CLEAR CHALLENGES FOR THE TRINITY DOCTRINE

[tigger2]

CLEAR CHALLENGES FOR THE TRINITY DOCTRINE

"trinity ...1. [cap.] Theol. The union of three persons or hypostases (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost) in one Godhead, so that all the three are one God as to substance, but three persons or hypostases as to individuality. 2. Any symbol of the Trinity in art. 3. Any union of three in one; a triad; as the Hindu trinity, or Trimurti." - Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, G. & C. Merriam Co., 1961. (emphasis added by me.)
………………………………..

Athanasian Creed:

"And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other, none is greater or less than others; but the whole three persons are co- eternal together; and co-equal. So that in all things as is aforesaid: the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

"HE THEREFORE THAT WILL BE SAVED MUST THUS THINK OF THE TRINITY."
....................................................
"Trinity, the Most Holy

"The most sublime mystery of the Christian faith is this: 'God is absolutely one in nature and essence, and relatively three in Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) who are really distinct from each other." - p. 584, The Catholic Encyclopedia, Thomas Nelson, Inc., Publishers, 1976.
........................................................

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
"1. The Term 'Trinity':
"The term "Trinity" is not a Biblical term, and we are not using Biblical language when we define what is expressed by it as the doctrine that there is one only and true God, but in the unity of the Godhead there are three coeternal and coequal Persons, the same in substance but distinct in subsistence." - p. 3012, Vol. IV, Eerdmans, 1984.

………………………………....

Challenges from scripture itself:

(A) Please carefully and thoroughly search to find a vision, dream, or clear description in scripture wherein God is visibly shown as more than one person.

(This is really not that difficult. Either there is a vision, dream, description, etc. somewhere in scripture clearly visibly showing the one God as three persons or there isn't. Either way, it should not be difficult to ascertain and admit truthfully.)
………………………………............

(B) Please show where in scripture God is ever described using the word "three."

(Either God is described somewhere in scripture using the word "three" or its clear equivalent (just as He is clearly described with the word “one� or its equivalent - “alone,� “only,� etc. ), or He is not. Either way it should not be difficult to ascertain and admit truthfully.)
……………………………….............

(C) Please find clear, direct, undisputed statements (equivalent to “Jesus is the Christ� or "YHWH is God" which are found repeatedly in clear, undisputed scriptures) which declare:

“YHWH is the Son,� or “YHWH is the Firstborn,� or, “YHWH is the Messiah (or ‘Christ’),� or any other equally clear, undisputed statement that “Jesus is YHWH� (the only God according to scripture).
……………………………….................

Since the Father is clearly, directly, and indisputably called "God, the Father," many, many times, and the Son and Holy Spirit are said by trinitarians to be equally the one God (in ‘three distinct persons’):

(D) Please give equally clear, undisputed scriptures where Jesus is called "God, the Son," (equal to those which declare "God, the Father" – Ro. 15:6; 1 Cor. 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; 2 Cor. 11:31; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 4:6; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:2; etc.)

and,
………………………………....................

(E) Please give equally clear, undisputed scriptures (such as "God, the Father") where the Holy Spirit is called "God, the Holy Spirit."
......................................................................

(F) If Jesus and/or the first century Christians (considered a sect of Judaism at that time) truly believed that Jesus was God, How could they possibly be allowed to teach in the temple and synagogues as they were?
………………………………...................

(G) If John truly believed a stunning new essential ‘knowledge’ of God that Jesus is equally God, why would he summarize and conclude his Gospel with, “But these [the Gospel of John] are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God…�

……………………………….................

(H) When the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were attempting to gather evidence to kill Jesus, why did they have to hire false witnesses? And why did these same priests and false witnesses never say that Jesus believed (or taught) that he was God? Instead the high priest finally said to Jesus: “Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.� - Matt. 26:59-63 NIV.

Obviously these officials had never heard anyone accuse Jesus or his followers of claiming that Jesus was God!

[onewithhim]

[Replying to Checkpoint in post #376]

I looked up some information on "kosmos," and I found that it is usually translated as "world." There are more than one way to understand "world," however. Greek philosophers used the word "Kosmos" to mean either the entire visible creation (the whole universe) OR, as some others would do, apply the word to only the celestial bodies. There was no unanimity of thought among them. Therefore, we can be sure that a further look at "kosmos" is warranted.

From Richard Trench's Synonyms of the New Testament, we understand that "kosmos" refers to "men themselves, the sum total of persons living in the world (John 1:29; 4:42; IICorinthians 5:19); and then, ethically, persons, all not of the true church, alienated from the life of God and, by wicked works, enemies to Him (I Corinthians 1:20,21; II Corinth. 7:10; James 4:4)." (London, 1961, pp.201,202)

The book Studies in the Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, by K.S. Wuest, quotes Greek scholar Cremer as saying, "As 'kosmos' is regarded as that order of things whose center is man, attention is directed chiefly to him, and 'kosmos' denotes mankind within that order of things, humanity as it manifests itself in such an order." (1946, p.57)

Therefore, 'Kosmos,' or, 'the world,' is closely linked and bound up with mankind. In what seems to be the main sense, 'kosmos' refers to all humankind. The Scriptures describe the 'kosmos,' or, world, as being guilty of sin (John 1:29; Romans 3:19; 5:12,13) and needing a savior to give it life (John 4:42; 6:33,51; 12:47; I John 4:14), things applicable only to mankind, not to the inanimate creation.

The "founding of the world" must relate to the beginning of mankind, not of the inanimate creation. This paragraph sums it up pretty well: "'The founding of the world' need not be taken to mean the beginning of the creation of the material universe, nor does the expression 'before the founding of the world' (John 17:5,24; Ephesians 1:4; I Peter 1:20) refer to a point of time prior to the creation of the material universe. Rather, these expressions evidently relate to the time when the human race was 'founded' through the first human pair, Adam and Eve, who, outside of Eden, began to conceive seed that could benefit from God's provisions for deliverance from inherited sin. (Genesis 3:20-24; 4:1,2)"


.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to Checkpoint in post #367]

If that is so, then those who, after receiving the promised Holy Spirit, told the Good News, as recorded in Acts, missed the boat.

Don't understand what you are trying to communicate.

Yeah, what I wrote was too brief and too cryptic.

The phrase "missed the boat" means, in this case, that your claims were unknown in the early church and are therefore absent from what is recorded in Acts.

Your claim that Jesus is God the Son, the second person of God as a trinity, is "the boat" that was "missed" by the ones who in those days proclaimed the Good News.

According to you, as now quoted below, that means they were not proclaiming Christianity!

The challenge is for those that do not believe that Jesus was God. Because without Jesus being God there can be no such thing as Christianity.

Belief in the trinity is an integral part of Christianity.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Checkpoint in post #382]

The phrase "missed the boat" means, in this case, that your claims were unknown in the early church and are therefore absent from what is recorded in Acts.

Your claim that Jesus is God the Son, the second person of God as a trinity, is "the boat" that was "missed" by the ones who in those days proclaimed the Good News.

According to you, as now quoted below, that means they were not proclaiming Christianity!

Are you trying to say that Peter was not part of the early Church? Because Peter called Jesus God in his epistle.

2 Peter 1:1 "Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:"

Are you trying to say that Peter did not get that memo that Jesus was not God?

Evidently, Paul did not get the memo either.

Titus 2:13 "waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,"

Jesus also seemed to have forgotten that He was God also. Like when Thomas came to him and declared.

John 20:28 "And Thomas answered and said to him, 'My Lord and my God;"

If Jesus was not God why did He not do what the angel in Revelation 19:10.

Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God.” For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

or when the disciples worshiped Jesus in the boat after He calmed the storm.

The Jesus you are trying to proclaim could not have died for our sins because He would not have been good or perfect. The Jesus you are proclaiming would be a heretic of the highest order. He would have let people worship Him as God when He was not.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #369]

The "challenge" is for you to explain why God Almighty Who is more powerful than the entire universe would have to come down here to this little planet. (He had to send another divine being because no one can see Him and live. Exodus 33:20.)

This has to mean something different than how you are explaining it because there are several in Scripture that have seen God and lived to tell about it.

Jacob saw God and lived to tell about it. Genesis 32:30
So Jacob named the place Peniel, saying, "Indeed, I have seen God face to face, and yet my life was spared."

Isaiah saw God Isaiah 6:5
Then I said, "Woe is me, for I am ruined, because I am a man of unclean lips dwelling among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of Hosts."

Gideon saw God also. Judges 6:22
When Gideon realized that it was the Angel of the LORD, he said, "Oh no, Lord GOD! I have seen the Angel of the LORD face to face!"

Even Moses saw God in the very passage that you are quoting.

The key to understanding Exodus 33:20 is Exodus 33:18. In Exodus 33:18 is what Moses asks of God. "Moses said, “Please show me your glory.”"

Moses wanted to see the full Glory of God. No one can see the full Glory of God and Live because we are sinful creatures. We could not survive the radiance of His Holiness. When Jesus came to Earth He took on the sinful flesh of man so that He could be tempted in all the ways we are tempted and yet be without sin. That is why the disciples could look on Jesus and not die.

This planet is the farthest thing from insignificant to God. He loved man enough to come to Earth and die for our sins. He carefully crafted this planet. This entire universe was made in order to show man His glory.

Now you say that the only way that Jesus could be perfect is if he was God. How is that Scriptural? I think that is your idea. When God created everything, He created it perfect (Deuteronomy 32:4---"The Rock, perfect is his activity.") You underestimate God if you think He creates anything of inferior quality. Why would He say, after He created things, that it was "good"? (Genesis 1: 10,12,18,21,25,31) A perfect God would not create something that was not perfect. He brought Jesus into existence, eons before the creation of anything else, and of course the archangel that eventually became Jesus was perfect. He didn't need to be God to be perfect. Adam and Eve were created perfect, and that is why they were condemned for disobeying---because they understood the command to not eat from one tree, perfectly.

Jesus told us that God was the only one that was good. Mark 10:18 "And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." So the only one that is God is God, let alone perfect.

It is the Jewish sacrificial system that teaches us what perfect is. There were some animals that were considered perfect and others that were not. It was a system instituted by God Himself to teach them what type of sacrifice was acceptable to Him. No imperfect sacrifice was to be accepted. It had to be without blemish. Exodus 12:5 "Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male a year old. You may take it from the sheep or from the goats,"

God even declared a distinction between animals you could eat and those you could not eat as clean and unclean.

The whole sacrificial and system God used to show man the effects of sin not only on man but on the entire universe. There is nothing in the entire universe that is not affected by the sin of man. The only thing in all the universe that was not affected by the sin of man was God Himself.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to Checkpoint in post #382]

The phrase "missed the boat" means, in this case, that your claims were unknown in the early church and are therefore absent from what is recorded in Acts.

Your claim that Jesus is God the Son, the second person of God as a trinity, is "the boat" that was "missed" by the ones who in those days proclaimed the Good News.

According to you, as now quoted below, that means they were not proclaiming Christianity!

Are you trying to say that Peter was not part of the early Church? Because Peter called Jesus God in his epistle.

2 Peter 1:1 "Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:"

Are you trying to say that Peter did not get that memo that Jesus was not God?

Evidently, Paul did not get the memo either.

Titus 2:13 "waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,"

Jesus also seemed to have forgotten that He was God also. Like when Thomas came to him and declared.

John 20:28 "And Thomas answered and said to him, 'My Lord and my God;"

If Jesus was not God why did He not do what the angel in Revelation 19:10.

Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God.” For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

or when the disciples worshiped Jesus in the boat after He calmed the storm.

The Jesus you are trying to proclaim could not have died for our sins because He would not have been good or perfect. The Jesus you are proclaiming would be a heretic of the highest order. He would have let people worship Him as God when He was not.

That is what you are trying to say, yes, and you do make some good points.

It is your response to what I was saying.

But I tied my statements to what Luke recorded in Acts, which you avoided by referencing elsewhere.

What is written elsewhere in the N.T. seems to me to carry a mixed message for this discussion.

Depending on what each poster chooses to support their view, one appears to contradict the other.

Thus this sub-forum has many threads, and endless debate, over who Jesus is or is not, and whether or not our God is a trinity of persons.

We make our points, but that is all we can do. It is really something that goes nowhere fast.

I suggest Paul's admonition to Timothy bears much better fruit.

1 Timothy 1:

3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer
4 or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith.

5 The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.
6 Some have departed from these and have turned to meaningless talk.
7 They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Checkpoint in post #385]

Thus this sub-forum has many threads, and endless debate, over who Jesus is or is not, and whether or not our God is a trinity of persons.

My point is there is no "our" God if Jesus is not God. The essence of the Gospel message hinges on what someone believes about Jesus. If a person does not believe that Jesus is God then they are still in their sin. This is why Arianism was ruled a heresy 1700 years ago. It is impossible for anyone to be perfect outside of being God.

I believe a more applicable passage would be Jude 1:3-4
Beloved, although I made every effort to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt it necessary to write and urge you to contend earnestly for the faith entrusted once for all to the saints. For certain men have crept in among you unnoticed—ungodly ones who were designated long ago for condemnation. They turn the grace of our God into a license for immorality, and they deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

[tigger 2]

Response to 383

Granville Sharp’s Rule and 2 Peter 1:1, Titus 2:13

In an attempt to prove the trinity doctrine, Granville Sharp made up a rule in 1798. It is often called “Sharp’s Rule” by trinitarians. It says, in effect, that when two or more words (nouns) are joined by the word “and” they all refer to the same person if the word “the” (the article) comes before the first noun and not before the other noun(s): “THE king AND _master of the castle.”

Sharp invented this rule after he noticed this particular construction (sometimes called a “Sharp’s construction”) was used with “God” and “Christ” in 5 places in the NT. IF he could convince others that his “rule” was true, then they would think there was finally (after 1400 years of a “trinity” tradition) absolute grammatical Bible proof that God and Jesus are the same “person”!

The 5 “proofs” of Jesus’ Godhood according to Sharp are (in the literal wording of the NT Greek text):

(a) Titus 2:13: “of the great God and of savior of us Christ Jesus”
------------------ τοῦ --μεγάλου θεοῦ ---καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ,

(b) 2 Pet. 1:1: “righteousness of the God of us and of savior Jesus Christ”
---------------------δικαιοσύνῃ --- τοῦ --θεοῦ --ἡμῶν καὶ ---σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,

(c) 2 Thess. 1:12:“the grace of the God of us and of Lord Jesus Christ”
-----------------------τὴν χάριν --τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ ----κυρίου ---Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

(d) 1 Tim. 5:21: “in sight of the God and of Christ Jesus and of the chosen angels”
---------------------ἐνώπιον --τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ---Χριστοῦ --Ἰησοῦ καὶ τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν ἀγγέλων

(e) Eph. 5:5: “...in the kingdom of the Christ and of God”
-------------------ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ --τοῦ ---- Χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ.


Since the first noun (“God” in the first four scriptures) has the article (“the”) with it and the following noun (“savior” in the first two scriptures) does not have the article (“the”), then (according to Sharp) God and Christ (the savior, etc.) are the same person!

At any rate, Wallace and Bowser both claim that this “Rule” (which “gave rise to a controversy” as soon as it was proposed - Encyclopedia Britannica, p. 466, v. 20, 1960) proves that Jesus is equally God with the Father. As D. B. Wallace puts it, Sharp’s Rule when applied to Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1 (both of which he “analyzes” in some detail); and 2 Thess. 1:12; 1 Tim. 5:21 (both of which he merely lists and does not examine) teaches Jesus is God:

“We have absolute grammatical certainty that the rule applies to at least four passages in the New Testament which teach that our Lord Jesus is God. - p. 104. And, “in summary, since the central doctrine of Christianity is that Jesus Christ is God, we can be encouraged that in four passages an absolute rule of Greek grammar absolutely asserts that Jesus Christ is Lord of lords, God in the flesh.” - p. 111, Wallace, Selected Notes. (Cf. The NIV Study Bible f.n. for 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13. Also see Zondervan’s So Many Versions?, p.100, 1983 ed.)

It might be noteworthy to some that this essential information concerning the knowledge of God and of Jesus (John 17:3; 2 Thess. 1:8) can be “absolutely” ascertained grammatically in only four places in the entire Bible by using a “controversial” rule that even some of the best trinitarian New Testament scholars disavow!

Yes, probably the most telling blow against this 200-year-old controversial rule is the rejection of it by so many of the most respected trinitarian Bible language experts! Even Wallace himself (who desperately tries for some kind of “absolute” scriptural proof for a trinity idea) complains that
“so many grammarians and exegetes objected to the validity of Granville Sharp’s Rule with reference to texts dealing with the Deity of Christ”!
He specifically mentions “the great Greek grammarian,” G. B. Winer (trinitarian) and “one of the greatest grammarians of this [nineteenth/twentieth] century,” J. H. Moulton # (trinitarian) as rejecting this “rule”!

I have also seen that the Roman Catholic scholar Karl Rahner rejects this rule as do C. F. D. Moule and Henry Alford. Even famed trinitarian scholar Dr. James Moffatt (“probably the greatest biblical scholar of our day”) showed his rejection of the “absoluteness” of this rule by his rendering of Titus 2:13.

We can find numerous translations of Titus 2:13 (probably the most-used scripture for this “proof”) which render it as referring to two persons.

Titus 2:13

Bible translations old and new:

13 lokynge for that blessed hope and appearynge of the glory of ye greate God and of oure Sauioure Iesu Christ - Coverdale

13 lokynge for þe blessed hope & appearinge of the glory of the greate God, & of oure sauioure Iesu Christ, - The Great Bible

13 Looking for that blessed hope, and appearing of that glorie of that mightie God, and of our Sauiour Iesus Christ, - Geneva

13 abidinge the blessid hope and the comyng of the glorie of the greet God, and of oure sauyour Jhesu Crist; - Wycliffe

13 lokinge for that blessed hope and glorious apperenge of ye myghty god and of oure savioure Iesu Christ - Tyndale

13 in expectation of that desirable happiness, the glorious appearance of the supreme God, and of our saviour Jesus Christ, - Mace

13 awaiting the blessed hope of the appearance of the Glory of the great God and of our Saviour Christ Jesus, - Moffatt

13 expecting the blessed hope; namely, the appearing of the glory of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ; - The Living Oracles

13 looking for the blessed hope, and appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ; - Noyes

13 waiting for the blessed hope, the glorious appearing of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus, - Riverside

13 looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, - Sawyer

(KJV) Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious [F9] appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
Note: 'F9 glorious...: Gr. the appearance of the glory of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ' - http://classic.studylight.org/desk/?l=e ... v&oq=&sr=1

(New American Bible - 1970) as we await our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus

(New American Bible - 1991) as we await the blessed hope, the appearance of the glory of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ

(New American Bible - 2010) as we await the blessed hope, the appearance of the glory of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ

(A New Translation in Plain English - Charles K. Williams) while we wait for the blessed thing we hope for, the appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ

And while we live this life we hope and wait for the glorious denouement of the Great God and of Jesus Christ our saviour. - Phillips

13 Looking for that blessed hope, and appearing of that glory of that mighty God, and of our Savior Jesus Christ. - GNV

"looking for that blessed hope and glorious appearing of the mighty God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ," - NMB

According to An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek, by C. F. D. Moule, Cambridge, England, 1971, p. 109, at Titus 2:13, the sense "of the Great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ ... is possible in [New Testament] Greek even without the repetition [of the definite article before the second noun]."

Noted British NT scholar and trinitarian clergyman Henry Alford wrote: "I would submit that [a translation which clearly differentiates God from Christ at Titus 2:13] satisfies all the grammatical requirements of the sentence: that it is both structurally and contextually more probable, and more agreeable to the Apostle’s [Paul’s] way of writing: and I have therefore preferred it." - The Greek Testament, p. 421, Vol. 3.

“Of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ (tou megalou qeou kai swthrov hmwn Cristou Ihsou). …. According to A.V. [KJV] two persons are indicated, God and Christ. Revelations with others rend. of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus, thus indicating one person, and asserting the deity of Christ. I adopt the latter, although the arguments and authorities in favor of the two renderings are very evenly balanced. 155” - Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament.

"Some Trinitarians say that the grammar of Titus 2:13 forces the interpretation that Jesus is God because of the Granville Sharp rule of Greek grammar. That is not the case, however. The Granville Sharp rule has been debated and successfully challenged. When Scripture refers to “our Great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,” it can indeed be referring to two separate beings: the “Great God,” and the “Savior,” Jesus Christ. The highly regarded Trinitarian Henry Alford gives a number of reasons as to why the grammar of the Greek does not force the interpretation of the passage to make Christ God (Henry Alford, The Greek Testament, Moody Press, Chicago, 1958, Vol. 3, entry on Titus 2:13 ). [For more on the Granville Sharp rule, see commentary on 2 Peter 1:1]." - Revised English Version Commentary - Titus 2:13.

And, finally (I think) concerning Titus 2:13, the steadfastly trinitarian The Expositor's Greek Testament (vol. 4, p. 195) says specifically of Titus 2:13:

"On the whole, then, we decide in favour of the R.V.m. in the rendering of this passage, appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. The grammatical argument - [Sharp's Rule] - is too slender to bear much weight, especially when we take into consideration not only the general neglect of the article in these epistles but the omission of it before σωτὴρ ['savior'] in I Tim. i. I, iv. 10 [1:1; 4:10]." [This applies to "savior" in 2 Peter 1:1 also.]

And notice Eph. 5:5 - one of the examples Sharp himself chose to “prove” Christ’s deity which Wallace completely ignores. Most trinitarian Bibles translate this example of a Sharp’s Construction: “in the kingdom of Christ and of God” - KJV; NRSV; RSV; NIV; NEB; REB; NAB; Douay; MLB; LB; GNB; TEV; KJ21; CEV; ERV; NLV; TNIV; WE; Expanded Bible; The Amplified Bible; Third Millenium Bible; New Living Translation; New Century Version; God’s Word; Holman Christian Standard Bible; Wesley’s New Testament; Geneva Bible; Wycliffe Bible; Phillips; Mounce; and the Webster Bible. This is not the way it would be translated if the two descriptions were of the same person! (At the very least it would be rendered more literally as “the kingdom of the Christ and God.”) Instead it clearly shows two persons! Sharp’s Rule does not work here! (Also, Analytical-Literal Translation (2000); Concordant Literal Version (1926); Green's Literal Translation; International Standard Version NT; English Jubilee 2000 Bible)

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #386]

If a person does not believe that Jesus is God then they are still in their sin.

Yeah right.

Your statement is extreme and unwarranted.

It stems from human reasoning of this world rather than from divine wisdom.

It merits these observations Paul makes:

1 Corinthians 3

18 Let no one deceive himself. If any of you thinks he is wise in this age, he should become a fool, so that he may become wise.

19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness.”
20 And again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.”

[Wootah]

If Jesus was a sacrifice to God, the logical conclusion is JESUS IS NOT GOD.

Actually, he is the high priest who presents the value of that offering in front of God himself. That biblical truth has nothing to do with a "Jesus God".

Heb. 5:4 A man does not take this honor of his own accord, but he receives it only when he is called by God, just as Aaron was. 5 So, too, the Christ did not glorify himself by becoming a high priest, but was glorified by the One who said to him: “You are my son; today I have become your father.” 6 As he also says in another place, “You are a priest forever in the manner of Mel·chizʹe·dek.”
7 During his life on earth, Christ offered up supplications and also petitions, with strong outcries and tears, to the One who was able to save him out of death, and he was favorably heard for his godly fear. 8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered. 9 And after he had been made perfect, he became responsible for everlasting salvation to all those obeying him, 10 because he has been designated by God a high priest in the manner of Mel·chizʹe·dek.

Why were none of the previous sacrifices to God sufficient?

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to Wootah in post #389]

Why were none of the previous sacrifices to God sufficient?

Good question.

Here is a good answer:

Hebrews 9:
9 This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper.
10 They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the new order.

11 But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here, a he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation.

12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining b eternal redemption.

13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean.

14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!