speaking plainly there, why didn’t he just say He was the Father? Why did He say He was not "alone" and the Father was "with" Him? Or do "alone" and "with" have some new, secret meaning? He could not have been using "figurative" language since Judas had left and there were no reprobates present.

September 04, 2006 10:41 PM   Edit
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I also do not understand how you can reference the Puritans, and still say that those who believe in the Trinity do not exalt Christ. You are implying that Trinitarians are reprobate and/or anti-christ due to your erroneous view that we somehow “demote” Jesus to second place. You say we don’t exalt Jesus to the proper place. I disagree. I could say that I think you don’t understand the nature of God, seeing that there is sufficient evidence in Scripture (provided by a number of people on this thread) to prove the validity of a Triune Godhead. Would I ever say that you were reprobate or anti-Christ? Absolutely not. Do I think that those who do not believe in the Trinity cannot or have not received salvation or are not “true” Christians? I think they lack understanding, but would not go so far as to say they cannot or have not received salvation. (Besides, it’s not up to me.) Here is what I don’t get: If Trinitarians are reprobate and anti-Christ, why do you hold as standard Puritan belief (the majority of which accepted the Trinity), and men of God who embrace the Trinity? To you, John Bunyan, Jan Hus, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, John Wycliffe, Thomas Watson, etc., are reprobate and anti-christ. Why then do you admire them? You believe they are men whose revelation was built on a faulty foundation. You believe they did not know the God of the Bible. Will your next biography then be of Joseph Smith, Ghandi, Confucius, or the Dali Llama since you have no trouble admiring "good works" by "good men" who happen to be “anti-christs”?

We have not delved into the Old Testament, and there are many more questions that arise from that. The Hebrew word, “Elohim” (Gen. 1.1) is plural. I admit, I don’t know Hebrew very well, so I am out of my depth. However, since you seem to enjoy petty arguments, I will mention one thing. You are so hung up on what ONE NAME we are to call on, why do you call Him “Jesus” when while He was on Earth He was called “Yeshua”? Or the Greek texts that were inspired by God have it written "ιησου" ("Iasou", pronounced “Eeyay-soo”)? How can you say His ONE TRUE name is Jesus when He was never called that while He walked this earth?

Your arguments are petty, your understanding of Scripture is flawed, and you have an unteachable spirit. You simply ignore what you don’t understand. Sadly, that includes things like context of Scripture, grammar and logic.

John Bunyan wrote a document titled “Of the Trinity and a Christian”. I suggest you read it.

We’re not getting anywhere with this discussion because you refuse to address the issues I and others have raised. It is frustrating. Perhaps it’s time I shake the dust off and move on.

September 04, 2006 11:04 PM   Edit
Blogger Correy said...

I appreciate your interest in this topic however nobody is forcing you to write hundreds of words.

Actually if you were to read about puritan belief the very first link on the home page perhaps you wouldn't have had to say so much.

Your many questions would take me about 2 hours to answer properly. I know you probably don't want to read over the thousands of previous comments to see how I answered them when they were bought up.

Therefore: in 60 words or 1 paragraph being succinct bring up your strongest verse with 1 point and I will try and answer it for you. P.S Yes I have read John Bunyan on the trinity along with Edwards, Spurgeon etc etc

1. Did you ever call on the name of Jesus to be saved?
2. Elohim: How many members of Judaism who speak original Hebrew language believe in 3 people being 1 god? Point: Elohim is a straw man easily pushed over.

September 05, 2006 9:06 AM   Edit
Blogger kelliemarie said...


This might be a stupid question, but do you agree that the holy spirit is Jesus' spirit?

Do you agree that the holy spirit is the Fathers spirit?

i wana understand what you believe and why, but so far i dont understand this trinity concept too well...

to me it looks like simease triplets... or i wonder well does The father have a spirit and the son have the same but seperate spirit and well...the holy spirit misses out on a body, but we give him a head anyway...

Are they triplets with a different task to do? Or are they members of a family with the last name God?

just questions that im sure the general population when confronted with the concept of the trinity would no doubt ask...

September 05, 2006 1:43 PM   Edit
Blogger kelliemarie said...

ohh...another quick question also theophilus...just wondering, where is the holy spirit in the court room?

September 05, 2006 1:47 PM   Edit
Blogger Correy said...

I like your questions they made me smile.

According to scripture there is only one person who does not have to have a witness.

September 05, 2006 2:27 PM   Edit
Blogger takin said...


Your questions make me cringe. I realize you were asking someone else, and maybe they will answer you, but I wanted to suggest something. I am not trying to be critical of you as a person. I hope you are honestly seeking the truth. But your questions have so many false assumptions (for example: the triplet comparison and the implication that God is a physical being) that to answer you would require the correcting of each of them first.

I would encourage you to prayerfully discover what the biblical doctrine of the Trinity really teaches. But I don’t believe this format is the best place for that discovery. I am certainly not articulate enough to make the best case. Instead, may I recommend a book about the doctrine of the Trinity written at a popular level that would aid you in your search. The book is “The Forgotten Trinity” by James R. White.



September 05, 2006 4:08 PM   Edit
Blogger Modern Day Magi said...

In John 14:9-11 Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves."

How do you reconcile Jesus' clear language that is even repeated "I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me"

When people see Christians they should see Christ since He dwells within believers. How much more would the Father be visible in Christ who was without sin, and is God made Flesh?

Jesus also says in verses 20-21 "On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."

Why does Jesus repeat that He is 'in' the Father and why does Jesus say that believers will be loved by both His Father and Him?

PB and / or Paul G please address these two passages of scripture.


September 05, 2006 6:27 PM   Edit
Blogger Correy said...

Jesus is one with the Father in the Spirit namely the Spirit of Christ. Now Christ is in us but that does not add an extra person to the Godhead. But there is one person who makes up the Godhead namely Jesus Christ the King of Glory in whom the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily.

September 05, 2006 6:44 PM   Edit
Blogger Correy said...

Allforloves question is more serious then you think.

The definition of person in the trinity is different to how person is usually defined.

I know how I would answer his question from a well thought out trinitarian perspective however even then I can pick faults all through that argument.

September 05, 2006 6:54 PM   Edit
Blogger kelliemarie said...

hey takin,

yeah your right in that i put across a lot of uneducated presumptions across which just seemed to come out without really thinking too much... and reading back what i wrote also makes me cringe, so im sorry for that

Can you explain to me how the holy spirit is the third part of the trinity? I'll try to look into it more to see where u guys are coming from...

September 05, 2006 7:01 PM   Edit
Blogger Paul G said...

I want you to know that I am not against you as a person or a brother.
I am against the trinity and the Antichrist spirit who promotes this doctrine.
In your comment you are saying Jesus is only a carbon copy of the real God who is the Father, you use the word (representation).

No wonder why I hate this trinity doctrine, Jesus is not the King of Kings He is demoted and just a tag-along.
The spirit of Antichrist always tears down the Lord Jesus from the throne of glory and replaces Him with another person the so called real God the Father, who nobody ever saw even when the Lord Jesus said you have seen the Father, why do you say show us the Father.
Have I been such a long time with you and you have not come to know me?
To know Jesus is to proclaim that Jesus Christ is the only one and true person who is God. There is no other person who shares in His deity, the Lord thy God is one and this one is the Lord Jesus Christ.

To all who are not sure whether the trinity is true or false:

Another Jesus Spirit Gospel is condemned.
Trinitarians preach another Jesus! not the one which I preach and proclaim, the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords. Jesus Christ alone is God and any other person is a false god.
Any spirit who lowers Jesus in His deity to second, or demotes Him, or makes Him equal with somebody else 'another person' or divides Him into three persons, is another spirit (the against Jesus spirit) or Antichrist spirit.
Always with a false Jesus comes a false spirit and a false gospel.
The false gospel which is the smorgasbord gospel, I will tell you more about later.

Very interesting to observe!
The false spirit quickly says,
Jesus is not God, He is the son of God.
You see! Jesus is not God, because He has a God in John20:17 "to My God and your God".
Or Jesus is not God, because He said "my God why hast thou forsaken Me".

If you are listening very carefully, you can hear the spirit of Antichrist!

It would be better to dust of the ears, so you would hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

Thanks! I have to add the Siamese Triplets to my illustrations.

September 05, 2006 10:04 PM   Edit
Blogger Samantha said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

September 06, 2006 7:18 AM   Edit
Blogger Modern Day Magi said...

thanks for your reply PB but you ignored the second verses.

"On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."

Jesus says He is in His Father and we are in Him. Surely that same figure of speach is used throughout this sentence and so we can understand that Christ is in us in a similar way to how Hw is in His Father. Christ is in me but I am not Christ, just as the Father is in Jesus but Jesus is not the Father.

Also why does Jesus make the distinction between being loved by the Father and being loved by Jesus?

I am a firm believer in the integrity and truth of the Bible as the Word of God. Thus I believe that God says what He means, and means what He says. Scripture is clear to me that the Trinity exists and is the correct understanding of God.


September 06, 2006 9:50 AM   Edit
Blogger Samantha said...

We all want to believe the truth, right? If we present the truth and someone does not accept it, then what more can be done? Is it right to continue to arguing about it? Or would it be more edifying to look on God and ask for His truth to be revealed, and not someone elses?

Just not seeing a lot of fruit in this discussion, considering it's been going on for awhile now. :D

September 06, 2006 10:22 AM   Edit
Blogger kelliemarie said...

This is what i think...
The anit christ spirit is one who denies jesus is the christ who died and rose, the messiah sent from the father who alone can save.

pharases are people who think they can earn their salvation and deny the work at calvary.

Trinitarians might be mistaken in a few areas concerning the relationship between father/son/holy spirit, but for the elect, Gods grace is sufficent. As long as Jesus is lifted up as the only way to salvation who was sent from the father, then who really cares what language is used...( not talking about jw's and rest), for this very language was used to preach to the jews and the gentiles.

Does this make sense? Do you agree?
Im not denying what PB and PG r saying in regards to trinity...only the spirit of antichrist...

September 06, 2006 2:17 PM   Edit
Blogger kelliemarie said...


I assure you, there is fruit coming out of this discussion...though it may not be evident on here...

September 06, 2006 2:47 PM   Edit
Blogger takin said...

Hi Samantha,

It's good to hear from you.

The following verse explains my involvement in this discussion:

"Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints." Jude 3

But maybe you’re right that there comes a time when you must move on and leave it with God.

So to everyone else, I know that I have spent more time reading and writing comments on this blog than I should have. I posted my first comment here on July 2. Two months is enough for me.

So for now, "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all."

I’ll check back some time down the road (when you least expect it).

p.s. I’ve noticed that a number of you are from Australia. We Americans truly loved the Crocodile Hunter. For you he was a national treasure. I am sorry for your loss. He will be missed.

September 06, 2006 5:06 PM   Edit
Blogger Correy said...

The Spirit of Antichrist is "Anti Christ" exalted.
You didn't understand the answer I gave.
The Doctrine of Christ is important.

September 06, 2006 7:50 PM   Edit
Blogger Samantha said...

Well, apparently I am the only one with issues of pride. These types of discussions usually lead me to sin, because I want to be right more than I want Truth understood. Even my best intentions usually have some sort of underlying pride.

If you can admit that there is NO pride in this, no pride in your desires of this discussion, then fine. Continue on. If not...well, that’s between you and God.

September 06, 2006 10:06 PM   Edit
Blogger Paul G said...

The truth is not a cleverly laid out theory or a system of theology made up by clergy.
The truth is a person, His name is Jesus who said, I am the way the TRUTH and the life.
So it is Jesus Christ which you should proclaim and testify to, then you know and believe the truth.
What kind of words and illustrations you will use is totally up to you.

You can not see fruit in a discussion or a debate, after a time you maybe see the fruit in your life, and that would not be your fruit it would be the fruit of the Holy Spirit.

There is NO relationship between the Father Son and Holy Spirit.
The Lord thy God is one, Jesus said " I AM "
To all: He is the God who does not seek counsel from anyone, nor does He need instructions or consults two other persons.
Jesus is God who became flesh!

To all:
Of all the commandments, which is the most important???

September 06, 2006 10:57 PM   Edit
Blogger Correy said...

Paul G
In relation to the most important commandment:
Mark 12:29
Jesus answered, "The foremost is, ' HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD;

This one Lord is Jesus who is the Lord of Lords and King of Kings. To love another person then Jesus is to transgress on the foremost commandment

September 07, 2006 9:27 AM   Edit
Blogger kelliemarie said...

PG or PB can u explain elohim to me?

Thanks for your honesty :) The bible says as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens the other (not very PC hehe). There is never a person i have met that i couldnt learn something from them. Be encouraged!

September 07, 2006 11:09 AM   Edit
Blogger Correy said...

google define: Elohim

Trinitarians try to use the Hebrew word Elohim to show from the Old Testament that God has multiple personality disorder because it translates with a plural meaning.

However Elohim is a word used in many places for example:To describe the Almighty God, Pagan God, Mighty humans and angels.

Consider the members of Judaism who were taught Hebrew from Birth. Do any of them read the hebrew and think: "God is made up of 3 people"? Answer No

Then why do people who couldn't speak Hebrew to save themselves constantly push this word?

Of the 11 000 mentions of God in the bible there are 4 mentions of God with Elohim in this manner, the rest are singular.

So is God singular or multiple?

September 07, 2006 11:49 AM   Edit
Blogger Stan said...

It was asked (twice), "How many members of Judaism who speak original Hebrew language believe in 3 people being 1 god?"

In case anyone is interested, Judaism actually does recognize a plurality in God. It is only a small group, but they understand God to be both singular and plural. (See The Zohar.) They don't see this as a contradiction. After all, when a man and a woman marry, "the two shall become one". So ... are there two or one? (Hint: The answer is "yes".)

September 07, 2006 2:44 PM   Edit
Blogger Correy said...

Stan you forgot to finish the verse:

and they shall become one FLESH

To compare a sexual union between a man and a woman with a Father and Son is off beat to say the least.

Sects aside Judaism understands God to be singular.

September 07, 2006 3:10 PM   Edit
Blogger kelliemarie said...


you said :Of the 11 000 mentions of God in the bible there are 4 mentions of God with Elohim in this manner, the rest are singular.

what does ' in this manner ' mean?

And what significance is it?

September 07, 2006 7:15 PM   Edit
Blogger Samantha said...

Wouldn't dismissing the Trinity cause one to sin the unpardonable sin ("he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation")? (Mark 3:22-30; Matthew 12:31-32)

September 07, 2006 11:58 PM   Edit
Blogger Modern Day Magi said...


That Elohim is used singularly is exactly the point!

As you correctly say it is used for a few different meanings in scripture, reffering to angels (plural), pagan gods (plural), The Almighty God (single), or powerful men(single). When you understand the origin of Elohim, you discover it is the Hebrew word Eloah (a word refering to deity) with a plural suffix (im). eg. Cherub v Cherubim.

Now in Judaism, the name of God is more than a distinguishing title. It represents the Jewish conception of the divine nature, and of the relation of God to the Jewish people. In awe at the sacredness of the names of God, and as a means of showing respect and reverence for them, the scribes of sacred texts took pause before copying them, and used terms of reverence so as to keep the true name of God concealed. So Elohim is a name of God, or title but not 'the' name of God.

Two of the places Elohim is used for God are in Gen 1:1 telling of the Creation and when the Burning Bush spoke to Moses in Ex. 3:4. Significant places in scripture, so we can assume Elohim has a significant meaning.

No one is using Elohim to say there is more than one God or that God has multiple personality disorder as PB would suggest. The use of a plural word to refer to the singular and one living and Almighty God is at best a subtle reference to God being more than a singularity. Note the subtle difference between the statements that "God is plural" vs "God is multiple".

When considered in the light of the rest of scripture where one can see the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit being co-equally and co-eternally One God, the plural undertone of Elohim makes sence as we all know there is only One God.

There are many wonderful yet subtle ways in which Judaism honors Jesus. All the Old Testament (Torah) points to the comming of the Messiah (Jesus) and all the Jewish religious festivals speak symbolically of Him. However the Jews as a people did not recognise Jesus when He came and as such are blinded to Him as their Messiah (Luke 19:41-42
). One should not look to Judaism to define God, God was revealed to man throught Jesus. However ignoring the Old Testament and Jewish practices altogether would be a tragic shame.


September 08, 2006 7:16 AM   Edit
Blogger Correy said...

In a plural fashion.

The times a plural fashion are used for God is obviously known as a "royal we".

eg the Queen of England may say "we came down" even though there is only one queen who came down. She uses the plural to denote her majesty.

google define: royal we

September 08, 2006 8:43 AM   Edit
Blogger Modern Day Magi said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

September 08, 2006 9:28 AM   Edit
Blogger kelliemarie said...

Pb, im not sure i totally understand... so God only referes to himself as elohim(plural) only four times out of 11000(and are you sure this figure is right?) to denote his majesty?

you said: 'When you understand the origin of Elohim, you discover it is the Hebrew word Eloah (a word refering to deity) with a plural suffix (im)'. eg. Cherub v Cherubim.

Are you sure thats right? im kinda looking into this and thanks to PB Google definition search it says:
elohim (Hebrew) [from 'eloah goddess + im masculine plural ending]

Why do we call God a he? is he limited to only a masculine 'nature'??

Might explain why elohim (plural) is used to relate to a singular God who is both feminine and masculine??

September 08, 2006 1:41 PM   Edit
Blogger kelliemarie said...

what is blaspheme against the holy spirit?

who is the holy spirit? It says in acts it is the spirit of Jesus.

trinity is just a word. Its not the holy spirit

September 08, 2006 1:55 PM   Edit
Blogger Modern Day Magi said...


Firstly I'm not an expert but this is something I've come accross before.

Elohim is the masculine plural form of Eloah; in Talmudic literature, however, the plural is frequently given as Elohoth, oth being the feminine plural ending.

I think Hebrew is more like French than English where words are either feminine or masculine, with English not many words have conotations either way.

As to God being refferd to with masculine language, I'm not sure where that came from but would be very wary of anyone suggesting God was faminine in nature. Jesus was most definantly a man. :)

Also we remember Genesis 1:26-27 particularly that in His own image, God created mankind, male and female he created them.

Men and women have very different attributes, masculine and feminine traits. The whole Hunter/Protecter vs Gatherer/Nurterer roles. Since God is perfect and all that is good comes from Him, it would be no stretch to imagine that God possess all the positive attributes of mankind, both the masculine and feminine ones. I'm not suggesting calling God a she or anything like that but simply considering Him a him also is limiting if you understand what I'm so messily trying to say.


September 08, 2006 2:16 PM   Edit
Blogger PhileoSophia said...

I believe in the unparalleled, indisputable, infallible, divinely-inspired Word of God as contained in the Holy Bible. I believe God was very clear in His inspiration of that Word. The New Testament was written in COMMON Greek, not the Greek of the educated, but of the common man. I believe that God MEANT every pronoun, conjunction and preposition. I believe that God CREATED language AND its laws. I believe He knew both well enough to reveal Himself through them without distorting them. I do not believe that any personal revelation or "Measuring Stick" can supercede or contradict that Word. (2Pet.1.19-21, 1John 4.1) I believe the Word of God IS the "Measuring Stick". I believe Scripture overrides and CORRECTS all personal revelation. (2Cor 10.4,5) I believe that God sometimes uses parables and figurative language. I believe that God uses them judiciously. Otherwise, the entirety of the Bible would be figurative. (eg. It is unlikely that the writers of the Epistles, inspired by the Holy Spirit, would deliberately choose language to confuse those that they are correcting, encouraging and teaching; especially in a greeting or blessing.) Parables and figurative language, though veiled, were never deceptive, but always point to truth.

September 08, 2006 2:47 PM   Edit
Blogger PhileoSophia said...

You have asked me to present my 1 “best” argument and Scripture. Ridiculous! Biblical truths have no weak arguments.
I have given you the Canon. (Specifically, I used the greeting/blessing in the Epistles.)
I have given you English Grammar.
I have given you Greek Grammar.
I have given you Granville Sharpe’s Rule #1 for the translation of said Greek to said English.
I have explained to you the basics of Bible Study: i.e. Read the passage IN CONTEXT.
(Not to mention the far greater arguments that the others have brought up!)
You have not addressed a single one of these issues with anything other than circular logic. (If you address it at all.) Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
I REFUSE to give you only one Scripture so that you can use your relativistic “Measuring Stick” to beat that Scripture out of context and beyond all recognition. From your previous posts, you seem to want to be right, no matter the cost. Even if being right means denigrating the Word of God, Whose name is JESUS.

September 08, 2006 3:06 PM   Edit
Blogger Correy said...

I haven't counted them but got this quote from a book. Either way God is almost always referred to as Singular and on the few occasions that it is plural it is a "royal we"

Firstly it troubles me greatly that you would hate with such a passion the exalted Lord Jesus Christ to be your measuring stick. Secondly have you noticed how you can read a verse of the bible and get the total opposite meaning to millions of other people and visa versa.

Nobody is disputing about scripture being true. It is the interpretation of Scripture that can be false.

Jesus says:

The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that,
" 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!

The physical Jews who had stronger arguments then you about believing every word in its original language couldn't believe in Jesus.

Can you believe Jesus to be the Lord of Lords and have no other Lord or God Besides Jesus? To do this is not to believe in relativism

September 08, 2006 3:27 PM   Edit
Blogger Stan said...

PB, you said: "and they shall become one FLESH. To compare a sexual union between a man and a woman with a Father and Son is off beat to say the least."

You've compared sexual union to the Father and Son. I was comparing the terminology of "one" ... anything, when it isn't literally and only "one".

Then you said (and this is seriously significant): "Sects aside Judaism understands God to be singular."

From this I surmise that it is your understanding that those of us who believe that the Bible teaches a Triune God believe in multiple gods. That is a genuine and serious misunderstanding. Judaism understands God to be singular. So does historic Christianity, including the doctrine of the Trinity.

September 09, 2006 12:30 AM   Edit
Blogger Samantha said...

There is an obvious disinction between the Father, the Son, & the HS. I'm still waiting to read how the distinction of the three can be refuted?

Just a few examples: Mark 16:19, Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:14,

How do these verses match with your arguements?

PB: I'm aware this is an important doctrine. If you don't have the right Christ, you don't have Him at all.

September 09, 2006 2:53 AM   Edit
Blogger kelliemarie said...

i dont claim to know everything about the trinity which is why im looking into it...

The holy spirit is jesus spirit (is this a weak argument? )

Matthew 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

Acts 2:38
Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 10:48
So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

Acts 16:7
When they came to the border of Mysia, they tried to enter Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them to.

September 09, 2006 10:47 AM   Edit
Blogger Correy said...

The trinity has 3 people that make up God. Sounds plural to me and many trinitarians have pointed this out to me in the past, maybe you have a different take.

Is Jesus the sole God to which you worship or do you have another God then Him?

September 09, 2006 12:30 PM   Edit
Blogger Paul G said...

puritan belief,
Excellent answer on the foremost commandment.
As Jesus said "One is the Lord thy God"! consequently, He is not Three!
Any spirit that does not confess that Jesus is that ONE, is the spirit of Antichrist.

For every believer it is very important to judge or discern the difference between the spirit of Antichrist and the Spirit of God.

The spirit of Antichrist does not ascribe all glory and honour and majesty to Jesus.
He always perverts and twists Scripture so that it points to any other direction than to Jesus.
He teaches doctrines like free will, futurism, the trinity, Armenianism, universal atonement, universal love, and all of the universal doctrines which means all catholic doctrines.

Shortly after Jesus Christ was revealed, the spirit of Antichrist appeared and manifested himself in all religious people who believed in God, especially in the church leaders.
The man and the spirit of Antichrist had to emerge from the church.
The high priest tore his robe and said 'what further proof we need, He makes Himself equal with God', then they killed Him.
The Trinitarians called our brothers (HERETIC) then they burned them on the stakes.
Perhaps you think that a Christian cannot manifest the spirit of Antichrist? WRONG!
Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."
Or Jesus did not commit Himself to them because He knew what was in them, John 2:24+25
To James and John Jesus said 'you do not know what spirit you are of.' Luke 9:55

So then we should judge oneself rightly, by what spirit do we speak? the Antichrist or the Holy Spirit?

There is no distinction between God and the Father, God is the Father of His children and that is Jesus who created all things and nothing came into being apart from Jesus, everything is created by Jesus and for Him even His children.
There is no distinction between the Father and the Son, (as in persons or personalities).
It is God who is the Father by the name of Jesus who became flesh and dwelled among us and we behold His gory of the only begotten Son of the Father Jesus Christ.
God is Spirit and does not need flesh to exist.
Remember! The flesh without the spirit is dead, and the spirit without the flesh you cannot see! But if the Spirit is clothed in human flesh, then you can see the Father who is your heavenly Father Jesus Christ.
You see! All things and all Scripture is fulfilled in Jesus Christ our Lord.
If you can see the fullness of God in Christ, then the Scripture will open up to you in a new way you never thought possible.
Samantha I like your statement:
PB: I’m aware this is an important doctrine. If you don’t have the right Christ, you don’t have Him at all.

September 09, 2006 10:42 PM   Edit
Blogger kelliemarie said...

PG and PB,

i see a misunderstanding.

So the trinity doctrine is 'WE believe in One God which reveals himself in 3 persons. '

paul this is the same as you saying you believe in Jesus christ (and yourself) having body/soul/spririt.

September 11, 2006 9:40 PM   Edit
Blogger kelliemarie said...

Why hasnt anyone mentioned the anit christ spirit as one which opposes the gospel of grace?

September 11, 2006 9:41 PM   Edit
Blogger Samantha said...


Can you reconcile these verses for me then?

1 John 1:3
1 John 2:22-24
1 Timothy 2:5
Matthew 3:16-17
Proverbs 30:1-4

To name a few...

September 11, 2006 11:49 PM   Edit
Blogger Samantha said...

Allforlove said...
"Why hasnt anyone mentioned the anit christ spirit as one which opposes the gospel of grace?"


September 12, 2006 1:28 AM   Edit
Blogger Correy said...

It depends what you mean by the doctrines of grace? Even catholics say they believe in the doctrines of grace as it is just a cliche.

September 12, 2006 12:58 PM   Edit
Blogger kelliemarie said...

PB, anyone can claim they believe in grace yet try and measure up by their own bootstraps not just catholics who think they have to visit confession every friday.

Going to church is not about following man imposed religious rituals which mean nothing but behavior modification.

You dont first live better and then get Gods approval. For those that are saved, We have Gods approval already, we are as holy as Jesus Christ and he treats us Like we have never sinned a day in our lives.

This is the power of the gospel of grace which paul preached. Jesus preached the law before he died to bring people to the end of themselves. After he died his spirit preached Grace, to bring all of who he was to us. ( mmmm , just made that up but sounds good :)

Those who are blind cannot understand this Grace. and indeed God can make them blind for they may turn and be forgiven!

September 12, 2006 7:22 PM   Edit
Blogger Correy said...

Yes, When Grace is all of Jesus and none of us then it is grace. The moment other aspects creep in that distract people from Jesus being the sole cause, and completion of our salvation then people are beliving in a grace that is no longer grace.

The way I see it is that the Spirit of Christ will indeed lift up Jesus in grace. Whereas the spirit of ant-christ will confuse Jesus being The ONLY person responsible for our Salvation.

September 12, 2006 9:46 PM   Edit
Blogger kelliemarie said...

yes i agree

Do Trinitarians confess Jesus as the way to our salvation ( sorry if we've been over this)

Maybe we've sterotyped trinitarians and called them catholics instead

Father son holyspirit is only language like body/soul/spirit?

In all my lack of understanding he still calls me his own. Grace

September 12, 2006 10:13 PM   Edit
Blogger Samantha said...

allforlove said:
Do Trinitarians confess Jesus as the way to our salvation ( sorry if we've been over this)

John 14:6
"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Grace is even more beautiful knowing that GOD put His SON on the cross for our sins.

This verse is yet another example of the Trinity. :D

September 12, 2006 11:31 PM   Edit
Blogger Correy said...

First you need to read the very next words after John 14:6 to get it in context.

The verse most certainly isn't an example of the trinity.

Are you saying that it wasn't the Lord god almighty who died on the cross? Did the real god send some other person to do the job which only he could?

September 13, 2006 8:47 AM   Edit
Blogger Correy said...

I read over your grace comment a few times now. I like it a lot.

Trinitarians are catholics because they hold the catholic number 1 doctrine the trinity. They may say they hold Calvinism or other minor differences and not go to confession but their doctrine of god is the same... The trinity.

Jesus was a man and also fully God. As a man he was just like us which is why He is our advocate (one of the people) Jesus like us is made up of body, soul and spirit. But in His body the fullness of God/Deity/Godhead dwells.

This is in no way similar to trinitarians saying that there are 2 different people who are God but are not Jesus Christ and are "coequally" God.

September 13, 2006 9:38 AM   Edit
Blogger Samantha said...

Is this how it's working now? Now we are being called Catholics?

As someone who grew up in the Catholic Church, I assure you, I am NOT Catholic.

Take care everyone. I'm out.

September 13, 2006 12:55 PM   Edit
Blogger kelliemarie said...


i know how you feel when you think someone is undermining you. the way i see it, we undermine God more :)

PB: i'll get back to you

September 13, 2006 8:13 PM   Edit
Blogger Modern Day Magi said...

The more frequently you touch the keyboard the more evident it is that you either do not read the comments in favour of the Trinity doctorine or simply cannot understand them.

"Are you saying that it wasn't the Lord god almighty who died on the cross? Did the real god send some other person to do the job which only he could? "



The Trinity:
God is three persons
; The Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit/Ghost.
Each person is divine; Each of these if fuly God and not simply a part of God or different manifestation of God.
There is only one God; Belief in the Trinity is wholly monotheistic.

Please do not attempt to define the Trinity in any way other than how it is described above.

"Trinitarians are catholics..." the way you toss 'catholic' around as an insult clearly demonstrates you have no qualms about being personally offensive to your commentors/readers even though one of your 'rules of engagement' so to speak, is that you will not respond to insulting comments, a little hypocritical don't you think?

If you are serious about oposing the Trinity doctorine, you should attack the doctorine itself rather than defining it however you want and then demonstrating how that particular idea is wrong.

John 14:6-7 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."

By identifying the Father and Jesus as two disticnt persons, (as Jesus clearly does) these verses ARE clearly in favour of the Trinity.

Question: When non-christians see a Christian they should see Christ manifested in that Christian's life. Does this mean the Christian IS Christ?


September 13, 2006 10:06 PM   Edit
Blogger Paul G said...

PB: When Jesus preached things they did not like to hear, they all left Him except the twelve.
A servant is not greater than His master; whatever they have done to Jesus they will do to you also.
There will be people who would rather have their ears tickled, than to hear the truth.
If a man does not have the love of the truth, the Lord will give him over to a spirit of delusion so that he will believe what is false.

To all Trinitarians:
You are supposed to be Protestants and protesting against all the doctrines and practices of the universal Catholic Church.
As it is, you have been polluted with her doctrines and practices, you have departed from the Lord Jesus to some other persons whom you call god, and you have not been faithful to Jesus.
If you do not stand for the Lord Jesus, you will fall for any other gods and that is a shame to you!
I will shortly tell you of your false Gospel which you are preaching in almost all universal Churches.

September 13, 2006 11:11 PM   Edit
Blogger Modern Day Magi said...

I don't know what 'false Gopspel' you are going to reveal to us Paul G but the Gospel is simple. The Gospel is Jesus. The Gospel is surmised for us in 1 Corinthians 15:2-4.

"By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,"

Nothing more, nothing less, the Gospel is the Death, burial and ressurection of Jesus Christ according to the Scriptures and the eternal consequenmces / rewards of that death.

BTW this change of topic does not strengthen your case against the Trinity but shows a weakness in your position that you must change the topic of discussion in an attempt to gain the upper hand.


September 14, 2006 6:45 AM   Edit
Blogger Correy said...

Would you say that if someone saw you they would see Christ? What about if they saw you when no-one was looking?

The believer in Jesus is not the man Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

Jesus Christ of Nazareth is Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

September 14, 2006 11:38 AM   Edit
Blogger kelliemarie said...

MDM : If i am called a catholic i would look at what i believe to see why i am being called a catholic, this wouldnt personally offend me. Actually i try not let anything offends me cause its not too good for the air :)

September 14, 2006 1:40 PM   Edit
Blogger Modern Day Magi said...

Christians are called to be the salt and the light of the world. It is not our own saltyness or light which does this but the indwelling of God within the believer which shines in spite of our humanity and flaws.

You answered my question perfectly PB.

"The believer in Jesus is not the man Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

Jesus Christ of Nazareth is Jesus Christ of Nazareth."

Now lets apply the same principle, to when Jesus said "If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." (John 14:7)Jesus also said, in John 14:9-11 "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves."

So unless we want to call Jesus a liar, The Father is in Jesus. Because of this, when people looked upon Jesus they saw the Father also. Not that He was physically there, but He was within Jesus' every move and word.

Now to apply the same logic you used when asked "When non-christians see a Christian they should see Christ manifested in that Christian's life. Does this mean the Christian IS Christ?

Question: When people saw Jesus Christ they should have seen The Father manifested in Jesus' life. Does this mean the Jesus IS The Father?

Answer: Jesus is not His own Father.

Jesus Christ of Nazareth is Jesus Christ of Nazareth, and The Father is The Father.


September 14, 2006 4:30 PM   Edit
Blogger Modern Day Magi said...


PB and Paul G use the title/term/name 'catholic' as a dismissive insult. This is clear from the views they express about how they view the Catholic Church as the anti-christ, or at least as an anti-christ spirit. So when they call me a catholic they are calling me an anti-christ, which is worse than simply being an atheist who doesn't know any better.

Whether or not I take offense is beside the point. If I were to swear at you, even if you were not offended by my words, I would still have used offensive language. Resorting to name-calling in a discussion is just a very clear demonstration that one has no valid arguement and must resort to attacking the other person rather than the issues or questions raised.

I often do not take offense at what people say either, but the use of insults in a debate 'speaks for itself'.


September 14, 2006 4:40 PM   Edit
Blogger Correy said...

If when people look at you, You can look them in the eye and say:
"From now on you have seen and known Jesus Christ of Nazareth"
Then your comments are correct.
If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him Jn 14:7

When I looked upon Jesus with my spiritual eyes I came to see and know my Heavenly Father.

September 14, 2006 4:43 PM   Edit
Blogger kelliemarie said...

MDM: Just saying that i didnt see it as insult in calling the trinity a catholic doctrine. It is isnt it. If i hold to the trinity the way catholics do than im in some part catholic. Why would this offend you if it was true? because PB and PG are labling all catholic belief anti christ? Well is this offensive language or is it just debating... do you disagree the trinity isnt the central doctrine of the catholic church? and you hold the same view so correct me if im wrong but trinitarians/churchs look to the catholic church to validate this doctrine. selah

and also ... being offended is exactly the point.

September 15, 2006 12:49 PM   Edit
Blogger Paul G said...

Modern day magi;
I was not trying to change the topic to the false Gospel, in order to get the upper hand.
Jesus said, a little leaven leavens the whole lump, or in plain language a few lies makes everything a lie. Beware of the false preachers who put lies into there preaching.
The Jehovah Witnesses believe that the Father of Jesus is the true God by the name of Jehovah.
Trinitarians believe the same lie, with a minor attachment that Jesus is also God.
The Trinity lie is a whole package of a FALSE Jesus a FALSE Spirit and a FALSE Gospel that always comes together in one package.
About the false Gospel I will put it off for a while longer because I have to go to China for about four to five weeks. If I can get easy access to the net, I will write from there.
Any other opinions are welcome! For Trinitarians or against Trinitarians, don’t be afraid nobody will burn you at the stake. (yet.)
Meanwhile I pray that the Lord Jesus will give you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of God that is in Jesus Christ our Lord and God the Almighty to Him be all honour glory and praise for ever and ever amen.

A thought to consider:
Did you know that Jesus never worshiped!

September 15, 2006 11:06 PM   Edit
Anonymous Anonymous said...

allforlove said:
"being offended is exactly the point."
This is not directed at you (allforlove) just a comment in general:
If I said that all non-Trinitarians were like Jehovah’s Witnesses, being that they denied the Trinity, would you be offended? If I said, "Non-Trinitarians are a cult" since they follow the denial of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit---just as the JW's do" would you be offended? Would you be...edified?
It's one thing to speak the truth with love; to sharpen iron with iron. It's completely different, however, when one cannot come up with an argument to support their claim, and in turn, resort to name calling. That's called: ARROGANCE.

September 15, 2006 11:57 PM   Edit
Blogger PhileoSophia said...

I’ve been enjoying your posts for the past while. (I haven’t had much time to comment lately.) You’ve challenged me. I’m going to look into learning Hebrew. Also, your progression of comments makes sense to me.
The debate that is going on here is what the doctrine of the Trinity IS versus what PB & Paul G (and to a lesser extent, All4Love,) accuse it of being.

I’m glad you clarified the doctrine of the Trinity once and for all.

As a Calvinist, I agree whole-heartedly with your synopsis of the Trinity. When I read this, it seems Calvin himself believed in the Trinity! It amuses me that PB doesn’t see even Calvin as a Calvinist! Since Paul G. sees it as the job of Protestants to protest every doctrine of the Catholic church, I guess Luther isn’t a Protestant, either, since he embraced the Trinity. Oh, wait! He’s a heretic, too since he also believed in *gasp* consubstantiation!

Wait, wait, wait! Maybe it’s all "figurative"!

September 16, 2006 1:49 AM   Edit
Blogger PhileoSophia said...

It is regrettable that your dullness of understanding forces me to be verbose. Given that you cannot understand Scripture (or my statements) in context, I am forced to take this approach. I refuse to lower my vocabulary to one that you would understand, so I have provided links for you.

You said:
"Firstly it troubles me greatly that you would hate with such a passion the exalted Lord Jesus Christ to be your measuring stick."

Don’t try to patronize me with your alleged concern. You have been flippant with the word "anti-Christ" and believe me to be damned. You do not believe me to be one of the elect since I don’t have your "higher" revelation, and you erroneously accuse me of being a polytheist.
It is not the "exalted Jesus Christ" I have a problem with, but rather that you hold your interpretation higher than the Word of God, and twist the Bible to fit your assumptions. How then are you better than the Pope or the Pharisees who hold tradition above the Word? (Mark 7.6-9)

God’s Word says: "I bow myself toward Thy holy temple, And I confess Thy name, For Thy kindness, and for Thy truth, For Thou hast made great Thy saying above all Thy name." (Psalm 138.2, Young’s Literal Translation). KJV says "…thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name." Jesus (The Name above all Names) even affirms this with the "jot & tittle" reference in Matt. 5.18. So, what is God’s viewpoint? It seems clear enough to me. But anything that doesn’t support your interpretation is "figurative", isn’t it?
The standard by which you define an "exalted Christ" is of your own, human invention. This is what I call relativism. The only true standard by which Christ can be exalted is the Biblical pattern. To do less is to offer "false fire". (Lev. 10.1-3)
In having read the entire Bible, cover to cover, countless times, I recall being warned to "test the spirits", but not once did it say "test the Word".

September 16, 2006 2:13 AM   Edit
Anonymous Anonymous said...

P.B. said:
"Secondly have you noticed how you can read a verse of the bible and get the total opposite meaning to millions of other people and visa [sic] versa."

Actually, I’m not the one scrounging for supporters. The majority of people posting here share Orthodox Doctrine. PURITAN doctrine. 2000 years of Christian history backs up my Orthodoxy. I CHALLENGE YOU TO SHOW US ALL AS THE HERETICS YOU CLAIM US TO BE. By "us" I mean Calvin, Luther, Edwards, Spurgeon, Knox, Bunyan, Hus, Lewis, Augustine, Tertullian, Chesterton, etc., not to mention all those who have died for what you have labeled a "false God".
You have a cynical view of Christianity and God’s sovereignty. You believe that only those that share your modalist view truly know God. You don’t understand the Trinity, and you do your best to remain ignorant. What’s worse is that you enjoy your ignorance. You revel in it and call it wisdom.

P.B. said:
"Nobody is disputing about scripture being true. It is the interpretation of Scripture that can be false." (One has only to read your posts to see how easily this is done.)
You yourself dispute the Word with the following statement:
"The physical Jews who had stronger arguments then [sic] you about believing every word in its original language couldn't believe in Jesus." (Emphasis mine)
Actually, many of them did. (eg. Paul, the Bereans), but I digress… By making such a statement, you are insinuating that every word of the Logos cannot be trusted. Either every single jot, tittle and iota subscript is (or is not) inspired by God. Therefore it is (or is not) trustworthy. Therefore, we are (or are not) to believe it. You say Christians do not exalt Jesus to his rightful place. You have also said that the "measuring stick" is to be Christ exalted (in the way YOU think He ought to be). Thus, you exalt YOUR reason, YOUR interpretation, YOUR "spiritual insight" above the Logos. (2Cor. 10.4,5.) What I am saying is that a denigrated view of the Word of God is a denigrated view of Jesus who calls Himself the Word. How then can your diminished view of Logos exalt Christ?

You would have us ignore Scripture and believe you, the "Anti-Catholic".

Isn’t that the Protestant complaint about the Catholic Church? That the Pope’s view is "higher" than Scripture, and only the priests are sufficiently "spiritual" to discern the true meaning hidden among the "figurative language"? Is your bitterness toward the Catholic church really due to the doctrine espoused by it, or rather are you jealous of the sway that the Pope holds over millions of followers, blindly believing him to be the "interpreter" of God’s truth? Would you rather they blindly follow you?

September 16, 2006 3:01 AM   Edit
Blogger kelliemarie said...


there's only one sin the holy spirit convicts us of and thats unbelief.

mat 12Then the disciples came to him and asked, "Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?"

I try not to be offended...its gets in the way of proper discussion and blinds you further to the truth.

Offense is the trap of the enemy and when you let offense take root, he takes you captive to do his will.

September 16, 2006 8:41 AM   Edit
Blogger kelliemarie said...

hi, i dont wana reply 4 PB, but just 1 point u addressed that i have a question on...

you said '
KJV says "…thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name." Jesus (The Name above all Names) even affirms this with the "jot & tittle" reference in Matt. 5.18

Whats your take on this?

September 16, 2006 8:59 AM   Edit
Blogger Correy said...

So I am guessing you answered no to my question?

Can you believe Jesus to be the Lord of Lords and have no other Lord or God Besides Jesus?

September 16, 2006 1:58 PM   Edit
Blogger Paul G said...

The Catholic Church has millions of people under her control; I hope you don’t think they all are unintelligent people. Like all Trinitarians they believe the lies of their Mother Church ‘Rome’ they have been seduced by her doctrines and practices.
The Antichrist is the master of deception, and has the power to deceive even the elect if possible. Only the born again believers in Jesus can discern or judge between the right and the wrong spirit.
You say, I believe in God! Jesus said, even the demons believe in God and they tremble. So it does not matter whether you believe in God, it matters whether you believe in Jesus Christ to be the eternal God, the everlasting Father, the I AM, the only one person who is God the almighty.
If you do not believe, you will die in your sins.

Antichrist: does not always mean AGAINST the Lord Jesus Christ.
It can mean IN PLACE of Jesus Christ!
Like Trinitarians who put another person the Father by the name of Jehovah in the place of Jesus Christ.
This is the spirit of Antichrist!

September 17, 2006 5:06 PM   Edit
Blogger Correy said...

Catholics or those holding to her number 1 doctrine do not have the correct doctrine of God.

People read their bible, help the poor, attend all the church function but never truly seek Jesus for salvation and as such they never believe in the Jesus who is all and in all.

Jesus speaking:
"Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I AM HE, you will die in your sins."

September 17, 2006 5:29 PM   Edit
Blogger Paul G said...

The JWs do not deny God the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit.
They say the same as you Trinitarians who say, the Father is Jehovah who had a son by the name of Jesus, the Holy Spirit is the active force of God and you say He is the third person in God.
You are as deceived as the JWs.

If I call you and the JWs a cult or heretics! That would mean nothing, sins both names mean to everyone ‘(You do not believe what I believe!)’.
So then, what would Jesus call you??
In John 8:44 Jesus said to those who believed in Him, “you are of your Father the Antichrist!”
Anonymous, would you also call Him ARROGANT??

September 17, 2006 8:53 PM   Edit
Blogger Modern Day Magi said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

September 17, 2006 8:57 PM   Edit
Blogger Modern Day Magi said...

PB and Paul G,

From the same chapter

"Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word."

and in verse 54 "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me."

how do you explain the clear distinction, Jesus saying He came "FROM" the Father and saying "My Father... is the one who glorifies me."

The "I am He" statement or "I am the one I claim to be" as in the NIV is in reference to Jesus being the Light of the world, not a claim that He is YHWH.


P.S. I pray and trust you will have a safe holidy/trip Paul. God bless.

September 17, 2006 9:01 PM   Edit
Blogger Correy said...

Do you not think that Jesus is YHWH?

September 17, 2006 9:02 PM   Edit
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Could you guys at least *pretend* to care about Biblical Context???

I'm not sure where you get your 'antichrist' fixation, but you appear to have a very sophisticated "antichrist" - ology.

You have given very detailed accounts of what does and does not constitute 'antichrist' spirit. Would that you were as interested in Biblical Hermeneutics.

Fact: The John 8:44 reference is children of your father the Devil, not antichrist, as you would claim. I checked this in no fewer than 20 translations. Perhaps you hold to something from some "other" Canon to which only you are privy.

If you cannot even quote scripture accurately without editorializing it, how can you expect us to trust ANY position you posit as authentic Biblical doctrine.

A quick search turns up 4 scriptures where Antichrist is referred to. The four scriptures are all in John's epistles. None of the other apostles use this term. Yet, somehow this appears to be a foundational *key* to all of scripture in your eyes.

Let us examine the passages:

1) I John 2:18 (context -- some who claim to be believers are actually not)

2) II John 1:7 (context -- denouncing the greek heresy of denying the Incarnation)

3) I John 4:2,3 (context -- disciple being 'from God' or 'not from God' shown to be dependant on whether Incarnation of Jesus Christ is acknowledged.)

Which leads to the final verse relating to this topic...

September 18, 2006 3:10 PM   Edit
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fourth Occurance

-- which is actually a continuation of the 1st point, with a short parenthetical break --

22Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

So, the person Scripture would identify with the 'antichrist' mentality/worldview/theology:

-- denies that Jesus is the Christ,
-- denies the Father AND the Son.
(have we defined 'and' or 'also' yet?)

It is very interesting that the very word you use to libel us comes from a scripture which is supportive of Orthodox Christianity.

So, using Scripture to interpret itself, acknowledging / denying the Son will make you capable / incapable of having the Father ALSO.

But, (please explain) how one can acknowledge the Son and claim He IS NO SON, he is 'Father' only.

Are you going to desist from your purile name-calling, and come to the topic at hand?

Or have you de-throned Christ and taken HIS role in weighing the thoughts and intents of the hearts of men? Have you not read that He came down hard on the pharisees for just that practice.

September 18, 2006 3:34 PM   Edit
Blogger Modern Day Magi said...

Thank you for looking ito the scriptures for those references theophilus.

1 John 2:22 is especially on point for this post.


September 18, 2006 4:23 PM   Edit
Blogger Paul G said...

Thank you modern day magi!
Answer to your question:
Jesus who came FROM Spirit went BACK to Spirit from where He came from, for God is Spirit.
Can you believe that the only one and true God was born into His own creation??
Or manifested Himself as a man?
Or clothed Himself in what He has created ‘dust (flesh)’?
Veiled in flesh the incarnate deity.
Too marvelous for words, too beautiful for comprehension, like nothing I ever seen or heard, who can fathom His infinite wisdom, who can understand the depth of His love, Jesus is beautiful beyond description.

September 18, 2006 5:50 PM   Edit
Blogger Paul G said...

With all your Biblical Context and reading of the Bible, you still have not come to know the Lord Jesus.
Jesus said, you search the Scripture and you think in them (the Scripture) you can know Me, yet it is the Scripture who speak of me! And you are unwilling to come to Me, so that you would know Me.

Instead of only knowing the Scripture, it would be better for you to know the Author of the Scripture.

September 18, 2006 6:29 PM   Edit
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Paul G said

"you still have not come to know the Lord Jesus."

Are you assuming the mantle of divinity in accusing me of not knowing Him, seeing as that is HIS job...

While I find it difficult to imagine how someone with your diminshed view of both God and His Word (quoting fragments only, as the JW's do...) could possibly know its Author, it is not my responsibility to decide whether one who has called on His Name, and acknowledges His atoning work actually has received Grace from Him.

Neither is it yours.

Paul G said
"Instead of only knowing the Scripture, it would be better for you to know the Author of the Scripture."

Perhaps if you were conversant in even the basics of scripture, and not so busy looking for antichrists under every bush perhaps you would recognize the Author in scripture, as I do.

September 19, 2006 12:10 AM   Edit
Blogger Correy said...

And who do you think the Author of scripture is?

September 19, 2006 12:45 AM   Edit
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I could answer this question, but since you have (deliberately) misunderstood every Biblical referance to Father, Son and Spirit, it would fall on deaf ears.

PB -- do you maintian the right to usurp the Son of God and determine for yourself to whom He has dispensed grace? I ask because you have yet to distance yourself from assertions you have both made that Orthodox Christians are damned by your definitions.

Perhaps you haven't read Romans 10:9,10?

By contrast, we are defending the Biblical view of God, and leaving the determination of eternal condition to Him whose decision it is.

September 19, 2006 2:44 AM   Edit
Blogger Correy said...

Firstly I am not against you but I do have one purpose. Romans makes it clear that it is Jesus who causes the new birth of all those who believe in his wonderful Name.

"But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man."

I am judging your replies Theophilus and I do it like this:

"and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy"

Every question I ask is a request for you to show me that you are my brother, to show me that you have the testimony of Jesus. This really is the fulfillment of your Anti-Christ verses:

"Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledge the Son hath the Father also"

See how it is all central to lifting up the Son. By acknowledging that Jesus is the First and the Last the one who was and is and is to come the Almighty the wonderful Lord of Lords and King of Kings. By doing this of course you have the Father also for you have Jesus.

Can you testify that Jesus is the sole author of scripture. That Jesus alone is the word of God who became flesh and dwelt among us. That Jesus alone is sufficient to be Your one and only God found on every page of scripture?

September 19, 2006 6:41 AM   Edit
Blogger takin said...

Hi Paul G,

You said,

“Too marvelous for words, too beautiful for comprehension, like nothing I ever seen or heard, who can fathom His infinite wisdom, who can understand the depth of His love, Jesus is beautiful beyond description.”

You paraphrase here a worship song wriiten by Mark Altrogge called “I Stand in Awe.” Here’s the actual lyrics:

“You are beautiful beyond description
Too marvelous for words
Too wonderful of comprehension
Like nothing ever seen or heard
Who can grasp your infinite wisdom
Who can fathom the depth of your love
You are beautiful beyond description
Majesty enthroned above

And I stand, I stand in awe of you
I stand, I stand in awe of you
Holy God to whom all praise is due
I stand in awe of you.”

Mark Altrogge is Senior Pastor of Lord of Life Church in Indiana, PA. I Thought you might find the following excerpt from the churches statement of faith interesting:

“There is one God: infinite, eternal, almighty, and perfect in holiness, truth, and love. In the unity of the godhead there are three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, co-existent, co-equal, co-eternal. The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Holy Spirit, yet each is truly Deity. One God - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - is the foundation of Christian faith and life.”

But, I guess it doesn’t bother you to quote Trinitarians in your failed attempts to disprove the Trinity. After all you do it all the time when quoting the New Testament!

September 19, 2006 7:48 AM   Edit
Blogger Correy said...

Glad to see you back, Do you use the same measure you use against Paul G as you do with yourself?

For example would you critisize George Whitefield for agreeing with Wesley on a point.

Have you ever quoted an arminian on a point you think they get correct thou you are a calvinist or visa versa?

Takin if you were to give praise glory and honour to Jesus like Mark Altrogge I would quote you too.

September 19, 2006 8:15 AM   Edit
Blogger kelliemarie said...

PB: It says in colossians 4 Make the most of every oppertunity...Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone

i commend you on the way you are answering. so full of grace. keep it up!

The joy of the Lord is your strength

September 20, 2006 7:08 PM   Edit
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is why it is necessary to be familiar with the WHOLE COUNSEL of God before applying it:

God is well aware of our human tendancy to corrupt HIS truth. Sometimes, even well-meaning people do so. Example: some, in their effort to emphasize grace apart from works, inadvertantly give the message that the way a Christian lives his life (morally or otherwise) doesn't matter.

Or someone can use the doctrine of Election to suggest we do not really need to 'Go into all the World'.

Obviously, both of the statements above are a biblical reality taken without its proper context and corrupted.

His remedy for this is having texts which, taken together, give a balanced view of the Biblical directive. Romans 6, for example, would counter the heresy of 'cheap grace'

To take a subject upon which we (hopefully) already have a consensus, one can look at the Incarnation.

Scripture is very clear in many places where it ascribes Divinity to Jesus, both directly by His words, and also by the testamony of Scripture. ("I AM" references... etc.)

Scripture is ALSO very clear in many places in which it ascribes Humanity to Jesus. (Like us, yet without sin... Eating... Weakness in Gethsemane, etc.)

Those (heretics) who would deny one or the other of the above natures of Jesus MUST 'explain away' the counter-weight verses, OR ignore them completely, OR fall into another, even greater error.

Some cults would take the scriptures portraying His humanity, and use these as *proof texts* to claim that Scripture itself rejects any claim to Jesus' divinity. Other cults, -- particularily in First Century Greece -- going the other direction, would accept His divinity, but reject His Humanity, and claim the 'Divinity-scriptures' support their assertions.

The lesson we must learn is that each group, PROJECTED their prior assumptions UPON the Bible and were therefore unable to let IT instruct THEM. They saw their scriptures in that light, because their biases compelled them to.

Hypostatic Union of God and man does not conform to traditional Human logic, true.
But we know (i)that Scripture is 'factually' true AND 'theologically' true. (ii) Scripture is God's word. (iii) God does not lie. (iv) Scripture supports Jesus's Divinity. (v) Scripture supports Jesus's Humanity.

Despite the seemingly fantastic nature of the impending conclusion (which to the unregenerate mind must seem fanastic, indeed) either an error exists in the above assertions, OR...

Jesus is BOTH fully (not half) God AND fully (not half) Man.

This forum has seen the same argument approach ("my Proof text negates your proof text") that if applied to the above example would result in the denying of Jesus's Incarnation.

I have shown how this is clearly an invalid method of arguing.

ALL Sciptural 'proof texts' are true. Incompatibility of apparently competing claims do not expose error on God's part, only ignorance on ours. It us up to the student of scripture to determine how seemingly paradoxical statements can co-exist harmoniously.

(i)Scripture indicates: There is no pantheon. There is one Lord God.

(ii)Scripture indicates: there is distinction within God; namely Father, Son, and Spirit.

Since (i) rules out the possibility of 3 independant gods, and (ii) rules out Modalism/Saballeanism,
AND since God's Word is not self-contradictory
There must be some Other Explanation.

That explaination is called the Doctrine of the Trinity.

September 21, 2006 1:12 PM   Edit
Blogger Modern Day Magi said...


Well said!


September 21, 2006 4:09 PM   Edit
Blogger kelliemarie said...

theophilus, i agree with MDM, well said.

you said:Scripture indicates: there is distinction within God; namely Father, Son, and Spirit.

So the doctrine of the trinty believes one God. What is the name of this God apart from titles/reference to character so on...? ( i can almost hear you groan :)

also...i know this isnt the subject of the post and that you were only using it as an example, but how would you relate Grace to our performance/works/behavior so to say ... its just a topic of interest to me at the moment. thanks

September 21, 2006 7:29 PM   Edit
Blogger Modern Day Magi said...


In regards to the place of our good works in relation to Grace, I see it as a cause and effect relationship. Our good deeds are a result of God's unmerited Saving Grace. Anyone can be a 'good person' but no one can be righteous without Grace.

Righteousness produces a different kind of good person to the average Joe wanting to be nice.

I also like how C. S. Lewis put it in Mere Christianity. Our good works are not our gift to God, but God's gift to us. (paraphrased)


September 21, 2006 8:21 PM   Edit
Blogger Correy said...

You are right the best way to explain a paradoxical understanding of God is with a trinity.

If I had the bias that God was 3 persons I would have to use many words in an attempt to make these 3 people one God. And if I do say so you did very well this time :)

The truth as always is simple:

The God and Father of creation became a man and was well pleased to make the fullness of Himself dwell in the body of Jesus Christ.

His purpose was His elect and his goal was to bear the brunt of the law namely death in our stead.

Grace and only grace remains for the Christian.

There wasn't another man ruling the world while Jesus was in the womb but only Jesus who rules the world by His Spirit. To whom he was in complete subjection to as a man. Not another person for God is Spirit.

The absolute truth is not found by eloquently harmonizing verses that the natural mind believes are contradicting.

Absolute truth is found completely in the man Jesus Christ who is the one and only true God the Almighty. He shares His deity with no man for it is all contained in Him.

"The fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily in Christ Jesus" Col 2:9

September 22, 2006 2:46 PM   Edit
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Both those who defend and those who attack the right division of God's word say of each other "blind guides", "unregenerate", "barking dog", etcetera. This is an ad hominem attack, and of no benefit in this forum, if the objective is anything higher than giving smug responses.

You are giving me your *opinion* on Scripture *fragments* whose meaning changes when little words like, "ALSO", "WITH" or "AND" are conveniently passed over. (Christ is properly exalted when HE is described in the SENSE HE TAUGHT US.)

You simply stating that you are right is not adequate to overthrow the overwhelming weight of scriptural evidence for the Triune nature of God.

You mistakenly believe that we reject the 'one-ness' of God, and try to refute us with truths we accept as incontravertable, however poorly you apply them; you are "preaching to the choir" in a sense.

In the same statements, however, you are rejecting great swaths of divinely inspired Scripture by redefining them, ignoring them, or quoting only the convenient words out of sentances.

How important is context? Despite your scoffing, it is very simply the difference between (a)"Go and sin no more." and (b)"Go and sin."

Every word matters, Jesus Himself has said so.

Even the JW's have their own translation of scripture, largely to exctricate the Trinity from Divine writ. Rest assured, they hate the Trinity as much as you do.

Perhaps the 'Bible According to Paul G' (operators still standing by) on the previous thread was more accurate and less satirical than I had first supposed.

You claim I am obscuring scripture in eloquence.

I claim you are locking inconvenient texts away in the dark where their presence will be less disruptive to your doctrine.

I do NOT *seek* Him in Scripture. I have already found Him, or rather have been found BY Him, and have been bought with His incorruptible redeeming Blood. But, having been found by Him, I seek to know Him better through His Word. This is the same word which you are quick to edit, and slow to hear.

September 23, 2006 12:39 PM   Edit
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The anti-intellectualism sometimes expressed in this thread is the same which weakens and undermines the Body of Christ as a whole.

Many Chritians (both in truth and in name) have become so 'highly specialized' as to become familiar with favorite passages to the exclusion of the *entirety* or *whole counsel* of God. This is if they have even seen the inside of a Bible at all! How can such a one recognize error, let alone refute it?

A reasoned examination of Scripture is not exalting the Carnal mind. Those familiar with the whole text will see examples of where misapplications of scripture are ruled out by other passages
(as I have posted above).

Scripture, (not subjective spiritual experiences) has been given to us as the benchmark for the Christian's life.

You have defined what lifting up Christ means. That is a personal and subjective (read: relativistic) definition of what lifting up means.

-The Israelites in the Desert made a Golden Calf, not because they were overtly and intentionally worshipping *another* god, but because they were worshipping (they falsely claimed) the God who brought them out of Egypt. They did so on THEIR terms. they were judged.
-False Fire was offered to God: worship on Human terms they were judged, and swallowed by the earth.
-King Uzziah (2 Chron 26) gave worship rebelliously. judged.

You Saying that *THIS* is what lifting Jesus up means does not make it so.

Scripture saying that *this* is what lifting up Jesus means makes it 'so'.

Let Jesus reveal the nature of Deity. The authority, is His word Revealed to us, not (your) human assumptions.

September 23, 2006 1:00 PM   Edit
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily in Christ Jesus" Col 2:9

You persist in presenting this verse as though you think it a stumbling block to me.

Jesus *is* Fully God. See Incarnation post, above. Why would this be problematic to me?

September 23, 2006 1:07 PM   Edit
Blogger kelliemarie said...

i believe jesus has 3 parts - body soul spirit. Or is that to simple?

theophilus, can you answer this question?

And can you answer in ways which i will understand...just that i speak the language of the people :)

September 24, 2006 7:53 AM   Edit
Blogger Modern Day Magi said...


Jesus cirtainly does have a body, soul and spirit in exactly the same sence as all humans do. Jesus was fully a man. More than this He was an average man in every sence, there was nothing about Him to draw men to Him.

Jesus was and is also fully God. So while He is Body, soul and spirit He is also infinately more.

Understanding Jesus as spirit, body and soul is not the same as recognising the Trinity of Father, Son and Spirit.

We must always remember that humans are the image of God not the otherway around. Just as an image of a bucket can never cary water, or an image of a plane can never fly mankind is far less than God.

Yes Jesus was a man but He is also much more. God is far greater and far more complex and intricate than any man. He is infinite we are finite.


September 24, 2006 12:44 PM   Edit
Blogger Correy said...

Does the Holy Spirit have a body.

September 24, 2006 2:28 PM   Edit
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PB asked if the Holy Spirit has a body.

Could you please dispense with the Rhetorical games, and make your point? (Prov. 26:4)

Or do you *seriously* not know the answer to that question?

AllForLove- As MDM has ably explained, do not confuse discussions of Trinity as being translatable to discussions on Christ's Humanity.

Case of: apples & oranges.

September 24, 2006 3:47 PM   Edit
Blogger kelliemarie said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

September 24, 2006 5:43 PM   Edit
Blogger kelliemarie said...

Allforlove said...
theophilus, just wondering what way am i confusing discussions of Trinity as being translatable to discussions on Christ's Humanity?

Does Jesus have a body in heaven?

Jesus doesnt have a body, soul and spirit in exactly the same sence as all humans do. For one his spirit is his. What spirit do we have living in us?

Also , How could he be infinately more than body soul spirit, when the Fullness ( i guess that means everything of God ) dwells in him ?

you said : Understanding Jesus as spirit, body and soul is not the same as recognising the Trinity of Father, Son and Spirit. Why?

you said:
Just as an image of a bucket can never cary water, or an image of a plane can never fly mankind is far less than God.

So we have an infinite God living inside finite beings. i would say that now we have infinite resorce. Or maybe another way to say is...we have the very real living water living inside(and being poured out) image of a bucket?

concerning understanding...what do you think of this verse?

heb8:11No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest

September 24, 2006 7:43 PM   Edit
Blogger Correy said...

Please feel free to voice whatever comments and questions you like without restraint and just ignore accusations.

I understand that when you haven't got tone or facial expression to guage what a person means some people can read all sorts of things into what you say.

Scripture makes it clear about the Spirit having one body. This body is the body of Christ in whom we are partakers. Scripture tells us that the Lord is the Spirit in whom we have liberty.

The only time the word "person" is referenced with God is found here:

Gal 3:16
The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ.

This promise continues on as the one person of Jesus Christ by His Spirit in us the hope of our glory.

I am sure when you read the scriptures about just how magnificent our Lord and Savior Jesus is you know He is more then like a photograph of the real thing.

Every true Christian when they came to Jesus, came to the one person who is God Almighty in whom all things came into being. Our Father, our teacher who is in us (like your verse from Heb)

September 25, 2006 10:27 AM   Edit
Blogger kelliemarie said...

i like the verse from hebrew also...
the message version puts it like this:

This new plan I'm making with Israel
isn't going to be written on paper,
isn't going to be chiseled in stone;
This time I'm writing out the plan in them,
carving it on the lining of their hearts.
I'll be their God,
they'll be my people.
They won't go to school to learn about me,
or buy a book called God in Five Easy Lessons.
They'll all get to know me firsthand,
the little and the big, the small and the great.
They'll get to know me by being kindly forgiven,
with the slate of their sins forever wiped clean.

September 25, 2006 1:39 PM   Edit
Blogger kelliemarie said...

PB: Thats true about the tone and facial expressions...they should have mood guages or little smily faces so we can give expression to our words :)

What did you mean by writing i am free to comment and question without restraint? Do you feel i am holding back? or i am intimidated?

im not intimidated, but rather im a peace maker and will try and figure out what the misunderstanding is or where the other person is coming from and try to understand their reasoning, even if i get accusations i believe its either because of misunderstandings or ignorance on my part or the other person. Sometimes there are things we will never agree on, but i always prefer to give love and grace over short offensive accusations. Well i try anyway :)

September 25, 2006 2:01 PM   Edit
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please feel free to voice whatever comments and questions you like without restraint and just ignore accusations."

PB- I'm used to you being unable to recognize my stated meaning without altering it to a new, more convenient form, but you've outdone yourself!

I told AFL that there is no direct correlation between the doctrine of Trinity, and the various views on the nature of man. (The predominant one now being the body-soul-spirit view.)

You *can* talk about it *all you like*, but it will bring you no closer to understanding the issue.

Look at it this way: if this thread were about the Great Barrier Reef, someone *could* inject their thoughts on the shipwreck of the Titanic, but, besides being beneath the waves, there isn't much useful correlation.

PB- Let your martyr-complex be your own, and stop looking for opportunites for *other* people to be offended on your behalf.

September 26, 2006 2:13 PM   Edit
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When I started posting here, I had hoped to find someone with a high view of scripture, and a willingness to hold his ideas in subjection to Biblical authority. I had hoped for honest discourse, perhaps spirited disagreement, but with the agreed terms that Scripture would be the final arbiter. I had hoped to meet someone who would attempt to defend his opinions with reasoned arguments, and who would answer when a weakness was shown in his position.

I had hoped so, but that is not what I have found.

What I have found is someone who demands to be heard, but refuses to hear.

In his long-winded posts, he complains I am not sufficiently brief, which I would be if I did not have to give DETAILED EXPLAINATIONS of my true meaning. This is the same meaning which he is ever-ready to re-invent to whatever form may be most convenient to his straw-men arguments.

I have found someone quick to congratulate himself on the supposed strength of his arguments, while refusing to answer the MANY flaws, fallacies and erroneous assumptions clearly evident to the even the average Christian wandering in from outside. He refuses even to examine his “proof-texts” within the conversations or passages of Scripture from which he lifts them.

He calls logic and language ‘carnal’ reasoning, despite the fact that Paul BASED most of the arguments in his epistles ON Aristotlean rules of logic (If / Then, Since / Therefore, etc) He claims that he has a high view of Scripture, and of Christ Jesus, despite his uncanny interest in slashing scripture with the editor’s red pen. (Words like 'and' or 'also' have new, mystical meanings.) All scripture which support his biases are 'inspired', and those which undercut it are mysteriously 'not'.

Scripture is only true if it meets his very own criterion. I’m sure Jim Jones, Rev. Moon, David Koresh, Joseph Smith and the ‘Prophet’ Mohammed would be able to understand his struggle against such overwhelming apostasy.

He has an uncanny ability to assume everyone is deluded but himself and perhaps a few close friends. (There are, perhaps, clinical names for such a state of mind.)

September 26, 2006 3:14 PM   Edit
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To PB / PG
I thank you for providing a forum to showcase the interesting people I have been able to meet along the way,

I also thank you for being the black velvet against which the diamond brilliance of Scripture shines more brightly, and for bringing to the forefront Biblical truths which I had somewhat taken for granted.

My discussions with you have revealed more of His character, goodness, and grace in my ongoing study of His nature.

You have proven yourselves to be uninterested in examining what Scripture REALLY says, since you are forever ready to edit / dismiss it / explain it away. You exalt yourself above scripture, and pride yourself in it. I say this to your shame.

I am morally obligated remind both of you the warnings contained in Rev 22:18 & 19; and in James 3:1. Luke 17:1-3.

Since you don’t truly seek debate with an interest in becoming more Christlike, or a better student of HIS word, AND you do not truly address the person with whom you are ‘debating’ except in ad-hominem attacks, you leave me no room except to believe that you are either:

(1) a Pharisaical blowhard like the one in Jesus’s parable (Luke 18.9-14) or
(2) an “attention whore” (to use a colloquial with a very specific ‘non-sexual’ definition) as defined in wikipedia.

Either of these 2 states would qualify you as being, according to the Biblical definitions, a Fool, with whom, further discourse would be worthless.

I have no desire to be any further part of your intellectual / theological masturbation... called such because this act (ie, your conversation) is performed only for the gratification of self, with these distinguishing characteristics: it is neither fruitful nor satisfying.

September 26, 2006 3:23 PM   Edit
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I also predict one of two responses:

1) look how spiritual I am, I have been "persecuted for righteousness' sake"


2) "See, he said mean things, that makes him less christian! I win".

1) a person can also be shot down for legitimate reasons. Like being a pompous blowhard for instance. Let your martyr complex die.

2) Read Matthew Chapter 23 before you jump to THAT conclusion.

September 26, 2006 3:40 PM   Edit
Blogger kelliemarie said...

theophilus, everything you used against PB and PG can be thrown right back at you.

i have asked you questions that come from a desire to understand you and where you are coming from but all you are interested in is proving PB and PG wrong...
All it shows is that you have no idea how to use wisdom, grace and intellect in approaching those with opposing views. What a cop out.

i dont believe in over spritualising things and acting as a matyer...or denying you have any validity just because you are a 'pompous blowhard'. i believe you can have influence here if you know how to use it.

September 27, 2006 1:36 PM   Edit
Blogger kelliemarie said...

i mean... i dont deny you dont have any validity just because you are a 'pompous blowhard' .... i wish i could edit my posts here:)

September 27, 2006 1:41 PM   Edit
Blogger kelliemarie said...

Back to this verse which i love!

jer 33-34"This is the brand-new covenant that I will make with Israel when the time comes. I will put my law within them—write it on their hearts!—and be their God. And they will be my people. They will no longer go around setting up schools to teach each other about God. They'll know me firsthand, the dull and the bright, the smart and the slow. I'll wipe the slate clean for each of them. I'll forget they ever sinned!" God's Decree.

September 27, 2006 1:48 PM   Edit
Blogger elessi said...

Hey allforlove - great verse... is there meant to be a chapter with it? Wasn't at 33:34 anyway...

September 27, 2006 6:30 PM   Edit
Blogger kelliemarie said...

o sorry ! :)

jer 31:33-34 the message version

September 27, 2006 6:57 PM   Edit
Blogger Correy said...

Hi again Elessi,

That is a great verse Allforlove: I love how it is used in Hebrews as well.

To me there is only one covenant that remains for the christian and that is the covenant in his blood. The covenant oozing of grace which he writes in our hearts and minds of Himself.

Jesus is a sufficent and complete teacher for all His Children.

September 28, 2006 12:00 PM   Edit
Blogger elessi said...

Well after reading a lot of these entries regarding trinity vs no trinity over many topics, I'm still confused on the subject itself, but I would not expect it to be clear to me.

The most interesting theme I've noticed though, is that those who are advocates for PB's view appear far more interested in sharing the amazing truth that Jesus himself has shown them and in praising Jesus. Those who are advocates for the trinity seem far more interested in pulling down other people and showing off their intellect so they can be personally right and well learned.

Just an observation from an impartial observer.

September 30, 2006 12:35 PM   Edit
Blogger Paul G said...

Puritan belief:
You’re explanation to Theophilus is excellent, "The truth as always is simple."
I can understand that a man can be spiritually blind, but when the natural mind believes a contradiction then there is something drastically wrong.
Little children are saved and they do not have a fancy theology, they simple love Jesus.

Your question to the Trinitarians:
"So the doctrine of the Trinity believes one God. What is the name of this God apart from titles/ reverence to character so on....?"
Did you know, not one of the Trinitarians answered your question, nor can they.
If they say Jesus, they deny the Trinity.
If they say Jehovah, they deny that Jesus is Lord.
No one can say Jesus is Lord except by the Spirit of God and everyone who has not received the Spirit of God does not belong to Jesus.
So I wonder what spirit have they received? Do you want a clue?

October 01, 2006 12:12 AM   Edit
Blogger Paul G said...

A quote from modern day magi to all4love:
"Jesus was and is also fully God. So while He is body, soul and spirit He is also infinitely more."
Note: (is also fully God.)
I say to you, Jesus Christ is (ALONE FULLY) the Lord God the almighty. He is the first and the last. There was no god formed before Him, beside Him, or after Him. He had no beginning and no end. He alone is God who does not share deity with any other person or persons.
Any spirit that does not agree, confess, preach, or teach that which I have stated is the spirit of Antichrist.

I know you Trinitarians do not like me to use the word Antichrist, what is easier to say: Devil, Satan, Serpent or Antichrist? …whatever, it is the same spirit who is in the sons of disobedient.

Jesus said, a Kingdom divided against it self cannot stand.
So every Trinitarian church, no mater what name they have in front of their buildings, are united with their mother church ' Rome' in the spirit of Antichrist.
The call of the Lord Jesus is, 'my people come out of here and be separate, lest you partake of her sins'!
To partake of her sins, is to adopt her lies and deceptions in doctrines and all of her practices and conduct.
In regards to her wicked practices I will tell you more later.

October 01, 2006 12:15 AM   Edit
Blogger kelliemarie said...

Paul G, Your heart obviously believes this and loves to lift up Jesus and thats great!, so i dont know why, but i doubt you want the best for those who are reading your posts. i know you do.

i think there are three types of people...who are you writing to? The people who know God? Those that God are calling? or Those that are not Gods people?

The people of God who know him and those who are being called by God is our comission. Which is why our conversation and words should always be full of Grace. not as a rule, but as an outpouring of what God has put in us. To everyone we meet.

You write as if you are writing to those who are not God's people. Maybe they are being called, yet while they are caught in the cross fire they may be wounded in battle...

Our assignment/comission is to preach Jesus. though there are ways to do this without having to stand on a soap box and condemn people for their sins. Condemning NEVER has any results. But if your conversation is full of grace, seasoned with salt...you never know what the holy spirit will do.

You are made holy, righteous and perfect apart from your performance :). Let Grace always be on our lips.

October 01, 2006 8:13 AM   Edit
Blogger Paul G said...

Everyone who takes up the sword and enters the battle will be wounded.
Some little, some severely, and some will be put to death! but battle belongs to the Lord.
We wrestle not against flesh and blood but against powers and principalities in heavenly places, or if you like 'in the realm of the spirit'. Haven't you read that a seed must die and fall to the ground before it can be born again and grow into a mighty tree? So it is with every man who is born again, he has died with Christ and risen in the newness of life with Christ Jesus our Lord.

Again I like to make it clear!
The doctrine of God is the most important doctrine among all spiritual people.
If a man or a woman is wrong on the doctrine of God then all other doctrines amount to nothing, they are useless.
Jesus said “I am the Way and the Door” any man has to enter by Him. If he enters any other way, he is a robber and a thief, and will be cast out.
The way is narrow and there are only few who will find it. Make every effort to enter by the narrow door, and that is Jesus.

October 04, 2006 12:13 AM   Edit
Blogger Correy said...

Paul is speaking generally to people who hold catholic doctrines such as the trinity as do I a lot of the time.

If you read through the gospels on one hand you will notice that Jesus is perhaps the most argumentative, controversial and cutting speaker in history.

Count the number of times they wanted to murder Him but couldn't. Jesus although He only sometimes confronted His adversaries face to face on issues when He spoke all those who were against Jesus knew that He was speaking about them.

Allforlove you are a peacemaker and I like that. However I do believe that ALL the church businesses of today have been infiltrated with catholicism and the cunning fox that she (catholicism) is on the uprising has caught them unaware.

October 04, 2006 12:31 AM   Edit
Blogger Modern Day Magi said...

PB and Paul G,

you have both often said that the Shema, (The famous Jewish and Christian statement of Monotheism) "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord" contradicts the Christian (since it is not resrticted to, or founded in catholoicism) doctrine of the Trinity.

Yet even this verse subtly indicates the Trinity of the Godhead.

You might ask "How can a statement of oneness imply plurality?"

The word translated "one" from the Hebrew is echad, which demonstrates compound unity of oneness. Specific examples of how echad demonstrates compound unity are found below:

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one [echad] flesh. (Genesis 2:24)

Now the whole earth used the same [echad] language and the same [echad] words. (Genesis 11:1)

And the LORD said, "Behold, they are one [echad] people, and they all have the same [echad] language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them. (Genesis 11:6)

Then we will give you our daughters and take your daughters for ourselves. We'll settle among you and become one [echad] people with you. (Genesis 34:16)

Then Moses came and recounted to the people all the words of the LORD and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one [echad] voice, and said, "All the words which the LORD has spoken we will do!" (Exodus 24:3)

Then they came to the valley of Eshcol and from there cut down a branch with a single [echad] cluster of grapes; and they carried it on a pole between two men, with some of the pomegranates and the figs. (Numbers 13:23)

The whole [echad] assembly numbered 42,360, (Ezra 2:64)

They will be my people, and I will be their God. I will give them singleness [echad] of heart and action, so that they will always fear me for their own good and the good of their children after them. (Jeremiah 32:38-39)

These are a few of the many examples of how echad is used to show the unity of oneness.

How would the Hebrew be different if God had wanted to express absolute oneness? There is another Hebrew word, yachid, that is used to express the idea of absolute oneness. Examples of it are shown below:

And He said, "Take now your son, your only [yachid] son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you." (Genesis 22:2)

And he said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only [yachid] son, from Me." (Genesis 22:12)

"By Myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only [yachid] son, (Genesis 22:16)

When Jephthah came to his house at Mizpah, behold, his daughter was coming out to meet him with tambourines and with dancing. Now she was his one and only [yachid] child; besides her he had neither son nor daughter. (Judges 11:34)

Deliver my soul from the sword, My only [yachid] life from the power of the dog. (Psalms 22:20)

Turn to me and be gracious to me, For I am lonely [yachid] and afflicted. (Psalms 25:16)

Lord, how long wilt Thou look on? Rescue my soul from their ravages, My only [yachid] life from the lions. (Psalms 35:17)

God makes a home for the lonely [yachid]; He leads out the prisoners into prosperity, only the rebellious dwell in a parched land. (Psalms 68:6)

When I was a son to my father, Tender and the only [yachid] son in the sight of my mother, (Proverbs 4:3)

O daughter of my people, put on sackcloth And roll in ashes; Mourn as for an only [yachid] son, A lamentation most bitter. For suddenly the destroyer Will come upon us. (Jeremiah 6:26)

"Then I shall turn your festivals into mourning And all your songs into lamentation; And I will bring sackcloth on everyone's loins And baldness on every head. And I will make it like a time of mourning for an only [yachid] son, And the end of it will be like a bitter day. (Amos 8:10)

"And I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only [yachid] son, and they will weep bitterly over Him, like the bitter weeping over a first-born. (Zechariah 12:10)

Of course, the last verse is a famous messianic prophecy proclaiming how the Jesus would be killed. If the Shema had intended to express absolute oneness, it would have used the Hebrew word yachid instead of echad. However, the word yachid is NEVER used in reference to God.

PB and/or Paul G could you please consider the usage of these very deliberate and different Hebrew terms and address the question:

"Why would the Scripture use one word (ECHAD) which means a 'compound unity' to describe the One, true and living God and never use another word (YACHID) which means an 'absolute oneness'?"


October 04, 2006 12:15 PM   Edit
Blogger kelliemarie said...

PB and PG, i do like what you wrote in response and the more i thought about it during the day the more i realized i did need to hear it.Though my past experience has lead me to passionately oppose disunity among family. i believe that those contributing to this post are brothers in christ Jesus our Lord and God and i guess this is where we differ.

i reckon if there was never a trinity doctrine or a catholic church, the language of Father , son and holy spirit would still be in use, well this was the language of the early church anyway.

paul you said :'If a man or a woman is wrong on the doctrine of God then all other doctrines amount to nothing, they are useless.'

- but if a man or a woman is right on every doctrine of God but does not love, it amounts to nothing and it is useless.

Paul i will fully endevor to seek jesus with all my heart and i thank Him for his grace everyday to make this possible.

PB, would jesus tell us to do something that is not within his character? He said to us love your enemies, yet does jesus hate his enemies?
Being a peace maker isnt about being a pushover or letting unresolved conflict go, or agreeing with everyone. In fact, whats a peace maker anyway...maybe im not one :)

October 04, 2006 7:30 PM   Edit
Blogger Modern Day Magi said...

Why would the Scripture use one word (ECHAD) which means a 'compound unity' to describe the One, true and living God and never use another word (YACHID) which means an 'absolute, numerical oneness'?

Since Scripture is the Word of God, and since God both says what He means and means what He says, it is reasonable to say that God intended to use the word Echad because it correctly destcribes the type of oneness found in God. Yachid is not used to describe God, because it would be an incorrect description. Since Echad (compound unity) is an accurate description of God and Yachid (absolute, numerical 'one') is not, Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." gives more support to the Trinity than being a contradiction of it.


October 05, 2006 6:40 PM   Edit
Blogger Correy said...

Echad: (From a textbook not the Internet)
This common term is predominantly translated "one", referring to the numeral "one" as well to the numerical adjectival sense, which includes the meaning "a certain" echad is also used as a pronoun meaning "one", "each one" and occasionally "every one" The term is found in nearly one thousand places.

This expository dictionary then goes on to say that echad is used in Deut 6:4 as the NUMERICAL ONE.

Again I trust the thousands of translators who translate this verse.

"Hear O Israel the Lord Thy God is ONE Lord"

To pull another word that means one out of the Hat Yachid and say well if it really meant one they would have used this word instead so there is no confusion was a good try. I have read how people try to do this in the past it is known as a red herring

October 06, 2006 7:42 AM   Edit
Blogger Modern Day Magi said...

from Strongs Dictionary:

259. echad (ekh-awd')

A numeral from 'achad; properly, united, i.e. One; or (as an ordinal) first

a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any(-thing), apiece, a certain, (dai-)ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together,

So yes the translators got it correct, echad can be translated as 'one'. Echad also has connotations of unity which makes this word, and subsequently makes Deuteronomy 6:4 not able to be a contradiction of the Trinity.

Yachid, was not a red herring but actually demonstrating the point that the Hebrew language cannot be translated perfectly into English. This is the case with many languages, the innuit indians have more thjat 15 words for snow, in English we have 'snow'. It comes down to the this most commonly described by a language as to the terms found therein. Hebrew was the Language God revealed His scripture through, thus Hebrew is better than english at describing God. Therefore while 'one' is accurate, since there is indeed only one God, 'echad' is better as it implys a unity. Man and woman become one, not literally 'numerical one' but they become unified. God is one. Father, Son and Spirit.


October 06, 2006 4:59 PM   Edit
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In an earlier comment, PG said "To hide the meaning from the reprobate and to reveal the meaning to the elect."

How do you explain Second Peter chapter two?

This is a recurring problem-- why warn the believers about false teachers and false prophets when God has shown the truth to the elect?

By the defenition of "elect"-- they cannot stray from the path. They have been shown the truth, and are imune to the teachings of heritics.

Why does Paul, time and again, warn the church to stop sinning? Aren't the elect imune from sin because they have been forgiven of all sins-- past, present, and future?

Second Peter Chapter three goes on. I would quote it all, but instead, maybe you should read it. Yet another place where John 3:16 is echoed.

9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

I didn't see the word "elect" or "just the few that God decided to love."

Sorry if this is straying from the main topic-- but I will not let you deny the words of Christ, and to change the meaning of the scriptures to fit a specific philosophy.

Who is Jesus talking about when he says " 26But 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:" (John 15:26)

To God be the Glory. God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

October 30, 2006 6:15 AM   Edit
Blogger Correy said...

Hi Anonymous:

Thanks for your comment. I think it is best to make one good point to keep it succinct. So I will answer the best point you bought up.

2 Peter 3 says:
...but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

Now if God is Sovereign will he get what He desires or wishes?

Therefore read the verses before and after and I think it is clear that all in this context means all of the elect. Therefore, beloved vs(14) to me means Gods special people which He chose according to 2 Peter 1:10

October 30, 2006 8:39 AM   Edit
Blogger Modern Day Magi said...


John 15:26 is clearly being spoken by Jesus. The same Jesus who claimed to be the Way, Truth and Life. As such, Jesus who is GOd does not lie, He is Truth.

When He makes deliberate personal distinctions between Himself, the Father and the Holy Spirit we must take Jesus' words as truth or none of His words or life can be trusted. To lie is to sin, and if Jesus was not sinless then His life and death are worth nothing.

Thus, since Jesus never lied, His words are Truth and the Father, Son and Spirit are distinct and still the One God. A Triunity, a trinity.

PB, it is frustrating how often you chose only a part of a comment to address and ignore the other valid points raised.


October 30, 2006 7:45 PM   Edit
Blogger Unknown said...

I typed in leaven of the pharases into google search and I came to this site. I was told that in the Old Testanent the leaven represents various sins. Like in the Passover the house was to be cleaned of leaven.
I was also told that the unleavened bread was like Christ's Body Striped, Pierced, and Without Sin.

For the pharases I think the leaven was like spiritual pride or hypocracy. It is like yeast that puffs up the bread. So was the pride of the Pharases puffing up their egos. So Christ was using leaven in this case as a type of spiritual pride. Leaven puffed up the EGOS of the religious leaders. Colorbear

November 08, 2006 7:30 AM   Edit
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The idea of a Trinity never existed in the Scriptures. The Bible, the O.T. and N.T. are written by Jews (Hebrews). All of the so called "Church Fathers" were Gentiles/Greeks. The Emperor Constantine worshipped the sun god and took on Christianity for political purposes. The Greek culture believed in philosophy from such people as Plato and Aristotle. They, along with a host of other pagan religions, belived in a god that would come down in human form to redeem man. They believed in the immortality of the soul. The Scriptures teach that Jesus Christ was a man. His birth/origin was in the womb of Mary. He came to teach the Good news, The Gospel of our salvation which is the coming kindom of God. He will be the King of the kingdom and after a thosand year reign will give up the kingdom to God. Just as Christ was resurrected from the dead, so we shall,also when He returns.

January 29, 2007 3:30 AM   Edit
Blogger Theophilus said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

October 31, 2007 4:14 PM   Edit
Blogger Unknown said...

I don't apperceive what it is about the bendable blow and matte finish, but I accept a anemic atom for printed suede Louboutin Outlet. One of the best brands to cull this off is YSL Outlet. I accept to acquaint you about a backpack attraction of mine. I am in fact mad at myself that I did not splurge on the Ralph Lauren Polo Outlet Croc Muse Two which has two colors that I admire with a sueced croc pattern. To see a formed suede accomplishment off a Red Bottoms Outlet that I already adore, my affection melts. Replica Watches are additionally pretty reflective of their user's persona. Amazing furthermore multi-colored Rolex Replica Watches are commonly worn because of the younger. Conversely, exquisite dress Swiss Rolex Replica are regularly sported by highly developed gentlemen. And then usually there's the luxurious Swiss Replica Watches worn by the individuals who're properly to complete. Check out observing your mates furthermore you can before long see how the layouts are actually ranging.

April 23, 2018 3:54 PM   Edit
Blogger Trinity said...

Best SEO Company in Canada

February 23, 2021 10:53 PM   Edit
Blogger Sugoi dekai meaning said...

Is Kurapika a Girl
Is Kurapika a Girl or Boy? What’s the gender of Kurapika? Before knowing the gender of Kurapika, let us tell you that Kurapika is an anime character from the very famous manga series Hunter x Hunter.

May 20, 2021 3:09 AM   Edit
Blogger Drift Financial Services said...

Good luck & keep writing such awesome content.

Virgin Linseed Oil BP
Pure Linseed Oil

September 15, 2021 7:58 PM   Edit
Blogger Drift Financial Services said...

Best content & valuable as well. Thanks for sharing this content.
Approved Auditor in DAFZA
Approved Auditor in RAKEZ
Approved Auditor in JAFZA
i heard about this blog & get actually whatever i was finding. Nice post love to read this blog
Approved Auditor in DMCC

September 15, 2021 7:58 PM   Edit

Post a Comment

<< Puritan Belief