Do you agree with the doctrine that says JESUS died spiritually?

[Butch5]

Well, currently I do not have time to address all the points you brought up here. So I will just address what I can in the time I have. Let's start with your belief that man does not have a spirit: Well, Zechariah 12:1 says God forms the spirit of man within him. Ecclesiastes 12:7 says the spirit returns to God in who gave it. Genesis 41:8 essentially says Pharoah's spirit was troubled. In Deuteronomy 2:30, we learn that God harden's a man's spirit. In other words, do a study on the word "spirit" in the Bible and you will see that it is not in reference to God, and or a dark spirit, etc. So man has a spirit when he is born. Paul says we are to keep three things blameless until the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, the soul, the spirit, and the body (1 Thessalonians 5:23). If the Spirit is in reference to God it doesn't make any sense because we can't corrupt God.

I didn't say man doesn't have a spirit, I said man isn't a spirit. I've already stated that man has a spirit in him, it is God's breath/spirit. The spirit in man is not man, it is God's breath spirit that is in man. It is God's breath spirit that returns to Him when man dies.

So if man has a spirit, then one is born AGAIN spiritually into God's Kingdom. For a person's spirit was born into this world when God created it at conception, and then it must be born AGAIN so as to enter the Kingdom of God. Meaning, a person needs to be reborn spiritually by the Hoy Spirit by repenting of their sins and accepting Jesus Christ (Who is God Almighty in the flesh) as their Savior in order to be saved. This is Christianity 101, my friend.

God's spirit does not die and doesn't need to be born again. Being born again is not speaking of a spirit, it's a metaphor that Jesus used when speaking to Nicodemus because Nicodemus thought he would enter the kingdom because he was born the seed of Abraham. Jesus is letting him know that that is not the case.

Actually, Christianity 101 would be what was first taught, not what's taught today.

What spirit body am I talking about? 1 Corinthians 15:44 says there is a spiritual body.

I suspected that you were referring to that passage, however, that passage says "spiritual" not "spirit." Spirit is a noun, a person, place, or thing Spiritual, is an adjective, it's a descriptive term. An adjective describes qualities of a noun. Spiritual means something has qualities of the spirit, it doesn't mean that it is a spirit. If I said, this ice cream is heavenly (adjective), would one think the ice cream was Heaven, or was in Heaven? No, Heaven is understood to be a place of bliss and as such, saying this ice cream is Heavenly, one would apply that understanding to what I said and understand that the ice cream was blissful. Likewise, spiritual, in that passage is giving a description of the body, it has qualities of the Spirit, but that doesn't mean it is a spirit. Jesus had a resurrected body and He was not a spirit. He said Himself that He was flesh and bone. When Jesus appeared the apostles were frightened thinknig they had seen a spirit and Jesus corrects them

37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. (Luk 24:37-39 KJV)

Jesus states plainly that a spirit does not have flesh and bone. Man does have flesh and bone thus man is not a spirit.

Do a key word search on the word "soul", too. You will find that the Bible mentions how God has a soul, too. Granted, God's soul is uncreated and eternal.

Does God Have a Soul? | Learn The Bible

I have search for spirit (psuche), Breath/spirit (Neshamah and Ruach) and soul (Nephesh). I have beenstudying this subject for over a year now and have looked at quite a few passages. Scripture teaches that man "Is" a soul, a soul is living being consisting of the breath of God and a body. The Bible calls fish, souls. Animals are called souls, it is a living being.

This is a metaphor or a poetic piece of text that is speaking from an external perspective of man's physical state after it dies. It is not in reference to the dead in the spirit world. For the rich man who died surely knew where he was at when he went to torments (See Luke 16).

It's not a metaphor or poetic text, I could post more. Scripture says that the dead cannot praise God.

18 For the grave cannot praise thee, death can not celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth.
19 The living, the living, he shall praise thee, as I do this day: the father to the children shall make known thy truth. (Isa 38:18-19 KJV)

17 The dead do not praise the LORD, Nor any who go down into silence. (Psa 115:17 NKJ)

5 For the living know that they will die; But the dead know nothing, And they have no more reward, For the memory of them is forgotten. (Ecc 9:5 NKJ)

The dead know nothing, they have no memory.

There are more that can be posted, the dead are dead, they are in the grave, Hades. They remain there until their resurrection.


Regarding the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, the parable is not about life after death, it a parable against the Jewish leadership, in particular the priesthood. Jesus is telling them what is going to happen to the priesthood. If you look at the other parables that He gave before this you can see how He is building His argument against them. The Prodigal son, Israel is God's son, then He give the parable of the unfaithful steward. Who were God's stewards? The priesthood. They were unfaithful Jesus rebuked them quite a bit. He says, he who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, this is something that He accused them of and it is prophesied in Malachi. He says, the Law and the Prophets were until John since then the kingdom of God is preached. In that statement He tells them plainly that their time is up, the Law and the prophets were until John. That means the priesthood is done, John has come, the priesthood is done. Then He tells the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man, Notice that the rich man is a Jew, he calls Abraham father. Notice that the rich man had five brothers, Levi had five brothers. Levi was the tribe of the priests. Notice the rich man worn purple and fine linen, the priests wore it also. Notice that Lazarus is with Abraham being comforted. The name Lazarus means "God help". Jesus had already told the Jews that they would see others in the kingdom with Abrahama, Isaac, and Jacob.

11 "And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.
12 "But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Mat 8:11-12 NKJ)

The rich man was in Hades in the flame, yet the place of fire is Gehenna, not Hades and Jesus knew this because He was the one who said it. So why would Jesus say the rich man was in Hades, in the flame? I submit He was alluding to Deuteronomy which the Pharisees would be very familiar with. This passage is from the Song of Moses and describes how Israel would turn away from the Lord.

20 And He said:`I will hide My face from them, I will see what their end will be, For they are a perverse generation, Children in whom is no faith.
21 They have provoked Me to jealousy by what is not God; They have moved Me to anger by their foolish idols. But I will provoke them to jealousy by those who are not a nation; I will move them to anger by a foolish nation.
22 For a fire is kindled by my anger, And shall burn to the lowest hell; It shall consume the earth with her increase, And set on fire the foundations of the mountains. (Deu 32:20-22 NKJ)

The word hell in this passage is Hades. Notice that fire in Hades is God's anger. The rich man (priesthood) is suffering God's anger. Notice God said He would provoke them to anger by those who are not a nation. Paul touches on this and applies it to the Gentiles.

8 Just as it is written: "God has given them a spirit of stupor, Eyes that they should not see And ears that they should not hear, To this very day1."
9 And David says: "Let their table become a snare and a trap, A stumbling block and a recompense to them.
10 Let their eyes be darkened, so that they do not see, and bow down their back always1."
11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles.
12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness! (Rom 11:8-12 NKJ)

Paul says that to provoke the Jews to Jealousy salvation has gone to the Gentiles. God said He would provoke them by those who are not a nation, the Gentiles are not a nation.

In the passage from Deuteronomy God also said that He would hide His face from them. Well, that has happened, He brought the destruction of the temple and the priesthood and has hid His face from them ever since. This is what the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man is about. A literal understanding of the passage won't work.

 

[Butch5]

Butch5, you mean because something is written in a study bible that doesn't mean it's correct????!!!!!!!!! Shocker.

I am well aware of the scripture verses you posted and I do NOT come up with the same interpretations you do. I do however accept the DEITY OF CHRIST and filter the verses though that undeniable truth. Unlike us, Jesus Christ IS God. Not sure how you can deny this Butch5. I won't do that. And apparently many other Christians won't either.

Scripture "plainly given" by you or anyone else doesn't take away the individual reading and interpretation the Holy Spirit has given me as a believer when I read those same verses.

To try and say Jesus died spiritually makes absolutely no sense if you BELIEVE Jesus is God. God cannot die and that is not JUST an early Christian understanding of Christ since I'm only 56 and have come to this conviction without reading about the "Hypostatic Union doctrine that was created in the fifth century..," I'm a 21st century believer and have been reading my Bible and learning for a good part of my life.

You do not have the corner on Bible reading or learning Butch5., I'm always surprised when believers like yourself on these forums somehow don't 'know' that.

Only God could save sinful humanity. Jesus is God with us.

I haven't denied the deity of Christ at all. I think there is a problem that many don't understand the Trinity correctly. Many seem to think that there is a being who is God and He consists of three persons, Father, Son, and Spirit. That is not the Trinity. The Trinity as expounded by the earliest Christians is just as Paul said, 'to us there is one God, the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ. The Father is ultimately God, Jesus is God in the sense that He is the offspring of God, He is of the same essence or substance as the Father. It's like child is of the same substance or essence as it's parents. The child is no less human than it's parents, likewise Jesus is no less the substance or essence (God) than Father. However, He is not the Father. This early understanding of the Trinity meshes nicely with all of the Scriptures which cannot be said of the modern teaching on the Trinity. So, that is how I can say that Jesus is deity yet He became flesh. You see, it meshes with all of the Scriptures. Harmony with the Scriptures is an indication that it is correct. The Scriptures say that God is spirit, when God created man He breathed his breath/spirit into man and man became a living soul. If God is breath/spirit then so is Jesus. So, if the Word is the breath in the flesh man Jesus, He is deity and He is man.

In the end, if we can't harmonize all of the passages we have something wrong.

 

[Jason0047]

I didn't say man doesn't have a spirit, I said man isn't a spirit. I've already stated that man has a spirit in him, it is God's breath/spirit. The spirit in man is not man, it is God's breath spirit that is in man. It is God's breath spirit that returns to Him when man dies.



God's spirit does not die and doesn't need to be born again. Being born again is not speaking of a spirit, it's a metaphor that Jesus used when speaking to Nicodemus because Nicodemus thought he would enter the kingdom because he was born the seed of Abraham. Jesus is letting him know that that is not the case.

Actually, Christianity 101 would be what was first taught, not what's taught today.





I suspected that you were referring to that passage, however, that passage says "spiritual" not "spirit." Spirit is a noun, a person, place, or thing Spiritual, is an adjective, it's a descriptive term. An adjective describes qualities of a noun. Spiritual means something has qualities of the spirit, it doesn't mean that it is a spirit. If I said, this ice cream is heavenly (adjective), would one think the ice cream was Heaven, or was in Heaven? No, Heaven is understood to be a place of bliss and as such, saying this ice cream is Heavenly, one would apply that understanding to what I said and understand that the ice cream was blissful. Likewise, spiritual, in that passage is giving a description of the body, it has qualities of the Spirit, but that doesn't mean it is a spirit. Jesus had a resurrected body and He was not a spirit. He said Himself that He was flesh and bone. When Jesus appeared the apostles were frightened thinknig they had seen a spirit and Jesus corrects them

37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. (Luk 24:37-39 KJV)

Jesus states plainly that a spirit does not have flesh and bone. Man does have flesh and bone thus man is not a spirit.







I have search for spirit (psuche), Breath/spirit (Neshamah and Ruach) and soul (Nephesh). I have beenstudying this subject for over a year now and have looked at quite a few passages. Scripture teaches that man "Is" a soul, a soul is living being consisting of the breath of God and a body. The Bible calls fish, souls. Animals are called souls, it is a living being.





It's not a metaphor or poetic text, I could post more. Scripture says that the dead cannot praise God.

18 For the grave cannot praise thee, death can not celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth.
19 The living, the living, he shall praise thee, as I do this day: the father to the children shall make known thy truth. (Isa 38:18-19 KJV)

17 The dead do not praise the LORD, Nor any who go down into silence. (Psa 115:17 NKJ)

5 For the living know that they will die; But the dead know nothing, And they have no more reward, For the memory of them is forgotten. (Ecc 9:5 NKJ)

The dead know nothing, they have no memory.

There are more that can be posted, the dead are dead, they are in the grave, Hades. They remain there until their resurrection.


Regarding the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, the parable is not about life after death, it a parable against the Jewish leadership, in particular the priesthood. Jesus is telling them what is going to happen to the priesthood. If you look at the other parables that He gave before this you can see how He is building His argument against them. The Prodigal son, Israel is God's son, then He give the parable of the unfaithful steward. Who were God's stewards? The priesthood. They were unfaithful Jesus rebuked them quite a bit. He says, he who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, this is something that He accused them of and it is prophesied in Malachi. He says, the Law and the Prophets were until John since then the kingdom of God is preached. In that statement He tells them plainly that their time is up, the Law and the prophets were until John. That means the priesthood is done, John has come, the priesthood is done. Then He tells the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man, Notice that the rich man is a Jew, he calls Abraham father. Notice that the rich man had five brothers, Levi had five brothers. Levi was the tribe of the priests. Notice the rich man worn purple and fine linen, the priests wore it also. Notice that Lazarus is with Abraham being comforted. The name Lazarus means "God help". Jesus had already told the Jews that they would see others in the kingdom with Abrahama, Isaac, and Jacob.

11 "And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.
12 "But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Mat 8:11-12 NKJ)

The rich man was in Hades in the flame, yet the place of fire is Gehenna, not Hades and Jesus knew this because He was the one who said it. So why would Jesus say the rich man was in Hades, in the flame? I submit He was alluding to Deuteronomy which the Pharisees would be very familiar with. This passage is from the Song of Moses and describes how Israel would turn away from the Lord.

20 And He said:`I will hide My face from them, I will see what their end will be, For they are a perverse generation, Children in whom is no faith.
21 They have provoked Me to jealousy by what is not God; They have moved Me to anger by their foolish idols. But I will provoke them to jealousy by those who are not a nation; I will move them to anger by a foolish nation.
22 For a fire is kindled by my anger, And shall burn to the lowest hell; It shall consume the earth with her increase, And set on fire the foundations of the mountains. (Deu 32:20-22 NKJ)

The word hell in this passage is Hades. Notice that fire in Hades is God's anger. The rich man (priesthood) is suffering God's anger. Notice God said He would provoke them to anger by those who are not a nation. Paul touches on this and applies it to the Gentiles.

8 Just as it is written: "God has given them a spirit of stupor, Eyes that they should not see And ears that they should not hear, To this very day1."
9 And David says: "Let their table become a snare and a trap, A stumbling block and a recompense to them.
10 Let their eyes be darkened, so that they do not see, and bow down their back always1."
11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles.
12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness! (Rom 11:8-12 NKJ)

Paul says that to provoke the Jews to Jealousy salvation has gone to the Gentiles. God said He would provoke them by those who are not a nation, the Gentiles are not a nation.

In the passage from Deuteronomy God also said that He would hide His face from them. Well, that has happened, He brought the destruction of the temple and the priesthood and has hid His face from them ever since. This is what the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man is about. A literal understanding of the passage won't work.

I started to read a 2-3 sentences in what you had wrote and I just stopped. I couldn't take it anymore. Sorry. Please do not take this the wrong way, but I don't think there is any verse I can quote or any real world example I could use that would help you at this time, my friend.

Peace be unto you, and may God's love shine upon you.

Side Note:

Out of curiosity, how many others believe as you do, my friend? Does your church have some kind of name? Are you the only one that believes this way?

 

[ladylynn]

Butch5, I want to encourage you to read the book of John through. Jesus created and upholds all things. He is the One Who was made flesh and came to live on this earth. He is from the beginning,. He is the first and the last. John 1:1-5 beautiful

John 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.
31. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him.


Only God can lay His life down and take it up again., Jesus did this. (He also raised Lazarus) The Bible also says the Spirit raised Jesus from the dead., The Bible doesn't contradict itself, we must conclude that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are One. That is how the Bible can say both the Holy Spirit raised Jesus and how Jesus can say He raised Himself. And so many other verses where the attributes of God are interchangeable with Father.,Son, Holy Spirit.

Read any KJV and NAS or NIV or Amplified or other Bibles (am just naming the ones I have read) and this is clear. Denying the Deity of Christ is not in keeping with the truth of the Bible. (if you are denying His deity)

Get any study Bible or concordance from many different Christian writers such as Halley's Bible handbook or the New Strongs Exhaustive concordance of the Bible just to name a VERY few and they will also clearly lead you to the Doctrine of the Deity of Christ in the Bible verse by verse.

You don't have to be a Biblical scholar to find these truths from Scripture. I only mentioned a very few verses here.

We have to let Bible interpret Bible. There are soooooooo many verses that speak of the Deity of Christ. It just cannot be denied.

Emmanuel .. Matt.1:23 Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Immanuel Is. 7:14 Is.8:8 a Messianic name means God with us.
When Jesus Christ was born, God became "flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14)

Jehovah is the Saviour. God manifest in the flesh.

Jesus said He was God when He said "I AM" God also called the Son "God"
Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder; and his name shall be called Wonderful, counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, the Prince of peace.

Jesus was even called the Everlasting Father....

 

[ladylynn]

I haven't denied the deity of Christ at all. I think there is a problem that many don't understand the Trinity correctly. Many seem to think that there is a being who is God and He consists of three persons, Father, Son, and Spirit.

Yes, I believe in the God of the Bible and He consists of 3 Persons., Father., Son, Holy Spirit. Great is the mystery of Godliness..........

1 Tim.3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles., believed on in the world, received up into glory.

GODHEAD... Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and GODHEAD; so that they are without excuse.


Butch5, this verse is so clear in Colossians;
Colossians 2:9 For in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the GODHEAD bodily. That is Jesus. In Him dwells ALL THE FULLNESS OF THE GODHEAD BODILY. Can't deny the Word. T



That is not the Trinity. The Trinity as expounded by the earliest Christians is just as Paul said, 'to us there is one God, the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ. The Father is ultimately God, Jesus is God in the sense that He is the offspring of God, He is of the same essence or substance as the Father. It's like child is of the same substance or essence as it's parents. The child is no less human than it's parents, likewise Jesus is no less the substance or essence (God) than Father. However, He is not the Father.

I am seeing you do not believe Jesus is God in EVERY SENSE OF BEING GOD. This sounds a bit like JWs because they deny Jesus was God and say He is "A god " little 'g'


This early understanding of the Trinity meshes nicely with all of the Scriptures which cannot be said of the modern teaching on the Trinity. So, that is how I can say that Jesus is deity yet He became flesh. You see, it meshes with all of the Scriptures. Harmony with the Scriptures is an indication that it is correct. The Scriptures say that God is spirit, when God created man He breathed his breath/spirit into man and man became a living soul. If God is breath/spirit then so is Jesus. So, if the Word is the breath in the flesh man Jesus, He is deity and He is man. ????????

??? confusing stuff., But ultimately you are saying Jesus is not equal with God in all His Attributes? And what you are saying doesn't mesh or harmonize with the Bible.

In the end, if we can't harmonize all of the passages we have something wrong.

Faith is what harmonizes the passages as we study and come across things that at first don't make sense. Faith to faith.., Romans 1:17

 

[Jason0047]

I haven't denied the deity of Christ at all. I think there is a problem that many don't understand the Trinity correctly. Many seem to think that there is a being who is God and He consists of three persons, Father, Son, and Spirit. That is not the Trinity. The Trinity as expounded by the earliest Christians is just as Paul said, 'to us there is one God, the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ. The Father is ultimately God, Jesus is God in the sense that He is the offspring of God, He is of the same essence or substance as the Father. It's like child is of the same substance or essence as it's parents. The child is no less human than it's parents, likewise Jesus is no less the substance or essence (God) than Father. However, He is not the Father. This early understanding of the Trinity meshes nicely with all of the Scriptures which cannot be said of the modern teaching on the Trinity. So, that is how I can say that Jesus is deity yet He became flesh. You see, it meshes with all of the Scriptures. Harmony with the Scriptures is an indication that it is correct. The Scriptures say that God is spirit, when God created man He breathed his breath/spirit into man and man became a living soul. If God is breath/spirit then so is Jesus. So, if the Word is the breath in the flesh man Jesus, He is deity and He is man.

In the end, if we can't harmonize all of the passages we have something wrong.

So you believe the Son of God (second person of the Godhead) had a beginning? If so, have you ever read Micah 5:2?

Also, your belief in what you said here is contradictory, my friend. You essentially said there are no three distinct persons of the Godhead or the Trinity that exist as a whole as one God. Then you make a distinction between the Father and the Son by saying the Son is the Father's literal offspring (on some kind of spiritual level - i.e. by saying they are both of the same substance).

The definition of the Trinity is in the fact that there are 3 distinct persons. If they are not three distinct persons then they are no longer a Trinity. If you don't believe in three distinct persons then.... that would be Modalism. Modalism is the belief that there is no different persons within the Godhead. That the Father can morph into the Son, etc. The pesons of the Godhead are just reduced to mere roles like in a play and or to mere names.

Modalism is false because it denies the person of Jesus Christ as a unique individual who died for your sins.

 

[Jason0047]

God is one God in three distinct persons
(Why Modalism is Unbiblical):

Modalism teaches that God just puts on a mask or takes on a title or name. It teaches that there is no difference between the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit. Which is is not what the Bible teaches.

Why is it unbiblical?

Well, the Bible clearly teaches that there are distinctions within the persons of the Godhead. Here are a couple of quick points why the Scriptures are against the idea of Modalism.

#1. The word Elohim (אֱלֹהִ֔ים) is both a singular and a plural noun.
#2. God refers to Himself in plural form (Genesis 1:26) (Genesis 3:22) (Genesis 11:7) (Isaiah 6:8).
#3. Plurality of God in New Testament (Matthew 28:19) (2 Corinthians 13:14) (John 14:16-20).
#4. Introductions to both the Son & Holy Spirit (Daniel 7:9,10,13,14) (John 14:16)
#5. Different persons of Godhead appear at one time (Luke 3:21-22)
#6. Distinctions of Wills (Luke 22:42).
#7. Conversations Between the Godhead (Psalm 2:1-12) (Psalm 45:6-7) (Psalm 110:1) (Matthew 11:27) (John 17:24).

Also, I imagine those who believe in Modalism like to quote 1 John 5:7 as proof text for their case, too.

However, they also have to look at what else John has written on this topic, too. For in the beginning of the gospel of John, it says this...

John 1:1-2 KJV - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was WITH God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God."

 

[Jason0047]

Without the Person of Jesus, the Atonement is denied

What Modalism is actually saying is that the separate person of Jesus Christ, the Son, is not real and never died on the cross because He does not exist. A separate Person does not exist. Only the Father (or Almighty God) exists and changes his face to turn into and look like the Son. This is a bold denial of God as a whole (since Jesus Christ is fully 100% God) and a denial of the work of the existing Second Person of God: the Son.

A human example would be that a Father agreed with his son that he would go out and pay an extremely expensive price for criminals to be free from their death sentences, and that his son would own them and they would be given to him; and he would show them compassion. After hearing about freedom from their judicial punishments of death because of the son’s payment, those criminals— instead of going with the son who bought them— believe the father is actually the one who bought them because he morphed into the mode of the son. Furthermore, the criminals claim that the son who actually bought them with his father’s urging does not even exist. They believe only the father exists and shifts into a different looking mode to become his own son, but is still the exact same person as there is not a son person and a father person, but only a father person who shifts modes. He just changed into the son. So the son who actually bought them with an extremely expensive price is denied as well as his hard work earning the payment for them to be free. This is a major insult to the son. But in reality the only way they could be free is if they understand that the son is actually a real person who exists and is not the father, and they follow him. Because since these criminals deny the son who bought them, and instead believe his father shape shifted into a son to become him, that real son that exists separately from his father will deny them in the presence of his father.

Modalism denies Jesus Christ. The Bible teaches that if you deny Jesus Christ (being the Son of God, a separate Person from the Father, and separate from the Person of the Holy Spirit), He will deny you in the presence of God the Father. Jesus Christ Himself said, “For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when He comes in His glory and that of the Father and the holy angels” (Luke 9:26). Jesus in Luke 12:9 also said, “…but whoever denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God.” So it is obvious that Modalism denies Christ despite the fact they try to claim they promote Jesus and follow Him. The Oneness “Jesus” is a “false Jesus” that does not exist and profanes, and blasphemies the true living, eternal, Son of God. It misplaces credit for propitiation onto the Father, when propitiation was strictly something the Son did. Romans 3:24 says that the redemption is in Christ Jesus, and in verse 25 it says, “God presented Him as the propitiation through faith in His blood, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His restraint God passed over sins previously committed.” It does not say that the Father was the propitiation. 1 John 2:2 explicitly states that Jesus Christ alone was the propitiation: “He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for those of the whole world.” Since the Trinity is true, Modalism is denying God by claiming the Person of the Son does not exist. 1 John 2:23 expresses it simply, “No one who denies the Son can have the Father…” All repentant sinners become Christians who receive salvation. Christians are saved because they call on the name of the Lord and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. If someone repents to a false God that does not exist, one that denies the existence of the Person of the Son, they will not have salvation. Romans 10:9 says, “…if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” If a person claims this verse for a Modalistic Jesus, one that denies the Person of the Son, there is no power for salvation.

Modalism denies the Father’s ability to be a righteous judge

Not only is Modalism an offense to the Person of the Son, but it offends the Person of the Father by ignoring His sacrificial giving of His one and only Son, the Son which He loves so much in relation within the Godhead; and it claims instead that He is the one who died and gave the propitiation for sins. Ignoring the extreme sacrifice the Father allowed to happen to His precious Son is an extreme insult to the love of the Father for sinners that He would allow His own Son (who was willing) to be punished in their place; and not only that, but that the Father is the one who gave out all of the crushing punishment to His own Son. Isaiah 54:6 says, “The LORD has punished Him for the iniquity of us all.” Also, 2 Corinthians 5:21 states, “He made the One who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”Modalism denies God this glory and insults the Father. The Father remained pure and untouched by sin and is the righteous judge that gave out His wrath onto Christ. If Modalism is true it means that God existing in one person, being the Father would have became sinful and then killed himself. There would be no righteous judge untouched by sin able to pour out the wrath. It would be the Father becoming sin on His own and then punishing Himself. This idea cancels out a pure and holy Person who is able to remain innocent who can judge sin. In reality, since the Trinity is what is true, there is a righteous and clean judge untouched by sin that was able to pour out His wrath onto Jesus Christ (who was made sin willingly by the Father) and complete the ability for salvation to be completed. To deny the Father’s giving of His real eternally existing Son is blasphemy, and it cancels out the ability for salvation. Such a person as the “god father” of Modalism does not exist and it profanes the true Father’s work. Therefore, Modalism completely denies the true Father.

1 John 2:22 firmly states, “He is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.”

Of course the most basic reason why Modalism cancels out salvation is that if the Trinity is true, it means that God is Three-As-One and anything other than a triune God does not exist. Worshiping a God that does not exist is idolatry. Modalism is a false religion and God commands that there should never be any other gods worshiped besides Him (Exodus 20:3). There is no forgiveness of sins if a person puts their trust into a false god. Just because the name of a false God uses the same titles and names as the true, triune God of Scripture does not mean it is the same God. Matthew 24:24 claims there will be false Christ’s coming, and 1 Corinthians 11:4 says that people can preach a different Jesus and a different spirit and Christians should not put up with it.

The modalistic god denies the Eternal Person of the Son, thus meaning they deny the true God and profane His atonement.

Article Source:
http://whitedragonawa.wordpress.com/...mnable-heresy/

 

[Butch5]

I started to read a 2-3 sentences in what you had wrote and I just stopped. I couldn't take it anymore. Sorry. Please do not take this the wrong way, but I don't think there is any verse I can quote or any real world example I could use that would help you at this time, my friend.

Peace be unto you, and may God's love shine upon you.

Side Note:

Out of curiosity, how many others believe as you do, my friend? Does your church have some kind of name? Are you the only one that believes this way?

Jason, I'm not the only one who believes what I believe. If you get tired of all of the contradictions and flawed logic espoused in modern Christianity as I did and begin to search and find out what was the original Christian faith, you'd see that what I am saying is indeed the Christian faith. Remember , there has been 2000 years of baggage added to the faith. We can see by just looking at the television that there are those who use the faith to their advantage, do you suppose this has never happened in the past. Here is something to consider, for about 1000 years the Catholic church was pretty much the sole authority regarding the Scriptures in the west. They kept the common man from knowing the Scriptures and said that only the church could interpret the Scriptures. Look at how many doctrines that Catholic church has that Protestants reject as not Biblical. Do you really believe that the reformers got rid of every doctrine that the Catholic church added to the faith? I can tell you they didn't. The Catholic church allowed the Heavenly destine teaching of the Greeks to enter the faith, the first Christians didn't teach that believers went to Heaven when they die. The Catholic church allowed Christians to go to war, the first Christians wouldn't use violence for any reason. The Early Christians taught that there were two kingdoms, the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the world, the Catholic church merged the two. I could go on but I think you get the point. The problem is that many Christians don't do the historical research necessary to see that these doctrines are not from the Bible and to see where they entered into the faith. When you study the writing throughout church history you can see where new ideas come into the Christian faith, ideas that were not entertained by previous Christians. This can be easily seen with the doctrine of the Trinity. The earliest Christians believed in the Trinity but not the way modern Christians do. The early Christians believed as the Scripture and the apostle state, there is one God, and He is the Father. The Shema says,

4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: (Deu 6:4 KJV)

Paul said,

5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (1Co 8:5-6 KJV)

At the council of Nicea Christian leaders came together to iron out the deity of Christ after the Arian controversy began and they concluded that Jesus is of the same essence or nature as the Father. This is the creed that they agreed on.


Nicene Creed
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.
Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.
And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

As you can see what they believed is exactly what Paul said, that is, there is one God, the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ. However, as we look through history we can see that a change came into the Christian faith in the 400's AD. I can be seen in what is know as the "Anthanasian Creed. It is the idea that there are three coequal, co-eternal, beings that form one God. This is not what the earliest Christians believed, it was added some time later. However, since the Catholic church had a hold on the Scriptures they simple taught the masses that this is what the Bible teaches.

I had gotten tired of the discrepancies and decided that I would search for the truth. In that process of digging through the baggage I’ve come to learn a few things. One of the major things that has been of immense help was learning to seek primary sources. That means seeking a source, not someone’s opinion of that source. That meant by passing most modern commentaries and going back to the writings of the earliest Christians. Their writing are known as the “Ante-Nicene Fathers.” These writings tell us what the earliest Christians believed and how they understood the Scriptures. There are several advantages to their writings, they lived in that culture, they spoke the same language, they were very close to the time of the apostles, some of them actually knew and were disciple by the apostles. Men like Ignatius, Polycarp, and Papias were disciples of John. Clement was the traveling companion and disciple of the apostle Paul and is mention in Philippians. These men could actually ask question of the apostles, they didn’t have to interpret what was said, they simply could ask, ‘hey John, when you said, xyz, what did you mean? We can’t do that these men could. When Ignatius says John said, He could have heard it with his ears, not just read it.

However, just because they were the earliest doesn’t necessarily mean they are correct, we still need to compare what they believed with the Scriptures to see if they line up. What usually happens is that when you look at the arguments they present they line up nicely with Scripture.

Another thing I’ve learned is that many pastors don’t really know what the Scriptures teach. Many pastors attend a seminary of whatever denomination they are they learn the doctrines of that denomination and that is what they teach. I’ve heard stories of Pastors who after seminary have drawn different conclusions based on their own study of the Scriptures and have been abandoned by their denomination. So, even if one does realize certain doctrines are wrong they are hard pressed to ouch the issue for risk of being removed and losing their livelihood. A third thing learned is to consider one’s own presuppositions and to set them aside and only look at the text on the page. What do the words actually say, not what have I been taught the words say.

What I said to you about Abraham and the land is actually what the Scriptures teach, many never see it because they have been taught the Heavenly destiny doctrine and so they never consider anything else. However, as I said, it is not what was originally taught. Think about it, if the ultimate goal of the Christian was to spend eternity with God in Heaven, don’t you think it would be plainly stated at least one time? There is not single verse of Scripture that states believers go to Heaven and spend eternity with God there. Every passage of Scripture used to support this idea is done by way of inference. It has to be inferred from the Scriptures because they don’t state it. Seriously, look at the Scriptures and see if you can find even one Scripture passage that states believers go to Heaven and spend eternity there with God.

I think it would help all Christians to consider that for about 1000 years there was for the most part a single group who had control of the Scriptures and told everyone else what the Scriptures said and meant. The Reformers broke that strangle hold which is good, but they only went so far in ridding the faith of the false teachings that had been added through all of those years. By going back to the very beginning we can see what was originally taught as the Christian faith and decide is that is what the Bible teaches. I think for the most part it is. Were they perfect? No, they made mistakes but they I think that had a whole lot more right than we do today.

About what I’ve told you about Abraham and the Land being his inheritance and an everlasting possession, consider the words of Irenaeus. Irenaeus was an early Christian church leader who was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John. So, Irenaeu had an indirect connection to the apostle John, he said.

2. Thus, then, the promise of God, which He gave to Abraham, remains stedfast. For thus He said: “Lift up thine eyes, and look from this place where now thou art, towards the north and south, and east and west. For all the earth which thou seest, I will give to thee and to thy seed, even for ever.” And again He says, “Arise, and go through the length and breadth of the land, since I will give it unto thee;” and [yet] he did not receive an inheritance in it, not even a footstep, but was always a stranger and a pilgrim therein. And upon the death of Sarah his wife, when the Hittites were willing to bestow upon him a place where he might bury her, he declined it as a gift, but bought the burying-place (giving for it four hundred talents of silver) from Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite. Thus did he await patiently the promise of God, and was unwilling to appear to receive from men, what God had promised to give him, when He said again to him as follows: “I will give this land to thy seed, from the river of Egypt even unto the great river Euphrates.” If, then, God promised him the inheritance of the land, yet he did not receive it during all the time of his sojourn there, it must be, that together with his seed, that is, those who fear God and believe in Him, he shall receive it at the resurrection of the just. For his seed is the Church, which receives the adoption to God through the Lord, as John the Baptist said: “For God is able from the stones to raise up children to Abraham.” Thus also the apostle says in the Epistle to the Galatians: “But ye, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of the promise.” And again, in the same Epistle, he plainly declares that they who have believed in Christ do receive Christ, the promise to Abraham thus saying, “The promises were spoken to Abraham, and to his seed. Now He does not say, And of seeds, as if [He spake] of many, but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.” And again, confirming his former words, he says, “Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore, that they which are of faith are the children of Abraham. But the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, declared to Abraham beforehand, That in thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which are of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham.” Thus, then, they who are of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham, and these are the children of Abraham. Now God made promise of the earth to Abraham and his seed; yet neither Abraham nor his seed, that is, those who are justified by faith, do now receive any inheritance in it; but they shall receive it at the resurrection of the just. For God is true and faithful; and on this account He said, “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.”
Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

As I’ve said, most Christians are taught the Heavenly Destiny doctrine and never really consider anything else but it’s not what the Scriptures teach. I’ve written a paper on this subject, the land promise to Abraham, which uses a lot of Scripture to prove this is what God has promised the believer. If anyone is interested the paper is “The Kingdom of God (A Biblical Perspective)”

 

[mpaper345]

Jesus is fully God and fully man and Jesus only died physically not spiritually.

Jesus is sinless and can never fall so He can never die spiritually.

 

[Butch5]

So you believe the Son of God (second person of the Godhead) had a beginning? If so, have you ever read Micah 5:2?

Also, your belief in what you said here is contradictory, my friend. You essentially said there are no three distinct persons of the Godhead or the Trinity that exist as a whole as one God. Then you make a distinction between the Father and the Son by saying the Son is the Father's literal offspring (on some kind of spiritual level - i.e. by saying they are both of the same substance).

The definition of the Trinity is in the fact that there are 3 distinct persons. If they are not three distinct persons then they are no longer a Trinity. If you don't believe in three distinct persons then.... that would be Modalism. Modalism is the belief that there is no different persons within the Godhead. That the Father can morph into the Son, etc. The pesons of the Godhead are just reduced to mere roles like in a play and or to mere names.

Modalism is false because it denies the person of Jesus Christ as a unique individual who died for your sins.

Hello Jason,

Yes, I'm aware of what Modalism is, it's an unbiblical doctrine. There's nothing contradictory in my post as you'll note that I said many believe the Trinity is a being called God who consists of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, that is not what I believe, that is what many Christians claim is the Trinity. It is however, a logical contradiction. As Paul said, 'to us there is one God the Father.' Jesus is God (deity) in that He is of the same essence or substance as the Father. That doesn't mean He is the Father. The word God means deity or divinity. God (the Father) is deity therefore anyone He begets is deity. It is in this sense that Jesus is God. As far as order or authority the Father is God. He is the ultimate authority and power, He is above all, that include the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Many get confused because the word God is used two different ways in the Scriptures. It is mostly used as a name for the Father, however, sometimes it is used to denote deity, this is usually the way it is used of Christ. Many get confused when they read John 1:1

KJV John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Joh 1:1 KJV)

However, if we change the word God to deity the passage is more clear.

In the beginning was the Word and the word was with Deity and the word was Deity.

When the word God is used many think the passage is saying that the Word is the Father. However, when we change it to deity we can easily see that the both the Word and the Father are deity not the same being.

regarding Jesus' beginning, Jesus Himself said, 'I proceeded forth and came out of God.' This is the begetting of the Son.This too is one of the very early teachings of the faith. Ignatius was a personal disciple of the apostle John and was appointed as the third bishop at Antioch by the apostle Peter. Ignatius said,

These things [I address to you], my beloved, not that I know any of you to be in such a state; but, as less than any of you, I desire to guard you beforehand, that ye fall not upon the hooks of vain doctrine, but that you may rather attain to a full assurance in Christ, who was begotten by the Father before all ages, but was afterwards born of the Virgin Mary without any intercourse with man.
Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

Ignatius said that Jesus was begotten before all ages by the Father. This is in line with Jesus' own words where He said He came out of God. The question arises how can He have a origin and yet be eternal? The answer is that since the Father is eternal anything that comes from Him is of eternal substance or essence. So, while not as an individual entity Christ did exist in substance or essence within the Father. The early Christians use an analogy of fire that I think is very good. If one has a fire that is burning that has been burning for a week and they take a dry branch and place part of it into the fire and it begins to burn and then they remove it and place it on some kindling to start a second fire. Although the second fire as an entity have newly existed, the fire is actually as old as the first fire. The second fire has come out of the first yet the first fire is not diminished in any way and the second fire is as old as the first even though it is new as a separate fire. This is how the Early Christians understood the Trinity and quite frankly it makes perfect sense and probably more importantly it agrees with all of the Scripture passages that deal with the subject.

 

[Butch5]

Yes, I believe in the God of the Bible and He consists of 3 Persons., Father., Son, Holy Spirit. Great is the mystery of Godliness..........

1 Tim.3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles., believed on in the world, received up into glory.

GODHEAD... Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and GODHEAD; so that they are without excuse.

Butch5, this verse is so clear in Colossians;
Colossians 2:9 For in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the GODHEAD bodily. That is Jesus. In Him dwells ALL THE FULLNESS OF THE GODHEAD BODILY. Can't deny the Word. T

Ladylynn,

That’s not the God of the Bible, it’s the God of a 5[SUP]th[/SUP] century theologian. Actually, I think it was Augustine but I’m not certain. However, it’s a logical contradiction. “He” is a first person pronoun and it’s singular, three is plural and cannot be referred to as a He. Three is referred to as they, not He. When we say He we have to refer to a single member of the Trinity, the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit. If we understand “God” defined as deity I think things are clearer. All three members are deity, However, all three members are not a “He”

I am seeing you do not believe Jesus is God in EVERY SENSE OF BEING GOD. This sounds a bit like JWs because they deny Jesus was God and say He is "A god " little 'g'

Not at all, as long as we keep within the definition of the word God, it means deity. It doesn’t mean to have this power or that power, or to be able to do this or that. It’s when Christians thy to impose the three coequal, co-eternal teaching of the 5[SUP]th[/SUP] century that they run into problems. Jesus said of His return that He didn’t know when it was that only the Father knew. This present a problem for the coequal idea as do quite a few other passages. However, rather than accept what the passages of Scripture say Christians try to explain them away in order to adhere to their preconceived idea of this 5[SUP]th[/SUP] century teaching.

??? confusing stuff., But ultimately you are saying Jesus is not equal with God in all His Attributes? And what you are saying doesn't mesh or harmonize with the Bible.

No, Jesus and the Father are not equal in all attributes, the Scriptures are clear on that. It’s not my understanding that doesn’t harmonize with the Scriptures. The Scriptures say that the Father is immortal, that He cannot die, Jesus did die. When the Father gave all authority to Christ the Father was excepted from that, He was never under the authority of anyone. These are differences in attributes. The Father knew things that Jesus didn’t, that different attributes. The Father is unbegotten the Son is begotten, again, these are different attributes. There are way in which they are not equal. As I said, that coequal, co-eternal doctrine is a 5[SUP]th[/SUP] century doctrine it is not part of the original Christian faith.

Faith is what harmonizes the passages as we study and come across things that at first don't make sense. Faith to faith.., Romans 1:17

Unity in the Scriptures is what shows harmony. If was have conflicting passages we have error.

 

[Butch5]

Butch5, I want to encourage you to read the book of John through. Jesus created and upholds all things. He is the One Who was made flesh and came to live on this earth. He is from the beginning,. He is the first and the last. John 1:1-5 beautiful

John 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.
31. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him.


Only God can lay His life down and take it up again., Jesus did this. (He also raised Lazarus) The Bible also says the Spirit raised Jesus from the dead., The Bible doesn't contradict itself, we must conclude that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are One. That is how the Bible can say both the Holy Spirit raised Jesus and how Jesus can say He raised Himself. And so many other verses where the attributes of God are interchangeable with Father.,Son, Holy Spirit.

Read any KJV and NAS or NIV or Amplified or other Bibles (am just naming the ones I have read) and this is clear. Denying the Deity of Christ is not in keeping with the truth of the Bible. (if you are denying His deity)

Get any study Bible or concordance from many different Christian writers such as Halley's Bible handbook or the New Strongs Exhaustive concordance of the Bible just to name a VERY few and they will also clearly lead you to the Doctrine of the Deity of Christ in the Bible verse by verse.

You don't have to be a Biblical scholar to find these truths from Scripture. I only mentioned a very few verses here.

We have to let Bible interpret Bible. There are soooooooo many verses that speak of the Deity of Christ. It just cannot be denied.

Emmanuel .. Matt.1:23 Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Immanuel Is. 7:14 Is.8:8 a Messianic name means God with us.
When Jesus Christ was born, God became "flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14)

Jehovah is the Saviour. God manifest in the flesh.

Jesus said He was God when He said "I AM" God also called the Son "God"
Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder; and his name shall be called Wonderful, counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, the Prince of peace.

Jesus was even called the Everlasting Father....

Ladylynn,

I would suggest the same. I have studied this, in quite some depth I might add. I've gone back to the very earliest explanations of the Trinity and looked at them, they mesh with the Scriptures nicely. I've looked at the passages that deal with the subject also. However, when it comes to commentaries and study Bibles I tend to avoid them now as I've seen how they lead me astray in the past. Think about this. Christians read commentaries and study Bible notes and pretty much just accept what they say. Do they know anything about the people who have written these works? No, they simply just accept whatever they say. For all most Christians know these commentaries could be written by unbelievers. You posted from a study Bible and I suspect that you really don't know any more about the author of those notes than you know about me, yet you accept what they say and reject what I say. What is the basis for that? My guess is that it's because you agree with the author of the notes and not with me. You see, you can pretty much find a commentary that will agree with any position on any topic so what good do they really serve? Unless the author has a proper grasp of the Scriptures they're a best not very useful and at worst, dangerous. Are there good commentaries, I suspect there are, however, how do you know unless you already know the Scriptures.

As I've said, I've not denied the deity of Christ, actually, I've explained how it works in my understanding of the Trinity doctrine. You see, the thing is I don't have the difficult passages that many Christians struggle to explain. Christians will speak of three coequal beings but Jesus said, "the Father is greater than I." This doesn't fit that 5th century doctrine so Christians try to come up with explanations like, 'that was Jesus humanity.' Really? Jesus didn't say it was His humanity, He said, "the Father is greater than I." Whenever we have to start adding things to the Scriptures it's sign that our doctrine is not what the Bible teaches.

Don't take my word for it, check it out. look at the earliest understanding of the Trinity and see if it's not different from the modern view and see if it lines up with the Scriptures. If you do, I think you come away much more amazed at what Jesus actually did for mankind.

 

[Jason0047]

Jason, I'm not the only one who believes what I believe. If you get tired of all of the contradictions and flawed logic espoused in modern Christianity as I did and begin to search and find out what was the original Christian faith, you'd see that what I am saying is indeed the Christian faith. Remember , there has been 2000 years of baggage added to the faith. We can see by just looking at the television that there are those who use the faith to their advantage, do you suppose this has never happened in the past. Here is something to consider, for about 1000 years the Catholic church was pretty much the sole authority regarding the Scriptures in the west. They kept the common man from knowing the Scriptures and said that only the church could interpret the Scriptures. Look at how many doctrines that Catholic church has that Protestants reject as not Biblical. Do you really believe that the reformers got rid of every doctrine that the Catholic church added to the faith? I can tell you they didn't. The Catholic church allowed the Heavenly destine teaching of the Greeks to enter the faith, the first Christians didn't teach that believers went to Heaven when they die. The Catholic church allowed Christians to go to war, the first Christians wouldn't use violence for any reason. The Early Christians taught that there were two kingdoms, the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the world, the Catholic church merged the two. I could go on but I think you get the point. The problem is that many Christians don't do the historical research necessary to see that these doctrines are not from the Bible and to see where they entered into the faith. When you study the writing throughout church history you can see where new ideas come into the Christian faith, ideas that were not entertained by previous Christians. This can be easily seen with the doctrine of the Trinity. The earliest Christians believed in the Trinity but not the way modern Christians do. The early Christians believed as the Scripture and the apostle state, there is one God, and He is the Father. The Shema says,

4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: (Deu 6:4 KJV)

Paul said,

5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (1Co 8:5-6 KJV)

At the council of Nicea Christian leaders came together to iron out the deity of Christ after the Arian controversy began and they concluded that Jesus is of the same essence or nature as the Father. This is the creed that they agreed on.


Nicene Creed
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.
Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.
And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

As you can see what they believed is exactly what Paul said, that is, there is one God, the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ. However, as we look through history we can see that a change came into the Christian faith in the 400's AD. I can be seen in what is know as the "Anthanasian Creed. It is the idea that there are three coequal, co-eternal, beings that form one God. This is not what the earliest Christians believed, it was added some time later. However, since the Catholic church had a hold on the Scriptures they simple taught the masses that this is what the Bible teaches.

I had gotten tired of the discrepancies and decided that I would search for the truth. In that process of digging through the baggage I’ve come to learn a few things. One of the major things that has been of immense help was learning to seek primary sources. That means seeking a source, not someone’s opinion of that source. That meant by passing most modern commentaries and going back to the writings of the earliest Christians. Their writing are known as the “Ante-Nicene Fathers.” These writings tell us what the earliest Christians believed and how they understood the Scriptures. There are several advantages to their writings, they lived in that culture, they spoke the same language, they were very close to the time of the apostles, some of them actually knew and were disciple by the apostles. Men like Ignatius, Polycarp, and Papias were disciples of John. Clement was the traveling companion and disciple of the apostle Paul and is mention in Philippians. These men could actually ask question of the apostles, they didn’t have to interpret what was said, they simply could ask, ‘hey John, when you said, xyz, what did you mean? We can’t do that these men could. When Ignatius says John said, He could have heard it with his ears, not just read it.

However, just because they were the earliest doesn’t necessarily mean they are correct, we still need to compare what they believed with the Scriptures to see if they line up. What usually happens is that when you look at the arguments they present they line up nicely with Scripture.

Another thing I’ve learned is that many pastors don’t really know what the Scriptures teach. Many pastors attend a seminary of whatever denomination they are they learn the doctrines of that denomination and that is what they teach. I’ve heard stories of Pastors who after seminary have drawn different conclusions based on their own study of the Scriptures and have been abandoned by their denomination. So, even if one does realize certain doctrines are wrong they are hard pressed to ouch the issue for risk of being removed and losing their livelihood. A third thing learned is to consider one’s own presuppositions and to set them aside and only look at the text on the page. What do the words actually say, not what have I been taught the words say.

What I said to you about Abraham and the land is actually what the Scriptures teach, many never see it because they have been taught the Heavenly destiny doctrine and so they never consider anything else. However, as I said, it is not what was originally taught. Think about it, if the ultimate goal of the Christian was to spend eternity with God in Heaven, don’t you think it would be plainly stated at least one time? There is not single verse of Scripture that states believers go to Heaven and spend eternity with God there. Every passage of Scripture used to support this idea is done by way of inference. It has to be inferred from the Scriptures because they don’t state it. Seriously, look at the Scriptures and see if you can find even one Scripture passage that states believers go to Heaven and spend eternity there with God.

I think it would help all Christians to consider that for about 1000 years there was for the most part a single group who had control of the Scriptures and told everyone else what the Scriptures said and meant. The Reformers broke that strangle hold which is good, but they only went so far in ridding the faith of the false teachings that had been added through all of those years. By going back to the very beginning we can see what was originally taught as the Christian faith and decide is that is what the Bible teaches. I think for the most part it is. Were they perfect? No, they made mistakes but they I think that had a whole lot more right than we do today.

About what I’ve told you about Abraham and the Land being his inheritance and an everlasting possession, consider the words of Irenaeus. Irenaeus was an early Christian church leader who was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John. So, Irenaeu had an indirect connection to the apostle John, he said.

2. Thus, then, the promise of God, which He gave to Abraham, remains stedfast. For thus He said: “Lift up thine eyes, and look from this place where now thou art, towards the north and south, and east and west. For all the earth which thou seest, I will give to thee and to thy seed, even for ever.” And again He says, “Arise, and go through the length and breadth of the land, since I will give it unto thee;” and [yet] he did not receive an inheritance in it, not even a footstep, but was always a stranger and a pilgrim therein. And upon the death of Sarah his wife, when the Hittites were willing to bestow upon him a place where he might bury her, he declined it as a gift, but bought the burying-place (giving for it four hundred talents of silver) from Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite. Thus did he await patiently the promise of God, and was unwilling to appear to receive from men, what God had promised to give him, when He said again to him as follows: “I will give this land to thy seed, from the river of Egypt even unto the great river Euphrates.” If, then, God promised him the inheritance of the land, yet he did not receive it during all the time of his sojourn there, it must be, that together with his seed, that is, those who fear God and believe in Him, he shall receive it at the resurrection of the just. For his seed is the Church, which receives the adoption to God through the Lord, as John the Baptist said: “For God is able from the stones to raise up children to Abraham.” Thus also the apostle says in the Epistle to the Galatians: “But ye, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of the promise.” And again, in the same Epistle, he plainly declares that they who have believed in Christ do receive Christ, the promise to Abraham thus saying, “The promises were spoken to Abraham, and to his seed. Now He does not say, And of seeds, as if [He spake] of many, but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.” And again, confirming his former words, he says, “Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore, that they which are of faith are the children of Abraham. But the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, declared to Abraham beforehand, That in thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which are of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham.” Thus, then, they who are of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham, and these are the children of Abraham. Now God made promise of the earth to Abraham and his seed; yet neither Abraham nor his seed, that is, those who are justified by faith, do now receive any inheritance in it; but they shall receive it at the resurrection of the just. For God is true and faithful; and on this account He said, “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.”
Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

As I’ve said, most Christians are taught the Heavenly Destiny doctrine and never really consider anything else but it’s not what the Scriptures teach. I’ve written a paper on this subject, the land promise to Abraham, which uses a lot of Scripture to prove this is what God has promised the believer. If anyone is interested the paper is “The Kingdom of God (A Biblical Perspective)”

There is no contradictions within the Scriptures in what I believe. I am also strongly against Catholicism. Again, no offense but I am also strongly against alot of what you are teaching here, too. So much of what you said so far is just the polar opposite of what I believe the Scriptures say. Which is why I am still choosing not to read the entirety of your lengthy replies. More like picking out key words, etc.

What I am interested in from you is a 1-2 sentence reply of what denomination or religion are you most closely associated with.

Again, no lengthy replies on this. Just tell me what church holds most of your views?

 

[Jason0047]

Hello Jason,

Yes, I'm aware of what Modalism is, it's an unbiblical doctrine. There's nothing contradictory in my post as you'll note that I said many believe the Trinity is a being called God who consists of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, that is not what I believe, that is what many Christians claim is the Trinity. It is however, a logical contradiction. As Paul said, 'to us there is one God the Father.' Jesus is God (deity) in that He is of the same essence or substance as the Father. That doesn't mean He is the Father. The word God means deity or divinity. God (the Father) is deity therefore anyone He begets is deity. It is in this sense that Jesus is God. As far as order or authority the Father is God. He is the ultimate authority and power, He is above all, that include the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Many get confused because the word God is used two different ways in the Scriptures. It is mostly used as a name for the Father, however, sometimes it is used to denote deity, this is usually the way it is used of Christ. Many get confused when they read John 1:1

KJV John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Joh 1:1 KJV)

However, if we change the word God to deity the passage is more clear.

In the beginning was the Word and the word was with Deity and the word was Deity.

When the word God is used many think the passage is saying that the Word is the Father. However, when we change it to deity we can easily see that the both the Word and the Father are deity not the same being.

regarding Jesus' beginning, Jesus Himself said, 'I proceeded forth and came out of God.' This is the begetting of the Son.This too is one of the very early teachings of the faith. Ignatius was a personal disciple of the apostle John and was appointed as the third bishop at Antioch by the apostle Peter. Ignatius said,

These things [I address to you], my beloved, not that I know any of you to be in such a state; but, as less than any of you, I desire to guard you beforehand, that ye fall not upon the hooks of vain doctrine, but that you may rather attain to a full assurance in Christ, who was begotten by the Father before all ages, but was afterwards born of the Virgin Mary without any intercourse with man.
Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

Ignatius said that Jesus was begotten before all ages by the Father. This is in line with Jesus' own words where He said He came out of God. The question arises how can He have a origin and yet be eternal? The answer is that since the Father is eternal anything that comes from Him is of eternal substance or essence. So, while not as an individual entity Christ did exist in substance or essence within the Father. The early Christians use an analogy of fire that I think is very good. If one has a fire that is burning that has been burning for a week and they take a dry branch and place part of it into the fire and it begins to burn and then they remove it and place it on some kindling to start a second fire. Although the second fire as an entity have newly existed, the fire is actually as old as the first fire. The second fire has come out of the first yet the first fire is not diminished in any way and the second fire is as old as the first even though it is new as a separate fire. This is how the Early Christians understood the Trinity and quite frankly it makes perfect sense and probably more importantly it agrees with all of the Scripture passages that deal with the subject.

I am looking for as brief an explanation as possible. Do you believe Christ existed before the world and the Incarnation eternally as God? Yes or no?

 

[Butch5]

There is no contradictions within the Scriptures in what I believe. I am also strongly against Catholicism. Again, no offense but I am also strongly against alot of what you are teaching here, too. So much of what you said so far is just the polar opposite of what I believe the Scriptures say. Which is why I am still choosing not to read the entirety of your lengthy replies. More like picking out key words, etc.

What I am interested in from you is a 1-2 sentence reply of what denomination or religion are you most closely associated with.

Again, no lengthy replies on this. Just tell me what church holds most of your views?

You can't cut through 2000 years of baggage in a sentence or two. I seems to me that you're not willing to challenge your beliefs? If that is the case then you probably won't grow much.

There are a few Christian churches that I know of that hold the same positions as I do. However, I would like the discussion to stay with what I believe. If my argument is going to stand or fall let it be on what I say not what others may say.

However, since you're not reading my posts you really won't know what I believe.

 

[Butch5]

I am looking for as brief an explanation as possible. Do you believe Christ existed before the world and the Incarnation eternally as God? Yes or no?

I've already explained that but you're not reading my posts so I guess you missed it. Define what you mean by God.

 

[Jason0047]

You can't cut through 2000 years of baggage in a sentence or two. I seems to me that you're not willing to challenge your beliefs? If that is the case then you probably won't grow much.

There are a few Christian churches that I know of that hold the same positions as I do. However, I would like the discussion to stay with what I believe. If my argument is going to stand or fall let it be on what I say not what others may say.

However, since you're not reading my posts you really won't know what I believe.

Look, I am not going to beat around the bush with you and be a politician, my friend. I am going to be straight with you and I would like the same courtesy. My beliefs primarily resemble Evangelical or Protestant type churches.

See how easy it was for me to say that?

However, if you persist in not revealing which churches you are affiliated with, then I will have to draw one of the two conclusions. One, technically, there are no churches that believe primarily as you do; Or two, you don't anyone to gain the upperhand on a church that has already been refuted as false with Scripture by many believers already. So I will ask you again. Which churches believe primarily as you do?

 

[ladylynn]

Butch5, I tried to find what your faith statement was on your site and also the facebook portion and could not find it. I am also NOT in agreement with most of the things you say here. Very looong explanations for something as basic as you don't believe in the deity of Christ for one. Just say it! instead of making long examples of why you don't believe it but in some cases do. I am not interested in "why" you do not accept that Jesus is God.

I find it realllly annoying when someone won't just come out and say what they believe and instead take me down a rabbit trail where in the end it is far from the doctrines of the Christian faith. Not only that, should a young Christian be searching, your words at first sound ok, but these young Christians after following your logic down the complicated rabbit hole will see Jesus is NOT God in all His attributes based on your human flawed logic.

I don't need a commentary to tell me you and I do not see the Bible the same. What I last posted to you about the deity of Jesus was from my KJV Bible. Again, you and I come to totally different conclusions about what the "Bible" says apart from any commentary or any study notes.

Another tactic of the enemy is to try and put doubt in about the Word of God and if it "really" is saying what the verse says. And am not talking about issues that are left up to opinion, but the basics of the Christian faith like the deity of Jesus or the Trinity and the Godhead. You never commented on the verses I posted to you Butch5. They were simple and basic about the Godhead.

 

[ladylynn]

Look, I am not going to beat around the bush with you and be a politician, my friend. I am going to be straight with you and I would like the same courtesy. My beliefs primarily resemble Evangelical or Protestant type churches.

See how easy it was for me to say that?

However, if you persist in not revealing which churches you are affiliated with, then I will have to draw one of the two conclusions. One, technically, there are no churches that believe primarily as you do; Or two, you don't anyone to gain the upperhand on a church that has already been refuted as false with Scripture by many believers already. So I will ask you again. Which churches believe primarily as you do?

I am also tired of Butch5 beating around the bush., He is avoiding and dancing around and I'm not much of a dancer so he will have to dance alone.