I might answer you if you answer me: Jesus said He was the Son of God and was begotten by holy spirit. Did Jesus have two Fathers?
And how can Jesus be “God” since Jesus, when He was on earth said “I am ascending to my Father and your Father and my God and your God.” So how can Jesus be God when His God was in Heaven while he was on earth? And Paul said “for us there is only one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ.”
Just one God. Not three Gods. Not Three in one and one in Three. Not a Trinity. One God. One.
If I understand you correctly, this sentence does not express classical Trinitarian thought; it expresses Modalistic thought.
From the beginning, classic Trinitarians have believed in three distinct persons or individuals who share the one divine essence that they call “God.” in that sense the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Also, in the same sense, Trinitarians speak of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
Modalists believe that there is a single divine Individual who is called “God” and who expresses Himself in three different ways or modes—as an old-time actor expressed himself in different ways by wearing a variety of masks. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and not three distinct Individuals, but three expressions of one Individual—the true God.
Many people who think they are Trinitarians, are actually Modalists. Do you think that might be the case with you, Jeff?
Most (not all) Protestants I’ve discussed the Trinity with were functionally (though not officially) modalists. It depresses me to think of the three most common analogies I’ve heard from them:
“Water can be a gas, a liquid, or a solid!”
“My dad is a son, a husband, and a father!”
“An egg has a shell, a white, and a yolk!”
(The first two are modalistic. I’m not sure what the third is beyond ignorant.)
Okay, I will answer you for the possibility that you might answer me
No. Do you think Jesus and the Father are not two distinct people because Jesus said “Don’t you know me to Philip?” God is one as you say, and so Jesus at times speaks as if he were God the Father because he is that much one with the Father. Yet clearly there are multiple persons in the Godhead unless you conclude that God has multiple personality disorder when He talks and prays to the Himself. So if Jesus is that much one with the Father, LIKEWISE the Holy Spirit is that much one with Jesus and the Father, then if the Scripture says Jesus is Son of God AND also begotten by the Holy Spirit that hardly can be used to prove that the Father and the Holy Spirit are the same person or indistinct. No doubt you appreciate that some of this language is anthropomorphic to help us understand the various roles that the Father, Son, and Spirit work together for good.
We just finished John 1-3 in Bible study tonight and were reminded that, Jesus though born after John the Baptist, was before John the Baptist because He is the one that came from Heaven. Jesus existed before He was born. No other man can say that. So just because Jesus refers to the Father as His God does not offer any proof that Jesus is not also God. Some additional Scripture will guide us. I mentioned Romans 9:5 above and you made no comment about it. The definitive proof for me is Thomas’ worship of Jesus as God. I think we all know the first commandment and so Jesus would hardly accept worship if He was not God. Some one above suggested that we worship God in one sense but we can also worship other things as well. Nopity nope nope nope to that. So clearly Jesus is not a regular man for He came from Heaven and existed before He was born and received worship. So do you think Jesus was an angel? Even Angels openly reject worship. A created being? We should not worship created things. Who do you say Jesus is? He is the Son of God, God himself, along with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, who will be worshiped as God by all creation one day, sooner or later… and by you also.
This is important for the gospel message of Christ’s crucifixion reminds us of the bitter cup, that our sinful natures are at enmity with God himself because the Jesus we crucified is God himself. Too many ‘would be’ Christians throughout history are on a ‘persecute me campaign’ thinking that somehow they might find a place on a cross beside Jesus Christ. Even if a nearly righteous man were to die a righteous death it is nothing compared to the death of God the Son for our sin. That is the meaning of a final point in Hebrews that Christ blood is better than Abel’s blood. Abel’s blood was the blood of a sinful man while Christ’s blood is the blood of the perfect God-man. Finally, we are also reminded of God’s great love for us, because Jesus is God who forgave us from the cross.
Friends, the word Trinity is not in the Bible. We agree on that. However, thoughtful Christians have debated this in the past in order to find expression for the majesty of our God’s characteristics. I find the expression Trinity useful to understand the relationships expressed in the Godhead. Clearly there is relationship and communication within God and relationship requires multiple-persons. Clearly there is also distinction of person and roles as well see each mentioned at Jesus’ baptism, the Great Commission, and throughout Scripture.
Why the debate? Some of you guys are proving a theory of mine that Universalism has attracted quite a number of bitter anti-orthodx people. Friends, orthodoxy is not the enemy when orthodoxy is right on a particular point. Of course no denominational orthodoxy is perfect and so errors will be found. So is that a reason to be angry and anti-orthodox? Well can any of you claim to have a perfect theology without error yourself? So lets each take the assignment to be ambassadors in the Christian fellowship we attend and in the world to seek to win others to the good news that the Lord God Jesus Christ is the savior of all mankind and He will accomplish His goal victoriously! And are we humble enough to learn from others and fellowship even if they are not Universalists? The bitter anti-orthodoxy only serves to alienate us from others and back us into a corner with barbs bristling.
Now we get to the good part Anyone want to talk about sex? No kidding, I would guess when all is well, no one is sick, and the bills are paid that loving conversation and love making is about the best thing we can imagine for an evening with our spouse. There is a great mystery revealed in the gospel concerning mankind created in God’s image, male and female, and marriage being an illustration of Christ and the church. There is too much to restate here, but I would invite any followers to study my thoughts and offer any corrections and comments to help me express these ideas better. Check out my articles in this order.
So Paidion in answer to your question I am certainly NOT a Modalist. In fact I am quite thankful that God’s design is for sex with my spouse rather than sex with myself. You’ll have to read my articles if the connection is not obvious
Okay, so let me get this straight, God sent His Son into the world but not really, He sent Himself? God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son but, well, not really, He actually gave Himself? Jesus taught His disciples to pray to our Father Who is in Heaven but, well, He was just waxing poetic. He really wanted them to pray to Jesus on earth? Jesus came to do the will of God but, actually, according to you, God came to do the will of God? “Not my will but Thine be done” should be thought of as “Not My (God) will be done but My (God’ will be done”? “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken me?” should be thought of: “Myself, Myself, Why did I forsake Myself?” I could go on all day.
“He who has seen me has seen the Father” in that He REPRESENTED the Father who is invisible. He represented the Father in His works, words and miracles. “The Father spoke to us in a Son.” The holy spirit is the God’s spirit. God is spirit.
God created all in the heavens and earth through Christ. That’s what the Bible says. But that proves a distinction between God and Christ, not a likeness or sameness. So of course Christ existed prior to John the Baptist and before Abraham. Jesus said “before Abraham was I am.” Jesus is the One Who created Adam and Eve as He formed them of the soil of the earth.
“Jesus is the beginning of the creation of the God” according to Revelation 3:14 in the Greek. For God to be the Father of Jesus, Jesus had to have a beginning. If you have a child, you were not a father before your first child was born. You were just a husband. Only after your son or daughter came into existence did you become a father. Likewise with the heavenly Father. There was a time when He was only God. Then after He brought Christ into existence He became a Father. So the very term “Father” proves non-eternalness of the Son. “ALL is out of God.” So Christ came out of God. You likewise came out of God but you are not eternal. “All is through Christ.”
“nevertheless for us there is one God, the Father, out of Whom all is, and we for Him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom all is, and we through Him.” But not in all is there this knowledge" (1Co 8:6-7).
No, the evangel is that God sacrificed His only begotten Son. He didn’t sacrifice Himself. The evangel is “Christ died for our sins.” It is not “God died for our sins.” Please memorize 1 Corinthians 8:6-7 above. Jesus isn’t the God Who sent him into our world to save us from our sins. This Trinity mumbo jumbo is causing you to not believe the evangel properly.
Nice try. So we are encouraged to believe in the “hypocrisy of false expressions”? Jesus is God but He isn’t actually God but He is but He isn’t but . . . .
Who is angry? I am perfectly at peace with my understanding. Let “orthodoxy” believe what they want. But likewise, if they can defend their position, I am allowed to defend mine. I can fellowship with anyone. But fellowship does not mean rubberstamp a falsehood just so we all get along. What’s next jeff? Mary worship?
As to your question if I agree on everything of Knoch, there are some words I wished he had translated a little differently. For instance, for the word [h]uper I think “over” would have been good to use where it is written “Christ died for our sakes” as “Christ died over us.” Just as a man dies over a deck of cards, i.e., the card game became corrupt so he died over that,* it was over us that Christ died*. Of course, “for the sake of” works fine. It is just that I prefer getting closer to the Greek in some instances. P.S. I no longer burn incense to Knoch’s picture on a daily basis. LOL (joke).
God spoke to Adam through Jesus.
God is a Being. He has Being-ness. He is not literally a “person.” He is literally “spirit.” He is figuratively “love.” Representatives of God spoke to Abraham. Remember, the “god” who came to Abraham said he is going to Sodom to see if these things are so or not concerning that city. But the invisible God Who fills heaven and earth knows all. Note the difference?
“God spoke to Adam through Jesus.” — You are just shamelessly making this stuff up as you go… he who likes to say “the bible never says” and yet still no answer.
What? Ridiculous. I point out that Jesus was worshiped and thus must be God and you argue back to me asking if I will worship Mary? I do not understand your logic? Of course Mary should not be worshiped! She is a mere human being! Jesus however was, should be, and will be worshiped because He is God.
That is a total extrapolation into unnecessary fighting words. I am beginning to think you are an argumentative unreasonable person. I was excusing your offenses till now saying to myself that you were just frustrated in the effort to persuade others on the important point about God’s utter sovereignty over all. However, unfortunately you seem to be demonstrating a common characteristics of many Knochites, that of parroting Knoch’s doctrine and being unwilling to engage in reasonable conversation. Knochites have a long history of this type of attitude and behavior.
So now let me get back to reasonable discussion and ask you more questions about your understanding of the nature of who Jesus is. This is the crucial question of anyone claiming to be Christian for to be Christian is to trust, obey, and follow Christ. Yet if our understanding of Christ is not true, then we do not follow the God who is. Please just offer a complete description of the nature of Christ or answer the questions below.
Is Jesus God?
Is Jesus human
Is Jesus an angel?
Is Jesus sinless?
Did Jesus exist in eternity past?
Was Jesus created?
Did Jesus exist before He was born as a human in Bethlehem?
Is Jesus an eternal non-diety?
Was Jesus a regular human until the Spirit descended at his Baptism?
Did us regular humans exist before we were born?
Is Jesus the same as regular humans except that He has been given the Spirit without limit?
What does it mean that Jesus was begotten?
Will our nature be identical with Jesus in glory, in Heaven in eternity future?
Will Jesus be worshiped as God by all creation in eternity future?
Should anything other than God be worshiped?
Jeff. Most - if not all - of these questions, are addressed in the article A.E. Knoch’s errors in doctrine. And the author also gives sound orthodox, biblical and theological rebuttal. I give this article a five out of a five star rating.
While I would **never **reveal “the man behind the curtain”, I have no problems revealing “the theology of the man, behind the curtain”
Losing your temper is no way to converse with someone who does not agree with you.
Per the above, it is you who is fighting. I’m just presenting my side without being upset.
No, I’m not argumentative or unreasonable at all. I like reasoning with other people. I find when they paint themselves into a corner, rather than get upset with themselves for doing that, they get upset with the other person.
And you seem to be demonstrating common characteristics of many anti-Knochites, that of parroting their doctrines and not being willing to engage in reasonable conversation. You people have a long history of this type of attitude and behavior. See how that works?
Is Moses God? (Ex.7:1) Are the Israelites God (Psa.82:6; John 10:34)?
The Bible says He is a human, “the human, Christ Jesus.”
Do you mean does He have wings? No. I have never read in the Bible where it says He is an angel.
He was sinless but on the cross He was made sin.
Did you not read my prior post?
Did you not read my prior post?
Did you not read my prior post?
Ask me using a Scripture.
He was the Son of God and human before and after that event.
No.
The Bible said He was a human just like us and able to understand our problems.
It means God brought Him forth.
Please ask using a scripture? Bibles don’t talk about “eternity future.”
Jesus can be worshiped due to being a perfect image of God. One who is an image of something is not that something it is the image of.
When Jesus asked for a coin He asked “Whose image is this?” They said “Caesar’s.” Was that image literally Caesar or an image of him?
Dear HFPZ, have you not read their so-called “Gospel Truths” here: agatheringinchrist.com/gospel-truths
I find it interesting that they can write against Knoch yet hold to such wrong positions. It is the Kettle calling the Pot “black.”
Thanks HFPZ. Also, what I found interesting, and I say this without being mean spirited or nasty as we “Knochites” are always accused of, (and which is disparaging in itself to call a brother in Christ a “Knochite”) but what I found interesting in the article you referenced against Knoch’s understanding is that they brought up the Greek word “Pros” and that Knoch believed the basic meaning should be “toward,” (which it actually is) but that Knoch translted it as “with” x number of times supposedly showing His hypocrisy. However, what Kevin, in that article didn’t state is that the Concordant Literal always puts “td” attached to “with” where “pros” is used to show the reader that “toward” is the true meaning.
Also, and this is important at least to me in this discussion, let’s just assume for the sake of argument that “with” should be used in John 1:2. This does not really change anything since something or someone who is “with” someone else cannot be that person or being. For instance, if I say I am with my father, I am not saying, and hopefully no one would be crazy enough to suggest, I am saying I am my father. No. When “with” is used, it shows a separation in identity. I am with my son. I am with my with. I am with my dad. But if the word is toward God, it tells us it points us to God.
Oops missed your words above, copied here for further discussion.
You claim some things as given which are not necessarily true. Further these ideas fall outside of any thing Christian. There is a great irony here of you boldly saying others are not Christian above when these words reveal you to be non-Christian. These beliefs are closer to Islam than to Christianity for the Muslims believe Jesus to be a created being and a great prophet. Instead Jesus is the great ‘I am’. He is one with God in that ‘in Him there is life.’ He is the one forever praised, the God-man, Romans 9:5.
I think I actually said Paidion was not a believer and you agreed with me on that in that his beliefs are outside the scope of Christian teaching on Christ’s death. There is a difference between being a “Christian” and believe a “believer.” I am a believer. I don’t consider myself to be part of apostate Christendumb. Most people who call themselves “Christian” are unbelievers. They go to church, they repent, ask Jesus to come into their heart and eat cookies after service, all of which doesn’t save a gnat.
What I claim is necessarily true. You saying they are not does not prove they are not true.
Sorry but using tactics such as “guilt by association” by saying my beliefs are closer to Islam than to Christianity is cheap and no way to win an argument. What if I said your beliefs are closer to Satanists? Would that make you happy? Would it prove anything? How about you stick with the issues rather than make statements meant only to inflame people? If the Muslims believe Jesus to be a created being then they are correct in that regard. He was a great prophet. But they don’t believe Christ died let alone that He died for our sins. I’m sure you believe a lot the Muslims believe too. Personally I don’t know much of what they believe except for what I learned in a world religions class in college, for the most part like you do (supposedly). I just know they don’t believe Christ died for our sins or died at all.
Sorry but I am a believer who is in Christ. I am not a Knochite. I suggest you take Paul’s advice and quit bringing schisms into the body of Christ by saying you are of this person or of that person or this person or that person. Rather you should be saying we are IN Christ, not OF anyone. Shame on you. Concentrate on 1 Corinthians chapter 1.
