# What did Jesus Claim?



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 13, 2011)

Please don't respond untill I finish, It will be long with many different post. Should be clear to respond by morning. Thank you.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 13, 2011)

What did Jesus claim? Is it a matter of opinion? or is it a matter of interpertation? This will be a very long but simple, readable response and should be very interesting to see how unsupported the doctrine of trinity is. Ponder how something so dominering in society could have no biblical basis. The very bible that trins regard as truth does not include their own beliefs. This information is my own. I am a simple man, thus my simple way of posting. Later, as responses come in, I will respond accordingly, going much deeper. Hopefully by that time, Intrest will overshadow the boring details. I have read several books that made claim of proving the trinity but up till now, have read no books against the trinity. I have a book on order, hopeing to find a book I can recommend, but have not received it yet. If it proves to be truth, I will let you know later. As I say, this is my own simple thoughts, not at all complete, but condensed to keep from taking up to much of the readers time.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 13, 2011)

This debate spawned from my response to a poster who claims that Jesus claimed to be God. I responded that Jesus never claimed such. These first interactions can be viewed under Dex's thread of "Let's talk about Jesus". Sorry once again for derailing your thread Dex. I hope you find this interesting. The fight for "orthodox Christianity" can be very interesting whether one believes it as truth or not.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 13, 2011)

The question everyone should ask; Who did Jesus claim to be? It seems that it is based on ones opinion of the verses in question. Taken in isolation, one could read in whatever they wanted to in scripture because of the vast amount of words and stories present in the scriptures. I say Context trumps single verses.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 13, 2011)

During our recent debate, Visioncasting made the claim that Jesus claimed to be God. Equally inspired to stand for my view of truth, I said he did not make this claim. Having been in this debate before, I would first like to say that I respect all posters and my intent is to address the "argument" without any negative feelings towards Visioncasting. That initial confrontation did not reflect the person as a poster that I wish to be so I will refrain from anything but the context, confident that I can make a solid case against the OP.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 13, 2011)

Warning; those not willing to put their beliefs under the microscope of scriptures, should avoid this thread. Many have never questioned what they have been taught. Believing what their parents believe or what their local church believes, facing the idea that your beliefs might not be supported by scripture, but mere traditions instead, has caused quite the crisis in my life. It would have been much better for me and my family if I had never became a bible student and simply read my bible a verse each day, devotional style.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

We know that the scribes and teachers of the lawloved the places of honor, loved to be looked up to, so when Jesus comes along and people begin to say"Where did he get such wisdom", "he speaks with authority", etc. The religious leaders were extremely jealous. "After seeing all Jesus'swisdom and miracles, they took offense at him" [Mk 6:4]  Then the pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words.[Matt 22:15] They were looking for some sly way to arrest him and kill him [Mk 14:1] They went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus because he healed on the Sabbath [Matt 12:14]They looked for a way to arrest because he had spoken the parable against them [Mk 12:12] They began looking for a way to kill him because he said you have made my father's house a den of robbers [Mk 11:18] They had used this question as a trap to have a basis for accusing him [Jn 8:6]They were furious and began to discuss what they might do to Jesus [Lk 6:11] The people themselves verified this; Insn't this the man they are trying to kill. This is establish that they were looking for a way, anything they could say to trap him in order to accuse him.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

Remember that they would stone almost anyone, without any claim of diety. The woman at the well, Paul and Steven for a few examples


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

Also, Let's look at Lk4:27 Because Jesus said "there were many in Israel with leprosyin the time of Elisha yet not one of them was cleansed, only Naaman the Syrian. verse 28All the peoplewere furious when they heard this:They got up, drove him out of town to a cliff in order to throw him off. Now, notice that there are no claims of being God here or surrounding scripture, yet they are going to kill him. Another in Jn 7:30, when Jesus said you do not know him,... he sent me and they tried to seize him. My point here is that they were looking for anything to carry out their plans without any claims by Jesus as God. I suspect that they , given the opportunity would distort what Jesus said for their vantage


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

The so-called "claim" verses Jn 5, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him. Jesus said, my Father is always working and I too am working. For this reason they tried all the harder to kill him because not only was he working on the Sabbath but he was calling God his own Father making himself equal with God. Jesus quickly responded that he can only do what he see's the Father doing. Trins will say that some "idiom" exist that states that Son of God equals God. When asked for support for this idea, none can be produced in scripture words or context. This is simply reverse enginering on their part. What is meant is not that he claims to be equal but rather that he is doing the same things which they attribute to being equal in deed but no application of actually being equal as trins would like to believe. More rebutal will be found in the next point concerning this.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

A similar instance in Jn 10:30, I and the Father are one. This like many so-called claims to be God are misunderstood and scriptures luckily give insite into this.The Jews were picking up stones to stone Jesus because they said "you claim to be God". Jesus quickly told them that he only claimed to be God's Son. This calms the situation and no stones were thrown. No further inflamation. So, we see here that o so-called idiom of Son of God equals God can't possibly exist. [see last post] The fact is that they wanted his words misunderstood, wanted to discredit him by trying to get him to say anything that they could distort. We now have clarification of what Jesus meant, made by many of the NT writings but specifically by Jn himself. We are to be "one" with Christ just as he was one with the Father. Spiritually speaking, we are the body of Christ, doing his work, representing Jesus. But does this make us actually Jesus. No, and it did not make Jesus God to be the exact representation of God. So, they simply did not see What Jesus was saying when he said I and the Father are one.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

Trins will not accept these explanations even with NT context explaining the concept in his words. By misunderstanding Jesus's words, trins have climbed in the same boat with the misunderstanding accusers.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

Jn 8;58, Simply the most incorrectly damaging verse trins hold up.Is there such a thing as the "great I am"??? Trins will say that this is God's  name given for himself known down through the ages by all and reserved only for God Almighty himself. I say, it never existed.Where is the evidence for such a claim. If this were so, the unbelieving Jews would still cling to this in expectation but they through asking on Judism forumns, say it never existed.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

Looking at the surrounding context of the so-called claim "I am" verse we seein 54wher Jesus told them My Father who you claim as your God. This sparked great controversy already dealt with in 5:18 rebutal. In 55 he calls them liars and in 56 he says Abraham saw his day, meaning Abraham had foresite to the coming of the promised messiah. But they misunderstood, as usual, this as literal  and pointed to his age as proof against Jesus's statement. Enough already, without the misunderstood next statement, to incite there rock throwing desires. Jesus then said "Before Abraham was born, I am. What does this mean, What is implied here. See next post for more


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

Before Abraham was born, I am. I say this was simply the language of the day. Look at the evidence. Our bibles themselves verify this. By adding brackets [brackets], they take the liberty to impart what they see as context. They did it in Jn 8:24 when Jesus said, If you do not believe that I am [the one I claim to be]. Again in 8:28. Notice how this does not cause any stones to be picked up here when it is the exact same usuage of I am. The greek verifys this. Also notice in 25 what else Jesus said when asked "who are you" He said, "Just what I have been claiming all along". Now even if John 8:58 were some trin claim as they want you to believe, you can hardly say based on a couple of mistranslated, misunderstood so-called trin verses that he had been claiming to be God all along. I say not. What he had been claiming all along was that he was "sent" which is what should be in those brackets in 8:24, 28 and should have also been used in 58. Johns central theme was that Jesus was "sent", used over 35 times in John alone, possibly more than all the others combined. Also notice the eclamation point used in some translations but not all. There is nothing in the greek manuscripts that can justify this. Nothing but interjections buy biased translators who are claiming to have made a literal translation instead of a paraphrase.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

Trins would have you think that ego eimi, [greek looks more like eyw eiui] was only used for God almighty and everyone knew it. I say nonexistant. Look at 9:9 where Jesus had healed a man from blindness. They were trying to determine if this was the one who was healed. Some said he looked like him. Our bibles say something like "I am the man" BUT the greek from which our bibles were translated say, "that one said, I am." the exact same greek words that Jesus used in 8:58. ego eimi. Proof that of the language of the time and also that this was not reserved for God Almighty. I say that them picking up stones to stone him had nothing to do with a so-called trin claim of being God.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

Many here will grasp hold of "before" and say that this means prexistence. I say before Abraham was born, I am [sent] should be the proper way. In Gen 3:15, I will put enmitybetween you and the seed [offspring] and between your seed [offspring]and her seed [offspring], he will crush your head and you will strike his heel. Now who is this promise talking about and was it before Abraham was promised that he would have children, seed, offspring? Was it before Abraham was born? So basically, who is greater?  Look at what Enoch 48:2 says, "And at that hour that Son of Man was named in the pressence of the Lord of Spirits and his name was brought before the head of days. 3Even before the son and signs were created, before  the stars ofheaven were made, his name was named before the Lord of Spirits. Even if you don't agree that this is inspired writing and should have been included in our canon, does it rule out that this was not the understanding of the times, before corruption creep in?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

Now let's look at the context of Ex 3:14 from which this idea was incorrectly taken. Read it for yourself and allow me to paraphrase it. God chose Moses and came to him and said, "Go, I am sending you to pharoah to bringmy people out of Egypt [slavery]. But humble Moses said, "Who am I that I should go." meaning; why me? I'm a nobody, not important, worthy or capable of such a task. [why not someone political, better in speach, looks, stature, etc.] God says, It does not matter who you are but who I am. I am the one sending you and I will be with you. You can do anything because it is not who you are but who I am. Moses said, What shall I tell them when I say you sent me and if they ask your name? God said"I am who I am" or some bibles say, "I am who I will be" 14, Say I am has sent me to you. 15, God also said to Moses. Say "Yahweh" [translated LORD] the God of your fathers has sent me to you. This is my name [Yahweh], forever the name by which I am to be remembered fro generation to generation. Now I say that "I am who I will be" was simply for Moses's encouragement. We have Yahweh used throughout scripture but the so-called "great Iam" never shows up again until John's gospel only????. Also recent debates have determined that when Hebrew to greek converts to a whole different meaning. I am not capable of debating this but point it out anyway. Have you ever noticed how Jews out of extreme reverence for God holy name, write G-d. I asked about this once and the response was what if we wrote his name and it got accidently thrown in the trash. So they will not write it out fully as we do. The same is done for Yahweh as YHWH. This nametranslated as LORD in our bibles was not spoken out of that same extreme reverence so therefore we are not even sure of the correct pronounciation.They use YHWH, so you decide which nameis supposed to be remembered from generation to generation in highest reverence. Also, in 1Cor 15:10, was Paul claiming to be God when he said, by the grace of God, I am what I am?  I say no and that this whole concept is the result of reverse enginering, someone working backwards, trying to make stuff fit where it don't belong


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

The Trial, most damaging to trin doctrine. Taking a short break, back after a snack. Please don't respond until completed. Thank you


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

THE TRIAL, If Jesus hadmade statementsthat were clear claims to be God, understood buy all then why wasthis notbrought up at his trial. There should have been plenty of witnesses. Jesus said himself, Why question me, ask thosewho heard me. Jn 18:21. Why not just accuse him of claiming to be God, if that is what he had done? Why in Matt 26:59 They were looking for false reason to put him to death but did not find any even though many false witnesses came foward saying thisfellow say he will tear down this temple and rebuild it. Mk records, "but they did not find any. Lk records his accusers saying; We have foundthis man subverting our nation, opposing paying taxes  and claims to be the Christ. As with all the gospels, Pilot says; I find no bases for a charge against this man. Neither did Herod Lk 22:15. Mk15:10 and Matt 27:18 records that it was out of "envy" that Jesus was handed over.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

What caused the high priest to tear his robes? After finding no charge against him, after he was asked, are you the Christ, are you the Son of the blessed one? Jesus spoke this; "I am and you will see the Son of Man coming sitting at the right hand of the mighty one and coming on the clouds of heaven". Why did this require the response "What do you think, is he guilty?" Was it a clear claim or debatable?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

We know from context that Jesus's disciples had the discussion of who would be greatest and wanted to know who could sit at his right. Sitting at his right hand was not taking the place of but rather the next highest place of honor. This was a clear claim by Jesus as being "that one" spoken of throughout the scriptures. I will refer to the familarity of the NT as opposed to the OT from which it comes.  Heb chp 1, "Let all God's angels worship him". What was Jesus saying? His statement was a familiar passage quoted from Daniel 7. "I looked and therebefore me was one like the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of days  and was led into his pressence. He was given authority, glory and power, all peoples worshipped him. his dominion is an everlasting dominion." Notice no implying to be God here. So Jesus states he was given authority, glory and worship and claims to be David's promised desendant for the eternal kingship. Also, by sitting at God's right hand he is claiming to basically be the greatest man to ever live. All of this is what they hated but no claim to be God. They wanted Abraham to be the greatest, not a carpenters son whom they knew.To be the Son of God was his claim but no context showing this to be a claim to be God.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

How, in what way was Jesus mocked? was it as God? No, he was mocked as a king. They placed on him a purple robe and crown of thorns. He was mocked as a prophet, "prophesy who hit you". He was not mocked as God revealing that he never claimed this. What else does context reveal? Jn 18:7, do not writeking of the Jews but that he claimed to be King of the Jews. So we see no evidence that he was crucified for claiming to be God. Context proves this.He was crucified because he had insulted the pride of the religious crowd. They hated him for this. Especially that his claim put him in authority over them as God's approval as Jesus as the greatest man. This is why they killed him.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

Addressing Jn 18:5, When Jesus said, I am he, actually, no he in the greek. They drew back and fell to the ground. Does this mean that he was God? I say not. Imagine if you were told to go and arrest this man that you had been hearing about by everyone. People would have been discussing how this man could perform miracles and the mystery associated with this. I imagine that they were quite itimidated. Looking for him and having to ask, they had walked right up into the pressence of this mystery man Jesus. Not knowing what his response would be to them coming for him, being so intimidated by what they had heard, they probably drew back quickly, possibly tripping on one another or maybe they were just dodging Peter's sword, I don't know but we can't conclude that trintarian explanation is the only explanation. We can not say that this could only happen if Jesus were God.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

Why was John the baptist a possible Christ? Why did he have to say that I am not he. Because the scriptures nrver implied that the Christ would be anything other than a man. When Andrew tells his brother, We have found the messiah. Did they bow down to him as God or did they follow him as man like the Israelites did Moses? 2 times in Acts, Jesus is recorded as being a prophet like Moses. Lk in his story of the road to Emaus, Speaking to Jesus, not knowing who they were talking to, as if he were a stranger said, He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. More evidence that Jesus was seen as a man with no teaching before or after that he was God.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

What was taught to the first converts when the church first began in Acts 2:22? What was Peter's message that they accepted as truth? "Men of Israel, listen to this, Jesus of Nazerethwas a man accredited by God to you by miracles, signs and wonders which God did among you through him. 24, But God raised him from the dead. 33, Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father, the promised Holy Spirit... 36, Therefore, God has made this Jesus both Lord [master] and Christ. Look at all the other instances in Acts where Paul was preaching or giving his testimony and see if you can find any hint of the trinity. It ain't there folks. Acts 10:38, how God anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit and how he went around doing good and healing all those under the power of the devil, because God was with him.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

Trins will say that the bible teaches that Jesus is God. That claim is false. The bible teaches that he is God's annointed man, promised from the beginning.The Christ, Son of God. Way to many verses to even begin to point these out. How could these ideas have been derived from scripture? Why, if what was being denied, as trins say, that Jesus is God would this not be the central theme, all throughout scripture? Instead we find clear teaching about other things. Such as freedom from the law. Yet we have no record of conflict over a new teaching that the Jew's extreme monotheistic view of God has now been changed to be triune. This demands explanation. Trins would have us believe that they just accepted this without any record of conflict. We do have record of confict over the Jews thinking the the Christians should remain under the law. Were the law conflicts more important?? These trin ideas are so complex and in need of explanation that it has taken all kinds of creeds and unbiblical concepts to explain it today and they still can't all get on the same page. Such a questionable concept. Yet in none of the letters do we see any explanation. They had either known it completly without any need of question or it simply did not exist.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

Most of the Nt writings were penned decades later giving the writer ample time to observe the situation. If it was that people were denying that Jesus was God, the writer would have been motivated to address and clarify who Jesus was. But no, we have nothing.If I were to read a biography about Miley Cirus 50 years after she was deceased and it failedto mention clearly that she was Hannah Montana but instead was though to have possibly had hints throughout, would that not be strange. So sorry but it ain't there.


----------



## dawg2 (Feb 14, 2011)

Wow....long night.  Not much to this though.

..."Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied." Jesus replied, "Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and yet you still don't know who I am? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father! So why are you asking me to show him to you?"


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

I will stop for now at this point. Confident that I have laid a proper contextual foundation. Rather than address all the comments in a umbrella like format, I will address all the "what about verses" as they come in. I would like to address one last thing before I give the floor to you guys. "Ambigious". Webster adj having more than one possible meaning.I have stated that all trins have are ambigious verses. Clear consise contextual verses will be ignored and questionable ambigious verses will be used as proof. Unitarians read the simple message found in scripture that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Trins take these same clear scriptures and play word search games, circlying what they are looking for and seeing nothing else. They grasp hold tightly and never let go, not being able to let go of any verses as ambigiuos because to let go of any would mean that they are not left with much. I will take a break now and then resume to respond as I have time.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

dawg2 said:


> Wow....long night.  Not much to this though.
> 
> ..."Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied." Jesus replied, "Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and yet you still don't know who I am? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father! So why are you asking me to show him to you?"


 Good morning dawg, yes it was a long night. I wanted to be able to make the bulk of my claims without being interupted.  I will respond to your point a little later.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

Hello again dawg2, What does it mean when Jesus says, If you have seen me you have seen the FAther. Where Adam failed to represent God's image, Jesus did so that God was pleased with him and stated so. "This is my Son with whom I am well pleased." Jesus represented God. God is Spirit. We are to represent Christ. We fail in doing so but our goal would be to say, since we are spiritually the body of Christ, would be to say, If you have seen me you have seen my Lord Jesus. Not at all implying that we are actually Jesus himself. What Adam failed to do, Jesus as the second Adam did so in representing God's image.


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 14, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> ... the scriptures nrver implied that the Christ would be anything other than a man.



First of all, that's just not true.  Look at John 1, for example.  Not only does the passage explicitly say that Jesus is God, but it also says that “… there was a man sent from God …” (emphasis mine), and his name was John, not Jesus.

In Matthew 28:19, Jesus tells the disciples to baptize “… in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit …”  Here, Jesus puts Himself on the same level as the Father and the Holy Spirit.

In Isaiah 7 and Matthew 1, He is called Immanuel (God with us.)

In John 20:28, Thomas refers to Jesus as "My Lord and my God".  Jesus accepted this and did condemn Thomas for blaspheming, as any man would.  Compare Jesus reaction here to that of Peter in Acts 10:

_The next day Peter started out with them, and some of the believers from Joppa went along. The following day he arrived in Caesarea. Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his relatives and close friends. As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. But Peter made him get up. “Stand up,” he said, “I am only a man myself.” _

Second, if Jesus was only a man, he could not have reconciled humanity to God.  No mortal man can reconcile the human with the Divine.  If mortal man could do that, why not use Moses, Elijah, John the Baptist or a host of others?  Only One who was both fully human and fully Divine could do this.


----------



## VisionCasting (Feb 14, 2011)

Phil2:5,6 - "In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:  Who, being in very nature God..."

Your posts above _try_ to make a point.  I commend you for that, and for your desire to truly understrand what you believe and why.  That is the beginning of true knowledge.  But your posts are replete with pseudo-fact (guesses masquerading at fact) and assumptions.

It would seem your claim to cause 50% of Christians a crisis of faith was at best exaggerated, or at worst born our of poor ambition.  Read of Phil 2:1-11.


----------



## formula1 (Feb 14, 2011)

*Re:*

Matthew 7
15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.


----------



## gtparts (Feb 14, 2011)

I was open to this posting, but not expecting much. I was not disappointed. Much of what 1gr8bldr has is true... to a point. However, it stops far short of the whole truth. I am not convinced by a partial truth and find no cause to find my faith misplaced or in crisis. My concern is for those who may think Jesus is less than divine, but a little  is sometimes needed to keep what's on the bottom from scorching. It is good to be reminded of why I believe what I believe. 

Thanks, cf, vc, and f1, for settling the "silt" with your response. Saved me a few keystrokes. Nice job, gentlemen!


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> First of all, that's just not true.  Look at John 1, for example.  Not only does the passage explicitly say that Jesus is God, but it also says that “… there was a man sent from God …” (emphasis mine), and his name was John, not Jesus.
> 
> In Matthew 28:19, Jesus tells the disciples to baptize “… in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit …”  Here, Jesus puts Himself on the same level as the Father and the Holy Spirit.
> 
> ...


Hello centerpin fan, Thank you for your response. Your first point. Jn 1:1, Does not actually say that Jesus is God. The word being God and verse 14 saying the word became flesh is misunderstood. Look at it this way. God spoke his plan into existence with his word just as he spoke into existence the stars with his word. This word came to fullfilment when Jesus asthe promised messiah was born. Also, John was refering in his introduction to Philo who wrote before him in John 1:1. John could not reinvent the original concept from which he is refering. Philo had no implication of what trins see today. I can be more specific if anyone is interested. Google, did John copy Philo.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

Hello centerpin fan, Matt 28:19, Google it. Some early manuscripts do not have this. Why not. Even Euisbus in his writings speaks about this controversy. What could be the explanation? It was added later by corrupt priests. Read all about it. Interesting stuff.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

Hello centerpin fan, John 20:28. This is a seemingly conclusive verse. But John clarifies in the next verse that he is the Son of God. Notice that John did not record Thomas bowing down in worship which should have been his response if he had just realized that Jesus is God. This is not proof on my part but considered an argument from silence. I will say that this verse, I don't consider ambigious, just misunderstood. Here's how I see it. Jesus had been preaching the kingdom of God, God with man, and had said over and over that it is the father living in me [doing his work] Thomas upon seeing him resurected from the dead had finially believed that God was in Christ [reconciling the world...]. Therefore he said "my Lord refering to Jesus and My God refering to God living in him. This is the unitarian view


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 14, 2011)

1gr8bldr, do you believe that God _is_ love?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

The idea that God had to put on a mansuit and become man to save humanity is not supported anywhere. It can not be proven. This is an assumed idea by trins. He if he were God, he would be incapable of sin therefore his being without sin would not be impressive. A man capable of sin found to be without sin is the only sacrifice. This point will not be able to be proven. Never seen it even by professional debators. Thanks for being polite in your response


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 14, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hello centerpin fan, Thank you for your response. Your first point. Jn 1:1, Does not actually say that Jesus is God. The word being God and verse 14 saying the word became flesh is misunderstood. Look at it this way. God spoke his plan into existence with his word just as he spoke into existence the stars with his word. This word came to fullfilment when Jesus asthe promised messiah was born.



The passage is clearly not talking about "God's words".  It plainly says "the Word was with God and the Word was God".  God's words (the ones spoken to Moses and the prophets) are not God.  Further, the passage refers to the Word as "He" and "Him" repeatedly throughout the chapter.  Further still, most modern versions refer to Him as "the only begotten God" (v. 18)


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> Phil2:5,6 - "In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:  Who, being in very nature God..."
> 
> Your posts above _try_ to make a point.  I commend you for that, and for your desire to truly understrand what you believe and why.  That is the beginning of true knowledge.  But your posts are replete with pseudo-fact (guesses masquerading at fact) and assumptions.
> 
> It would seem your claim to cause 50% of Christians a crisis of faith was at best exaggerated, or at worst born our of poor ambition.  Read of Phil 2:1-11.



Hello visioncasting, thanks for your response. Rather than have to come back here again, I will respond to this as a whole. You are correct in stating the main point here, "attitude" . "Who being in very nature God" , this is the same devine nature that 2Peter speaks of in 1:4."participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption of the world." This is for us also, yet we are not God. To have his nature because his Spirit lives in us does not make us God.-- "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped" We have Eve's sin not just as a included story but foundational to which all remaining scriptures build upon.What did Eve do. She coveted God's glory. She wanted to be "like God". Able to create stars or control the weather, I say no. She wanted all the glory attributed to him. Jesus, opposite of this did not use his status to try and gain all this world and this life has to offer but rather than trying to grasp hold of God's glory for himself as Eve did, he humbled himself. "Taking the very nature of a servant"--So if "Nature of God equals God" then very nature of a servant means that he is a servant and not God. You can demonstrate a servant like attitude but it does not make Jesus a servant instead of "king of Kings". "being found in human likeness , fashioned as a man", see Heb 2:17, Forthis reason he [promised messiah] had to be made like his brothers in every way.... in order that he be in service to God" Also see 4:15, tempted in every way. As our only servant king, others made the people serve them instead of what God had called them to to be a servant of the people. Jesus was so much of a servant king that he went to the cross for my ultimate need. "therefore God exalted him" age old biblical concept that whoever humbles himself will be exalted. God exalted him to his right hand and gave him  a name above all others. Son, Also see Act 4:12 Jesus Christ, Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved. So at the name of Jesus every knee will bow and confess that Jesus is Lord [not God, but Master] to the Glory of God the Father.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 14, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> The idea that God* had to *put on a mansuit and become man to save humanity is not supported anywhere. It can not be proven. This is an assumed idea by trins. He if he were God, he would be incapable of sin therefore his being without sin would not be impressive. A man capable of sin found to be without sin is the only sacrifice. This point will not be able to be proven. Never seen it even by professional debators. Thanks for being polite in your response



First and foremost, God didnt _have _to do anything. Jesus was 100% God and 100% man.


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 14, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hello centerpin fan, Matt 28:19, Google it. Some early manuscripts do not have this. Why not. Even Euisbus in his writings speaks about this controversy. What could be the explanation? It was added later by corrupt priests. Read all about it. Interesting stuff.



There are over 5,000 manuscript copies, and only "some" omit this?  How many is "some"?  I don't know of any major translation that omits this.

And you can't just say "it was added later by corrupt priests".  Where's the proof?  Let's have some details.  Who, when, where, and why?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

formula1 said:


> Matthew 7
> 15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.


Hello formula, I'm sorry you feel this way but I do understand. I was here once. It took years. Most will only now began to rethink what I am saying as they read their bibles in the future. I actually don't agree with Paul usuage of wolves. We all here want to please God. The best we could be is sadly mistaken. This would probably fit better to those who originally killed in Jesus name. Many were killed through torture trying to fight for orthodox Christianity. Those who killed in Jesus name are surely wolves, Bullying there views into mainstream.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

gtparts said:


> I was open to this posting, but not expecting much. I was not disappointed. Much of what 1gr8bldr has is true... to a point. However, it stops far short of the whole truth. I am not convinced by a partial truth and find no cause to find my faith misplaced or in crisis. My concern is for those who may think Jesus is less than divine, but a little  is sometimes needed to keep what's on the bottom from scorching. It is good to be reminded of why I believe what I believe.
> 
> Thanks, cf, vc, and f1, for settling the "silt" with your response. Saved me a few keystrokes. Nice job, gentlemen!



Hello Gparts, Most think this line of reasoning deminishes Jesus. I say not so. Second only to God Almighty is my Lord. He was given all authority and will one day hand the Kingdom back to his Father. See 1Cor 15:27+28. Please look for yourself, I am very tired of typing and as much as I like to prove my point, I am becoming weary. Thanks for your time and an honest opinion


----------



## VisionCasting (Feb 14, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> The passage is clearly not talking about "God's words".  It plainly says "the Word was with God and the Word was God".  God's words (the ones spoken to Moses and the prophets) are not God.  Further, the passage refers to the Word as "He" and "Him" repeatedly throughout the chapter.  Further still, most modern versions refer to Him as "the only begotten God" (v. 18)



Ding-ding-ding!  We have a winner!


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 14, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hello centerpin fan, John 20:28. This is a seemingly conclusive verse. But John clarifies in the next verse that he is the Son of God.



The Son of God is Divine.  He is the second person of the Godhead.  There is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.  You seem to be saying that just by putting two words (Son of) in front of "God", that completely negates Divinity.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> First and foremost, God didnt _have _to do anything. Jesus was 100% God and 100% man.


 No such thing stringmusic, If man is any part God then he is no longer like you and I. Man has a deffinition. We cannot reinvent age old concepts. Words mean things and can't be changed


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 14, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Never seen it even by professional debators.



That's because you weren't at Nicea, and you didn't watch St. Athanasius in action against the Arians.

More on this later since this is an important point.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> There are over 5,000 manuscript copies, and only "some" omit this?  How many is "some"?  I don't know of any major translation that omits this.
> 
> And you can't just say "it was added later by corrupt priests".  Where's the proof?  Let's have some details.  Who, when, where, and why?


Hello centerpin fan, I'm glad you do not accept what I said. I like to see people who don't get their doctrine out of a can. I was hopeing that you would google Matt 28:19 but allow me time and I will go back through and pull out the details.


----------



## formula1 (Feb 14, 2011)

*Re:*



1gr8bldr said:


> Hello formula, I'm sorry you feel this way but I do understand. I was here once. It took years. Most will only now began to rethink what I am saying as they read their bibles in the future. I actually don't agree with Paul usuage of wolves. We all here want to please God. The best we could be is sadly mistaken. This would probably fit better to those who originally killed in Jesus name. Many were killed through torture trying to fight for orthodox Christianity. Those who killed in Jesus name are surely wolves, Bullying there views into mainstream.



Please understand, I am calling your words as false, but even as I say that, I am praying for you.  The passage I quoted are the words of Jesus, not Paul.  The evidence is you don't agree with many scriptures.  I could have called you out in my own words, but instead I used the Words of Jesus as recorded in Matthew and they are appropriate to many of your assertions. But I will pray for your enlightenment from dead works and interpretation void of the Spirit of God.  God bless!

I will say no more on the matter.  Most of my brothers on here understand the warning!


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> That's because you weren't at Nicea, and you didn't watch St. Athanasius in action against the Arians.
> 
> More on this later since this is an important point.



Our "high priest unto God'' had to be like us in every way. God could not sin but Jesus could and did not. If your part God then you are no part man.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 14, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> No such thing stringmusic, If man is any part God then he is no longer like you and I. Man has a deffinition. We cannot reinvent age old concepts. Words mean things and can't be changed



post #40?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> The passage is clearly not talking about "God's words".  It plainly says "the Word was with God and the Word was God".  God's words (the ones spoken to Moses and the prophets) are not God.  Further, the passage refers to the Word as "He" and "Him" repeatedly throughout the chapter.  Further still, most modern versions refer to Him as "the only begotten God" (v. 18)


 I will have to take the time to pull out the information about "John copied Philo". It is very interesting how John wrote almost word for word what Philo had written before John. It stirs up great controversy because some say John was being deceitful in his writings such as his writings so closely resemble the prior writings of 1 Enoch. But I say he was simply referencing Philo's thought which has no indication of what it has become today. Again google it. I will when I have time address this again.  Google *"History of the Christian Church"* This is by renown hard core trinitarian Philip Schaff. Look under chp 1 of first volume  under subtitle of "Judism and Heathenism in contact, that paragraph containing reference #91. Speaking of Philo, From the OT, books of proverbs and of wisdom, he deduced a doctrine of the Logos so strikenly like that of John's gospel that many expositers think it necessary to impute to the apostle an aquaintance with the writings or at least with the terminology of Philo. But Philo's speculation is to the apostles "word made flesh" as a shadow to the body or a dream to the reality. He leaves no room for an incarnation, but the coincidence of his speculation with the great fact is very remarkable." end quote. My point is that since Philo wrote his just before John, Philo being very popular that John was only referencing the thought that Philo "coined".


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> The Son of God is Divine.  He is the second person of the Godhead.  There is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.  You seem to be saying that just by putting two words (Son of) in front of "God", that completely negates Divinity.


 I have already made this case in my lenghty beginning. Where is the explanation that should have been evident if God were triune. The Holy Spirit as a person equal did not surface untill later in some of the so-called early church fathers letters


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

formula1 said:


> Please understand, I am calling your words as false, but even as I say that, I am praying for you.  The passage I quoted are the words of Jesus, not Paul.  The evidence is you don't agree with many scriptures.  I could have called you out in my own words, but instead I used the Words of Jesus as recorded in Matthew and they are appropriate to many of your assertions. But I will pray for your enlightenment from dead works and interpretation void of the Spirit of God.  God bless!
> 
> I will say no more on the matter.  Most of my brothers on here understand the warning!


 Fair enough


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> post #40?


 God is Spirit. He as spoken of in 1Enoch is Lord of the Spirits. I suspect that I have not answered your question. I quess I could say that God is love yet not just love.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 14, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> God is Spirit. He as spoken of in 1Enoch is Lord of the Spirits. I suspect that I have not answered your question. *I quess I could say that God is love* yet not just love.


God, by very definition is love, without God, love only has a definition of what one gives it. Or simply put, love does not exist if God doesnt exist.
If God is love, whom was His love directed towards before He created anything?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> God, by very definition is love, without God, love only has a definition of what one gives it. Or simply put, love does not exist if God doesnt exist.
> If God is love, whom was His love directed towards before He created anything?


 Hi stringmusic,  You got me on this, this doesn't qualify as ambigious. I'm not sure what I would call it but I would not call it proof either


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 14, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hi stringmusic,  You got me on this, this doesn't qualify as ambigious.* I'm not sure what I would call it *but I would not call it proof either



The Trinity 
Just messin' with ya.

Here is some reading if you/everybody want to have a look. I havent read all of it myself, so it may contain some things we all have discussed already. It was linked to me by my Brother in law.

http://www.rzim.org/justthinkingfv/tabid/602/articleid/38/cbmoduleid/1694/default.aspx


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

Someone, pointed out "Immanuel". I don't wish to overlook anything. What does God with us mean. When Jesus was born, trins think this means that now God is with us. Where does our context get it's foundation. Firstly know that nothing is the NT that is not pictured in the OT. The Israelites physical journey is likened to our spiritual journey. Remember how they grumbled about things as they traveled. Ex 17:7 "Is the Lord among us or not?" Now what they really were saying is God with you Moses or not? Moses was not God, this we know. So what is mans ultimate desire as a believer in Almighty God? That he be with us. Look at Acts 10:38, how God anointed Jesus of Nazereth with the Holy Spirit and power and how he went around doing good and healing all those under the power of the devil, because *God was with him* So is the "promise" to mankind in the new covenant that God will come as man or come in man? Jesus said over and over that it was his Father living in him [doing this work] This Spirit of God coming to live firstly in Jesus as the first born of many brothers. Was Jesus the temple that God came to dwell in or was he God? The bible says that he is the temple as we are temples.So when Jesus was born, because he is our sacrifice which reconciles us to God, translation should say "his name shall be called Immanuel". Also se EX 33:14+15


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> The Trinity
> Just messin' with ya.
> 
> Here is some reading if you/everybody want to have a look. I havent read all of it myself, so it may contain some things we all have discussed already. It was linked to me by my Brother in law.
> ...


Hello again, I read your link, a good summary of what the majority believe. Why do we not have anything like this as explanation in scripture.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 14, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hello again, I read your link, a good summary of what the majority believe. Why do we not have anything like this as explanation in scripture.



I guess the same reason that there is no explanation like that supporting a claim that Jesus is not God.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 14, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hi stringmusic,  You got me on this, this doesn't qualify as ambigious. I'm not sure what I would call it but I would not call it proof either


I would like to finish my scenario, just in case others would like to read it.


stringmusic said:


> God, by very definition is love, without God, love only has a definition of what one gives it. Or simply put, love does not exist if God doesnt exist.
> If God is love, whom was His love directed towards before He created anything?



If God was by Himself before He created anything, He would have nothing to love. So, in this case, He would have _HAD_ to create something to love, which we should all know the He didnt _HAVE_ to do. This may be slightly condensed, I about to get off work


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I would like to finish my scenario, just in case others would like to read it.
> 
> 
> If God was by Himself before He created anything, He would have nothing to love. So, in this case, He would have _HAD_ to create something to love, which we should all know the He didnt _HAVE_ to do. This may be slightly condensed, I about to get off


You lost me, trying to see your point as proof


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I guess the same reason that there is no explanation like that supporting a claim that Jesus is not God.


 I guess I might concede that no argument exist that Jesus is not God, yet in the back of my mind I keep going back to so much of 1st and 2nd John declaring Jesus as man. The bulk of my post, concerning context  ask why not state who Jesus is clearly. I appreciate that we are able to discuss this without disrespect. Thanks


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

There are good many more "typical" arguments that trins bring up. I may not be able to address them with the typical unitarian response until later tonight. It just crossed my mind that I should probably spend my evening showing my wife that she is more important.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> I will have to take the time to pull out the information about "John copied Philo". It is very interesting how John wrote almost word for word what Philo had written before John. It stirs up great controversy because some say John was being deceitful in his writings such as his writings so closely resemble the prior writings of 1 Enoch. But I say he was simply referencing Philo's thought which has no indication of what it has become today. Again google it. I will when I have time address this again.  Google *"History of the Christian Church"* This is by renown hard core trinitarian Philip Schaff. Look under chp 1 of first volume  under subtitle of "Judism and Heathenism in contact, that paragraph containing reference #91. Speaking of Philo, From the OT, books of proverbs and of wisdom, he deduced a doctrine of the Logos so strikenly like that of John's gospel that many expositers think it necessary to impute to the apostle an aquaintance with the writings or at least with the terminology of Philo. But Philo's speculation is to the apostles "word made flesh" as a shadow to the body or a dream to the reality. He leaves no room for an incarnation, but the coincidence of his speculation with the great fact is very remarkable." end quote. My point is that since Philo wrote his just before John, Philo being very popular that John was only referencing the thought that Philo "coined".


 I have edited this, added to it


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hello centerpin fan, I'm glad you do not accept what I said. I like to see people who don't get their doctrine out of a can. I was hopeing that you would google Matt 28:19 but allow me time and I will go back through and pull out the details.


 Begin quote-
Eusebius cites this text (Matt. 28:19) again and again in works written between 300 and 336, namely in his long commentaries on the Psalms, on Isaiah, his Demonstratio Evangelica, his Theophany. .. in his famous history of the Church, and in his panegyric of the emperor Constantine. I have, after a moderate search in these works of Eusebius, found eighteen citations of Matthew 28:19, and always in the following form:'Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in My name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you. end quote ' --Where this came from and more info to come. I am learning how to cut and paste.


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 14, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Eusebius cites this text (Matt. 28:19) again and again in works written between 300 and 336, namely in his long commentaries on the Psalms, on Isaiah, his Demonstratio Evangelica, his Theophany. .. in his famous history of the Church, and in his panegyric of the emperor Constantine. I have, after a moderate search in these works of Eusebius, found eighteen citations of Matthew 28:19, and always in the following form:'Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in My name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you. ' --Where this came from and more info to come. I am learning how to cut and paste.



Eusebius had Arian tendencies, so that's not surprising.  Arianism was very popular, and there were "outbreaks" of it long after Nicea.  The Filioque, an addition to the Nicene creed, was made in response to an Arian outbreak in Spain in the 5th or 6th century.

More later when I get back to a computer.  Stuck on my iPhone now.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hello centerpin fan, I'm glad you do not accept what I said. I like to see people who don't get their doctrine out of a can. I was hopeing that you would google Matt 28:19 but allow me time and I will go back through and pull out the details.


http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetic...ll over but here are a couple places to look.


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 14, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetic...kirt up.  I wouldn't trust anything they say.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Those two sites aren't exactly blowin' my skirt up.  I wouldn't trust anything they say.


 Quote; Please note that in verse 19 there is no trinitarian formula.
This is ABSOLUTE proof the trinity was fraudulently added to this text

Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew Gospel
Matthew 28:9-20


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 15, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> Phil2:5,6 - "In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:  Who, being in very nature God..."
> Your posts above _try_ to make a point.  I commend you for that, and for your desire to truly understrand what you believe and why.  That is the beginning of true knowledge.  But your posts are replete with pseudo-fact (guesses masquerading at fact) and assumptions.
> 
> It would seem your claim to cause 50% of Christians a crisis of faith was at best exaggerated, or at worst born our of poor ambition.  Read of Phil 2:1-11.



Great verse.
The Prophets and the Gospel make it very very clear that Jesus wasn't just a man chosen by God.  Jesus came from God.  Jesus brought the very nature of God to the earth because Jesus is the very nature of God, in all regards.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 15, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> Great verse.
> The Prophets and the Gospel make it very very clear that Jesus wasn't just a man chosen by God.  Jesus came from God.  Jesus brought the very nature of God to the earth because Jesus is the very nature of God, in all regards.


Hey Ronnie, As a unitarian, I say he had the nature of God because he had the Spirit of God. When the dove came down on Jesus at his baptismal, Was it just for show or a real experience?


----------



## gtparts (Feb 15, 2011)

We've been down this path before about "triune God" and the scripture supporting one God, manifesting Himself in three distinct forms, hasn't changed. 

It must also be noted that the ability of the human mind fails to fully comprehend how this can be. The illustration of an egg fails to give a perfect parallel. An egg can be separated into shell, yolk, and white, each having distinctly different composition and properties. Because God, the Father, God, the Son, and God, the Holy Spirit are in perfect harmony, they only differ in function, but not in character and purpose. I even hesitate to say "they" because it makes it appear that there is spiritual  differentiation, when God embodies each fully and completely. 

Wrapping our heads around some things that are spiritual can be difficult, even when we know them to be true..... revealed, but not explained.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Feb 15, 2011)

John 8:58 is a clear claim to deity. They were not preparing to stone him because he was following someone who claimed to be God (Peter, Stephen, James, ect) or because he committed adultery (woman caught). They were going to stone him because referring to himself as "I am" was unambiguous.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Feb 15, 2011)

*Summary of Bruce Ware's Argument*

1. The name God is sometimes used for Jesus. John 1:1 (14), John 20:28, Romans 9:5, Philippians 2:6, Colossians 1:15, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:8, 2 Peter 1:1, 1 John 5:20

2. Jesus does the works that only God can do. Ex. Creation (John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16) and Forgive sin (Mark 2:1-12).

3. There are certain things true of Jesus' own life that are only true of God. Ex. He never changes (Hebrews 13:8 and 1:10-12) and he is eternal (Hebrews 1:10-12, Isaiah 9:6, Micah 5:2, and Revelation 1:8)

4. Jesus is worshipped as God while the Bible is clear that only God is to be worshipped (Exodus 20:1-5, 34:14, Deuteronomy 6:13) and the people of God have known this (Acts 10:25-26, 14:11-15, Revelation 19:8-10, 22:8-9).  Ex. Hebrews 1:6, John 20:28, and Revelation 5:8-14.

5. Jesus declared that he was God. Ex. John 8:58 (context is a Jewish audience that was very well aware of Exodus 3:14)

Jesus was God whether or not the word "trinity" appears in the text or not.  The text doesn't say "penal substitutionary atonement" either, but that is also an essential biblical doctrine.


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 15, 2011)

gtparts said:


> We've been down this path before about "triune God" and the scripture supporting one God, manifesting Himself in three distinct forms, hasn't changed.
> 
> It must also be noted that the ability of the human mind fails to fully comprehend how this can be. The illustration of an egg fails to give a perfect parallel. An egg can be separated into shell, yolk, and white, each having distinctly different composition and properties. Because God, the Father, God, the Son, and God, the Holy Spirit are in perfect harmony, they only differ in function, but not in character and purpose. I even hesitate to say "they" because it makes it appear that there is spiritual  differentiation, when God embodies each fully and completely.
> 
> Wrapping our heads around some things that are spiritual can be difficult, even when we know them to be true..... revealed, but not explained.



True.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Feb 15, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> True.




Yep...analogies always fall short, but because the Trinity is unique, it is particularly difficult to describe the Trinity.

On analogy that I appreciate is related to music.  Let's say we have 3 Tenors that have identical ranges and abilities.  They sing a trio and sing different parts to enhance the music.  It is not that one is superior to another, just that they have different roles in the song and the song is better because of it.


----------



## VisionCasting (Feb 15, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> If your part God then you are no part man.



That is limited thinking based on limited human capacity that is encumbered by mutual exclusivity.  Once you understand kenosis you won't make this statement any longer.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 15, 2011)

gtparts said:


> We've been down this path before about "triune God" and the scripture supporting one God, manifesting Himself in three distinct forms, hasn't changed.
> 
> It must also be noted that the ability of the human mind fails to fully comprehend how this can be. The illustration of an egg fails to give a perfect parallel. An egg can be separated into shell, yolk, and white, each having distinctly different composition and properties. Because God, the Father, God, the Son, and God, the Holy Spirit are in perfect harmony, they only differ in function, but not in character and purpose. I even hesitate to say "they" because it makes it appear that there is spiritual  differentiation, when God embodies each fully and completely.
> 
> Wrapping our heads around some things that are spiritual can be difficult, even when we know them to be true..... revealed, but not explained.


 I believe the creeds will 3 distinct persons, co equal. Trying to prove the Holy Spirit as a person because "he" is applied instead of it becomes a circus. What about a child like faith? You can't have faith in a mystery


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 15, 2011)

johnnylightnin said:


> John 8:58 is a clear claim to deity. They were not preparing to stone him because he was following someone who claimed to be God (Peter, Stephen, James, ect) or because he committed adultery (woman caught). They were going to stone him because referring to himself as "I am" was unambiguous.


 I already made the case that they were trying to kill him and did not need to claim to be God in order to get stoned.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 15, 2011)

johnnylightnin said:


> 1. The name God is sometimes used for Jesus. John 1:1 (14), John 20:28, Romans 9:5, Philippians 2:6, Colossians 1:15, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:8, 2 Peter 1:1, 1 John 5:20
> 
> 2. Jesus does the works that only God can do. Ex. Creation (John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16) and Forgive sin (Mark 2:1-12).
> 
> ...


 #1 John 1:1 /14 ambigious. JN20:28, I'll give you this one on the bases that it hinges on my opinion against yours. Rom 9:5, even my trin biased NIV says in it's foot notes that it could go my way, "or Christ, who is over all, God be forever praised." so again ambigious by proof. Phip 2:6 only says that he had the nature of God. He also had the nature of a servant. Should we not have the nature of Jesus if he "in you". Ambigious.  Col 1:15, he is the image of the invisible God. Was Adam not also meant to be that image but he failed to represent God. Adam also had a son, Gen 5:3 "in his own likeness, in his own image" but was a son. Ambiguious.  Titus 2:13 , notice that the point is "glory". The greek says  "appearance of the glory" . After winning an out of town national championship, fans anticipating the return, waiting on the bus to arrive, could say "our great coach and mvp Michael Jordan. A look at the word "agency" to those interested clarifys context.  Heb 1:8, A reference to the OT, God is not calling God, God. But about the Son he says, Begin OT quote, Your throne, O God, [God Almighty, Jesus's God] will last forever and ever... 9You have loved right...therefore God [Almighty] your God [Jesus's God] has set you above your companions. The point of Heb 1 is "superior". Would this not be a given if he was taught as God? Why the need to establish that he is greater than angels? 2 Peter 1:1, so Ambigious, Are not both Jesus and God righteous. Should we isolate this misunderstanding and deny the bulk of Peter's message. ! Peter 1:3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Jn 5:20, Now considered "spourious" google it. I have much to say here but no time at the moment.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Feb 15, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> I already made the case that they were trying to kill him and did not need to claim to be God in order to get stoned.



That doesn't change the fact that the claim was made.  We've got the claim recorded.  Their reaction to it is really of no consequence.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 15, 2011)

johnnylightnin said:


> 1. The name God is sometimes used for Jesus. John 1:1 (14), John 20:28, Romans 9:5, Philippians 2:6, Colossians 1:15, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:8, 2 Peter 1:1, 1 John 5:20
> 
> 2. Jesus does the works that only God can do. Ex. Creation (John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16) and Forgive sin (Mark 2:1-12).
> 
> ...


 #2  Jn 1:3, why does it say through. Col 1:16, the first "by" is "in" and the second "by" is "through".[ clearly,based on the greek] We don't even know the full extent of damage that biased translating has done. Mark 2, I won't attempt to debate opinion as to how much authority he had been given. No proof for either side.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Feb 15, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> #1 John 1:1 /14 ambigious. JN20:28, I'll give you this one on the bases that it hinges on my opinion against yours. Rom 9:5, even my trin biased NIV says in it's foot notes that it could go my way, "or Christ, who is over all, God be forever praised." so again ambigious by proof. Phip 2:6 only says that he had the nature of God. He also had the nature of a servant. Should we not have the nature of Jesus if he "in you". Ambigious.  Col 1:15, he is the image of the invisible God. Was Adam not also meant to be that image but he failed to represent God. Adam also had a son, Gen 5:3 "in his own likeness, in his own image" but was a son. Ambiguious.  Titus 2:13 , notice that the point is "glory". The greek says  "appearance of the glory" . After winning an out of town national championship, fans anticipating the return, waiting on the bus to arrive, could say "our great coach and mvp Michael Jordan. A look at the word "agency" to those interested clarifys context.  Heb 1:8, A reference to the OT, God is not calling God, God. But about the Son he says, Begin OT quote, Your throne, O God, [God Almighty, Jesus's God] will last forever and ever... 9You have loved right...therefore God [Almighty] your God [Jesus's God] has set you above your companions. The point of Heb 1 is "superior". Would this not be a given if he was taught as God? Why the need to establish that he is greater than angels? 2 Peter 1:1, so Ambigious, Are not both Jesus and God righteous. Should we isolate this misunderstanding and deny the bulk of Peter's message. ! Peter 1:3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Jn 5:20, Now considered "spourious" google it. I have much to say here but no time at the moment.



There's a lot here.  What you consider ambiguous is only ambiguous given your presupposition.  On the most clear reading, it's not ambiguous at all...see John 8:58.

As for the need to explain Jesus to the Hebrews, of course it was necessary.  They were being educated about the nature of who Christ was.  Just because he had been taught as God incarnate previously doesn't mean that he had been taught to every individual audience correctly.

Unsolicited commentary to follow:

If Jesus wasn't God, our sins are not atoned for and we're destined for Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ---- anyway.  The unitarian god is unjust at best and deceptive at worst.  Arguing that Jesus didn't claim to be God (something the Church has refuted and proven to be false time and time again) doesn't change that.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 15, 2011)

1 John 5:7, This is a perfect example of a "translation" becoming a "paraphrase". It is evident that they translators here "imparted" their own prior assumptions. Too bad they knew very little about that which they were translating. Jesus was "a prophet likened to Moses". Pharaoh wanted to kill Moses just as Herod wanted to kill Jesus. All boys were killed. Jesus said over and over in John, "I am sent". Moses was sent. Three day journey into the dessert to sacrifice resulted in "freedom"/ three days in tomb. Miracles were given as a sign that Moses was sent/ Why did people expect Jesus to do miracles? Ex 4:5, This is so that they may believe that the Lord, the God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has appeared to me./Jn 14:11 Jesus said "at least believe on the evidence of the miracles. So, here is my point after establishing some of the context from where this came. Vs 9 of Ex chp 4, "But if they do not believe these two signs or listen to you, take some water from the Nile and pour it on the dry ground. The water you take will from the river will become blood/ one of the soldiers pierced Jesus side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of water and blood. Here is the correct rendering taken from the Niv. "Only he that believes that Jesus is the Son of God. This is the one who came by water and blood- Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is truth.For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and these three are in agreement". The greek clearly does not support the KJ here. Lots of similar instances have been lost in translations,[references back to the OT]


----------



## johnnylightnin (Feb 15, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> #2  Jn 1:3, why does it say through.
> Col 1:16, the first "by" is "in" and the second "by" is "through".



It says through because Christ is the agent of creation.

I'm not certain what you're saying about Col 1:16.  What do you mean clear in the Greek?  I've got it here in front of me, so let me know and I'll check it out.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Feb 15, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> 1 John 5:7, This is a perfect example of a "translation" becoming a "paraphrase". It is evident that they translators here "imparted" their own prior assumptions. Too bad they knew very little about that which they were translating. Jesus was "a prophet likened to Moses". Pharaoh wanted to kill Moses just as Herod wanted to kill Jesus. All boys were killed. Jesus said over and over in John, "I am sent". Moses was sent. Three day journey into the dessert to sacrifice resulted in "freedom"/ three days in tomb. Miracles were given as a sign that Moses was sent/ Why did people expect Jesus to do miracles? Ex 4:5, This is so that they may believe that the Lord, the God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has appeared to me./Jn 14:11 Jesus said "at least believe on the evidence of the miracles. So, here is my point after establishing some of the context from where this came. Vs 9 of Ex chp 4, "But if they do not believe these two signs or listen to you, take some water from the Nile and pour it on the dry ground. The water you take will from the river will become blood/ one of the soldiers pierced Jesus side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of water and blood. Here is the correct rendering taken from the Niv. "Only he that believes that Jesus is the Son of God. This is the one who came by water and blood- Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is truth.For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and these three are in agreement". The greek clearly does not support the KJ here. Lots of similar instances have been lost in translations,[references back to the OT]



Sounds like your word (presuppositions) against theirs to me.  I don't read the KJV, so I'm not concerned with what it says.  Do you read the Greek or are you getting that from somewhere else...if somewhere else, I'd like to take a gander at it.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 15, 2011)

johnnylightnin said:


> There's a lot here.  What you consider ambiguous is only ambiguous given your presupposition.  On the most clear reading, it's not ambiguous at all...see John 8:58.
> 
> As for the need to explain Jesus to the Hebrews, of course it was necessary.  They were being educated about the nature of who Christ was.  Just because he had been taught as God incarnate previously doesn't mean that he had been taught to every individual audience correctly.
> 
> ...


 We should ask our atheist friends if they will take the time to look at Heb !:8 and give us an unbiased opinion as to the clear reading. They being "neutral" have no traditional thinking to overcome.


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 15, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Quote; Please note that in verse 19 there is no trinitarian formula.
> This is ABSOLUTE proof the trinity was fraudulently added to this text
> 
> Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew Gospel
> Matthew 28:9-20



It doesn't prove anything.  It just shows that his text agrees with "some" of the 5,000 plus Greek manuscripts.

Also, I researched the Shem Tov version.  One source said this about it:

"... it is the most unusual text of Matthew extant in that it contains a plethora of readings not found in any other codices of Matthew ..."

Among other things, it never identifies Jesus as the Christ.  So then, do you believe Jesus is not the Christ?


----------



## johnnylightnin (Feb 15, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> We should ask our atheist friends if they will take the time to look at Heb !:8 and give us an unbiased opinion as to the clear reading. They being "neutral" have no traditional thinking to overcome.



It's a myth that there are those who are objective.  We all have presuppositions and "traditional" thinking to overcome.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 15, 2011)

johnnylightnin said:


> Sounds like your word (presuppositions) against theirs to me.  I don't read the KJV, so I'm not concerned with what it says.  Do you read the Greek or are you getting that from somewhere else...if somewhere else, I'd like to take a gander at it.


 I don't read greek but have learned what different words are. I compare  usuage. I mostly use a greek parallel to Niv but this is not my own argument, it has been around the forumns before me.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 15, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> It doesn't prove anything.  It just shows that his text agrees with "some" of the 5,000 plus Greek manuscripts.
> 
> Also, I researched the Shem Tov version.  One source said this about it:
> 
> ...


 I can accept that this information is weak but I have not located the bulk of the argument yet. As I find time, I will


----------



## gtparts (Feb 15, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> I believe the creeds will 3 distinct persons, co equal. Trying to prove the Holy Spirit as a person because "he" is applied instead of it becomes a circus. What about a child like faith? You can't have faith in a mystery



First, it might be helpful to know the creeds to which you are referring. 

Secondly, it might be helpful to understand that creeds are not Holy Scripture, at least, not to me. I can only assume the ones you alluded to are the declarations of men, derived from conclusions based on Scripture. 

Thirdly, the Holy Spirit, being spirit, is neither male nor female. Gender is not the issue here, at all. "He" is used to give sufficient emphasis to the nature of the Holy Spirit. Using "it" or "It" tends to place the Holy Spirit in some inferior position to the other two manifestations of God, the Father and Son. 

You ask, "What about a child-like faith?", to which I can only respond, "What about it?". Is there some point I missed???

As to "faith in a mystery", I have great confidence in many things I do not fully understand. I need not know everything there is about airplanes to be quite comfortable using that mode of transportation. Likewise, all that I know and have experienced about God is consistent with the concept of the Trinity, as I have expressed it. That does not mean I know and understand all there is to know of God and His character,..... only that it is enough to utterly convince me of God being worthy of my trust.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 15, 2011)

gtparts said:


> First, it might be helpful to know the creeds to which you are referring.
> 
> Secondly, it might be helpful to understand that creeds are not Holy Scripture, at least, not to me. I can only assume the ones you alluded to are the declarations of men, derived from conclusions based on Scripture.
> 
> ...


So you probably clasify as a biblical Christian instead of a creedal Christian. This is what some on another forumn call themselves although the others consider that it is in the scriptures. Most don't like the "persons" and replaced it with "being", It's a big debate that I usually stay clear of.
I myself would never refer to the Holy Spirit as an it either. But although their are a couple verses that are questionable, I will never agree that the Holy Spirit is a 3rd person of the Godhead, but is God himself in Spirit, the promise of Immanuel, God with us, firstly in Jesus. This 3rd person concept was the beginning of my walk away from the trinitarian faith.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 15, 2011)

I would like to say THANKS, so far we have had an interesting discussion where both sides have been given the liberty to express his views and cordial responses have been returned.


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 15, 2011)

Nice thread by all, this has got to be some kind of record for civil discussion in this forum! Keep it going!

By the way, the first time I debated this subject with a UU, it shook me pretty good. I investigated it heavily, and clung to my belief that Jesus is and claimed to be God.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 16, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> I can accept that this information is weak but I have not located the bulk of the argument yet. As I find time, I will


 Here is more opinions, The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics :
As to Matthew 28:19, it says: It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional (Trinitarian) view. If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism. The same Encyclopedia further states that: "The obvious explanation of the silence of the New Testament on the triune name, and the use of another (JESUS NAME) formula in Acts and Paul, is that this other formula was the earlier, and the triune formula is a later addition."

Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28 :
"The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form expanded by the [Catholic] church."

The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275: "It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but...a later liturgical addition."

Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christianity, page 295 :
"The testimony for the wide distribution of the simple baptismal formula [in the Name of Jesus] down into the second century is so overwhelming that even in Matthew 28:19, the Trinitarian formula was later inserted."

The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263 :
"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."

Hastings Dictionary of the Bible 1963, page 1015 :
"The Trinity.-...is not demonstrable by logic or by Scriptural proofs,...The term Trias was first used by Theophilus of Antioch (c AD 180),...(The term Trinity) not found in Scripture..." "The chief Trinitarian text in the NT is the baptismal formula in Mt 28:19...This late post-resurrection saying, not found in any other Gospel or anywhere else in the NT, has been viewed by some scholars as an interpolation into Matthew. It has also been pointed out that the idea of making disciples is continued in teaching them, so that the intervening reference to baptism with its Trinitarian formula was perhaps a later insertion into the saying. Finally, Eusebius's form of the (ancient) text ("in my name" rather than in the name of the Trinity) has had certain advocates. (Although the Trinitarian formula is now found in the modern-day book of Matthew), this does not guarantee its source in the historical teaching of Jesus. It is doubtless better to view the (Trinitarian) formula as derived from early (Catholic) Christian, perhaps Syrian or Palestinian, baptismal usage (cf Didache 7:1-4), and as a brief summary of the (Catholic) Church's teaching about God, Christ, and the Spirit:..."

The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge :
"Jesus, however, cannot have given His disciples this Trinitarian order of baptism after His resurrection; for the New Testament knows only one baptism in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:43; 19:5; Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 1:13-15), which still occurs even in the second and third centuries, while the Trinitarian formula occurs only in Matt. 28:19, and then only again (in the) Didache 7:1 and Justin, Apol. 1:61...Finally, the distinctly liturgical character of the formula...is strange; it was not the way of Jesus to make such formulas... the formal authenticity of Matt. 28:19 must be disputed..." page 435.

The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly Catholic work, states :
"It may be that this formula, (Triune Matthew 28:19) so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Man- made) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus,"..."

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 2637, Under "Baptism," says :
"Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula (is) foreign to the mouth of Jesus."

New Revised Standard Version says this about Matthew 28:19 :
"Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to Jesus and that it represents later (Catholic) church tradition, for nowhere in the book of Acts (or any other book of the Bible) is baptism performed with the name of the Trinity..."

James Moffett's New Testament Translation :
In a footnote on page 64 about Matthew 28:19 he makes this statement: "It may be that this (Trinitarian) formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Catholic) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community, It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus, cf. Acts 1:5 +."

Tom Harpur :
Tom Harpur, former Religion Editor of the Toronto Star in his "For Christ's sake," page 103 informs us of these facts: "All but the most conservative scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command [Triune part of Matthew 28:19] was inserted later. The [Trinitarian] formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and we know from the only evidence available [the rest of the New Testament] that the earliest Church did not baptize people using these words ("in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost") baptism was "into" or "in" the name of Jesus alone. Thus it is argued that the verse originally read "baptizing them in My Name" and then was expanded [changed] to work in the [later Catholic Trinitarian] dogma. In fact, the first view put forward by German critical scholars as well as the Unitarians in the nineteenth century, was stated as the accepted position of mainline scholarship as long ago as 1919, when Peake's commentary was first published: "The Church of the first days (AD 33) did not observe this world-wide (Trinitarian) commandment, even if they knew it. The command to baptize into the threefold [Trinity] name is a late doctrinal expansion."

The Bible Commentary 1919 page 723 :
Dr. Peake makes it clear that: "The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion. Instead of the words baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost we should probably read simply-"into My Name."

Theology of the New Testament :
By R. Bultmann, 1951, page 133 under Kerygma of the Hellenistic Church and the Sacraments. The historical fact that the verse Matthew 28:19 was altered is openly confesses to very plainly. "As to the rite of baptism, it was normally consummated as a bath in which the one receiving baptism completely submerged, and if possible in flowing water as the allusions of Acts 8:36, Heb. 10:22, Barn. 11:11 permit us to gather, and as Did. 7:1-3 specifically says. According to the last passage, [the apocryphal Catholic Didache] suffices in case of the need if water is three times poured [false Catholic sprinkling doctrine] on the head. The one baptizing names over the one being baptized the name of the Lord Jesus Christ," later expanded [changed] to the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit."

Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church :
By Dr. Stuart G. Hall 1992, pages 20 and 21. Professor Stuart G. Hall was the former Chair of Ecclesiastical History at King's College, London England. Dr. Hall makes the factual statement that Catholic Trinitarian Baptism was not the original form of Christian Baptism, rather the original was Jesus name baptism. "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," although those words were not used, as they later are, as a formula. Not all baptisms fitted this rule." Dr Hall further, states: "More common and perhaps more ancient was the simple, "In the name of the Lord Jesus or, Jesus Christ." This practice was known among Marcionites and Orthodox; it is certainly the subject of controversy in Rome and Africa about 254, as the anonymous tract De rebaptismate ("On rebaptism") shows."

The Beginnings of Christianity: The Acts of the Apostles Volume 1, Prolegomena 1 :
The Jewish Gentile, and Christian Backgrounds by F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake 1979 version pages 335-337. "There is little doubt as to the sacramental nature of baptism by the middle of the first century in the circles represented by the Pauline Epistles, and it is indisputable in the second century. The problem is whether it can in this (Trinitarian) form be traced back to Jesus, and if not what light is thrown upon its history by the analysis of the synoptic Gospels and Acts.  ----End quotes---------------------------------------------------There is much more, but this establishes that this is not  my argument based on my opinion but has been around along time and I assume their must be much evidence to have caused so many red flags


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 16, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Here is more opinions, The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics :
> As to Matthew 28:19, it says: It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional (Trinitarian) view. If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism. The same Encyclopedia further states that: "The obvious explanation of the silence of the New Testament on the triune name, and the use of another (JESUS NAME) formula in Acts and Paul, is that this other formula was the earlier, and the triune formula is a later addition."
> 
> Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28 :
> ...




First of all, I have a problem with all of this simply due to its source, a oneness Pentecostal website:

http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/matt2819-willis.htm

Second, I question some of the quotes, particularly this one:



1gr8bldr said:


> The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263 :
> "The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."




I would really like to see a Catholic Encyclopedia that said anything like this.  I checked the online Catholic encyclopedia at newadvent.org, and it sure didn’t .  It affirmed the traditional baptism in the name of the Trinity.  

Third, if the Trinity was inserted into Mt. 28:19, who did it and why?  The answer to “who” is usually Constantine (or scribes working under his direction.)  When I’ve asked “why” Constantine would have done this, I’ve never gotten an answer.

Besides, Constantine couldn’t have inserted anything into the New Testament until the 4th century, and the doctrine of the trinity had been established long before that.  Consider the following quotes, all written between 100 AD and 210 AD.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Ephesians, Ch. VII

_“We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began,  but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For “the Word was made flesh.”  Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passible body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts.” _ (emphasis mine.)


St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, Ch. LXI:

_“ … Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven …”_

Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Ch. II

_“… while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost._

Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Ch. XIX

_The Word, no doubt, was before all things. “In the beginning was the Word;” and in that beginning He was sent forth by the Father. The Father, however, has no beginning, as proceeding from none; nor can He be seen, since He was not begotten. He who has always been alone could never have had order or rank.  Therefore, if they have determined that the Father and the Son must be regarded as one and the same, for the express purpose of vindicating the unity of God, that unity of His is preserved intact; for He is one, and yet He has a Son, who is equally with Himself comprehended in the same Scriptures. Since they are unwilling to allow that the Son is a distinct Person, second from the Father, lest, being thus second, He should cause two Gods to be spoken of, we have shown above that Two are actually described in Scripture as God and Lord. And to prevent their being offended at this fact, we give a reason why they are not said to be two Gods and two Lords, but that they are two as Father and Son; and this not by severance of their substance, but from the dispensation wherein we declare the Son to be undivided and inseparable from the Father,—distinct in degree, not in state. And although, when named apart, He is called God, He does not thereby constitute two Gods, but one; and that from the very circumstance that He is entitled to be called God, from His union with the Father._

BTW, the subtitle of  _Against Praxeas_ is “In Which He Defends, in all Essential Points, the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity”.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 16, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> First of all, I have a problem with all of this simply due to its source, a oneness Pentecostal website:
> 
> http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/matt2819-willis.htm
> 
> ...


 Hello centerpin fan, I agree that constantine could not have changed it. They cite it being changed around the second century. While looking for the catholic pg 263, I found page after page after page of sites discussing this so-called claim but as you said, I can't find it in volume 2 page 263. very strange for so many to reference it but not in that particular place. this sparks my interest. I will try to figure this out if I can find time and also ck some of the other references that I pasted from another site, interesting that it did not come from the same place you mentioned.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 16, 2011)

Before I ever heard of this controversy, I red flagged this as questionable. All other scriptures baptize in Jesus name. Also, All authority had be given to Jesus so "therefore go and baptize in" in anything other than his name is strange. Also, we are baptized into Jesus's death so why baptize unto the Father and Holy Spirit since they did not die. Context is proof enough for me even if the argument had not already existed.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 17, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hello centerpin fan, I agree that constantine could not have changed it. They cite it being changed around the second century. While looking for the catholic pg 263, I found page after page after page of sites discussing this so-called claim but as you said, I can't find it in volume 2 page 263. very strange for so many to reference it but not in that particular place. this sparks my interest. I will try to figure this out if I can find time and also ck some of the other references that I pasted from another site, interesting that it did not come from the same place you mentioned.


Hello centrpin fan, I can't find this, so I will say "good catch". It is very strange, I even found the bulk of what I posted on WIKEPEDIA. Some of the others, I am having trouble with also.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 17, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Before I ever heard of this controversy, I red flagged this as questionable. All other scriptures baptize in Jesus name. Also, All authority had be given to Jesus so "therefore go and baptize in" in anything other than his name is strange. Also, we are baptized into Jesus's death so* why baptize unto the Father and Holy Spirit *since they did not die. Context is proof enough for me even if the argument had not already existed.



Serious question, do you think it is because they are one and the same?


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 17, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> While looking for the catholic pg 263, I found page after page after page of sites discussing this so-called claim but as you said, I can't find it in volume 2 page 263. very strange for so many to reference it but not in that particular place. this sparks my interest. I will try to figure this out if I can find time and also ck some of the other references that I pasted from another site, interesting that it did not come from the same place you mentioned.



I always get suspicious when I see something like this.  The different sites quote one another, but you can’t trace the common source to check the accuracy. Take this quote,  for example:




1gr8bldr said:


> The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly Catholic work, states :
> "It may be that this formula, (Triune Matthew 28:19) so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Man- made) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus,"..."



I have a Jerusalem Bible, so I checked the footnote to this verse.  The note reads, “This formula is perhaps a reflection of the liturgical usage of the writer’s own time.”  The quote above, however, has commentary inserted (“Man-made”, Catholic”), so I question who did the inserting and what were their biases.




1gr8bldr said:


> They cite it being changed around the second century.



Again, I have to ask “who changed it and why”.  Further, if it was changed, why didn’t anybody say anything about it?  You can’t change something as central to the faith as the baptism formula and not have somebody call you on it.  Pointing out heretical teachings was a major theme of many early Christian writings.  St. Irenaeus wrote an entire book called “Against Heresies”.  He lived in the late 2nd/early 3rd centuries, so he would certainly have been aware if anything about baptism had been changed, and he would have said something about it.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 17, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> I always get suspicious when I see something like this.  The different sites quote one another, but you can’t trace the common source to check the accuracy. Take this quote,  for example:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I learned two things this week; how to cut and paste and be careful what you cut and paste.


----------



## Sugar HillDawg (Feb 17, 2011)

Jesus claimed that he was the way, the truth and the light and no man can get to the FATHER except through him.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 19, 2011)

This taken from, Eusebius, Church History 3. 39    16. But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: "So then Matthew *wrote* the oracles in the *Hebrew language*, and every one interpreted them as he was able." And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has been already stated. end quote- Notice that Eusebuis is stating that Papius, in his writings said that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, not in greek. Our Hebrew source does not have the triune baptismal formula.---http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics/catholic/matthew-proof.html


----------



## robshope (Mar 3, 2011)

I love reading all of the different perspectives here. gives a man something to do: think.  Get outside of our comfort zones and actually DO what the Father instructed us to do: study, rightly dividing the word of truth (2Ti 2:15).

Is Jesus God? Of course. Read 1Ti 3:16.  Pretty plain to me.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 3, 2011)

Hello robshope, yes many different perspectives can make pondering each others points of view very interesting. I realize that it is my views which are not "mainstream". But we have been able to discuss these different beliefs in a very cordial way, for which I am thankful. There are many more trin so called "proof texts" that have not been mentioned as of yet. Rather than address those without them being pointed out, I decided not to be on the offense but rather just explain the unitarian viewpoint as subjects came up. So, not wishing to debate anyone over his own interpretation, I will simply explain how I interpret 1 Tim 3:16. Notice, The overiding subject is Godliness, not God. When it says he appeared in a body, assumptions lead to seeing this as God appearing in a body [God appearing as Jesus]. But it is actually saying that Jesus, as the  messiah, appeared as promised. Consider Heb 2:17-18, he had to be made like his brothers in every way..... Also see 4:15


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 4, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hello robshope, yes many different perspectives can make pondering each others points of view very interesting. I realize that it is my views which are not "mainstream". But we have been able to discuss these different beliefs in a very cordial way, for which I am thankful. There are many more trin so called "proof texts" that have not been mentioned as of yet. Rather than address those without them being pointed out, I decided not to be on the offense but rather just explain the unitarian viewpoint as subjects came up. So, not wishing to debate anyone over his own interpretation, I will simply explain how I interpret 1 Tim 3:16. Notice, The overiding subject is Godliness, not God. When it says he appeared in a body, assumptions lead to seeing this as God appearing in a body [God appearing as Jesus]. But it is actually saying that Jesus, as the  messiah, appeared as promised. Consider Heb 2:17-18, he had to be made like his brothers in every way..... Also see 4:15



Some manuscripts have 1 Tim 3:16 as "God appeared in body" It doesnt get much easier to understand to me.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 4, 2011)

1gr8blr, have you thought anymore about if God is love, who or what was He loving before He created anything? If there were nothing for Him to love, wouldnt He have _had_ to create something to love? Which goes against what we as Christians believe about God _needing _or _having_ to do something.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 4, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> 1gr8blr, have you thought anymore about if God is love, who or what was He loving before He created anything? If there were nothing for Him to love, wouldnt He have _had_ to create something to love? Which goes against what we as Christians believe about God _needing _or _having_ to do something.


I'm not getting your point. Maybe it is obvious, I'm just missing it


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 4, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Some manuscripts have 1 Tim 3:16 as "God appeared in body" It doesnt get much easier to understand to me.


Actually, the greek says  "great is the mystery of piety:  [Godliness]  who was manifested in the flesh". Not much sorrounding context to point either way so I must admit that someone could plug in either belief


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 4, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Actually, the greek says  "great is the mystery of piety:  [Godliness]  who was manifested in the flesh". Not much sorrounding context to point either way so I must admit that someone could plug in either belief



http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+3&version=NLT

Read the foot notes at the bottom of this page, the Godliness is speaking of the faith, the manifestation is speaking of God.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 4, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> I'm not getting your point. Maybe it is obvious, I'm just missing it



Love is only possible in a relationship, God is love, only works if God is more than one i.e. the trinity.

chapter 24 and 26 if you get time.

http://ldolphin.org/CSLtrinity.html


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 4, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+3&version=NLT
> 
> Read the foot notes at the bottom of this page, the Godliness is speaking of the faith, the manifestation is speaking of God.


The link says "Christ appeared in a body....". I guess the interpretation is wide open. I need to look again at your point, I got sidetracked when I saw "Christ". Situations like this should say what the greek says [who] otherwise it becomes a paraphrase bible instead of a translation


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 5, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Some manuscripts have 1 Tim 3:16 as "God appeared in body" It doesnt get much easier to understand to me.


I have been asking around and doing some research on this verse. Most information that I have found says that "God" showed up late in the fourth century after the trinity became established. The so called early church fathers never used this verse as a proof text until late 4th century. If it were original, they would have discoursed about this verse over and over and John 1:1/14 would have taken a back seat. google 1 tim 3:16 to view this argument


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 10, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> We know from context that Jesus's disciples had the discussion of who would be greatest and wanted to know who could sit at his right. Sitting at his right hand was not taking the place of but rather the next highest place of honor. This was a clear claim by Jesus as being "that one" spoken of throughout the scriptures. I will refer to the familarity of the NT as opposed to the OT from which it comes.  Heb chp 1, "Let all God's angels worship him". What was Jesus saying? His statement was a familiar passage quoted from Daniel 7. "I looked and therebefore me was one like the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of days  and was led into his pressence. He was given authority, glory and power, all peoples worshipped him. his dominion is an everlasting dominion." Notice no implying to be God here. So Jesus states he was given authority, glory and worship and claims to be David's promised desendant for the eternal kingship. Also, by sitting at God's right hand he is claiming to basically be the greatest man to ever live. All of this is what they hated but no claim to be God. They wanted Abraham to be the greatest, not a carpenters son whom they knew.To be the Son of God was his claim but no context showing this to be a claim to be God.



 Bullethead, This is how I see this.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 10, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Bullethead, This is how I see this.



http://gospelway.com/god/jesus_claims.php


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 10, 2011)

Can one of the believers define he11, please? This should be on topic.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 10, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> Can one of the believers define he11, please? This should be on topic.


 Could we do it on a different thread. It deserves a thread of it's own. That should be quite the controversal subject. Thanks


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 10, 2011)

bullethead said:


> http://gospelway.com/god/jesus_claims.php


 Hello Bullethead, I don't know if you have time or the desire to do this so no problem if you don't. But I'm going through this site word by word and will point out what I see. Part 1 Assumes that "Son of God" equals God.  this is not true. If we are Christian, [the true ones] then we are Sons of God. Also, I addressed this in my thread. Jesus calmed a situation by saying he claimed to be Son of God. What we gather from this text is that they were about to stone him but after he said this, the situation did not esculate, but instead was calmed. Now if "Son of God " meant God, then they surely would have thrown those stones in their hands and not dropped them as the texts implies. If "Son of God" had ever meant God, then why do the Jews not still hold to this thinking. When did it change. Nothing ever changes with Jews. They hold tightly today to the same beliefs of way back then. This is still incomplete, but I don't wish to bore you. Please don't feel like I expect a response.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 10, 2011)

bullethead said:


> http://gospelway.com/god/jesus_claims.php



Hello Bullethead, me again, just looked through the remainder of the site. All I can say "is that all they got?" So much unfounded. I wonder if you just pointed me to that or have you endorsed this as agreeing. I would think that the logical person that you have shown yourself to be would have questioned such speculation. Such as worship. They assume that Jesus is God because the word worship is credited to him. I'm not gonna go into the greek original, only point out that words change over the centurys that the bible writing spanned. Such as, The bible clearly says don't call anyone father yet Paul claims to be the father of his aduience. Anyway, Jesus would never accept worship as God. He accepted worship as the messiah. David was worshiped as king. Daniel 7 tells that Jesus will be granted worship by God.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 10, 2011)

Changing the subject, John 20:28- My Lord and my God. Jesus had just been recorded as telling the disciples that God was in him, doing the work that they see. Thomas had trouble grasping this. After he saw Jesus raised from the dead, he wholly believed Jesus that God was in him. So upon this revelation, he declared "my Lord and my God" not at all refering only to Jesus. This is one of the 2 hardest to convice concepts. The rest is easy


----------



## bullethead (Jun 10, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hello Bullethead, me again, just looked through the remainder of the site. All I can say "is that all they got?" So much unfounded. I wonder if you just pointed me to that or have you endorsed this as agreeing. I would think that the logical person that you have shown yourself to be would have questioned such speculation. Such as worship. They assume that Jesus is God because the word worship is credited to him. I'm not gonna go into the greek original, only point out that words change over the centurys that the bible writing spanned. Such as, The bible clearly says don't call anyone father yet Paul claims to be the father of his aduience. Anyway, Jesus would never accept worship as God. He accepted worship as the messiah. David was worshiped as king. Daniel 7 tells that Jesus will be granted worship by God.



I don't condone, agree or want to push any site. All I try to do is find out some things that are written and pass them on if nothing else to give another point of view or different examples. I try not to ever take one side of a discussion as absolute until I research the other side. In EVERY case where something about Jesus is brought up the bible is the only source used to try to prove his existence. What is in there was written by people who not only did not know him personally, but didn't witness anything he did or said first hand yet they tell us word for what what the devil said to Jesus and what so and so said to so and so....all the while these authors are writing this down 40-120 years after it supposedly happened. For all I know, Jesus never said or claimed anything but what the authors thought or wanted him to say. The way it is put in the bible it says to me that he was just another deeply religious man trying to spread the word of god but not trying to start a new religion.

THE problem I have with it all is that except INSIDE of the bible, none of these claims or non-claims exist anywhere else. No one else took the time to write it down or record these miracles or fantastic events. Basically outside of the bible Jesus was insignificant and what is mentioned is so minute that there is just as much mentioned about others that claimed to be messiahs. He got no more attention outside of the bible as anyone else that preached differently than the standard back then.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 10, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Changing the subject, John 20:28- My Lord and my God. Jesus had just been recorded as telling the disciples that God was in him, doing the work that they see. Thomas had trouble grasping this. After he saw Jesus raised from the dead, he wholly believed Jesus that God was in him. So upon this revelation, he declared "my Lord and my God" not at all refering only to Jesus. This is one of the 2 hardest to convice concepts. The rest is easy



I gotta ask, Who recorded Jesus' words? Who followed him around and wrote down these words as he spoke them? John? What is recorded in the bible is suspect and it is really weak when nowhere outside of the bible is anything like it mentioned.
I know that if I was one of the early historians of the time and witnessed some of these incredible feats, I'd jot it down just as I did for everything else that I recorded in those same time periods. Whether I believed the guy or not, if I see him rise from the dead and ascend into the sky, I'm going to make a note of it.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 10, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I gotta ask, Who recorded Jesus' words? Who followed him around and wrote down these words as he spoke them? John? What is recorded in the bible is suspect and it is really weak when nowhere outside of the bible is anything like it mentioned.
> I know that if I was one of the early historians of the time and witnessed some of these incredible feats, I'd jot it down just as I did for everything else that I recorded in those same time periods. Whether I believed the guy or not, if I see him rise from the dead and ascend into the sky, I'm going to make a note of it.


Yes, it is strange that not much is written outside of the bible. I guess we in our day know how such information would spread quickly. Thinking of Paul's travels, it seems like the places he went many years later had not a hint of this information. Making it clear that this must have been a small region in which this stuff took place. And unlike most believers, I agree that most of our writings were written by people who only heard about what they wrote. Anyway, I enjoyed the conversation. I don't wish to seem like I'm pushing my beliefs on anyone. Just always looking to see if anyone out there agrees.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 10, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Yes, it is strange that not much is written outside of the bible. I guess we in our day know how such information would spread quickly. Thinking of Paul's travels, it seems like the places he went many years later had not a hint of this information. Making it clear that this must have been a small region in which this stuff took place. And unlike most believers, I agree that most of our writings were written by people who only heard about what they wrote. Anyway, I enjoyed the conversation. I don't wish to seem like I'm pushing my beliefs on anyone. Just always looking to see if anyone out there agrees.



Brother Man, you know I appreciate the conversations. I appreciate the other line of thoughts and I appreciate the 180 degree thinking from mine. All of it keeps me thinking. Hats off to you and everyone else in these forums that contribute.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 11, 2011)

One last thing, gotta know, always searching to see if I can find anyone who agrees with me, kinda all alone in this regard. The absence of accusing Jesus as claiming to be God at his trial, that is the smoking gun for me. If he had of, they would have surely accused him of it. What's your thoughts?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 17, 2011)

His followers made the claim that he was one in the same afterh is death. While alive Jesus spoke to be the son of god albeit in cryptic ways that the writers of the bible are soo good at.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 21, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> 1 John 5:7, This is a perfect example of a "translation" becoming a "paraphrase". It is evident that they translators here "imparted" their own prior assumptions. Too bad they knew very little about that which they were translating. Jesus was "a prophet likened to Moses". Pharaoh wanted to kill Moses just as Herod wanted to kill Jesus. All boys were killed. Jesus said over and over in John, "I am sent". Moses was sent. Three day journey into the dessert to sacrifice resulted in "freedom"/ three days in tomb. Miracles were given as a sign that Moses was sent/ Why did people expect Jesus to do miracles? Ex 4:5, This is so that they may believe that the Lord, the God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has appeared to me./Jn 14:11 Jesus said "at least believe on the evidence of the miracles. So, here is my point after establishing some of the context from where this came. Vs 9 of Ex chp 4, "But if they do not believe these two signs or listen to you, take some water from the Nile and pour it on the dry ground. The water you take will from the river will become blood/ one of the soldiers pierced Jesus side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of water and blood. Here is the correct rendering taken from the Niv. "Only he that believes that Jesus is the Son of God. This is the one who came by water and blood- Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is truth.For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and these three are in agreement". The greek clearly does not support the KJ here. Lots of similar instances have been lost in translations,[references back to the OT]



Bumped for another thread, since I can't remember how to "cut n paste"


----------



## Blueridge (Sep 21, 2011)

1gr8bldr  Praying for you.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Sep 21, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Changing the subject, John 20:28- My Lord and my God. Jesus had just been recorded as telling the disciples that God was in him, doing the work that they see. Thomas had trouble grasping this. After he saw Jesus raised from the dead, he wholly believed Jesus that God was in him. So upon this revelation, he declared "my Lord and my God" not at all refering only to Jesus. This is one of the 2 hardest to convice concepts. The rest is easy



I disagree.   I've had NEVER heard anyone say that Thomas was referring to both Jesus and God.   It would be a non-sequitor at the very least.   The actual greek reads (I know, because I present it to JW's) "the Lord of me and the God of me".     Jesus didn't reprimand him.

Interesting.   First time I've ever heard anyone think that way about John 20:28.  

29 says "Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe".   

Looks like I've missed out on a great thread!   This must have been buried in the archives!   lol


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 21, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I disagree.   I've had NEVER heard anyone say that Thomas was referring to both Jesus and God.   It would be a non-sequitor at the very least.   The actual greek reads (I know, because I present it to JW's) "the Lord of me and the God of me".     Jesus didn't reprimand him.
> 
> Interesting.   First time I've ever heard anyone think that way about John 20:28.
> 
> ...


God was "in him" . vs 31 is problematic for the traditional view.


----------

