Historical development of the Trinity

[Pierac]

It seems this forum has many debates upon on the doctrine of the trinity... Perhaps one must start from the beginning to understand the issues/debate!

Most people who believe in the Doctrine of the Trinity claim that at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, all the church did was to officially declare a doctrine that had always been the teaching of the church. But if this is true, ask yourself why? Why would the church have to make any kind of official declaration about a doctrine that was supposed to be established from the beginning? There is no doctrine on whether Jesus resurrected or not. It was an established teaching. The idea that Jesus was God, was not. This is why the church required an official declaration to formally establish this as orthodox. It was a developing idea. It was not a teaching of the early church that had been established by the apostles. An important thing to note in support of this fact is that even at Nicaea when with Emperor Constantine’s help, they rammed this doctrine through as orthodox, they did not include the Holy Spirit as part of the formula. Again, why not? How could they forget that the trinity included the Holy Spirit? Because it was a developing idea, and at this point in time (Nicaea), all the church was willing to concede to was a binity. It would have to wait until the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD to include the Holy Spirit in their formula and thus complete the trinity.

An excellent proof that the Doctrine of the Trinity was not an established teaching of the early Christians is in a letter by one of the trinity’s greatest exponents, Tertullian of Carthage. Even though his understanding of it was that the Son was subordinate to the Father, which is contrary to today’s Doctrine of the Trinity, his writings were unfortunately, very influential in the development of this doctrine. He wrote about it profusely.

The fact that he believed the Son to be inferior to the Father can be easily seen in his letter Against Praxeas. In it, he states:

Chap. IX. "Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son."
Chap. VII. "And while I recognize the Son, I assert his distinction as second to the Father."
Again, ask yourself why was his view of the trinity different from today’s view if it has always been taught by the church? The reason is because it was a developing idea.

Tertullian himself gives us the greatest proof of the fact that it was a developing idea in the same letter. He states: Chap. III. vv. 1. "The majority of believers, are STARTLED at the Dispensation (of the Three in One)...They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods...While the Greeks actually REFUSE to understand the oikonomia, or Dispensation" (of the Three in One).

These are incredible statements! Tertullian is acknowledging that the majority of believers did not agree with the Doctrine of the Trinity. They accused him of being a polytheist. The Greeks (either Greek Christians or Christians that spoke Greek in different lands) refused altogether to believe him. These statements are probably the best proofs that the Doctrine of the Trinity was not taught by the Apostles. If it had been taught by them, the majority of believers would have known about the Dispensation and would not have been startled by it, neither would they have accused him of worshipping two gods. This doctrine was something new, it was not the established belief of Christianity as you can see. It was starting to work itself out and trying to gain popularity, especially with Hellenized Christians. But it was not in the majority. In fact, it was very much in the minority.

Now back to the subject of Nicaea. For those that think that Nicaea just formalized an already established teaching, think again. Let us now look to the events that followed after the Council of Nicaea. It will shed some light on the matter.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CHURCH AFTER NICAEA
325 AD - Constantine convenes the Council of Nicaea in order to develop a statement of faith that can unify the church. The Nicene Creed is written, declaring that "the Father and the Son are of the same substance" (homoousios). Emperor Constantine who was also the high priest of the pagan religion of the Unconquered Sun presided over this council. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:
"Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions and personally proposed the crucial formula expressing the relationship of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council. "of one substance with the Father."

The American Academic Encyclopedia states:
"Although this was not Constantine’s first attempt to reconcile factions in Christianity, it was the first time he had used the imperial office to IMPOSE a settlement." At the end of this council, Constantine sided with Athanasius over Arius and exiled Arius to Illyria.

328 AD - Athanasius becomes bishop of Alexandria.
328 AD - Constantine recalls Arius from Illyria.
335 AD - Constantine now sides with Arius and exiles Athanasius to Trier.
337 AD - A new emperor, Contantius, orders the return of Athanasius to Alexandria.
339 AD - Athanasius flees Alexandria in anticipation of being expelled.
341 AD - Two councils are held in Antioch this year. During this council, the First, Second, and Third Arian Confessions are written, thereby beginning the attempt to produce a formal doctrine of faith to oppose the Nicene Creed.
343 AD - At the Council of Sardica, Eastern Bishops demand the removal of Athanasius.
346 AD - Athanasius is restored to Alexandria.
351 AD - A second anti - Nicene council is held in Sirmium.
353 AD - A council is held at Aries during Autumn that is directed against Athanasius.
355 AD - A council is held in Milan. Athanasius is again condemned.
356 AD - Athanasius is deposed on February 8th, beginning his third exile.
357 AD - Third Council of Sirmium is convened. Both homoousios and homoiousios are avoided as unbiblical, and it is agreed that the Father is greater than His subordinate Son.
359 AD - The Synod of Seleucia is held which affirms that Christ is "like the Father," It does not however, specify how the Son is like the Father.
361 AD - A council is held in Antioch to affirm Arius’ positions.
380 AD - Emperor Theodosius the Great declares Christianity the official state religion of the empire.
381 AD - The First Council of Constantinople is held to review the controversy since Nicaea. Emperor Theodosius the Great establishes the creed of Nicaea as the standard for his realm. The Nicene Creed is re-evaluated and accepted with the addition of clauses on the Holy Spirit and other matters.

If you believe that Nicaea just formalized the prevalent teaching of the church, then there really should not have been any more conflicts. Why should there be? If it were the established teaching of the church, then you would expect people to either accept it, or not be Christians.

It was mainly a theological power grab by certain factions of the church. The major complication throughout all this was that the emperors were involved. At Nicaea it was Constantine that decided the outcome. Then as you can see, we have the flip-flopping of opinion with the result that Athanasius is exiled and recalled depending on which emperor is in power. We even have in 357 AD the declaration that homoousios and homoiousios are unbiblical, and that the Father is greater than His subordinate Son. This is 180 degrees from Nicaea. It is definitely not the Trinitarian formula.
In 380 AD Emperor Thedosius declared Christianity to be the state religion. One can come to the conclusion that whichever way Theodosius favors, is the way in which it is going to end. This is exactly what happened next. In 381 AD the struggle was finally ended by the current emperor, Theodosius the Great, who favored the Nicene position. Just like at Nicaea, the EMPEROR again decided it. What is plainly obvious is that the emperors were dictating the theology of the church. The big difference now being was that there was not going to be any more changing of sides. It was now the state religion. You cannot make Christianity the state religion and then change its beliefs every few years, it would undermine its credibility as the true faith. The Trinity was now the orthodox position, and the state was willing to back it up. Yet, Conflicts and debates continued for centuries.

In 529 AD Emperor Justinian revamped the Roman Civil Law and heresy was big on his list of crimes. The two heresies that were now punishable by death were not accepting the Nicene Creed and rebaptism. It is quite interesting.


I have given historical dates and documents that are recorded in time... not opinion! As taken from the works of J Baixeras

Paul

[For_The_Kingdom]

Welcome anti-Trinitarian... you just destroyed the doctrine of the Trinity in your post.. allow me to show you why...

Please do.

This is the creed of ALL Orthodox Christian Beliefs! All of them!

DEFINITION OF THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON (451 AD)

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.[/u]

Your constant citing of 3rd and 4th Century creeds will continue to be irrelevant, because what they said/believed is irrelevant as to why I believe in the Trinity.

I could care less about Church history, in this context...all that matters to me is what the Bible says...and from my understanding of the Holy Scriptures, the Trinity is a living and breathing doctrine of truth.

You just rejected the Trinity with out even knowing what you believe... you claim... "the Son being equal to the Father at first, and then lowering himself and becoming second in rank to the Father." then suggest... He was a human being who was mentally tormented by what awaited him and he may have gave up his divine omniscience to undergo the suffering of what was to come.

The doctrine of the trinity clearly defines Jesus’ nature as fully God and fully man at all times, without division, without separation. You cannot say that you believe in the Trinity and use this excuse. If you subscribe to the Kenotic Doctrine, then you have already rejected the Trinity. You cannot be both.

Again, you in your own post when you claimed Jesus gave up his divine omniscience.. You accepted the Kenotic Doctrine and rejected the doctrine of the Trinity!

Think about it

Do you even know what you believe? Or are you just following the traditions of men?


Paul

I misspoke when I said "gave up"...I meant "put aside". When you (in general) have two scriptures that tend to contradict, it is our job to find a way to reconcile the two...and in this case, we have two scriptures dealing with divine omniscience that seems, on face value, to contradict each other... and I am simply trying to find a way to reconcile the two, which I believe I did.

That aside, from what I gather, you are simply nit-picking my posts instead of giving my posts the same respect that I gave yours, which is to respond to your posts piece by piece instead of one long-ass quote and a paragraph-long respond to it.

[For_The_Kingdom]

No one in their right mind would say that, draw that conclusion, unless they were looking to question God, or the integrity of the writer of Revelation, or Revelation itself.

To take such statements "at face value" is not sound hermeneutics, as you probably well know.

Well, then it is apparently up to every reader as to what he/she will take at face value, and not.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Let's review... your understanding of John 20:28

My Lord and my God.
There you go, an Apostle refers to Jesus as God. When you look at some verses in the Old and New Testament you have to remember to look at them with a Hebrew or Greek mind of that period, and not a 20th century mind. Some language can mean something to us that it did not mean back then. For example, if an Englishman says, "I am mad about my flat" he means that he is exited about his apartment. To an American, that same phrase means that he is angry about his flat tire. The word "God" for example, means to us in the 20th century "The Almighty God." To a Jew it did not necessarily mean "Almighty God." In Psalms 82: 1 & 6 God refers to earthly rulers as gods. This is the same passage that Jesus quotes to the Jews when they accuse him of saying that he is God. Paraphrasing Jesus, he says to them; "If it is okay to call men gods, why is it blasphemous for me to say that I am the Son of God"(John 10: 33 - 38). Notice how when Jesus is accused of being God, he quickly corrects them that he is not God, but the Son of God. In 2 Corinthians 4: 4 Satan is also called the "god of this age." Does that mean that he is God Almighty? Of course not!

Hmm...Jehovah's Witnesses are the only ones (that I know of) that makes the distinction between "Almighty God/Mighty God". Just sayin.

Second, all that you said above is fine and dandy, but the problem with that is, Thomas called him "My God". Do you see that? "My" God. Thomas called Jesus his God. Hmm, don't you find it strange that a devout Jew would call someone besides the Father "his" God. That is a completely different context than what you mention above in Psalms and what Jesus said in John 10.

Third, in one of your other posts, you rightfully mentioned the fact that Jesus called the Father "his God" to prove your little point of "how can Jesus be God and have "a" God at the same time?"

Well, how can the Father be Thomas' one and only "God", yet, he is clearly calling Jesus "his" God in John 20:28?

The answer is easy from the Trinitarian point of view; if Jesus is also God (along with the Father), then there would be no problem for Thomas to call Jesus "his" God, and which is why Jesus didn't correct him from a blatant act of blasphemy had Thomas inappropriately called him "his" God.

The answer is difficult from a non-Trinitarian point of view, because again, Thomas would be calling a mere creation (on the non-Trinitarian view) "his" God, which is something that no devout Jew would do, and would be as blasphemous today as it would have been 2,000 years ago.

John even tells us just 3 verses later why he wrote about Thomas story… In John 20:31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. If Thomas was really calling Jesus GOD almighty then John just contradicted why he wrote his writings.

Any good Trinitarian can explain why there is no contradiction with the concept of Jesus being God's Son, and Jesus being God. You have to show why the mere concept is either logically wrong, or Biblically wrong...and I don't think you can do either.

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church points out what an early Christian father, Origen (185-254 AD) says about the word "God." "The Son is theos (God), but only the Father is autotheos" (absolute God, God in himself).

I disagree with Origen, then.

This is the reason there is an Almighty God or a Most High God, in order to differentiate the only true God from the others.

Yet, Jesus clearly calls HIMSELF the "Almighty" in Revelations 1:7-8.

Another fact to consider when approaching this verse is to understand whom John believes God and Jesus to be.
John wrote his gospel to testify that Jesus is the Son of God, not God the Son. Let us take a look again at what John believes in order to not take one verse and unjustly imply a certain belief on John.

Yet, it is in John 1:1 (as mentioned in another post), where the first verse of the Gospel, John is calling Jesus "God".

SMH.

John 17:3
"Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

Jude 4 "For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ."

So I guess since, according to Jude, our only Master and Lord is Jesus...I guess that would mean that we are forbidden from calling the Father "Master", or "Lord"....but then again, Jesus called the Father "Lord" numerous times...but yet, according to Jude, our only Lord is Jesus??

Second, read 1John 5:20...what does it say?

Revelation 1:6
"Who (Jesus) has made us into a kingdom, priests for his God and Father"

John 20:17
"But go to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am going to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’"

Nothing that Phil 2:5-9 can't take care of.

Remember that John’s whole purpose for writing his Gospel is to prove that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, not God.

Yet, John 1:1 BEGAN with John calling Jesus "God".

There is one great proof that Thomas did not mean Jesus is Almighty God when he called Jesus God. When Thomas called Jesus "My lord and my God " all the Apostles were in the room. If this statement is true, then it is logical to assume that from now on, all the Apostles know that Jesus is really God. So from that point onward Jesus should be addressed as God.

Should be addressed as God from that point on? So, calling Jesus "Lord" just wouldn't fly after John 20:28, huh? LOL.

But as you can see in all the writings of the New Testament, none of the Apostles ever refer to Jesus as Almighty God or YHWH .

And? He is called God on more than one occasion, and that is enough Biblical proof for us to determine that Jesus is God. After all, to call someone your God outside of "Jehovah" would be a cardinal sin. Yet, Jesus was called "God", and it was ok.

That alone should tell you something.

Not once in the entire New Testament do they ever pray to Jesus.

Acts 7

59 While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.� 60 Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.� When he had said this, he fell asleep.

SMH.

They in fact write about the God of Jesus Christ (John 20:17). Remember, "No one has ever seen God" (1 John 4: 12). Same author.


Paul

Right, same author. And it is that same author that recorded Jesus telling his disciples that "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father".

So in a nut shell, seeing Jesus is just as good as seeing the "Father"....hmmm...

[dio9]

Please , the trinity was a Greek creation. The question of " who was Jesus" in the Greek mind requiter something different than any Jew would accept. You must remember Jesus and his students (disciples ) were Jewish. Trinity was something Jesus never considered. Jesus was all about true faith and expectation.

[Pierac]

Let's review... your understanding of John 20:28

My Lord and my God.
There you go, an Apostle refers to Jesus as God. When you look at some verses in the Old and New Testament you have to remember to look at them with a Hebrew or Greek mind of that period, and not a 20th century mind. Some language can mean something to us that it did not mean back then. For example, if an Englishman says, "I am mad about my flat" he means that he is exited about his apartment. To an American, that same phrase means that he is angry about his flat tire. The word "God" for example, means to us in the 20th century "The Almighty God." To a Jew it did not necessarily mean "Almighty God." In Psalms 82: 1 & 6 God refers to earthly rulers as gods. This is the same passage that Jesus quotes to the Jews when they accuse him of saying that he is God. Paraphrasing Jesus, he says to them; "If it is okay to call men gods, why is it blasphemous for me to say that I am the Son of God"(John 10: 33 - 38). Notice how when Jesus is accused of being God, he quickly corrects them that he is not God, but the Son of God. In 2 Corinthians 4: 4 Satan is also called the "god of this age." Does that mean that he is God Almighty? Of course not!

Hmm...Jehovah's Witnesses are the only ones (that I know of) that makes the distinction between "Almighty God/Mighty God". Just sayin.

Second, all that you said above is fine and dandy, but the problem with that is, Thomas called him "My God". Do you see that? "My" God. Thomas called Jesus his God. Hmm, don't you find it strange that a devout Jew would call someone besides the Father "his" God. That is a completely different context than what you mention above in Psalms and what Jesus said in John 10.

Third, in one of your other posts, you rightfully mentioned the fact that Jesus called the Father "his God" to prove your little point of "how can Jesus be God and have "a" God at the same time?"

Well, how can the Father be Thomas' one and only "God", yet, he is clearly calling Jesus "his" God in John 20:28?

The answer is easy from the Trinitarian point of view; if Jesus is also God (along with the Father), then there would be no problem for Thomas to call Jesus "his" God, and which is why Jesus didn't correct him from a blatant act of blasphemy had Thomas inappropriately called him "his" God.

The answer is difficult from a non-Trinitarian point of view, because again, Thomas would be calling a mere creation (on the non-Trinitarian view) "his" God, which is something that no devout Jew would do, and would be as blasphemous today as it would have been 2,000 years ago.

John even tells us just 3 verses later why he wrote about Thomas story… In John 20:31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. If Thomas was really calling Jesus GOD almighty then John just contradicted why he wrote his writings.

Any good Trinitarian can explain why there is no contradiction with the concept of Jesus being God's Son, and Jesus being God. You have to show why the mere concept is either logically wrong, or Biblically wrong...and I don't think you can do either.

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church points out what an early Christian father, Origen (185-254 AD) says about the word "God." "The Son is theos (God), but only the Father is autotheos" (absolute God, God in himself).

I disagree with Origen, then.

This is the reason there is an Almighty God or a Most High God, in order to differentiate the only true God from the others.

Yet, Jesus clearly calls HIMSELF the "Almighty" in Revelations 1:7-8.

Another fact to consider when approaching this verse is to understand whom John believes God and Jesus to be.
John wrote his gospel to testify that Jesus is the Son of God, not God the Son. Let us take a look again at what John believes in order to not take one verse and unjustly imply a certain belief on John.

Yet, it is in John 1:1 (as mentioned in another post), where the first verse of the Gospel, John is calling Jesus "God".

SMH.

John 17:3
"Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

Jude 4 "For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ."

So I guess since, according to Jude, our only Master and Lord is Jesus...I guess that would mean that we are forbidden from calling the Father "Master", or "Lord"....but then again, Jesus called the Father "Lord" numerous times...but yet, according to Jude, our only Lord is Jesus??

Second, read 1John 5:20...what does it say?

Revelation 1:6
"Who (Jesus) has made us into a kingdom, priests for his God and Father"

John 20:17
"But go to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am going to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’"

Nothing that Phil 2:5-9 can't take care of.

Remember that John’s whole purpose for writing his Gospel is to prove that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, not God.

Yet, John 1:1 BEGAN with John calling Jesus "God".

There is one great proof that Thomas did not mean Jesus is Almighty God when he called Jesus God. When Thomas called Jesus "My lord and my God " all the Apostles were in the room. If this statement is true, then it is logical to assume that from now on, all the Apostles know that Jesus is really God. So from that point onward Jesus should be addressed as God.

Should be addressed as God from that point on? So, calling Jesus "Lord" just wouldn't fly after John 20:28, huh? LOL.

But as you can see in all the writings of the New Testament, none of the Apostles ever refer to Jesus as Almighty God or YHWH .

And? He is called God on more than one occasion, and that is enough Biblical proof for us to determine that Jesus is God. After all, to call someone your God outside of "Jehovah" would be a cardinal sin. Yet, Jesus was called "God", and it was ok.

That alone should tell you something.

Not once in the entire New Testament do they ever pray to Jesus.

Acts 7

59 While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.� 60 Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.� When he had said this, he fell asleep.

SMH.

They in fact write about the God of Jesus Christ (John 20:17). Remember, "No one has ever seen God" (1 John 4: 12). Same author.


Paul

Right, same author. And it is that same author that recorded Jesus telling his disciples that "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father".

So in a nut shell, seeing Jesus is just as good as seeing the "Father"....hmmm...

So your saying scripture contradicts ?

1Jo 4:12 No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us.


How many saw Jesus? You read your translations like a child!

Read John's other passage... Joh 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God (Agency) who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

You see God through Jesus' explanation of God.... not actually visualizing Him!

Explain how Jesus the Christ, Jesus the Messiah, Jesus the anointed of God! Has a God? Explain how you can be the one true God and then claim to have a one true God.


Paul

[Pierac]

You know all the books in print... Computers for dummies, Cooking for dummies, Math for dummies... let's review another... WHO IS JESUS FOR DUMMIES!

Acts 2:22 – "Jesus the Nazorean was a MAN commended to you by God with mighty deeds, wonders, and signs, which God worked through him in your midst."

Now you tell me which part of this verse is hard to understand. What is Jesus according to Peter?
a. A Godman
b. A God
c. A man

If you chose answer c, you are correct! If you chose any other answer, you need to read it again. Well, Peter probably meant something else. What? I don’t know. That must be the only verse in the New Testament that says that. Not quite.

Acts 10:40 – This MAN God raised on the third day."

It doesn’t get any simpler than this. There is no way to misunderstand this verse. Okay, let’s see if your catching on.
1. Who did God raise? That’s right, this MAN!
2. Who raised this MAN? Bingo, God!

Acts 17:31 – "God has overlooked the times of ignorance, but now He demands that all people everywhere repent because He has established a day on which He will judge the world with justice through a MAN He has appointed, and He has provided confirmation for all by raising him from the dead.

1. Whom Did God appoint? A MAN.
2. Who appointed this MAN? God.

Now you’re getting the hang of it.
1 Timothy 2:5 – "For there is one God and one mediator also between God and men, the MAN Christ Jesus."

1. Who is the mediator? The MAN Christ Jesus.
2. Who is he the mediator between? God and men.

He is not the mediator between himself and men, but between God and men. You can see that Jesus is not considered in the term "God."

1 Corinthians 15: 21 –"For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man"

So wait, I think I’ve got it now. He is a MAN anointed by God. Yessirree Bob! Hallelujah! So that’s what Peter was saying in Acts.

Acts 10:38 – "How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the holy Spirit and power.

1.Who did God anoint? Jesus.

2.Who anointed Jesus? God.

It’s easy once you get the hang of it. The problem with Trinitarians is that in order to substantiate the Trinity, they have to read a passage like this and then say that Jesus is God. You can read, can’t you? It doesn’t say that Jesus is God. But they have to stick to it or their whole doctrine is ruined. So basically they end up with the following interpretation of such a simple verse

"How God anointed God with God."

Is that what you get out of it? As Isaiah pointed out earlier, the Messiah is a man anointed by YHWH. He is supposed to be a prophet from among their own kinsmen. The following is a Messianic prophecy spoken by none other than Moses.

Deuteronomy 18:18 – "And the LORD (YHWH) said to me, I will raise up for you a prophet like you FROM AMONG YOUR OWN KINSMEN, and will put my words into his mouth; he shall tell them all that I command him."

Did the Apostles know that Jesus was a MAN from among their own kinsmen? Of course they did. They quoted this verse in reference to Jesus in Acts.

Acts 3:20-22 – "And that the Lord may grant you times of refreshment and send you the Messiah already appointed for you…For Moses said; A prophet like me will the Lord (YHWH), your God raise up for you FROM AMONG YOUR OWN KINSMEN."

Wow! They did know! Of course they knew. This is what the Old Testament predicted of the Messiah. Let's now look at the famous suffering servant of Isaiah 53 states:Isaiah 53:3 – "He was spurned and avoided by men, a MAN of suffering."

The Apostle Matthew quotes Isaiah 53 in Matthew 8:17. Peter quotes Isaiah 53 in 1 Peter 2:22-24. Isaiah 53 is quoted all over the place in the New Testament by all the Apostles. Of course they knew.

Now other things are starting to make sense. Trinitarians claim that since Jesus is fully God at all times, that he is omniscient. That’s a big word. It means all knowing. It means Jesus knows everything about everything. But that’s not what these simple verses say. Revelation’s opening verse states;

Rev. 1:1 – "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him."

1.Whom did God give a revelation to? Jesus.
2.Who gave Jesus a revelation? God.
3.Did Jesus know everything? Nope.
4.Does it make sense to you that God would have to give himself a revelation? Nope.

Mark 13:32 – "But of that hour, no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, NOR THE SON, but only the Father."

Do I need to say anything about the verse above? Does Jesus know the hour? Nope. Then he is not omniscient.

Only two more easy verses. This is Jesus himself speaking:

John 17:3 – "Now this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ."

1.Who does Jesus consider the first "you" to be? The ONLY true God.

2.Does Jesus think that he himself is that "you"? Not according to this verse.

3.Who sent Jesus? The only true God.

If Jesus did not consider himself to be God, why should we? Jesus always pointed us to the one who is greater than he, The God of Abraham. Here is probably the simplest verse in the whole Bible on this matter.

Mark 10:18 – "Jesus answered him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone."

If you have trouble with this one, I do not think there is much else I can say. Does this sound to you like Jesus believes himself to be God?

CONCLUSION – Jesus is exactly who the Old Testament said he would be, the Christ. A man anointed by the Spirit of God. Jesus knew that he was the anointed one and so did the Apostles and all his followers. It was only centuries later when pagan philosophers had converted to Christianity that this simple truth was almost completely obliterated. If this isn’t the great apostasy, I don’t know what is.
The verses that we have covered are not verses that are difficult by any stretch of the word. They are not even disputed. But ask a Trinitarian to explain one of these simple verses and watch what happens. It’s better than television! With this knowledge, the Bible is going to start making sense to you like never before.



Paul

[For_The_Kingdom]

So your saying scripture contradicts ?

1Jo 4:12 No one has seen God at any time

Again, as I pointed out to you in another post...Jesus said that to see him is to see the Father (John 14:9)..pretty bold statement coming from a mere creation of God, isn't it?

How many saw Jesus?

Lots of people...and as I said before, sometimes the word "God" can be ambiguous. It can either mean all three members of the Trinity as a collective group, or it can be used in a singular tense. When Scripture says "No one has seen God at any time", it is obviously talking about the Father...but that doesn't contradict Jesus being God, because after all, we are told by John that Jesus is God (John 1:3), and then "God/The Word" became Flesh (John 1:14).

Read John's other passage... Joh 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God (Agency) who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

Same answer as above...and it is also worth mentioning (for the 3rd time), that Jesus said that if you see him you see the Father...and Scripture also tells us that Jesus is the exact representation of "his" being (Heb 1:3).

How can a mere creation be the exact representation of God (the Father). I know why; because Jesus is also God.

You see God through Jesus' explanation of God.... not actually visualizing Him!

4th time: John 14:9 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’?

Explain how Jesus the Christ, Jesus the Messiah, Jesus the anointed of God! Has a God? Explain how you can be the one true God and then claim to have a one true God.


Paul

Phil 2:5-9

[For_The_Kingdom]

Acts 2:22 – "Jesus the Nazorean was a MAN commended to you by God with mighty deeds, wonders, and signs, which God worked through him in your midst."

Now you tell me which part of this verse is hard to understand. What is Jesus according to Peter?
a. A Godman
b. A God
c. A man

If you chose answer c, you are correct! If you chose any other answer, you need to read it again. Well, Peter probably meant something else. What? I don’t know. That must be the only verse in the New Testament that says that. Not quite.

How does that contradict the Deity of Christ, and who has ever denied the fact that Jesus was a man? Straw man?

Acts 10:40 – This MAN God raised on the third day."

John 2:19, Jesus stated "Destroy this temple and I will raise it in 3 days". Do you see that? I. I

It doesn’t get any simpler than this. There is no way to misunderstand this verse. Okay, let’s see if your catching on.
1. Who did God raise? That’s right, this MAN!
2. Who raised this MAN? Bingo, God!

I hate to repeat myself, but; John 2:19, Jesus stated "Destroy this temple and I will raise it in 3 days". Do you see that? I. I

Acts 17:31 – "God has overlooked the times of ignorance, but now He demands that all people everywhere repent because He has established a day on which He will judge the world with justice through a MAN He has appointed, and He has provided confirmation for all by raising him from the dead.

1. Whom Did God appoint? A MAN.
2. Who appointed this MAN? God.

The fact that Jesus was a man is not a point of contention...and this "appointed" business...well, Phil 2:5-9.

Now you’re getting the hang of it.
1 Timothy 2:5 – "For there is one God and one mediator also between God and men, the MAN Christ Jesus."

1. Who is the mediator? The MAN Christ Jesus.
2. Who is he the mediator between? God and men.

Yeah but see, the two verses RIGHT BEFORE that states; 3 "This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."

Who is our Savior, Titus (and God, too)? Titus 2:13 "while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ."

Hmm.

1 Corinthians 15: 21 –"For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man"

So wait, I think I’ve got it now. He is a MAN anointed by God. Yessirree Bob! Hallelujah! So that’s what Peter was saying in Acts.

Acts 10:38 – "How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the holy Spirit and power.

1.Who did God anoint? Jesus.

2.Who anointed Jesus? God.

Phil 2:5-9.

It’s easy once you get the hang of it. The problem with Trinitarians is that in order to substantiate the Trinity, they have to read a passage like this and then say that Jesus is God.

The problem is, as I proved, there are just wayyy to many contradictory Scriptures that you apparently want to sweep under the rug. We either have to find a way that these Scriptures can harmonize, or we simply have to admit that they are contradictory.

You can read, can’t you? It doesn’t say that Jesus is God. But they have to stick to it or their whole doctrine is ruined. So basically they end up with the following interpretation of such a simple verse

Yet, I just provided you with scriptures that state otherwise.

"How God anointed God with God."

Is that what you get out of it? As Isaiah pointed out earlier, the Messiah is a man anointed by YHWH. He is supposed to be a prophet from among their own kinsmen. The following is a Messianic prophecy spoken by none other than Moses.

Deuteronomy 18:18 – "And the LORD (YHWH) said to me, I will raise up for you a prophet like you FROM AMONG YOUR OWN KINSMEN, and will put my words into his mouth; he shall tell them all that I command him."

Phil 2:5-9.

Did the Apostles know that Jesus was a MAN from among their own kinsmen? Of course they did. They quoted this verse in reference to Jesus in Acts.

Acts 3:20-22 – "And that the Lord may grant you times of refreshment and send you the Messiah already appointed for you…For Moses said; A prophet like me will the Lord (YHWH), your God raise up for you FROM AMONG YOUR OWN KINSMEN."

Wow! They did know! Of course they knew. This is what the Old Testament predicted of the Messiah. Let's now look at the famous suffering servant of Isaiah 53 states:Isaiah 53:3 – "He was spurned and avoided by men, a MAN of suffering."

The Apostle Matthew quotes Isaiah 53 in Matthew 8:17. Peter quotes Isaiah 53 in 1 Peter 2:22-24. Isaiah 53 is quoted all over the place in the New Testament by all the Apostles. Of course they knew.

Again, no one is denying that Jesus was a man. So your "Jesus was a man" proof texts are irrelevant, if not straw man tactics.

Now other things are starting to make sense. Trinitarians claim that since Jesus is fully God at all times, that he is omniscient. That’s a big word. It means all knowing. It means Jesus knows everything about everything. But that’s not what these simple verses say.

For the second time, Peter accused Jesus of omniscience to his face (John 21:17)..which would be a foolish thing for someone to say to a mere "created" being.

Revelation’s opening verse states;

Rev. 1:1 – "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him."

1.Whom did God give a revelation to? Jesus.
2.Who gave Jesus a revelation? God.
3.Did Jesus know everything? Nope.
4.Does it make sense to you that God would have to give himself a revelation? Nope.

Mark 13:32 – "But of that hour, no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, NOR THE SON, but only the Father."

Do I need to say anything about the verse above? Does Jesus know the hour? Nope. Then he is not omniscient.

Ok, so I guess God is not omniscient, either...because in Gen 18:20-21, in reference to Sodom and Gomorrah, he stated "“The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.�.

That doesn't sound like the statement that a omniscient being would make, does it? So what are you gonna do about that?

John 17:3 – "Now this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ."

1.Who does Jesus consider the first "you" to be? The ONLY true God.

So when Thomas called Jesus "his God" (John 20:28), he was referring to a "false God", then? Correct?

2.Does Jesus think that he himself is that "you"? Not according to this verse.

But the Gospel of John begins with calling Jesus "God". So is Jesus a true God, or a false God?

3.Who sent Jesus? The only true God.

For the second time, Pilate "sent" Jesus away to be crucified. And? Being "sent" just shows subordination, which is what Phil 2:5-9 states that Jesus was, a subordinate to the Father after he "made himself nothing".

If Jesus did not consider himself to be God, why should we? Jesus always pointed us to the one who is greater than he, The God of Abraham.

A principal is "greater" than a teacher, by position/rank. Does that mean that the principal is a "greater/better" person? No, it does not.

Here is probably the simplest verse in the whole Bible on this matter.

Mark 10:18 – "Jesus answered him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone."

LOL. Jesus was probably saying "Why do you call me good. Only God is good, are you saying that I am God".

Otherwise, Jesus is saying that he isn't good. But since God (the Father) himself said that he is "well pleased" (Matt 17:5) with Jesus, I would think that would make Jesus "good", don't you?

Or are you gonna tell me that Jesus isn't good? Go ahead, type the words "Jesus Christ wasn't good".

I will wait.

If you have trouble with this one, I do not think there is much else I can say. Does this sound to you like Jesus believes himself to be God?

Yeah, it does sound like Jesus believed himself to be God, after all, you can always open our Bible and turn to John 8:58. However, despite that, Jesus didn't come on earth to "be God", even though he was. The Jews had enough trouble accepting that he was the Son of God, so of course there would have been even more controversy if Jesus was going around town blatantly saying "I am God".

If we can image God himself coming on Earth in the form of a human being, it would be in the form of Jesus, and that is exactly what happened, according to Scripture and according to history.

Jesus was "God", undercover...he didn't come on Earth to "be God", he came on Earth to live among man by related to our struggles and being a servant-leader.

CONCLUSION – Jesus is exactly who the Old Testament said he would be, the Christ. A man anointed by the Spirit of God.

Yeah, but the problem with that is...if you compare the NT with the OT.

John 12:40-41

“He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their hearts,
so they can neither see with their eyes,
nor understand with their hearts,
nor turn—and I would heal them.�

41 Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him.

But when we turn to Isaiah 6:10, since that is where the above Scriptural reference came from, the context of the scripture (v5), Isaiah stated that he saw "the King, the Lord Almighty (God).

Jesus knew that he was the anointed one and so did the Apostles and all his followers. It was only centuries later when pagan philosophers had converted to Christianity that this simple truth was almost completely obliterated. If this isn’t the great apostasy, I don’t know what is.

No it wasn't "centuries" later...as I explained to you in my first post to you, which you STILL have yet to adequately address.

[Pierac]

[Replying to post 84 by For_The_Kingdom]

So your saying scripture contradicts ?

1Jo 4:12 No one has seen God at any time

Again, as I pointed out to you in another post...Jesus said that to see him is to see the Father (John 14:9)..pretty bold statement coming from a mere creation of God, isn't it?

How many saw Jesus?

Lots of people...and as I said before, sometimes the word "God" can be ambiguous. It can either mean all three members of the Trinity as a collective group, or it can be used in a singular tense. When Scripture says "No one has seen God at any time", it is obviously talking about the Father...but that doesn't contradict Jesus being God, because after all, we are told by John that Jesus is God (John 1:3), and then "God/The Word" became Flesh (John 1:14).

Read John's other passage... Joh 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God (Agency) who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

Same answer as above...and it is also worth mentioning (for the 3rd time), that Jesus said that if you see him you see the Father...and Scripture also tells us that Jesus is the exact representation of "his" being (Heb 1:3).

How can a mere creation be the exact representation of God (the Father). I know why; because Jesus is also God.

You see God through Jesus' explanation of God.... not actually visualizing Him!

4th time: John 14:9 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’?

Explain how Jesus the Christ, Jesus the Messiah, Jesus the anointed of God! Has a God? Explain how you can be the one true God and then claim to have a one true God.


Paul

Phil 2:5-9

Before you post you should read the thread from the beginning.

Your traditions of men have been exposed Sooo long ago in this post! Let's review for the others whom are to lazy to start from the beginning!

Agency

The foundation of our Bible is the OT. It contains the first three-quarters of our Bible. It stands to reason that if we misunderstand this Hebrew foundation then we construct a system of error. The art of successful reading is generally to let the last quarter of a book agree with the first three-quarters. As the grand finale of the Bible, the NT agrees with and is consistent with its OT heritage. It might sound like an over-simplification to say that the Bible is a Hebrew book and must be approached through "Hebrew eyes;" however, it was written within the culture and thought-forms of the Middle East. In order to understand its message we must become familiar with the thought-forms, the idioms, the culture and the customs of those who lived in Biblical times. Every sincere reader of the Bible understands this. Doing it is the challenge.

H. N. Snaith in his book, "The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament," writes "Christianity itself has tended to suffer from a translation out of the Prophets and into Plato." (p161) "Our position is that the reinterpretation of Biblical theology in terms of the ideas of the Greek philosophers has been both a widespread throughout the centuries and everywhere destructive to the essence of the Christian faith." (p187.). Snaith also makes this remark that if his "thesis" is correct: "then neither Catholic nor Protestant theology is based on Biblical theology. In each case we have a denomination of Christian theology by Greek thought We hold that there can be no right (theology) until we have come to a clear view of the distinctive ideas of both Old and New Testaments and their differences from the pagan ideas which have so largely dominated Christian thought." (p188.).

With the passing of many centuries since Scriptures were written much of the original intent has been buried under the accretions of generations of human tradition.According to Mr. Deuble a lot of Bible confusion can be cleared up by understanding "The Principle of Agency."

A common feature of the Hebrew Bible is the concept (some even call it the "law") of Jewish agency. All Old Testament scholars and commentators recognize that in Jewish custom whenever a superior commissioned an agent to act on his behalf, the agent was regarded as the person himself. This is well expressed in the Encyclopedia of the Jewish religion.
Thus in Hebrew custom whenever an agent was sent to act for his master it was as though that lord himself was acting and speaking. An equivalent in our culture to the Jewish custom of agency would be one who is authorized to act as Power of Attorney, or more strongly one who is given Enduring Power of Attorney. Such an agent has virtually unlimited powers to act on behalf of the one who appointed him.

Let's look at one of the stories in the Old Testament with this new mindset. In the story of Moses and the burning bush in Exodus 3, "who" is it who appears to Moses and talked to him? My answer once was typical of the vast majority in the Church. Of course it was God himself, Yahweh, who spoke to Moses. After all, the text states that "'God' called to him from the midst of the bush and 'said', 'Moses, Moses!'" (v4).
Verse 6 is even more convincing when the same speaker says, "'I am' the 'God' of your father, 'the God' of Abraham, 'the God' of Isaac, and 'the God' of Jacob.' Then Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at 'God'." Surely it was Jehovah God himself who appear to Moses and who personally spoke? But what do we make of verse 2 that prefaces this narrative by stating that "'the angel of the LORD' appeared" to Moses from the midst of the brush? Many scholars have declared this angel to be God himself, even the pre-existing Christ. They make much of the definitive article and point out that this was a particular angel not just any angel.

This is a fancy bit of footwork that disregards the Hebrew text as we shall see. If we turn to the New Testament's commentary on this incident, we will see how Hebrews understood their own Scriptures.

Let us now turn to answer our question: Who is it who appears to Moses and talks to him? The martyr Stephen was a man "filled with the Holy Spirit." Let's listen to his commentary on the burning bush incident. He clearly states that it was "an angel who appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in the flame of a burning bush" (Acts 7:30) As Moses approached this phenomenon, "there came the voice of the Lord: I am the God of your father. The Lord said to him, 'Take off the sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground. (31-33).

Quite clearly this is an example of agency. It is an angel who appears to Moses and it is the angel who speaks. But note that this angel evens speaks for God in the first person. The angel of the Lord says, "I am God." The angel is distinguished from God yet identified with him. In Hebrew eyes, it is perfectly natural to consider the agent as the person himself. In Hebrew thought, homage given to God's agent or representative is homage ultimately given to God Himself.

Let's look at just one more example. In Acts 12, the apostle Peter is in jail about to be executed. But while he was asleep, "behold, an angel of the Lord suddenly appeared, and a light shone in the cell; and he struck Peter's side and roused him, saying, 'Get up quickly.' And his chains fell off his hands. And the angel said to him, 'Gird yourself and put on your sandals and follow me'" (Acts 12:7-8). Peter thought he was dreaming. As he followed the angel past the guards, out through the iron gate which "opened for them by itself," Peter "did not know what was being 'done by the "angel"' was real, but thought he was seeing a vision"(v.9). Now the Church was meeting in a house and praying for Peter's release. Peter started banging on the house door and Rhoda, the servant girl went to open the door Once Peter was eventually inside you can imagine the stir in that place. Peter motions with his hand for everyone to be quiet. He told them his incredible story. And what did he say? "He described to them how 'the LORD' had led him out of prison" (v.17).

So who really did get Peter out of jail? The angel or the Lord? The text says both did. But we know that the Lord sent the angel to do the actual work. To the Hebrew mind, it was really the Lord who rescued Peter.

There are many such OT examples. An agent of God is actually referred to as God, or the Lord himself. In Genesis 31:11-13 Jacobs said to his wives, "'The angel' of God 'said' to me in a dream'I am the God' of Bethel." Here is an angel speaking as though he was God Himself. He speaks in the first person: "I am the God of Bethel." Seems Jacob was comfortable with this concept of agency.
In the next chapter, Jacob wrestled with "a man" until dawn, but he says he had "seen God face to face" (Gen 32:24-30). So was at this time when God appear to Jacob as a man? Perhaps as some have suggested it was actually the Lord Jesus himself, as the second member of the triune God, who wrestled with Jacob.

Not at all according to Hosea 12:3-4 which says, "As a man he [Jacob] struggled with God; he struggled with "the angel" and overcame him. So the one who is called both "a man" and "God" in Genesis is identified as an angel in Hosea. This is a perfect example of Jewish agency where the agent is considered as the principal.

There is another instance of agency in Exodus 7. God tells Moses he will make him "God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet" (Exodus 7:1). Moses is to stand before the king of Egypt with the full authority and backing of heaven itself. Then God says, By this you shall know that I am the LORD: behold, I will strike the water that is in the Nile with the staff that is in "My hand", and it shall be turned to blood" (v.17). But observe carefully that just two verses later the LORD says to Moses, "Say to Aaron, take your staff and stretch out your hand over the waters of Egypt that they may become blood" (v.19). God says He Himself will strike the waters with the staff in His own hand. Yet, it was Aaron's hand that actually held the rod. Aaron is standing as God's agent in the very place of God himself. There is identification of the agent with his Principle. In Biblical terms, Moses and Aaron are "God" (Heb. elohim) to Pharaoh!

Sometimes this concept of agency has caused the translators of our Bible difficulties. The Hebrew word for "God"(elohim) has a wide range of meanings. Depending on context, it can mean the Supreme Deity, or "a god" or "gods" or even "angels" or human "judges." This difficulty is reflected in verses like Exodus 21:6

The KJV reads "Then his master shall bring him unto the judges;"
The NIV reads "then his master must take him before the judges."
But
The NASB reads "then his master shall bring him to God"
So too the RSV "then his master shall bring him to God"

Clearly, because the judges of Israel represented God as His agents, they are called "God," elohim. As the slave gave his vow before these representatives of God, he was in fact making a binding vow before Jehovah. The agents were as God.

Another example that we have time for in this brief overview, is in Judges 6:11-22. "The angel of the LORD came and sat under the oak tree while Gideon was threshing wheat". As 'the angel of the LORD appeared to him,' he greeted Gideon with the words, "The LORD is with you, O valiant warrior." We can hear Gideon's disbelief when he says to the angel, "Oh my lord, if the LORD is with us, why then has all this happened to us?" Now notice a change in the text at Judges 6:14: "And the LORD looked at him and said, 'Go in this your strength and deliver Israel from the hand of Midian. Have not I sent you?" At this point Gideon murmurs and throws up excuses as to why he could not rescue Israel from their enemies. "But the LORD said to him, 'Surely I will be with you, and you shall defeat Midian as one man.'" Notice how the angel who is speaking on God's behalf actually uses the first person personal pronoun. And the text clearly says that when the angel looked at Gideon it was God himself who looked at him: And the LORD looked at him." Gideon is not confused regarding who he is looking at or who is speaking to him. For as "the angel of the LORD vanished from his site," he exclaimed, "I have seen the angel of the LORD face-to-face." (V.22). We know that the angel of the LORD is the agent and not literally God, because the Scriptures are absolutely clear that no one has ever seen God himself (John 1:18; 1 Tim 6:16; 1 John 4:12). Many scholars have failed to take this very Hebrew way of looking at things into account. They have literally identified the angel of the LORD with God Himself. All confusion is dissipated when we understand the Jewish law of agency: "a person's agent is regarded as the person himself."

There is one very clear OT example of Hebrew Principle of Agency. It comes from Deuteronomy 29. Moses summons all of Israel and says to them, "You have seen all that the Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh and all his servants and all his land; the great trials which your eyes have seen, those great signs and wonders" (v.2-3).

Moses continues to recite for the people all that God has done for them. But notice that in verse 6, while still reciting all God's wonders, Moses suddenly changes to the first person and says, "You have not eaten bread, nor have you drunk wine or strong drink, in order that you might know that I am the LORD your God." It is obvious that God himself is not personally speaking to the people. Moses is preaching. But Moses as the agent of God can speak as though he is the Lord himself. What is happening here? God is speaking through His man, His appointed representative. Therefore, he can move from speaking in the third person, "the LORD did this and that for you" to the first person: "I am the LORD your God doing this and that."

Knowing this principle helps us with other apparent difficulties, even seeming contradictions through the Scriptures. Lets look at one New Testament example. The story that has created a problem to many minds is the one concerning the healing of the Centurion's servant. In Matthew's account (Matt 8:5-13), it is the Centurion himself who comes to Jesus and begs him to heal his servant. The Centurion himself says, "Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering great pain" (v.6).

However, the parallel account in Luke (Luke 7:1-10) states that the Centurion did not personally go and speak to Jesus. He actually sent or commissioned as his agents "some Jewish elders." These Jewish elders pleaded with Jesus on behalf of the Centurion saying, "He is worthy for you to grant this to him; for he loves our nation, and it was he who built us our synagogue" (v.4-5)

So who actually went to Jesus here? Did these gospel writers get confused? Are the detractors perhaps right to say that the Bible is full of errors and contradictions? Not at all! The difficulty is cleared up when we understand the Hebrew mind behind these Scriptures. The answer to who actually stood before Jesus is the elders. They had been sent by the Centurion. Matthew in typical Hebrew idiom has the Centurion himself there and speaking in the first person before Jesus. The agent is as the principal himself.

Jesus claimed to represent God like no other before or after him. He claimed to be the unique spokesman for God his Father and to speak the ultimate words of God. He claimed to act in total accord and harmony with God like no other. He claimed to be the Son of God, the Christ or Messiah, and the agent of the Father. The NT claims that he who sees Jesus sees the Father. He who hears Jesus the Son hears the words of God Himself.

The New Testament puts this theory about the angel of the Lord being Jesus in his preexistence to rest in Hebrews 1: "God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son" (v 1-2). So, the Son of God "did not speak" in the Old Testament days! Back in those days God spoke in various ways and only in "portions," whether by vision or by prophet or by angel. It is only since Jesus Christ was brought into existence at birth and appeared "in these last days" that we have heard God speak "in his Son." This is axiomatic. Jesus Christ was not God's messenger before his appearance as a man, born of Mary in history. Look at the scriptures:

Act 7:38 "This is the one (Moses) who was in the congregation in the wilderness together with the angel who was speaking to him on Mount Sinai, and who was with our fathers; and he received living oracles to pass on to you.

Act 7:53 you who received the law as ordained by angels, and yet did not keep it."

Gal 3:19 Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.

Heb 2:2 For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty,

Just note, Jesus who came to fulfill the Law, was not the one in the O.T. who gave the law, as seen by these three verses!

Now let's review one last example and look at Exodus 23:20-23. Notice 'my name is in him!' (agency)

"Behold, I send an angel before thee, to keep thee by the way ... Take ye heed of him, and hearken unto his voice; provoke him not (be not rebellious against him): for he will not pardon your transgression; for my name is in him" "But if you truly obey his voice and do all that I say, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries. "For My angel will go before you… (Exodus 23:20-23).

In this passage the angel was to be for Israel in the place of God; he was to speak God's words, and judge them. In fact the angel expressed God's name; he was God for them. Now if this was true of an angel of the Lord, how much more of the Son of God himself? Hence these sayings:

"This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent ... I (Jesus) have manifested thy name unto (the disciples) ... Holy Father, keep in thy name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one" (John 17:3,6,11).

"I and my Father are one" (John 10:30).

Jesus, then, enjoyed a unity of mind and Spirit with the Father, so that he could say, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14:9). For the disciples Jesus was in the place of God; he spoke God's words, proclaimed God's truth, and pronounced His judgements.

Hebrews 1:1 makes more sense now:
God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world (ages).

[The Net bible adds… The temporal (ages) came to be used of the spatial (what exists in those time periods). See Heb_11:3 for the same usage.]

Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds (ages) were prepared by the word (�ημα G4487) of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

Jesus had every right to claim to be the son of God because God was in Him doing His works.

"Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which god performed through (dia) him in your midst" (Acts 2:22).

FYI discussing lost historical understandings in this post... no new questions or thoughts being presented... just lost historical data...


Paul

I love spanking the traditions of men... whom you hold so dear! Try thinking for your self... Don't let others tell you what to believe!!!


Paul

[Pierac]

Acts 2:22 – "Jesus the Nazorean was a MAN commended to you by God with mighty deeds, wonders, and signs, which God worked through him in your midst."

Now you tell me which part of this verse is hard to understand. What is Jesus according to Peter?
a. A Godman
b. A God
c. A man

If you chose answer c, you are correct! If you chose any other answer, you need to read it again. Well, Peter probably meant something else. What? I don’t know. That must be the only verse in the New Testament that says that. Not quite.

How does that contradict the Deity of Christ, and who has ever denied the fact that Jesus was a man? Straw man?

Acts 10:40 – This MAN God raised on the third day."

John 2:19, Jesus stated "Destroy this temple and I will raise it in 3 days". Do you see that? I. I

It doesn’t get any simpler than this. There is no way to misunderstand this verse. Okay, let’s see if your catching on.
1. Who did God raise? That’s right, this MAN!
2. Who raised this MAN? Bingo, God!

I hate to repeat myself, but; John 2:19, Jesus stated "Destroy this temple and I will raise it in 3 days". Do you see that? I. I

Acts 17:31 – "God has overlooked the times of ignorance, but now He demands that all people everywhere repent because He has established a day on which He will judge the world with justice through a MAN He has appointed, and He has provided confirmation for all by raising him from the dead.

1. Whom Did God appoint? A MAN.
2. Who appointed this MAN? God.

The fact that Jesus was a man is not a point of contention...and this "appointed" business...well, Phil 2:5-9.

Now you’re getting the hang of it.
1 Timothy 2:5 – "For there is one God and one mediator also between God and men, the MAN Christ Jesus."

1. Who is the mediator? The MAN Christ Jesus.
2. Who is he the mediator between? God and men.

Yeah but see, the two verses RIGHT BEFORE that states; 3 "This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."

Who is our Savior, Titus (and God, too)? Titus 2:13 "while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ."

Hmm.

1 Corinthians 15: 21 –"For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man"

So wait, I think I’ve got it now. He is a MAN anointed by God. Yessirree Bob! Hallelujah! So that’s what Peter was saying in Acts.

Acts 10:38 – "How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the holy Spirit and power.

1.Who did God anoint? Jesus.

2.Who anointed Jesus? God.

Phil 2:5-9.

It’s easy once you get the hang of it. The problem with Trinitarians is that in order to substantiate the Trinity, they have to read a passage like this and then say that Jesus is God.

The problem is, as I proved, there are just wayyy to many contradictory Scriptures that you apparently want to sweep under the rug. We either have to find a way that these Scriptures can harmonize, or we simply have to admit that they are contradictory.

You can read, can’t you? It doesn’t say that Jesus is God. But they have to stick to it or their whole doctrine is ruined. So basically they end up with the following interpretation of such a simple verse

Yet, I just provided you with scriptures that state otherwise.

"How God anointed God with God."

Is that what you get out of it? As Isaiah pointed out earlier, the Messiah is a man anointed by YHWH. He is supposed to be a prophet from among their own kinsmen. The following is a Messianic prophecy spoken by none other than Moses.

Deuteronomy 18:18 – "And the LORD (YHWH) said to me, I will raise up for you a prophet like you FROM AMONG YOUR OWN KINSMEN, and will put my words into his mouth; he shall tell them all that I command him."

Phil 2:5-9.

Did the Apostles know that Jesus was a MAN from among their own kinsmen? Of course they did. They quoted this verse in reference to Jesus in Acts.

Acts 3:20-22 – "And that the Lord may grant you times of refreshment and send you the Messiah already appointed for you…For Moses said; A prophet like me will the Lord (YHWH), your God raise up for you FROM AMONG YOUR OWN KINSMEN."

Wow! They did know! Of course they knew. This is what the Old Testament predicted of the Messiah. Let's now look at the famous suffering servant of Isaiah 53 states:Isaiah 53:3 – "He was spurned and avoided by men, a MAN of suffering."

The Apostle Matthew quotes Isaiah 53 in Matthew 8:17. Peter quotes Isaiah 53 in 1 Peter 2:22-24. Isaiah 53 is quoted all over the place in the New Testament by all the Apostles. Of course they knew.

Again, no one is denying that Jesus was a man. So your "Jesus was a man" proof texts are irrelevant, if not straw man tactics.

Now other things are starting to make sense. Trinitarians claim that since Jesus is fully God at all times, that he is omniscient. That’s a big word. It means all knowing. It means Jesus knows everything about everything. But that’s not what these simple verses say.

For the second time, Peter accused Jesus of omniscience to his face (John 21:17)..which would be a foolish thing for someone to say to a mere "created" being.

Revelation’s opening verse states;

Rev. 1:1 – "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him."

1.Whom did God give a revelation to? Jesus.
2.Who gave Jesus a revelation? God.
3.Did Jesus know everything? Nope.
4.Does it make sense to you that God would have to give himself a revelation? Nope.

Mark 13:32 – "But of that hour, no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, NOR THE SON, but only the Father."

Do I need to say anything about the verse above? Does Jesus know the hour? Nope. Then he is not omniscient.

Ok, so I guess God is not omniscient, either...because in Gen 18:20-21, in reference to Sodom and Gomorrah, he stated "“The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.�.

That doesn't sound like the statement that a omniscient being would make, does it? So what are you gonna do about that?

John 17:3 – "Now this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ."

1.Who does Jesus consider the first "you" to be? The ONLY true God.

So when Thomas called Jesus "his God" (John 20:28), he was referring to a "false God", then? Correct?

2.Does Jesus think that he himself is that "you"? Not according to this verse.

But the Gospel of John begins with calling Jesus "God". So is Jesus a true God, or a false God?

3.Who sent Jesus? The only true God.

For the second time, Pilate "sent" Jesus away to be crucified. And? Being "sent" just shows subordination, which is what Phil 2:5-9 states that Jesus was, a subordinate to the Father after he "made himself nothing".

If Jesus did not consider himself to be God, why should we? Jesus always pointed us to the one who is greater than he, The God of Abraham.

A principal is "greater" than a teacher, by position/rank. Does that mean that the principal is a "greater/better" person? No, it does not.

Here is probably the simplest verse in the whole Bible on this matter.

Mark 10:18 – "Jesus answered him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone."

LOL. Jesus was probably saying "Why do you call me good. Only God is good, are you saying that I am God".

Otherwise, Jesus is saying that he isn't good. But since God (the Father) himself said that he is "well pleased" (Matt 17:5) with Jesus, I would think that would make Jesus "good", don't you?

Or are you gonna tell me that Jesus isn't good? Go ahead, type the words "Jesus Christ wasn't good".

I will wait.

If you have trouble with this one, I do not think there is much else I can say. Does this sound to you like Jesus believes himself to be God?

Yeah, it does sound like Jesus believed himself to be God, after all, you can always open our Bible and turn to John 8:58. However, despite that, Jesus didn't come on earth to "be God", even though he was. The Jews had enough trouble accepting that he was the Son of God, so of course there would have been even more controversy if Jesus was going around town blatantly saying "I am God".

If we can image God himself coming on Earth in the form of a human being, it would be in the form of Jesus, and that is exactly what happened, according to Scripture and according to history.

Jesus was "God", undercover...he didn't come on Earth to "be God", he came on Earth to live among man by related to our struggles and being a servant-leader.

CONCLUSION – Jesus is exactly who the Old Testament said he would be, the Christ. A man anointed by the Spirit of God.

Yeah, but the problem with that is...if you compare the NT with the OT.

John 12:40-41

“He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their hearts,
so they can neither see with their eyes,
nor understand with their hearts,
nor turn—and I would heal them.�

41 Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him.

But when we turn to Isaiah 6:10, since that is where the above Scriptural reference came from, the context of the scripture (v5), Isaiah stated that he saw "the King, the Lord Almighty (God).

Jesus knew that he was the anointed one and so did the Apostles and all his followers. It was only centuries later when pagan philosophers had converted to Christianity that this simple truth was almost completely obliterated. If this isn’t the great apostasy, I don’t know what is.

No it wasn't "centuries" later...as I explained to you in my first post to you, which you STILL have yet to adequately address.

On the authority of Jesus himself we know that the categories of "flesh" and "spirit" are never to be confused or intermingled, though the course of God's Spirit can impact our world. Jesus said, "That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit" (John 3:6). And "God is Spirit." The doctrine of the incarnation confuses these categories. What God has separated man has joined together! One of the charges that the apostle Paul levels at simple man is that we have "exchange the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man" (Romans 1:23). Has it ever dawned on you as you sit in church listening to how the glorious Creator made Himself into a man that we could be guilty of this very same thing? The doctrine of the incarnation has reduced the incorruptible God to our own corruptible image. We are made in God's image, not the other way around. It would be more appropriate to put this contrast in starker terms. The defining characteristic of the Creator God is his absolute holiness. God is utterly different from and so utterly transcendent over His creation that any confusion is forbidden!

To your other silly points about Jesus raising himself from the dead! Not in Scripture and not possible! You fail to understand death! If Jesus raised himself from the dead then He was not really dead! Thus no forgiveness for your sins!!!

Do you think the God of Jesus whom raised him... plays word games like this.... Your sadly mistaken!!


Looks like we need to get back to the who is Jesus for dummies book series!

Now let’s take a look at one of the many verses that speak of God raising Jesus. Acts 2:32 states:

"God raised this Jesus"

Who raised this Jesus? GOD! Notice that it does not say "the Father," but "God." Unless we discard every known rule of language, we can see that Jesus is not included in the term God. Another point to be made is that God is alive and Jesus is dead. God is raising Jesus from the dead. As Timothy pointed out before, God is immortal, He cannot die. Jesus on the other hand is DEAD. If you believe Jesus to be God, then it is obvious that Jesus was never truly dead because he did in fact raise himself from the dead. A huge problem arises with this absurd idea in that the forgiveness of our sins comes only through the death of Jesus Christ as the Bible states. If Jesus is God then there was no real death because God is raising Jesus. Do you think that the Bible is wrong or that the creeds that were created by men that made Jesus God are wrong. Someone is wrong, the question is who, the writers of the Bible or the writers of the creeds?

This idea of a dual nature comes from Greek philosophy, it is called Dualism.
Dualism - The view that reality may be divided into two essential forces. There are two forms of this understanding. From a cosmic perspective, the world struggles between two opposing forces - typically, one of evil and one of good. From a philosophical approach, the essence of a person is divided between two incompatible natures - that of the body and that of the soul. Early Christianity incorporated both views from those religions and philosophies with which it came in contact. This is the same concept used not only in Greek philosophy, but also in Greek mythology. Hercules is the son of Zeus and the mortal Alcmene. He had a dual nature, he was a man that had supernatural strength which he inherited from his father Zeus. The Pharaohs were godmen and so were the Caesars. The Bible even provides us with an example of this belief in Acts 14:11 when God healed a crippled man through Paul and Barnabas:

"When the crowds saw what Paul had done, they cried out in Lycaonian, "The gods have come down to us in human form."

The idea of gods becoming men was very prevalent in the Roman-Greco world. This is why it was so natural to inject this belief into Christianity. As you can see, the idea of Dualism is the exact definition that Trinitarians have used for Jesus: He has two natures. He is fully God and fully Man. This is stated in the Chalcedon Creed of 451 AD. Jesus is not a godman, he is the Anointed (the Messiah).

Some people like you will try to answer certain questions about Jesus by saying, "Jesus emptied himself." This shows how little people understand their own creed. This is called the "kenotic doctrine" and people try to use it in defense of the trinity. But it is in total contradiction to the Chalcedon Creed. The kenotic doctrine says that Jesus emptied himself of his deity. Well, you can simply read in the Chalcedon Creed that it defines Jesus' nature as fully God and fully man at all times, without division, without separation. ( like you support in your post) You cannot say that you believe in the trinity and use this excuse. If you subscribe to the kenotic doctrine, then you have already rejected the trinity. You cannot subscribe to both.

If you want to understand who Jesus is you have to understand what his most important title means, "Messiah" or as in Greek "Christ". Without an understanding of what it means to be the Messiah you will never really understand Jesus. He is after all, Jesus the Christ (Messiah).

HOWEVER, YOU NEVER ANSWERED MY QUESTION.... Scripture teaches there is only ONE GOD! Yet Jesus teaches, and confesses He has a GOD!!!

How can Jesus be God and then claim to have one!!!

Feel free to take a couple of days to seek out your pastor as to what to say and how to respond! It's OK... I understand you need time to seek out what others tell you... how you need to believe!

Ask them.... How can Jesus have a GOD!


Paul