Understanding the Trinity as a doctrine.

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Aug 8, 2021
620
37
28
The books in the Bible that were named after the apostles who wrote them, were indeed written by them.

I do believe that calling God your Father means that you are claiming to be equal with God; and this in no way contradicts the fact that Jesus told us, I have said, ye are gods, in John 10:34. For when we become a child of God (John 1:12), we become one spirit with Him (1 Corinthians 6:17) and we are filled with all of His fulness (Ephesians 3:19-20). We are made to be absolutely one with the Holy Spirit, in our spirit. In that sense, we are "gods" and are made to be equal with God; therefore we also can call Him, "Father".

Jesus broke the sabbath according to God's law (Exodus 20:10); which said that it is a violation of the sabbath to do *any work* on the sabbath day. Jesus clearly violated the sabbath day in this regard (John 5:16-17); or at least He claimed to.

However, Jesus, as High Priest according to the order of Melchizedec, did not come after a carnal commandment but after the power of an endless life. And, Jesus said, that the Son of man is also the Lord of the sabbath.

So, Jesus, since He is immortal, would not be condemned by His violation of the sabbath day law. And because He is God He is also the One who created that law to begin with; and therefore He has the authority to change it (see Hebrews 7:12).

Isaiah 9:6 says it plainly enough for me that Jesus is the Most High God. If you don't see that in the verse, I will pray for you. But your contention that it does not say what I see it as plainly saying is not going to change my point of view. And you have a right to your own point of view; even though it is wrong.

The Bible says in 2 Corinthians 10:3-5 that the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for the pulling down of strongholds. And prayer is the weapon of warfare that I am going to use in this instance; it is the heavy artillery of the full armor of God (Ephesians 6:10-18). May the Holy Ghost testify to you and reveal to you the fact of God's Triune nature; and may He show you that there is education that is not of His Spirit and that you have been deceived by such (see Proverbs 19:27).



"They were probably written between AD 66 and 110. All four were anonymous (the modern names were added in the 2nd century), almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission. Mark was the first to be written, using a variety of sources;"

That's just from Wikipedia... I was actually being too lazy to gather a bunch of info on it. But it doesn't take much research to prove that the names being associated with the authors were later additions.

I completely disagree with you regarding the "equal to God" thing. There are plenty of scriptures in the OT you would have to disregard that says He is above all, no one is beside him, etc. No one is egual to Him. That contradicts the very term MOST High.

I've explained this already... but feeding the hungry, healing people, pulling an ox out of the ditch, etc. is not what we were called to refrain from on the Sabbath. Doing God's work is not the same as man's work. The Pharisees and others added all of these man made rules to God's law, ultimately creating a new law that was not of The Father (See Jer 8:8). So in their eyes, he was breaking the law.... because he was breaking the false law that mankind created. He was not breaking His Fathers law. The Messiah did not "change" the law either. The word "change" in Hebrews 7:12 means "transfer". The verse is not saying the law is now altered... it is saying that it is transferred to this new priesthood. Whereas the Levites corrupted The Father's law... The Messiah made sure he represented it correctly. I go into much further detail on this in the "Sabbath" thread if you are interested in more on the law and common misconceptions about it.

You can pray for whoever you like, but you are actually the one that's wrong about Isiah 9:6.... and as long as you are too close minded to look into things like Hebrew verbs, and other source texts that the translations come from, then you can just happily remain in your ideology. Many assumptions and traditions are added to the scriptures to keep the trinity doctrine afloat.
 

justbyfaith

Well-known member
Sep 16, 2021
4,707
462
83
What exactly is your position in denial of the Trinity? Oneness? Jehovah's Witness? Mormon?

Jesus told a man to take up his bed and walk on the sabbath day...so while technically, He did not violate the sabbath day Himself, He did command someone else to violate it...for carrying his mat was work. Therefore He violated it in His teaching.

And yes, Jesus did change the law. I will not dispute that this change can be defined as a transfer. We go from attempting to obey a set of do's and don'ts to walking not after the flesh but after the Spirit, as a law...and of course, if we walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit, the righteousness of the law will be fulfilled in us (Romans 8:4). For there is no law that will condemn us in our behaviour if we bear the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23). Thus, in bearing the fruit of the Spirit we become law-abiding citizens of the kingdom of heaven. This is a righteousness apart from the law that is nevertheless attested to by the law and the prophets that it is righteousness indeed (Romans 3:21); because it is achieved not by attempting to obey a set of do's and don'ts; but rather we obtain the Holy Spirit by faith (Galatians 3:14) and when we walk by the Spirit rather than the flesh, the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us (again, Romans 8:4, Galatians 5:22-23).

I am also not wrong about Isaiah 9:6. For God is both sovereign and Omnipotent and loving.

Because He is sovereign and Omnipotent, He is able to preserve His unadulterated message in the translation that we know today as the authorized version.

Because He is loving, He was motivated to do so.

And therefore we have an accurate translation in the kjv's rendering of Isaiah 9:6.

Concerning equality with God...the term Elohim is the plural for God and it has been translated as "angels". God is the LORD of hosts and He indwells in all of His fulness each individual member of the host of heaven. Jesus is the chief cornerstone of the building; being the incarnation of the Father and uniquely created as a union of the egg in the womb of the virgin Mary and the Holy Ghost.

The Most High is the Spirit that indwells every member of the host of heaven in all of His fulness. Every angel is subject to the Most High; and yet inasmuch as each one has the fulness of the Lord dwelling within him, and his spirit is made one with the Holy Spirit, his spirit is made equal to the Most High God, while in his created angelic form he is less than equal to the Most High.

Your information coming from Wikipedia is fallacious and is based on sources that are less than believing; I would not trust those sources any farther than I can throw them.

My sources give the following dates of atuhorship.

Matthew: A.D. 60-65.
Mark: A.D. 55-65
Luke: A.D. 60
John: A.D. 85-90
Acts: A.D. 63-70
Romans: A.D. 57
1 Corinthians: A.D. 56
2 Corinthians: A.D. 55-57
Galatians, James: A.D. 49
Ephesians: A.D. 60
Philippians: A.D. 61
Colossians: A.D. 60
1 Thessalonians: A.D. 51
2 Thessalonians: A.D. 51 or 52
1 Timothy: A.D. 64
2 Timothy: A.D. 66 or 67
Titus: A.D. 64
Philemon: A.D. 60
Hebrews: before 70 A.D.
James: A.D. 49
1 Peter: A.D. 62-64
2 Peter: A.D. 67
1 John: A.D. 85-90
2 John, 3 John: A.D.90
Jude: A.D. 65
Revelation: A.D. 95.

The apostles who wrote the gospels were in fact eyewitnesses of Jesus' life, death, burial, and resurrection, it was all in the timeframe where that is possible.
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
12,508
4,123
113
I agree he is "God".... Just not his Father... The Most High God
I never said Jesus is the Father, the word of God says Jesus Speaking IF you have seen me you have seen the Father.

The divine nature of God Which is the Father Son and the Holy Spirit are all seen in the word of God as God three yet ONE. Three distinct yet One God.
 
Aug 8, 2021
620
37
28
What exactly is your position in denial of the Trinity? Oneness? Jehovah's Witness? Mormon?

Jesus told a man to take up his bed and walk on the sabbath day...so while technically, He did not violate the sabbath day Himself, He did command someone else to violate it...for carrying his mat was work. Therefore He violated it in His teaching.

And yes, Jesus did change the law. I will not dispute that this change can be defined as a transfer. We go from attempting to obey a set of do's and don'ts to walking not after the flesh but after the Spirit, as a law...and of course, if we walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit, the righteousness of the law will be fulfilled in us (Romans 8:4). For there is no law that will condemn us in our behaviour if we bear the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23). Thus, in bearing the fruit of the Spirit we become law-abiding citizens of the kingdom of heaven. This is a righteousness apart from the law that is nevertheless attested to by the law and the prophets that it is righteousness indeed (Romans 3:21); because it is achieved not by attempting to obey a set of do's and don'ts; but rather we obtain the Holy Spirit by faith (Galatians 3:14) and when we walk by the Spirit rather than the flesh, the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us (again, Romans 8:4, Galatians 5:22-23).

I am also not wrong about Isaiah 9:6. For God is both sovereign and Omnipotent and loving.

Because He is sovereign and Omnipotent, He is able to preserve His unadulterated message in the translation that we know today as the authorized version.

Because He is loving, He was motivated to do so.

And therefore we have an accurate translation in the kjv's rendering of Isaiah 9:6.

Concerning equality with God...the term Elohim is the plural for God and it has been translated as "angels". God is the LORD of hosts and He indwells in all of His fulness each individual member of the host of heaven. Jesus is the chief cornerstone of the building; being the incarnation of the Father and uniquely created as a union of the egg in the womb of the virgin Mary and the Holy Ghost.

The Most High is the Spirit that indwells every member of the host of heaven in all of His fulness. Every angel is subject to the Most High; and yet inasmuch as each one has the fulness of the Lord dwelling within him, and his spirit is made one with the Holy Spirit, his spirit is made equal to the Most High God, while in his created angelic form he is less than equal to the Most High.

Your information coming from Wikipedia is fallacious and is based on sources that are less than believing; I would not trust those sources any farther than I can throw them.

My sources give the following dates of atuhorship.

Matthew: A.D. 60-65.
Mark: A.D. 55-65
Luke: A.D. 60
John: A.D. 85-90
Acts: A.D. 63-70
Romans: A.D. 57
1 Corinthians: A.D. 56
2 Corinthians: A.D. 55-57
Galatians, James: A.D. 49
Ephesians: A.D. 60
Philippians: A.D. 61
Colossians: A.D. 60
1 Thessalonians: A.D. 51
2 Thessalonians: A.D. 51 or 52
1 Timothy: A.D. 64
2 Timothy: A.D. 66 or 67
Titus: A.D. 64
Philemon: A.D. 60
Hebrews: before 70 A.D.
James: A.D. 49
1 Peter: A.D. 62-64
2 Peter: A.D. 67
1 John: A.D. 85-90
2 John, 3 John: A.D.90
Jude: A.D. 65
Revelation: A.D. 95.

The apostles who wrote the gospels were in fact eyewitnesses of Jesus' life, death, burial, and resurrection, it was all in the timeframe where that is possible.

I don't belong to any religious organization. The only thing I care about is Truth. My focus is on studying the scriptures for what they actually say... gaining an innerstanding from context and language and not superimposing religious ideologies or traditions on to the text. There are parts of various religions that I agree and disagree with and I don't believe there is a religion out there that has it all figured out.

I'm not sure if you are understanding what I was saying about the law... Many of the laws that were being kept at that the time weren't really God's law. So the "laws" that The Messiah "broke" were man's twisted version of God's law.... Not the REAL law. This is why he had to rightly divide the word... "You have heard it said..... But I say". This was not him changing His Father's law... This was him correcting man's corruption of the law.

The "do's and don'ts" of the law still still exist today.. and remain until heaven and earth pass away (Mat 5:18-19, Luke 16:17, Rev 21:1).
The Father's law was always supposed to have both physical (what we do) and spiritual (why we do it) components. The spirit of the law is found in the two great commandments (Mat 22:37-40)... Those are why we do the physical components (out of love for God or love for our fellow man). But these aren't new commandments, you can find them in the OT in Deu 6:5 and Lev 19:18. Mankind lost sight of the spiritual component of the law, which is why you see so much more of an emphasis on it in the NT. But ultimately, nothing new under the sun.... we just weren't doing things right and needed an example to shows us how it was always meant to be.

Again, I go into the law topic in much more detail on the "Sabbath" thread.

There is no point in keeping on with Isaiah 9:6... and if you are a KJV onlyist, and believe it cant contain any error... then there are just going to be some things that there is no point in discussing. I address the KJV on the "Bible Versions" thread.

I broke down the terminology for the words for the different types of "gods" in my first post (118). There are multiple verses That state that יהוה is above every form of the word "god". You would have to supply solid scriptures that support one is, was or can be equal to Him.

I wasn't even paying attention to the dates at the beginning of the Wikipedia piece I posted. We weren't discussing the dates... the point was the authorship. That's what I suggest you research further.
 
Aug 8, 2021
620
37
28
I never said Jesus is the Father, the word of God says Jesus Speaking IF you have seen me you have seen the Father.

The divine nature of God Which is the Father Son and the Holy Spirit are all seen in the word of God as God three yet ONE. Three distinct yet One God.

Please provide scripture the states the Messiah is one of the below:

A. THE MOST HIGH GOD
B. THE ALMIGHTY
C. Above ALL gods
D. יהוה

If scripture does not say that the Messiah is those specific things, then he is a separate entity and therefore does carry the same level of authority.
 

justbyfaith

Well-known member
Sep 16, 2021
4,707
462
83
To suggest that the authors of the NT were not those who witnessed the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, is a position of unbelief, impaho.

On another note...

It may be that some of what was considered to be the law in Jesus' day was not the true law...

However, it should be clear that Jesus, in doing *any work* on the sabbath day (John 5:16-17), was violating the sabbath as it was laid out in the ten commandments (Exodus 20:10).

Jhn 5:16, And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.
Jhn 5:17, But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

Exo 20:10, But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:


This verse (Exodus 20:10) tells us what is the true law of God concerning the sabbath; because it is given as a part of the ten commandments, which were written on the tablets of stone and not just the pen of the scribes.

Please note that this pertains to the doctrine of the Trinity inasmuch as John 5:18 links our understanding of whether Jesus actually broke the sabbath with our concept of whether He actually made Himself equal with God in calling God His own Father.

On another note...

The spirit of the law is indeed encapsulated in the commandment to love God and love your neighbor. This means to walk according to the Spirit rather than the flesh. For the love of the Lord is shed abroad in our hearts through the Holy Ghost. Therefore to walk according to the Spirit is to walk according to the love that He has shed abroad in your heart.
 

justbyfaith

Well-known member
Sep 16, 2021
4,707
462
83
Please provide scripture the states the Messiah is one of the below:

A. THE MOST HIGH GOD
B. THE ALMIGHTY
C. Above ALL gods
D. יהוה

If scripture does not say that the Messiah is those specific things, then he is a separate entity and therefore does carry the same level of authority.
Isaiah 9:6 (kjv), Psalms 50:1 (kjv)..
 
Aug 8, 2021
620
37
28
Isaiah 9:6 (kjv), Psalms 50:1 (kjv)..
We went over Isaiah 9:6 already, and even if you were correct with your beliefs on the verse and the KJV, "Father" was not a term He referred to Himself as.... and is not on the list I just gave. Why do you believe Psalms 50:1 is referring to the Messiah?
 

justbyfaith

Well-known member
Sep 16, 2021
4,707
462
83
We went over Isaiah 9:6 already, and even if you were correct with your beliefs on the verse and the KJV, "Father" was not a term He referred to Himself as.... and is not on the list I just gave. Why do you believe Psalms 50:1 is referring to the Messiah?
Yes, and we obviously disagree over the interpretation of Isaiah 9:6.

But I was quoting Isaiah 9:6 and Psalms 50:1 together; since "the son that was given" shall have the name of "The Mighty God" among other names; according to Isaiah 9:6.

And, of course, we find that the Mighty God is Jehovah (the LORD) in Psalms 50:1 (kjv). And I think you might agree that Jehovah is the Most High God (and if you do not agree, I would be interested in knowing who you believe the Most High God is).

I know that your response to this is to dispute that the kjv is an accurate translation in this scripture. But I will say three things to this.

1) You are heaping to yourself teachers, in the translators of other versions of the Bible, to tell you what your itching ears want to hear (2 Timothy 4:3);

2) God is both sovereign and Omnipotent and loving. Because He is sovereign and Omnipotent, He has the power to preserve His unadulterated message in the kjv. Because He is loving, He was motivated to do so. And,

3) Believing that the kjv is inerrant and inspired is an aspect of the narrow way that leads to life (Matthew 7:13-14), impaho. Just throwing this out there whether you will take it or leave it. You leave it at the peril of your own soul, impaho. If I am wrong, you have nothing to worry about. But if I am right, you will not be going to heaven if you reject my point of view.
 

justbyfaith

Well-known member
Sep 16, 2021
4,707
462
83
We went over Isaiah 9:6 already, and even if you were correct with your beliefs on the verse and the KJV, "Father" was not a term He referred to Himself as.... and is not on the list I just gave. Why do you believe Psalms 50:1 is referring to the Messiah?
I beg to differ with you on that. Jesus referred to Himself as being the Father in the following passage.

Jhn 14:7, If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
Jhn 14:8,
Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
Jhn 14:9, Jesus saith unto him,
Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
Jhn 14:10, Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
Jhn 14:11, Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
 
Apr 15, 2017
2,867
653
113
They say there is 3 persons in one God but how can 3 equal 1 and if that is the case then it would take all 3 persons to make one God then they could not be fully God on their own but one third of a God.

If they say God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit then they are saying 3 Gods which the Bible says one God.

1Co 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him.

Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Why does the Bible only attribute the Father as God.

Joh 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

The name of the Father is Jesus.

Joh 16:23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.

Jesus said when He resurrects to heaven to not ask Him anything but only ask the Father.

Joh 14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
Joh 14:14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

But in another passage of scripture Jesus said when He resurrects to heaven to ask Him and He will do it.

Can a person explain these things if there is 3 persons in one God.

Heb 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

The Son inherited the name Jesus from the Father.

Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name.

The Holy Spirit comes in the name of Jesus.

Jesus is the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit which is why Jews, Gentiles, and Samaritans were all baptized in the name of Jesus.
 
Aug 8, 2021
620
37
28
To suggest that the authors of the NT were not those who witnessed the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, is a position of unbelief, impaho.
If we are intellectually honest we have to ask ourselves WHY we believe certain things. When these writings were first "discovered", there was no names of authorship attached to them... these again were added later. In Gal 5:2 it says "I Paul say unto you", so its fair to assume that he is the one writing.... But in Mat 9:9 it says "a man named Matthew" (speaking in third person). You can choose to believe that Matthew himself wrote that, but the scripture itself does not infer it. Likewise, its not scriptural to believe Moses wrote the whole Torah, which includes writings about his death.


On another note...

It may be that some of what was considered to be the law in Jesus' day was not the true law...

However, it should be clear that Jesus, in doing *any work* on the sabbath day (John 5:16-17), was violating the sabbath as it was laid out in the ten commandments (Exodus 20:10).

Jhn 5:16, And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.
Jhn 5:17, But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.


Exo 20:10, But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

This verse (Exodus 20:10) tells us what is the true law of God concerning the sabbath; because it is given as a part of the ten commandments, which were written on the tablets of stone and not just the pen of the scribes.

You are looking at Exo 20:10 like the Pharisee's did.. and took it so literal that they ended up breaking the spirit of the law by thinking they were enforcing the physical. The Day of Atonement is another one of The Father's Sabbaths (Lev 16:29-31). There are two instructions for that day that are said to be law forever. One of them is to "afflict our beings" meaning "humble ourselves". Its not specific in scripture in what way to accomplish this, but common ways this is done in modern day Judaism is by fasting, prayer, and going to, and spending a lot of time in the synagogue. Maybe you humble yourself by feeding and being around the poor, or being homeless for the night....regardless of how one chooses to "humble themselves", this was something instructed by God. This is doing "work" for The Father... meaning following His instructions. But the 2nd law for The Day of Atonement is not to work on that day.... Same as the Weekly Sabbath.

Is driving work... If the Jews needed to drive to the synagogue? What about preaching? Is the Rabbi not doing God's work on the Sabbath? The point is.. without the spirit of the law you can take the phrase "any work" and make it as extreme as you want it to be. We are suppose to use the spirit of the law to interpret how we are to innerstand the physical. Is the "work" we are attempting to do on the Sabbath out of love for the Father, or love for our fellow man........ or is it something we are doing for money or some sort of personal gain? That's how we know the difference.



Please note that this pertains to the doctrine of the Trinity inasmuch as John 5:18 links our understanding of whether Jesus actually broke the sabbath with our concept of whether He actually made Himself equal with God in calling God His own Father.

I looked more into the language of this verse. The word "broke" as in "broke the sabbath" actually means "loosen". This is the same word used in Mat 16:19 and 18:18 when it says "what you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven". This is not the same word as to "break" the law found in Rom 2:23 or 2:25 meaning to "transgress" the law.... which is the definition of sin (1Jn 3:4). The Messiah did not transgress the law.... aka sin.

I broke down the different words for "god" in post #118...

Is the Messiah equal with God/Aleim/Elohim (Godkind/Angels/Spirits)? Yes

Is the Messiah equal with THE MOST HIGH GOD/THE ALMIGHTY/יהוה) No
 
Aug 8, 2021
620
37
28
Yes, and we obviously disagree over the interpretation of Isaiah 9:6.

But I was quoting Isaiah 9:6 and Psalms 50:1 together; since "the son that was given" shall have the name of "The Mighty God" among other names; according to Isaiah 9:6.

And, of course, we find that the Mighty God is Jehovah (the LORD) in Psalms 50:1 (kjv). And I think you might agree that Jehovah is the Most High God (and if you do not agree, I would be interested in knowing who you believe the Most High God is).

Your lack of knowledge regarding the original languages and refusal to accept factual differences between these different words (all because they ended up being translated the same or similar in the English KJV), is causing you to connect dots that aren't meant to be connected... and lead you down a trail of false conclusions.

The word "mighty" in Isaiah 9:6 is "gibbor" and is associated with being a warrior. The word "mighty" in Psalms 50:1 is "AL/EL" meaning "All".... and is translated as "God" throughout scripture.

For those interested in having a deeper understanding of the scriptures, here is the part of the verse that gets translated into the English KJV as "The mighty God, even the LORD, hath spoken":

אל אלהים יהוה דבר (read from right to left)

אל - Al/EL - Almost always translated as "God", but here translated as "mighty". The name/title means "All".

אלהים - Aleim/Elohim - Also translated as "God" (sometimes gods). The word means "Godkind" (as opposed to mankind).

יהוה - IAO - This is what many believe is the Most High's name. It means "Existing".

דבר - Dabar - This means "To speak".


I don't want to get into a debate on the tenses, so for this verse I will leave the word "dabar" how the KJV translated it - "hath spoken".

So if we translated the previously mentioned phrase from Psalms 50:1 using what the names/titles actually mean in the original language, it would read something like this:

"ALL Godkind Existing hath spoken"


Regardless of how you feel about the translation, the words translated as "mighty" in Isaiah 9:6 and Psalms 50:1 are two very different words. So you have still not been able to provide any scriptures where the Messiah is referred to as these names/titles:

A. THE MOST HIGH GOD
B. THE ALMIGHTY
C. Above ALL gods
D. יהוה


I know that your response to this is to dispute that the kjv is an accurate translation in this scripture. But I will say three things to this.

1) You are heaping to yourself teachers, in the translators of other versions of the Bible, to tell you what your itching ears want to hear (2 Timothy 4:3);

2) God is both sovereign and Omnipotent and loving. Because He is sovereign and Omnipotent, He has the power to preserve His unadulterated message in the kjv. Because He is loving, He was motivated to do so. And,

3) Believing that the kjv is inerrant and inspired is an aspect of the narrow way that leads to life (Matthew 7:13-14), impaho. Just throwing this out there whether you will take it or leave it. You leave it at the peril of your own soul, impaho. If I am wrong, you have nothing to worry about. But if I am right, you will not be going to heaven if you reject my point of view.

1) Its very ironic that you would relate 2 Tim 4:3 to me. I have not run into any teachers that specifically target the KJV as a bible NOT to use... but I have run into "teachers" that push the doctrine that the KJV is this infallible translation and will ignore many facts that prove otherwise... even about the language it was translated from. That verse you posted from Timothy seems to apply much more to KJV onlyists than to me.

2) Noone denies The Most High's omnipotence. However, you are jumping to conclusions again to connect the power The Most High has... to the KJV. The Most High being capable of doing something is not evidence that He did it.

3) Mat 7:13-14 says absolutely nothing about bible versions. You are pulling verses out of context that have nothing to do with the belief system that you learned from your fellow man. I am definitely not concerned about your point of view on the topic, and your track record has shown that your judgements are off on many things....

Your true colors show with your statement: "But if I am right, you will not be going to heaven if you reject my point of view."
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
12,508
4,123
113
Please provide scripture the states the Messiah is one of the below:

A. THE MOST HIGH GOD
B. THE ALMIGHTY
C. Above ALL gods
D. יהוה

If scripture does not say that the Messiah is those specific things, then he is a separate entity and therefore does carry the same level of authority.
it was provided you did not accept it we are done Please continue your position without me.
 

justbyfaith

Well-known member
Sep 16, 2021
4,707
462
83
If we are intellectually honest we have to ask ourselves WHY we believe certain things. When these writings were first "discovered", there was no names of authorship attached to them... these again were added later. In Gal 5:2 it says "I Paul say unto you", so its fair to assume that he is the one writing.... But in Mat 9:9 it says "a man named Matthew" (speaking in third person). You can choose to believe that Matthew himself wrote that, but the scripture itself does not infer it. Likewise, its not scriptural to believe Moses wrote the whole Torah, which includes writings about his death.
Yes, Jesus also referred to Himself as "the Son of man" and did not speak that in the first person.

Once, when I did an article for my journalism class on a race that I took third place in, I did not say, yours truly came in third, I identified myself by my full name. Granted, I got a "C" on the article; but it goes to show that when writing, one might refer to themselves in the third person.

I would contend that the suggestion that those who wrote the gospels were not eyewitnesses of the events that they spoke about, is a perspective of unbelief; and that therefore, it ought to be rejected by anyone who is coming to the holy scriptures with an attitude of wanting to believe in them.

You are looking at Exo 20:10 like the Pharisee's did.. and took it so literal that they ended up breaking the spirit of the law by thinking they were enforcing the physical. The Day of Atonement is another one of The Father's Sabbaths (Lev 16:29-31). There are two instructions for that day that are said to be law forever. One of them is to "afflict our beings" meaning "humble ourselves". Its not specific in scripture in what way to accomplish this, but common ways this is done in modern day Judaism is by fasting, prayer, and going to, and spending a lot of time in the synagogue. Maybe you humble yourself by feeding and being around the poor, or being homeless for the night....regardless of how one chooses to "humble themselves", this was something instructed by God. This is doing "work" for The Father... meaning following His instructions. But the 2nd law for The Day of Atonement is not to work on that day.... Same as the Weekly Sabbath.

Is driving work... If the Jews needed to drive to the synagogue? What about preaching? Is the Rabbi not doing God's work on the Sabbath? The point is.. without the spirit of the law you can take the phrase "any work" and make it as extreme as you want it to be. We are suppose to use the spirit of the law to interpret how we are to innerstand the physical. Is the "work" we are attempting to do on the Sabbath out of love for the Father, or love for our fellow man........ or is it something we are doing for money or some sort of personal gain? That's how we know the difference.
Jesus brought in the spirit of the law...He changed the law (Hebrews 7:12) so that we are no longer bound by the letter but are rather obedient to the spirit of what is written (Romans 7:6).

The letter of the law dictated that He ought not to do *any work* on the sabbath day (Exodus 20:10).

But Jesus came, in the order of Melchizedec, not after a carnal commandment but after the power of an endless life. Because He is immortal, He was not subject to the condemnation that would develop for a mortal over violating sabbath day laws.

And because He is the very law-giver who gave us the sabbath day laws in the first place, He is able to change that law so that, even though He violated the letter, He did not sin; because the law was in that very moment being changed so that it was becoming according to the spirit rather than the letter.

I looked more into the language of this verse. The word "broke" as in "broke the sabbath" actually means "loosen". This is the same word used in Mat 16:19 and 18:18 when it says "what you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven". This is not the same word as to "break" the law found in Rom 2:23 or 2:25 meaning to "transgress" the law.... which is the definition of sin (1Jn 3:4). The Messiah did not transgress the law.... aka sin.

I broke down the different words for "god" in post #118...

Is the Messiah equal with God/Aleim/Elohim (Godkind/Angels/Spirits)? Yes

Is the Messiah equal with THE MOST HIGH GOD/THE ALMIGHTY/יהוה) No
Jesus is indeed equal to the Most High God. For He is the Most High God, incarnated.

And, the word "broke" in John 5:18 means exactly what it says and says exactly what it means. It means "broke". Jesus broke the sabbath day law.
 

justbyfaith

Well-known member
Sep 16, 2021
4,707
462
83
Your lack of knowledge regarding the original languages and refusal to accept factual differences between these different words (all because they ended up being translated the same or similar in the English KJV), is causing you to connect dots that aren't meant to be connected... and lead you down a trail of false conclusions.

The word "mighty" in Isaiah 9:6 is "gibbor" and is associated with being a warrior. The word "mighty" in Psalms 50:1 is "AL/EL" meaning "All".... and is translated as "God" throughout scripture.

For those interested in having a deeper understanding of the scriptures, here is the part of the verse that gets translated into the English KJV as "The mighty God, even the LORD, hath spoken":

אל אלהים יהוה דבר (read from right to left)

אל - Al/EL - Almost always translated as "God", but here translated as "mighty". The name/title means "All".

אלהים - Aleim/Elohim - Also translated as "God" (sometimes gods). The word means "Godkind" (as opposed to mankind).

יהוה - IAO - This is what many believe is the Most High's name. It means "Existing".

דבר - Dabar - This means "To speak".


I don't want to get into a debate on the tenses, so for this verse I will leave the word "dabar" how the KJV translated it - "hath spoken".

So if we translated the previously mentioned phrase from Psalms 50:1 using what the names/titles actually mean in the original language, it would read something like this:

"ALL Godkind Existing hath spoken"


Regardless of how you feel about the translation, the words translated as "mighty" in Isaiah 9:6 and Psalms 50:1 are two very different words. So you have still not been able to provide any scriptures where the Messiah is referred to as these names/titles:

A. THE MOST HIGH GOD
B. THE ALMIGHTY
C. Above ALL gods
D. יהוה
I consider that it is a cult-like mentality, in which the self-professed expert on the Greek and Hebrew is the cult-leader, when people say that the translations that we have been given are not reliable but that you have to go to the original Greek and Hebrew; and of course, the person saying this to you is the expert on Greek and Hebrew who can tell you the meaning of those Greek and Hebrew words so that you can know what the holy scriptures REALLY mean.

1) Its very ironic that you would relate 2 Tim 4:3 to me. I have not run into any teachers that specifically target the KJV as a bible NOT to use... but I have run into "teachers" that push the doctrine that the KJV is this infallible translation and will ignore many facts that prove otherwise... even about the language it was translated from. That verse you posted from Timothy seems to apply much more to KJV onlyists than to me.
The teachers that you have heaped to yourself are the ones who have translated Bibles that give you an alternate understanding of what the scripture plainly says in the kjv.

2) Noone denies The Most High's omnipotence. However, you are jumping to conclusions again to connect the power The Most High has... to the KJV. The Most High being capable of doing something is not evidence that He did it.
And, as I said, I do not base my understanding that He did do it on the fact that He is Omnipotent and sovereign but on the fact that He is love and the fact that He wants His creation to know what is His unadulterated message that will save their souls.

The educated scribes and Pharisees rejected Jesus while the common people heard Him gladly.

So, I believe that God would not limit or entrust the true understanding of His message to educated Greek and Hebrew scholars; who might be inclined to reject Him.

He gave His unadulterated message to the common people; today this is in the form of the King James Version.

3) Mat 7:13-14 says absolutely nothing about bible versions. You are pulling verses out of context that have nothing to do with the belief system that you learned from your fellow man. I am definitely not concerned about your point of view on the topic, and your track record has shown that your judgements are off on many things....

Your true colors show with your statement: "But if I am right, you will not be going to heaven if you reject my point of view."
How does that show my true colors? And what color does it paint me as, in your opinion?

It is simply a statement of fact that if I am right, and believing in the plenary inspiration and inerrancy of the kjv is a part of the narrow way that leads to life, then if I am right, and you also reject my opinion, it is the logical conclusion that you will go to hell for rejecting my opinion, since you would be rejecting the narrow path that leads to life.

I did not say that any scripture specifically states that believing in the inspiration and inerrancy of the kjv is an aspect of the narrow path that leads to life. That would be a logical impossibility even if God did want to say it in holy scripture. For the kjv is a translation and translations came after the Bible was originally given. So, the original revelation would not be able to speak of specific translations since those specific translations had not yet come into existence.

However, I, by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost today, can apply the scripture in question (Matthew 7:13-14) and say that believing in the inspiration and inerrancy of the kjv is an aspect of the narrow path that is spoken of in that passage.

Again, you can take it or leave it; but you leave it at peril to your own soul. For if I am indeed right, then your rejection of what I am saying will place you as being squarely not on the narrow path that leads to life; therefore I would venture to say that your opinion places you on the broader path that leads to destruction (Matthew 7:13-14).

And it should also be clear that, in rejecting the kjv's rendering, you have itching ears because you are wanting to hear some other teaching on the matter; which you go to other translations to give you. And I contend that the people who translated them are in fact teachers who are telling you what your itching ears want to hear.

I pray that the Holy Ghost will reveal to you that there is a teaching that will lead you astray from the words of knowledge (Proverbs 19:27) and that you have been deceived by it.
 
Aug 20, 2021
1,863
310
83
Man does not know the price of wisdom. The price of wisdom is to hate evil and every false way.
 
Aug 8, 2021
620
37
28
Man does not know the price of wisdom. The price of wisdom is to hate evil and every false way.
That's exactly why I'm no longer responding to the evil on this thread. Some people will always put ego and the need to be right over Truth.