brakelite

Advanced Member
  • Content count

    295
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

241 Excellent

1 Follower

About brakelite

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    South Pacific

Recent Profile Visitors

1,576 profile views
  1. I said it is arrogant to be absolute either way. If there are other populated worlds, and we are a fallen world, then I would surmise the unfallen worlds to be more aware of God. Revelation , as far as I have read and understood, does not describe the destruction of the entire universe. Many people claim to have seen aliens...and I agree, they haven't. But many have seen something, or someone, and if not demons, then who?
  2. John, one of your very own correct statements, that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, is the most powerful argument against the modern church's teaching on the trinity. Now don't get me wrong, I am not denying the existence of 3 manifestations of the Godhead, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. What I do deny is the co-equal, co-eternal, consubstantial, co-lateral, coordinate and self-originated principles ascribed to each one, which turns the whole concept to a proper notion of 3 gods. Now why is the fact readily and freely confessed by all, the Sonship of Jesus, an argument against the trinity? Simple. Because if you believe in the trinity as I described above, the Fatherhood of God and the Sonship of Christ is relegated to nothing more than a metaphor. A metaphorical Father did not send a metaphorical Son to die for me. As for the holy Spirit being a third co-equal entity in a trinity, the fact that it is described as the Spirit OF God or the Spirit OF Christ (see Romans 8:9 as an example) throughout scripture, renders the nature of the Spirit as being posesssed by God, and when we consider that the Spirit was sent by God to us as a gift, and given to Jesus (John 3:34) , is indicative that the Spirit is under the authority of the Father, as was His Son and will be throughout eternity. (1 Cor. 15:28). Texts such as the following can only be understood in the context I have just described above. John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, (the first Comforter being the Father 2 Cor. 1:3) that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; ("I am the Way, the Truth....)whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, (present tense Jesus speaking of Himself spiritually and physically present with them) and shall (future tense) be in you. (by His Spirit only, due to restrictions He is now encumbered with being a man and able only to be present physically in one place at one time). 18 ¶ I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. (Not a third being, but Christ, but Christ in Spirit form.) See also Galatians 2:20; John 14:20; John 17:21; 2 Cor. 13:5; Eph 3:17; Col. 1:27; and 1 John 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. ......among many others. Is it Christ in us, the hope of glory? ....or someone else? Is it a literal Son of the Father?...or an idea...a metaphor?
  3. Why would I need to address that Hebrews text at all when I have no issue with it? I have already stated many times that Jesus is God...as God's Son how could He not be? I also addressed the concept of Jesus not being entirely equal to His Father...understandable considering the fact as that Hebrews text emphasizes, the Father Himself declares that He is Jesus's God. Confirmed also by several other texts I posted above previously.
  4. Trinitarians pick and choose scriptures to support their doctrine, in fact there are only two texts in scripture which imply a trinity, 1 John 5:7 and Math 28:19, both of which though do not support all the conjecture and assumptions contained in trinitarian theology. I agree that Jesus cannot be inferior to the Father. He inherited all the same attributes of deity...like Father like Son...however Jesus's submission to His Father as Son is explicit before the incarnation, after the ascension, and throughout all eternity. "God sent His Son" (John 3:16, and others)denotes authority over His Son before the incarnation. ..."the head of Christ is God" denotes present tense submission of the Son to the Father's authority and headship... while 1 Cor 15:24-28 denotes submission into the future. So while Jesus can rightly be called 'God' in that He possesses all the attributes of deity, the fact that these were given and sourced from His Father means we cannot give Jesus complete equality as taught in current trinitarian circles, and as taught in the creeds of the early church. You said there is only one true God, and rightly so. The Bible tells us who that one true God is. John 17:3 and 1 Cor 8:6 tells us clearly that the one true God is the Father, and both texts explicitly leave aside the Son from that exalted position. Hence Jesus calling the Father "His God." (Revelation 3:12).
  5. ...and from another page I said, Literal Father, literal Son, with a Spirit shared by both...the Father and Son being equal in character and nature, but not in authority or age. The Son, being begotten, had a beginning. The Father had no beginning. Because the Son came forth from the Father, the Son inherited all His Father's character and Spirit, 'for it pleased the Father that in Him should all fullness dwell' (Col. 1:9) As the Rock hewn from the mountain, (Daniel 2:34) so that Rock shares the same characteristics as the mountain from which it was cut. Same material, even same age, yet as a personal individual, had a beginning. Such is Jesus. Having the same eternal self-existent life as the Father, (John 5:26) means we may rightly and justifiably name Jesus God. Thus the Father is the God of our God. Less mystery, less perplexity, and still Biblical. Just a different perspective, and the only reason so many claim it heresy is because the creeds say so. The weight of evidence is against the trinity. How much clearer can I get? I know you ask for me to be concise, but we are speaking of the nature of God and Christ, thus we are walking on holy ground, so I must speak clearly, so as not to confuse, but not so concise that I leave out essential thoughts. Where I said above that the weight of evidence is against the trinity, I could be clearer on that. I believe in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. A trinity if you must call it that. I prefer the Biblical term, Godhead, which to my mind are not one and the same thing. But what I do not and cannot accept is the inferences and conclusions made by most people, and the creeds of the early churches, that make the Father and the Son equal in all respects, and the Holy Spirit as a third separate individual entity of equal standing as the other Two. There are two principle reasons apart from the age/begotten thing, that leads me to conclude the submissive and unequal nature of Christ. Two texts, both in agreement, both written after the ascension, (thus not in the context of the earthly life of Jesus) one present tense one future. They are 1 Corinthians 11:3 and 1 Cor 15:24-28. We have one sole mediator, Christ. The Bible does speak of the intercession of the Holy Spirit, yes, but let us not leap to the conclusion that the Holy Spirit is also a mediator separate and apart from Christ...the Holy Spirit is the Spirit OF Christ. When we speak of the Holy Spirit's work among men, we are speaking of Christ. That is true of the OT, the NT, and today. Thus Christ is, and always will be, until He comes, the sole Mediator between God and man. To claim the Holy Spirit is a third entity apart from Christ and independent thereof, creates a mediator that displaces Jesus as the only one.
  6. Read the last paragraph of my post at the top of the page. Then read again my post above, for it seems you misunderstand what I am saying.
  7. According to the trinitarian model, where the Son had no beginning, the son can only be metaphorical. The Father did not send a metaphorical Son to die for us.
  8. By the way, I also believe Jesus existed as God before creation. Consider the following. If we could travel at a septuagintacentillion (10513) times the speed of light in any one direction, would we ever find the end of the universe, like perhaps a wall with a sign saying this is the end? And if so, what would be on the other side of that wall? And what existed before God created all things through His Son? Was it nothing? And how long did nothing exist for if that was the case? It would have to be forever! And what about God, when did He begin to exist and who created Him? The answer is that there was never a time He did not exist and hence could never have been created. He is God and has always been and so is without beginning! And what about the Son of God who was born of the same substance of God? The same applies. Since Christ is the same substance of His Father, then everything He consists of had no beginning. So His divinity had no beginning, His makeup; His nature had no beginning as it all came from the Father. So in principle, everything Christ is had no beginning. If you trace Christ back you will have to go through the Father and you will never get to a beginning. But His personality as the Son of God began when He was brought forth by His Father. So in effect it was only the personality of Christ that had a beginning. These are the mysteries of God and things our mind cannot possibly comprehend. Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. He was begotten, not created. He is of the substance of the Father, so that in his very nature he is God; and since this is so “it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell.” Col. 1:19 ... While both are of the same nature, the Father is first in point of time. He is also greater in that he had no beginning, WHILE CHRIST'S PERSONALITY HAD A BEGINNING...if Christ had no beginning then He was not begotten.
  9. You do not understand what the 'trinity' actually teaches. According to tradition and the creeds the trinity refers to 3 co-equal co-eternal consubstantial Gods (God the Father...one God; God the Son...two Gods; God the Holy Spirit...three Gods) which equal one God. Yet scripture clearly and unequivocally states that the head of the church is Christ and the head of Christ is God. The trinity is not only a mystery, it is utterly contradictory to any plain reading of scripture.
  10. Trinitarians often claim Matthew 28:19 and 1 John 5:7 supports their belief in a Trinity. But this verse in no way affirms the Trinity doctrine which states that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three co-equal, co-eternal beings that make up one God. Nobody denies there is the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. This verse refers to three powers but never says they are one in essence and says nothing about their personality. It does not say they are three beings, it does not say they are three in one or one in three, it does not say these three are the Godhead, it does not say these three are a Trinity, it does not say these three are co-equal or co-eternal beings, it does not say that these three are all God. And yet some wrongly draw the conclusion that this supports their belief in the Trinity or that the Holy Spirit is another being which is clearly not so.
  11. So the Spirit of God that you claim was involved in creation...was that the Father, who is Spirit...or the Son who was Spirit pre-incarnation...or a third spirit independent of them...thus there are 3 spirits in heaven? Or should we simply accept what scripture says...the Spirit OF God? Meaning the Spirit that belongs to the Father which He gave to His Son 'without measure' (John 3:34). Creating a third person is unnecessary and superfluous to theologically understanding the nature of God. We as people have spirits, but we do not understand our spirits as being a separate individual person apart and independent of ourselves...we understand that our spirit is intrinsically who we really are; our character, personality, our essential self, is part and parcel of our spirit...so why should we claim God is different? When we speak of the Spirit OF God, as it is described repeatedly throughout all scripture, we know it as the character and mind and power of God do we not? Peter himself spoke of the Spirit that inspired the OT prophets as being the Spirit OF Christ. Does the so-called third person of the trinity belong to Christ? Does the 'third person' belong to the Father, being described often as the Spirit OF God? God is impossible enough to understand without creating unnecessary mysteries with a trinity and making Him even more distant. Literal Father, literal Son, with a Spirit shared by both...the Father and Son being equal in character and nature, but not in authority or age. The Son, being begotten, had a beginning. The Father had no beginning. Because the Son came forth from the Father, the Son inherited all His Father's character and Spirit, 'for it pleased the Father that in Him should all fullness dwell' (Col. 1:9) As the Rock hewn from the mountain, (Daniel 2:34) so that Rock shares the same characteristics as the mountain from which it was cut. Same material, even same age, yet as a personal individual, had a beginning. Such is Jesus. Having the same eternal self-existent life as the Father, (John 5:26) means we may rightly and justifiably name Jesus God. Thus the Father is the God of our God. Less mystery, less perplexity, and still Biblical. Just a different perspective, and the only reason so many claim it heresy is because the creeds say so. The weight of evidence is against the trinity.
  12. Perhaps you don't want to see any parallels with Constantine either do you? Like I said in my former post, many evangelical and charismatic leaders have already led their people several hundred miles toward Rome, where only one small step is a giant leap into apostasy. Were you at the meeting with the late bishop Tony Palmer where he declared that the protest is over and all Protestants should return to Rome and the entire room full of Protestant leaders stood and cheered? Were you at Washington memorial a few months ago where thousands cheered at the video of Francis calling all to unite again with him? Are you not aware of the massive modern movement of the Protestant church toward Rome as expressed by the Lutherans to be confirmed later this year in Denmark? Are you not aware of Trumps promise to tear up the Johnson amendment that will be the motivating factor behind the church lobbying and promoting Christian morality including Sunday laws? Are you not aware that in the late 1800s such a move failed only by the narrowest of margins due principally to objections from some very eloquent men espousing religious liberty for Sabbath keepers and atheists? With a vice-president who is openly and staunchly Catholic how can the white house be anything other than pro-Vatican, particularly in the light of recent history, where every President since Reagan has accelerated Rome/Washington relations, and where Francis addressed the crowd on his last visit from a balcony a step higher than any President in history? All these are but the tip of the ice-berg , and just these are significant enough to have your pioneers turning over in their graves.
  13. So the Father said to His Son, "let us make man in our image, in our likeness."
  14. Good grief, where did I suggest he was leading the US into a theocracy? Unless you equate one with the other, I said he had the 'potential' to lead an historically Protestant nation into apostasy through surrendering the nation into the arms of a coming global papal dictatorship. The uniting of church and state is precisely what such a situation requires, and the re-establishing of Sunday blue laws as a nationwide obligation will seal the deal. Current events clearly reveal that these two things, the latter dependent upon the former, could very well be taking place. To declare otherwise, is to view current events through very Trump tinted glasses. The Constitution and the principles enshrined therein, if protected, was designed to forestall such an event. The lessons of European history taught the forbears of your great nation that any future union of church and state, be it RCC or Protestant, would spell disaster for religious freedom, both RCC and Protestant. Prophecy screams from the rooftops however that such a union will once again be established in the earth, globally, and that the US will be at the forefront of such a move. The popularity of Trump within the Christian community is a very blind faith. That some things he is doing may well be good, that he is honoring his campaign promises revolutionary, but what he is doing if he goes too far has the 'potential' for disaster. The parallels with Constantine are marked. But hey, most Christians don't even recognize the US in prophecy, much less the papacy. And those who see neither, are caught up in ecumenism big time...just look at the names on Trumps 'best friend' list...either Catholic or very pro-Catholic Protestants ( a misnomer actually as they no longer protest) many proclaiming the protest over. How many stood and cheered along with the late bishop Tony Palmer and Kenneth Copeland at the Popes plea for unity and today have found favor with the White House? Revelation 13 demands a union of church and state. It is the people who in the final analysis actually call for it. This can only take place in a Christian democratic nation with global influence. The USA.
  15. Why is it so awful to ask if Satan has blinded you? People have been openly called me a heretic, or a member of a cult for years. In this short thread it has been intimated several times, and explicitly stated once. Such charges are to be expected as a Christian. They called Jesus worse. But to be asked, has Satan blinded you? There is no accusation there, and if you are offended by that, you are being too sensitive. It is a question more people on these forums should be asking themselves everyday; particularly in light of the topic of this current thread.