Bible Teachings or Traditions of Men?

[GraceBeUntoYou]

Let scripture answer that question for you.

(Hebrews 3:4, Rev 3:14) "..Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God.."

So if Jesus was created part of creation then how can he be God, since it's God that created all things. Its contradictory for Jesus to be God and yet part of creation.

Scriptures that Indicate Jesus is created are below, remember that God has no beginning, only things that are created have a beginning.

(Revelation 3:14) “..These are the things that the Amen [Jesus] says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God.."

(Micah 5:2) “..And you, O Beth′le·hem.. from you there will come out to me the one [Jesus] who is to become ruler in Israel, whose origin is from early times, from the days of time indefinite.."

(Colossians 1:15) "..He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.."

(Proverbs 8:22) “..Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago.."

Even John 1:1 supports Jesus being created, it says "..In [the] beginning the Word was..", remember Almighty God wasn't created so had no beginning, but here Jesus clearly does.

I must first apologize for the delay in response as I promised, the past few days have put a real dent in my plans.

For each passage you've provided here, I will post a separate post to make it easier for reading.

(1) I would invite you to examine each of these texts closer, beginning with the first passage on your list, Revelation 3.14 (“the Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God”), because it is here that the apostle John attributes a title of absolute Deity to the Lord Jesus Christ. As the One through whom all things which have “come into being” have their place in existence (John 1.3, “All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being”), it can rightfully be said of Christ, as John does interchangeably throughout the Book of Revelation, that He is “the Alpha and the Omega” (Rev. 22.13a), “the First and the Last” (Rev. 1.17, 2.8, 22.13b), “the Beginning and the End” (Rev. 3.14, 22.13c). All of creation originated “in” Him, came into existence “through” Him, and was made “for” Him (Colossians 1.15-16), both, the present age (Heb. 1.10-11, “In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth… they will perish, but you remain”), and the age to come (Heb. 1.3, “through whom also He made the ages” [c.f. Heb. 2.5]). Christ is the starting point, the origininator, the Beginning of the creation of God.


Alternatively, given the lexical field of arche, there is also another interpretation that deserves to be mentioned which identifies Christ as the ruler of the creation of God (c.f. Luke 12.11, 20.20; Romans 8.38; Eph. 1.21, 3.10, 6.12; Col. 1.16, 2.10, 2.15; Titus 3.1; Jude 1.6; 1 Cor. 15.24). And though Rev. 3.14 can certainly be understood in this way, the historic approach to this text as it has been understood down through the centuries, however, is one that I have expressed above which identifies Christ as the originator of creation (see Justin Martyr).

 

[GraceBeUntoYou]

Let scripture answer that question for you.

(Hebrews 3:4, Rev 3:14) "..Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God.."

So if Jesus was created part of creation then how can he be God, since it's God that created all things. Its contradictory for Jesus to be God and yet part of creation.

Scriptures that Indicate Jesus is created are below, remember that God has no beginning, only things that are created have a beginning.

(Revelation 3:14) “..These are the things that the Amen [Jesus] says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God.."

(Micah 5:2) “..And you, O Beth′le·hem.. from you there will come out to me the one [Jesus] who is to become ruler in Israel, whose origin is from early times, from the days of time indefinite.."

(Colossians 1:15) "..He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.."

(Proverbs 8:22) “..Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago.."

Even John 1:1 supports Jesus being created, it says "..In [the] beginning the Word was..", remember Almighty God wasn't created so had no beginning, but here Jesus clearly does.

(2) The same word which is translated as “created” (“qanah”) at Proverbs 8.22 in the NWT is also used by the author throughout the remainder of Proverbs (1.5, 4.5, 4.7, 15.32, 16.16, 18.15, 19.8, 23.23) in which the NWT renders as something to be acquired, acquisitioned, or coming into possession of. For instance, Proverbs 4.5-7 (NWT) states,

“Acquire [qanah] wisdom, acquire [qanah] understanding. Do not forget, and do not turn aside from the sayings of my mouth. Do not leave it, and it will keep you. Love it, and it will safeguard you. Wisdom is the prime thing. Acquire [qanah] wisdom; and with all that you acquire, acquire [qanah] understanding.”
​

This very term is used many times throughout the OT, but never does it ever carry with it any meaning outside of the realm of “to acquire,” or “to get”; however, the term which is used in describing the account of the Genesis creation (c.f. Genesis 1.1), as well as the creation of the first man, Adam (Genesis 1.27), just so happens to be one of the commonly used terms when referring to creation (“’bara”); however, it is not used in this text.

Second, the main subject of Proverbs chapters 1–9 is Wisdom, which is an abstract quality or character trait rather than a person, but Wisdom is treated as a woman from the first chapter right through chapter 9. Wisdom is portrayed as a woman of dazzling attractiveness and virtue, who teaches in the marketplace of the town (1.20), who is romantically embraced (4.8–9), who can be addressed as “my sister” (7.4), who utters a long speech commending herself to the public (chap. 8), and who builds a house and invites people to an alluring banquet (9.1–6). This could be quite problematic if we take the personified Wisdom of Proverbs to be the pre-incarnate Christ.

 

[GraceBeUntoYou]

Let scripture answer that question for you.

(Hebrews 3:4, Rev 3:14) "..Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God.."

So if Jesus was created part of creation then how can he be God, since it's God that created all things. Its contradictory for Jesus to be God and yet part of creation.

Scriptures that Indicate Jesus is created are below, remember that God has no beginning, only things that are created have a beginning.

(Revelation 3:14) “..These are the things that the Amen [Jesus] says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God.."

(Micah 5:2) “..And you, O Beth′le·hem.. from you there will come out to me the one [Jesus] who is to become ruler in Israel, whose origin is from early times, from the days of time indefinite.."

(Colossians 1:15) "..He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.."

(Proverbs 8:22) “..Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago.."

Even John 1:1 supports Jesus being created, it says "..In [the] beginning the Word was..", remember Almighty God wasn't created so had no beginning, but here Jesus clearly does.

(3) As I mentioned in my previous post concerning this very passage:

When Paul speaks of Christ as the “Firstborn,” he is not depicting Christ as the first-created of God’s created order. Of course, “Firstborn,” as it is used throughout the Old Testament is often used in reference to the preeminence of an individual, and is clearly seen in the highly Messianic Psalm, in which David (who here is a typification of the coming Messiah, Jesus Christ), the youngest amongst the sons of Jesse (1 Samuel 16.11-13), is described and appointed as God’s “firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth” (Psalm 89.27). It is Christ, as the Son of God, who is the “Firstborn” in the sense that He is the “heir” of all things, for everything that belongs to the Father also belongs to the Son (John 16.15, 17.10). As the “firstborn” is the heir to all of his father’s estate, so too is Christ the heir of all the Heavenly Father’s estate, namely, all of creation (Colossians 1.15, Hebrews 1.2, Psalm 2.7-8), and the overall context of Colossians really does demand this view.

Sure, we could discuss partitive genitives (“one of the students of the class”), genitives of subordination (“King over Israel”), and its correlative analogous genitive (“King of Israel”), but instead I’d like to direct attention to the preposition found in v. 16, ὅτι (“He is the image of the invisible God, the Firstborn of all creation, because…”). The reason for Christ being called the “Firstborn of all creation” is “because all things were made in Him… through Him… and for Him.” This statement of course makes little or no sense if πρωτότοκος here means something in the sense of “first-created,” and/or if the phrase “Firstborn of all creation” is taken as a partitive genitive. How is it that Christ is the first-created of all creation, because all things were created in, through, and for Him?

When considering the Orthodox interpretation of this passage this makes much better sense, fits the overall context, and is consistent with the testimony of Scripture: Christ is the Firstborn, the heir of all creation, because all things were created in Him, through Him, and for Him.

 

[GraceBeUntoYou]

Let scripture answer that question for you.

(Hebrews 3:4, Rev 3:14) "..Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God.."

So if Jesus was created part of creation then how can he be God, since it's God that created all things. Its contradictory for Jesus to be God and yet part of creation.

Scriptures that Indicate Jesus is created are below, remember that God has no beginning, only things that are created have a beginning.

(Revelation 3:14) “..These are the things that the Amen [Jesus] says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God.."

(Micah 5:2) “..And you, O Beth′le·hem.. from you there will come out to me the one [Jesus] who is to become ruler in Israel, whose origin is from early times, from the days of time indefinite.."

(Colossians 1:15) "..He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.."

(Proverbs 8:22) “..Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago.."

Even John 1:1 supports Jesus being created, it says "..In [the] beginning the Word was..", remember Almighty God wasn't created so had no beginning, but here Jesus clearly does.

(4) The key element in understanding John 1.1a is the form of the word "was” (“en&#8221. It is a timeless word which points to existence before the present time without reference to a point of origin. One can push back the "beginning" as far as you can imagine, and, according to John, the Word still is. The Word is not a creation that came into existence at "the beginning," for He antedates whatever, and whenever that beginning was.

 

[GraceBeUntoYou]

Let scripture answer that question for you.

(Hebrews 3:4, Rev 3:14) "..Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God.."

So if Jesus was created part of creation then how can he be God, since it's God that created all things. Its contradictory for Jesus to be God and yet part of creation.

Scriptures that Indicate Jesus is created are below, remember that God has no beginning, only things that are created have a beginning.

(Revelation 3:14) “..These are the things that the Amen [Jesus] says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God.."

(Micah 5:2) “..And you, O Beth′le·hem.. from you there will come out to me the one [Jesus] who is to become ruler in Israel, whose origin is from early times, from the days of time indefinite.."

(Colossians 1:15) "..He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.."

(Proverbs 8:22) “..Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago.."

Even John 1:1 supports Jesus being created, it says "..In [the] beginning the Word was..", remember Almighty God wasn't created so had no beginning, but here Jesus clearly does.

(5) There’s several issues with your citation of Micah 5.2. The first major issue is that the text, as you have cited it from the NWT, uses a singular (“origin&#8221 to translate a plural (“origins,” “goings forth&#8221. How can you have an origin that’s plural? You can’t have more than one origin, especially if you are the first of all of God’s created order. What’s intriguing is that the very Hebrew word translated as “origin” is also used in 2 King 10.27 (NASB),

"They also broke down the sacred pillar of Baal and broke down the house of Baal, and made it a latrine to this day."
​

At this point you’re probably a little puzzled, because you don’t see a word (or don’t appear to see a word) here that means “origin,” or “origins.” However, the primary word of focus here is latrine, which is a place that one comes, or travels from. To put this into perspective, Micah 5.2 is not speaking about an origin of creation, rather, a point of travel. Trinitarians believe that long ago, on more than one occasion, the One we know as Jesus, who is the Word of God, did visit earth, and came forth from heaven, and met certain individuals (i.e., Genesis 18, 19).

What's also of significance is the phrase “from of old” is the same phrase used in Habakkuk 1.12 to refer to YHWH’s eternal nature. This phrase taken together with the phrase "from ancient days," conveys a strong assertion of infinite duration.

 

[Alter2Ego]

That's true you did not. I apologize. Some people equate the two. I agree the meaning could be way deeper, as well. But the deeper meaning, having been created in the heavenlies, gives rise to its manifestation on the earth, and in this case that is a lake of fire.

Let me clarify part of that deeper meaning. Fire was something more for the ancients than it is for us. The word actually referred to penetrating atoms that cut through and make tiny holes in whatever comes in contact with them (see the Timaeus). What we call fire was thought to be a manifestation of that. So this lake is made of such a thing, and that's part of why the bodies do not get burned up.

ALTER2EGO -to- KENISYES:
I don't know where you are getting this idea from about "fire refers to penetrating atoms." Whenever the Bible uses "fire" symbolically, it is with reference to cleansing or permanent destruction. I mentioned this before. The "lake of fire" in the book of Revelation is figurative/symbolic speech for everlasting destruction. Revelation 1:1 clearly states that Jesus sent his angel to make presentations in signs/symbols. This can easily be demonstrated with the scripture at Revelation 20:14.

 

[Alter2Ego]

The lake of fire that answers to hell is in Rev. 20:14-15. John wrote Revelation, and He was an apostle. It's not written too much in the apostles' writings, because most of what is in the Bible are letters to people who were already saved, and so few of them could sin severely enough to go there. My take on this Scripture is that both body and soul will burn forever (Matt. 10:28), as it will be a very different kind of body (I Cor. 15:22).

ALTER2EGO -to- KENISYES:
Which body will burn forever? When a body is burned for too long, it returns to dust. That's what happens when people get cremated. They are reduced to dust. But according to you, God will burn the body forever and it won't turn to dust.

What happens to bodies that have been buried in the ground for centuries? What happens to bodies that were lost at sea and eaten by fish? Do those bodies still exist? So again I ask you, which body is supposed to burn forever?

In your next post, be sure and present the verses of scriptures where it says "both body and soul will burn forever." And I'm talking the literal body being literally burned. The key word is "literal." Matthew 10:28 doesn't do it for you because that was part of parable Jesus Christ was giving. Parables are routinely filled with symbolic/figurative speech.

 

[kenisyes]

ALTER2EGO -to- KENISYES:
I don't know where you are getting this idea from about "fire refers to penetrating atoms." Whenever the Bible uses "fire" symbolically, it is with reference to cleansing or permanent destruction. I mentioned this before. The "lake of fire" in the book of Revelation is figurative/symbolic speech for everlasting destruction. Revelation 1:1 clearly states that Jesus sent his angel to make presentations in signs/symbols. This can easily be demonstrated with the scripture at Revelation 20:14.

The idea is in the Timaeus. I believe it was universal at the time Jesus was preaching. I therefore disagree your idea that fire is always a symbol of permanent destruction. If that were true, Jesus could not have used the word "flame" in speaking of the rich man and Lazarus.

 

[kenisyes]

ALTER2EGO -to- KENISYES:
Which body will burn forever? When a body is burned for too long, it returns to dust. That's what happens when people get cremated. They are reduced to dust. But according to you, God will burn the body forever and it won't turn to dust.

What happens to bodies that have been buried in the ground for centuries? What happens to bodies that were lost at sea and eaten by fish? Do those bodies still exist? So again I ask you, which body is supposed to burn forever?

In your next post, be sure and present the verses of scriptures where it says "both body and soul will burn forever." And I'm talking the literal body being literally burned. The key word is "literal." Matthew 10:28 doesn't do it for you because that was part of parable Jesus Christ was giving. Parables are routinely filled with symbolic/figurative speech.

I have presented those Scriptures before. We rise incorruptible. That is why our new bodies are not burned up. It does not matter what happened to your physical atoms in this life, you get a new body when you rise. Please state where the parable starts that Matt. 10:28 is a part of. I can't find it. It looks to me like a teaching.

Matt. 25:46 says that the punishment is everlasting. Jesus states that hell has fire five times. The Matt. 10:28 states that both body and soul are involved. None of these are parables. None can be symbolic. I have explained how it can happen.

If you are not convinced by this chain of Scripture references, and cannot produce a proof that Matt. 10:28 is a parable, I can see nothing else that I can say based only on Scripture.

Another way to look at it, is that the fire of God's passionate love that will fill our hearts with warmth when we rise to be with Him, will appear to those who rise having hated Him to be fire that seeks to destroy everything they stand for. That is the symbolic fire. The reason the fire is literal, is because the new earth will respond to us as the old earth would have responded to Adam had he not sinned. Fire inside will create fire outside. The sinners will isolate themselves from the just, taking their fire with them, creating a lake of fire.

But this still makes everything hinge on those ideas from the Timeaus, which Plato says were universal in the ancient world.

 

[Alter2Ego]

The idea is in the Timaeus. I believe it was universal at the time Jesus was preaching. I therefore disagree your idea that fire is always a symbol of permanent destruction. If that were true, Jesus could not have used the word "flame" in speaking of the rich man and Lazarus.

ALTER2EGO -to- KENISYES:
The Rich man and Lazarus was a parable. Are you telling this forum that the "flame" in a parable was a literal flame--despite the fact a parable/illustration is not literal?

 

[kenisyes]

ALTER2EGO -to- KENISYES:
The Rich man and Lazarus was a parable. Are you telling this forum that the "flame" in a parable was a literal flame--despite the fact a parable/illustration is not literal?

No I am not. I am telling you that since Jesus proposed the parable, he thought the word flame was worthy to include in that story. The issue occurs since the other 5 Scriptures I gave you use the word "fire", and you wish to know if that is literal fire or only symbolic. One cannot determine this from the original Greek, since the word used there, pur, can be either. In order to know which way Jesus was using it, we need another verse where He tells us. I offer the Lazarus verse only for that purpose - to explain what was on Jesus' mind, when He used an indefinite term.

 

[Alter2Ego]

The trinity is not in the Bible, although Father, Son, and Spirit are all God. The trinity is a way developed to teach this fact in early Christianity. It may have been copied from a pagan source, but I have never heard this before.

Many non-Christians know a part of who God is (Rom. 1 starting at vs. 19) but get it mixed up.

ALTER2EGO -to- KENISYES:
You started off with "The trinity is not in the Bible," and then in the very same sentence you contradicted yourself by stating: "Father, Son, and Spirit are all God." Your concluding statement equates to "trinity."

Now, suppose you show this forum where the Bible indicates: "Father, Son, and Spirit are all God". Just so you know, if something is not in the Bible, it amounts to Traditions of Men.

 

[Alter2Ego]

ALTER2EGO -to- KENISYES:
The Rich man and Lazarus was a parable. Are you telling this forum that the "flame" in a parable was a literal flame--despite the fact a parable/illustration is not literal?

No I am not. I am telling you that since Jesus proposed the parable, he thought the word flame was worthy to include in that story. The issue occurs since the other 5 Scriptures I gave you use the word "fire", and you wish to know if that is literal fire or only symbolic. One cannot determine this from the original Greek, since the word used there, pur, can be either. In order to know which way Jesus was using it, we need another verse where He tells us. I offer the Lazarus verse only for that purpose - to explain what was on Jesus' mind, when He used an indefinite term.

ALTER2EGO -to- KENISYES:
The issue is not the determination of Greek but the context within which the word "fire" is used in the scriptures you presented. The Bible informs us that Jesus always used illustrations during his teachings.

"All these thing Jesus spoke to the crowds by illustrations [parables]. Indeed, without an illustration he would not speak to them;... " (Matthew 13:34)

Even you should know by now that illustrations/parables are never literal. Whenever illustrations are presented in the Bible, they are always presented with figurative speech aka symbolic language. Greek is not the issue. The issue is that it the word "fire" is presented as part of an illustration. The fact that it is an illustration is a red flag to readers that symbolism/figurative speech is what they are dealing with.

Throughout the Bible, whenever fire is used in illustrations, it is always with reference to permanent destruction or cleansing. Yet, here you are insisting that each time Jesus Christ used "fire" in his illustrations, he was speaking of literal fire. You then use that erroneous conclusion to argue that the Bible teaches literal hellfire torment.

Literal hellfire torment is not a Bible teaching.

 

[Alter2Ego]

What do you make of these verses?

I and the Father are one.

ALTER2EGO -to- GREEN N NICE:
You are cherry picking from John 10:30--which is a favorite verse among Trinitarians. You ignored all of the red flags in verse 29 and instead went straight for verse 30, because it satisfies what you've chosen to believe.


Cherry picking amounts to reading words off the pages of the Bible and deliberately ignoring the context. Context refers to the surrounding words, verses, and chapters. Notice part of the context, which is in verse 29. The red flags appear throughout verse 29, which I will now quote from the King James Version. Keep your eyes on the words in bold print within the quotation. Those are the red flags.

"{29} My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. {30} I and my Father are one." (John 10:29-30)



Look at the words above that I red flagged. Jesus is repeatedly giving credit to someone else—indicating that he and the Father could not possibly be the same person within the fabricated "Godhead."


QUESTION #1 to GREEN N NICE: Since you obviously believe that John 10:30 is saying Jesus and Jehovah are the same god, is it your position that the word "one" always equates to "they are they same individual"?


I will await your response to my question.

 

[Alter2Ego]

The term is used to convey preeminence. In the same chapter Col we have the phrase he is the "firstborn of the dead".

ALTER2EGO -to- FEED M3:
A word to the wise. If you are going to argue trinity, do not debunk it by quoting scripture that says Jesus Christ died. In fact, I strongly advise that you dodge every verse of scripture in the Judeo-Christian Bible having to do with Jesus' death. Below is the reason why:


Christendom's trinity, written in Article I of The Catholic Faith, is defined as follows:
"There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker and preserver of all things both visible and indivisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of ONE substance, power, and ETERNITY; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."

The 39 Articles of Religion (1562)


As you can see from the quotation above, according to the dogma, the three "persons" within the "Godhead" are CO-ETERNAL. That presents a problem for the trinity from the get-go. Notice the reason why according to the definition of "eternal," posted below:


DEFINITION OF "ETERNAL": "Eternal means not having a beginning or an end."
Eternal | Easy to understand definition of eternal by Your Dictionary



The Bible says only Jehovah the Father is eternal.

"As for you, O Jehovah, to time indefinite you will dwell, and your memorial will be for generation after generation." (Psalms 102:12 -- New World Translation)


"But thou, O LORD, shalt endure for ever; and thy remembrance unto all generations." (Psalms 102:12 -- King James Version)


The terminologies "time indefinite" and "endure forever" mean there can be no dying for even a second, much less for three days. Meanwhile, Jesus Christ literally died, as you yourself acknowledged above. Below is a verse that confirms this. Keep your eyes on the words in bold print within the quotation.

"Who is he that will condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died, yes, rather the one who was raised up from the dead, who is on the right hand of God, who also pleads for us." (Romans 8:34)


QUESTION #1 to FEED M3: The Bible at Psalms 102:12 says Jehovah God is eternal. According to the definition of Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit are "co-eternal" ("one eternity"). An eternal person cannot die. The Bible at Romans 8:34 says Jesus Christ literally died. For the benefit of the forum, tell us, who is lying when the statement is made that all three "persons" of the Godhead are co-eternal? Is the Bible lying or is the Roman Catholic Church lying?


QUESTION #2 to FEED M3: The Bible says God is eternal. If Jehovah and Jesus are the same God and Jesus died, that's a contradiction because it means God--in some form--died. Who should the forum believe? Should they believe you when you say God himself died? Or should they believe the Bible which says God is eternal?

 

[Alter2Ego]

You are arguing that Jesus was a god like Moses (sounds like Islam), and that he came here, allowed himself to be worshiped (I know doesnt mean that in it's normal sense), allowed himself to be called "MY God" (I know Thomas meant My god, if fact he may have said OMG).

Then you believe he was before ALL things,

He was the firstborn of the dead, meaning he was the first to be raised to Eternal life.

He is the everlasting Father, but not eternal God, just created god.

Please dont feel like because you can out talk me that means you have me stumped or something.

IT's gets boring when no matter what passage your shown, they all have different meanings.

Thats what happens when allow a book full of errors to be your authority over the Bible.

I am not saying that in a mocking way either. I can argue for years that Every instance of Jesus healing someone was not really him because their is another named Jesus in scripture, and it does not say it was not him.

ALTER2EGO -to- FEED M3:
Your sarcasm above only makes your error all the more sad to witness. You are ignoring context and cherry picking words from John 20:28 that satisfy what you've chosen to believe.

" {27} Next he [Jesus] said to Thomas: 'Put your finger here, and see my hands, and take your hand and stick it into my side, and stop being unbelieving but become believing." {28} In answer Thomas said to Him: "My Lord and my God!" {29} Jesus said to him: "Because you have seen me have you believed? Happy are those who do not see and yet believe.' " (John 20:27-29)


Remember, Jesus had only recently been resurrected from the dead. That's an important detail and part of the context that you are ignoring. The Bible says Jehovah is eternal. An eternal person cannot die. So that fact alone debunks your belief that Jesus is part of a trinity with Jehovah. Not only that, you ignored the written context for John 10:28 where Thomas uttered:"My Lord and my God!" Remember, that was at verse 28. Three verses later, at verse 31, clarification is given of who Jesus Christ is--in relationship to Almighty God Jehovah/the Father: Notice the context below.


"But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:31 -- New International Version)


"But these are written so that you may continue to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing in him you will have life by the power of his name." (John 20:31 -- New Living Bible)



The verse above at John 20:31 clarifies that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and the Son of God. In a trinity in which he is combined with Jehovah, that would amount to Jesus being his own father and his own messiah. You are putting traditions of men above what the Bible says.

 

[Alter2Ego]

He was the firstborn of the dead, meaning he was the first to be raised to Eternal life.

He is the everlasting Father, but not eternal God, just created god.

ALTER2EGO -to- FEED M3:
Isaiah 9:6 isn't helping your case. Look at the context within the very same verse you are cherry picking from. Keep your eyes on the words in bold print within the quotation.

"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, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." (Isaiah 9:6 – King James Version)


You do understand the implication of the word "born"; do you not? It means the person has a beginning and therefore the person is not eternal.



The Bible says Jehovah alone is eternal.

"the one alone having immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom not one of men has seen or can see. To him be honor and might everlasting. Amen." (1 Timothy 6:16)



DEFINITION OF "ETERNAL": "Eternal means not having a beginning or an end."
Eternal | Easy to understand definition of eternal by Your Dictionary


QUESTION #4 to FEED M3: The scripture at 1 Timothy 6:16 says God cannot die and that he is the only one who is immortal. Am I to take your word over what the Bible says?


QUESTION #5 to FEED M3: The scripture at 1 Timothy 6:16 says regarding God, "not one of men has seen or can see" him. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry within the vicinity of Jesus Christ, while he was on earth, were able to see him. If Jesus were in a trinity with Jehovah, that would amount to Jehovah being literally seen and would contradict 1 Timothy 6:16. If you were in my position, who would you believe? Would you believe the inspired word of God aka the Judeo-Christian Bible? Or would you believe the words of a Trinitarian who is arguing against what's written in the Bible?

 

[Mark51]

I agree with you. Both doctrine/teachings are not scriptural. Scriptures do not contradict each other. Consider 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20, 21.

 

[Grandpa]

ALTER2EGO -to- FEED M3:
Isaiah 9:6 isn't helping your case. Look at the context within the very same verse you are cherry picking from. Keep your eyes on the words in bold print within the quotation.

"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, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." (Isaiah 9:6 – King James Version)


You do understand the implication of the word "born"; do you not? It means the person has a beginning and therefore the person is not eternal.

You are attempting to put your limited understanding into God's Word.

God, of course, has the ability to be born of a woman. Does this mean that once God is born of a woman He is not eternal?? Of course not...

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

 

[marianna]

ALTER2EGO -to- KENISYES:
You started off with "The trinity is not in the Bible," and then in the very same sentence you contradicted yourself by stating: "Father, Son, and Spirit are all God." Your concluding statement equates to "trinity."

Now, suppose you show this forum where the Bible indicates: "Father, Son, and Spirit are all God". Just so you know, if something is not in the Bible, it amounts to Traditions of Men.

LOGOS.
Okay?
Clear enough?