brakelite

Show me where Paul teaches any of the above letter points.

The church became divided because after a couple of hundred years all gathering on Sabbath, as the custom was for apostle and Savior alike, a certain section decided that Sunday was a more appropriate day to gather together on for several reasons. First, it was already a pagan day of sun worship, and officially recognized as such in the empire. That empire became very intolerant of Jews after several uprisings in the early centuries, and knowing full well that Sabbath was a special day for hem, outed the Jews because of their resting on that day and gathering together. The Christians , or at least some, weakly decided to set themselves apart by gathering together on Sunday. Second, the Jews became rather intolerant of Christians worshiping in their synagogues every Sabbath, and devised prayers that blasphemed Jesus that outed the Christians, discouraging them from entering their meetings. Thirdly, the Roman Catholic church, among other pagan practices decided that Sunday would be a special "mark" of her authority in religious matters, persecuting all who dared to continue worshiping on Sabbath, including Jew and Christian. Today, it has become so embedded in Christian psyche that most don't think to investigate it. Those that do come to a variety of conclusions, each coming to a different solution, and making a different excuse for not keeping Sabbath any more. a. Every day is holy. b. Any one day of the week can be holy. c. Sunday is holy. d. Jesus is holy (the Sabbath rest in Him etc etc) e. No day is holy. f. It was only for the Jews, therefore Christians can do what they like. g. We are now living in the new covenant period, so we can do what we like. h. We don't have to obey God's commandments. i. Keeping Sabbath is impossible today because we don't know what day it is. j. Keeping Sabbath is a burden, a yoke that Jesus doesn't want His people to be under. k. Keeping Sabbath means one is trying to earn his salvation, etc, etc , etc,. Typical Babalonyish arguments where no-one can agree and all is confusion. In coming to such conclusions the Bible is ignored. They are merely excuses for disobeying for many. Not one nor any of the above is found in scripture. God says throughout the OT that there is only one day that is holy, and that is the 7th day. The Bible says that it was the Creator who made it thus. Jesus. So when Jesus comes along and says that He (Jesus) is still Lord of the Sabbath day, then He is saying nothing has changed. It is still the Lord's Day. It is still called the Sabbath. It is still set apart from every other day of the week. It is still holy. Thus it is still a sign between the disciple and His Lord that the disciple recognizes the authority of the One who made that day holy, and declares that neither man, nor the church he belongs to, has any authority to change it.

If I was marooned on a desert island the promise that Jesus, through His Spirit, would continue to be with me, I will cling to as a lifeline. Jesus revealed to me 20 years ago, after 20 years a Sunday observer, that the Sabbath was His Holy day. Not mine, not the church's, but HIS holy day. He did so through His word. If I lost days of the week through misadventure, I have no doubt that Jesus would reveal to me, somehow, what His day is. Whether through an angel, or the Spirit, I have no idea. But He would, just as He is revealing this to you today...unfortuntely you aren't listening.

Yes, Jesus is God, and as much God as His Father, because He is His Father's Son. He is a perfect reproduction of the Father...ffor it pleased God that in Him should all goodness dwell. Yes, He also pre-existed the incarnation. I have no argument with that. But you provide no evidence that in His pre-existent nature, Jesus was not a Son. According to you, God did NOT send His only begotten Son into the world. He sent God. Mmmm. And you haven't explained why Paul would take John 17:3 so literally in 1 Cor. 8:6.

“The trinity got its start in Ancient Babylon with Nimrod - Tammuz - and Semiramis. Semiramis demanded worship for both her husband and her son as well as herself. She claimed that her son, was both the father and the son. Yes, he was “god the father” and “god the son” - The first divine incomprehensible trinity.” — (The Two Babylons, Alexander Hislop, p. 51) So in Egypt, their trinity became Osiris, Horus and Isis. In Greece it was Zeus, Apollo and Athena. And in India there was Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva . Rome, they had Jupiter, Mars and Venus . These few are by no means a comprehensive list but in all the many cultures and pagan systems of worship, we find the ultimate worship of their gods always ends up in three. The common denominator is that they all started at the very same place, Babel. But now that they had different languages, they all had different names. As far back into the ancient world as we can go, we find that all known cultures had a three in one triune god. There is a lot more that could be covered on this topic but what we have is adequate for this study. The parts that have not been examined can be briefly covered by the following summary of the heathen trinity. There are always three beings in this triune god. One is the father, one is the mother and one is the son. The son is also the husband of the mother. The son is the father incarnate. All three have been deified as gods. Often these three are said to be one god. That is, one in three forms, or three in one. The father is often not mentioned and instead the mother and son are worshipped by themselves. At times the heathen trinity is seen as one god playing three roles, and is pictured with three heads. At other times this one god is seen with three faces on one head. In several branches of heathenism, the third person of this trinity is regarded as evil and a destroyer. In this last version, the 1st person is the creator, the 2nd person is the maintainer, and the 3rd person is the destroyer. None of these heathen concepts should ever be found in Christianity! Alexander Hislop summed up the trinity with the following, “All these have existed from ancient times. While overlaid with idolatry, the recognition of a trinity was universal in all the ancient nations of the world.” — (The Two Babylons, pp. 17, 18) Remember that the trinity doctrine, and why it is called as such, is as follows. The Father is God, Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three gods but one God, and that's the trinity! In other words, 1+1+1=One! This of course makes no sense at all and is not found in the Bible, so where did it really come from? The very first three-in-one trinity was the worship of the three stages of the sun! (1. New born at dawn. (2. Mature and full grown at 12 noon. (3. Old and dying at the end of the day. (Jordan Maxwell. BBC of America Quoted in Exposure Vol. 5, No. 6 1999). All three of course were one divinity being the sun. And so the main medium through which Satan was worshipped in Babylon was the sun. They noticed that the sun had three distinct stages and this fitted well with their belief as they were already worshipping three. Thus the sun was worshiped as three gods. The rising and new born sun as it came to life, the mature and full grown sun at noon, and the dying sun as it set at the end of the day. Yet while they worshipped the sun as three gods, they were not three gods but one god! So the rising sun was god, the midday sun was god, the setting sun was god, and yet there were not three gods but one god! In other words, 1+1+1=One! So here is the true absolute origin of the trinity doctrine. And this became incorporated into this mystery religion and the worship of Satan. “Three became the most universal number of deity. Sun worship is one of the most primitive forms of religion, and early man sometimes distinguished between rising, midday, and setting sun. The Egyptians, for example, divided the sun god into three deities: Horus, rising sun, Ra or Re, midday sun, and Osiris, old setting sun.” — (Egyptian Deities, New International Encyclopedia. NY: Dodd, 1917. Volume 7, p. 529) And all of this started in Babylon. So as each group travelled it took with them the same concept except they now had different names. The pagans also believed that the three phases of the sun were the three manifestations of the supreme deity as evident in the Egyptian sun gods. See image left. This became known as the three in one god. In order to be able to represent their sun god properly, they combined all three stages of the sun into one, and the result of that would be a picture of what they really believed. When you put all three parts together, you have one and this symbol became a symbol of the sun god, and the being behind that worship was Satan. They found this symbolism very effective and used this to disguise their true religion. These three interlocking circles formed an equilateral triangle which is a triangle with three equal sides. With an equilateral triangle all sides are equal and must add up to 180 degrees. Each side was representing a phase of the sun with each angle of the triangle being 60 degrees. It does not take a genius to see that the next step, 60 + 60 + 60 represented 666. See image right. “The ancient Babylonians recognised the doctrine of a trinity, or three persons in one god— as appears from a composite god with three heads forming part of their mythology, and the use of the equilateral triangle, also, as an emblem of such trinity in unity.” — (Thomas Dennis Rock, The Mystical Woman and the Cities of the Nations, 1867, pp. 22, 23) It is also very significant that the Babylonians used the sexagesimal (base-60) number system from which comes 60 minutes in an hour, 60 seconds in a minute, 360 (60×6) degrees in a circle and 60 degrees in each angle of an equilateral triangle and so on. 360 divided by 10 = 36 and 6 * 6 = 36 This is derived from their system of worship of 36 supreme gods, which included the sun god as number one which they believed to be the father of all the other gods (Nimrod), and the moon was the mother god (Semiramis) as number two. The other gods numbered 3 to 36 were considered the children of the sun god, and included the various stars and constellations that these gods were associated with. These numbers from 1 to 36 total 666, which they also assigned to the sun god since it was the father of all their gods. The calculation is simply this: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 14 + 15 + 16 + 17 + 18 + 19 + 20 + 21 + 22 + 23 + 24 + 25 + 26 + 27 + 28 + 29 + 30 + 31 + 32 + 33 + 34 + 35 + 36 = 666. Note the Babylonian solar seal amulet with the numbers 1 to 36 and the number 666 underneath these numbers that represented the sun. The numbers are so arranged that each row and column as well as the two diagonals add up to 111. They feared their gods and believed these amulets had more power to protect them from their god's striking them down with this number arrangement. These solar seals are almost impossible to find today and most are in private collections where Satan wants them. This true origin of the number 666 is known by very few and once again how Satan wants it as it reveals too much truth on what this number is all about and who God now assigns this number

It isn't about Jesus sending Himself. He said He would ask His Father to send "another comforter". And Jesus said explicitly that the answer would be positive because He said, "I will come to you". You say the Holy Spirit is not Jesus, yet throughout the scripture the holy Spirit is described as being the Spirit of Christ, or the Spirit of God. Always. And Jesus referred to Himself in the 3rd person on several occasions. One being the discussion with the disciples on the road to Emmaus. You constantly accuse me of bad theology because I don't understand the trinity, and yet you also admit no-one understands the trinity. It is officially called a "mystery". How can you be so adamant and confident that you are correct concerning a doctrine that is in essence, impossible to understand? God has revealed Himself to us. Sure, we will never find out everything there is to know about God, but what He has revealed is given that we may know Him. Like in John 17:3. You said this prayer was just an example for our benefit. That when Jesus said "the only true God", this was not entirely correct, for the Holy Spirit is also the "only true God" and Jesus Himself is also the "only true God". Either language actually means something, or Jesus is being deliberately misleading. It seems the apostle Paul understood this concept when he wrote 1 Cor.8:6.

That was the only way to look at it according to the papal apostates of the 4th century. That was the only way to look at it according to the decision of a pagan sun-worshiping emperor who murdered his own wife to sustain his power. But it isn't the only way to look at it. One could, if he was so disposed, to look at it as revealed in scripture. 1 ¶ God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Heb.1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; 4 ¶ Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. 1 Cor. 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. 24 Then cometh the end, when he (Jesus) shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he (the Father) shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he (Jesus) must reign, till he (the Father)hath put all enemies under his(Jesus) feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27 For he (the Father) hath put all things under his (Jesus) feet. But when he (the Father) saith all things are put under him (Jesus), it is manifest that he (the Father) is excepted, which did put all things under him.(Jesus) 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him (Jesus), then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him (the Father) that put all things under him, that God (the Father) may be all in all. That God is the fountain and source of immortality is plain from the statement of Paul. He speaks thus of God the Father: 'Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen nor can see; to whom be honor and power everlasting; Amen.' 1 Tim. 6:16. This text is evidently designed to teach that the self existent God is the only being who, of himself, possesses this wonderful nature. Others may possess it as derived from him, but he alone is the fountain of immortality. "Our Lord Jesus Christ is the source of this life to us. 'For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.' John 5:26. 'As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.' John 6:57. The Father gives us this life in His Son. 'And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.' 1Jn 5:11,12. Show me one verse in scripture that reveals Jesus as being "the one true God", which if found, would completely contradict John 17:3. Good luck. Of course you are always entitled to believe that concept, but you would be doing so in full accordance to Roman Catholic tradition, and not sola scriptura. Align yourself with the Roman apostasy if you must, who in their catechisms describes the trinity doctrine as being the foundation doctrine of all her other doctrines, but in todays Protestant world, such a stand with Rome does not surprise me.

In one sense they are the same, in another, different. God the Father is Lord over all, the supreme God and ruler of the universe. His only begotten Son is also Lord, because it pleased the Father that in Jesus should dwell all the fullness of the Godhead. He "is made both Lord and Christ". Acts 2:36 So the Father, as the only eternal God, is Lord, but has given into the hands of His Son life, all authority, and rule. Thus Jesus is Lord because it was granted Him of His Father. He is not Lord because He is a co-equal partner in any trinity. John 3:35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. That God is the fountain and source of immortality is plain from the statement of Paul. He speaks thus of God the Father: 'Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen nor can see; to whom be honor and power everlasting; Amen.' 1 Tim. 6:16. This text is evidently designed to teach that the self existent God is the only being who, of himself, possesses this wonderful nature. Others may possess it as derived from him, but he alone is the fountain of immortality. "Our Lord Jesus Christ is the source of this life to us. 'For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.' John 5:26. Jesus the Son of God has the power and authority to give us eternal life because He received that life from His Father. 'As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.' John 6:57. The Father gives us this life in His Son. 'And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.' 1Jn 5:11,12.

Jesus is indeed God, because of the fact that He is the Son of God. He has inherited, by nature, His Father's nature and character...Jesus is therefore equal to His Father in all respects but two...age and authority.

We are all desirous to know and understand the true God...all around us there is a pantheon of false ideas, false gods, and not just in the religious world. And the vast majority of Christians today are deceived into worshiping a false god, a trinity which is derived from pagan origins. Yet Jesus told us who God is. The apostles told us who the true God is. Why make up another???? John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. Who was Jesus speaking to, the one He describes as the only true God? 1 Cor. 8:66 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. Paul says here that to the Christian church, there is only one God. Who is that one God?

Yet the entire concept of trinity as handed down through the creeds is that there are 3 distinct co-eternal co-equal beings forming one God. This idea is brought to people as God the Father, which title is repeated 13 times in the KJV...God the Son, which title is not found in the Bible at all, and God the Holy Spirit, which is not found either. Three distinct separate Gods which equal one God. Of course its a mystery. It was a mystery to Israel, that is why they reject it today, and why Christians find it so hard to evangelize Jews because of the idolatry factor in multiple gods. It was also a mystery to Jesus, who taught no such concept. He taught us to pray to His Father. Not once did He pray to the Holy Spirit, nor recommend it anywhere. Yet the Holy Spirit is a co-equal co-eternal God? It was also a mystery to the apostles. Why not worship the Holy Spirit? Why does the Holy Spirit not know when Jesus is coming back? Why is it a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit unforgivable but a blasphemy against the Father or Jesus forgivable? What happened to co-equality? Perhaps because it is NOT a third person/god as is made out to be? There are many names and phrases associated with the trinity doctrine but none are Biblical and hence none of them exist in Scripture. Below are phrases found in Scripture for the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit compared to Trinitarian phrases. The Trinitarian will argue that while the word Trinity is not in the Bible, the doctrine is. But there is nothing but straw man arguments, and this doctrine is just as absent as any of these manmade Trinitarian words.

And the trinity is built on more than one or two verses? You said previously that the Holy Spirit is referred to as "He", as opposed to an "it". That in numerous places such was the case. Here are the ONLY verses that refer to the Holy Spirit as a “He” or “Him.” Verses are abbreviated. John 14:16-17 “he shall give you another [allos] COMFORTER [parakletos], that he may abide with you forever; 17 Even the SPIRIT OF TRUTH;” John 14:26 “But the COMFORTER [parakletos], which is the Holy Ghost,” John 15:26 “when the COMFORTER [parakletos] is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the SPIRIT OF TRUTH,” John 16:7 “if I go not away, the COMFORTER [parakletos] will not come unto you;” John 16:13 “when he, the SPIRIT OF TRUTH, is come, he will guide you into all truth:” Note that EVERY verse is referring to the COMFORTER [Greek=parakletos] and SPIRIT OF TRUTH. So who is the COMFORTER and SPIRIT OF TRUTH? In John 14:6 Jesus says, “I am the truth” and by His Spirit He is the “Spirit of truth.” (John 14:17) And in John 14:18 Jesus said, “I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.” It is Christ by “HIS” Spirit! Many get confused because Jesus said he will send “another” Comforter not realizing that the “another” is HIS SPIRIT. The Greek word “allos” for “another” in John 14:16 means another of the exact same kind. Jesus was present with His disciples in physical form, but after His ascension He comes back in another form, that is, by His Spirit. Hence the “another” is His Spirit. Because Christ's Spirit can function independently of Himself, it is like His Spirit is “another.” And because it is His Spirit, it is “another” of the same kind. If it was someone different, John would have used the Greek word “heteros” which means another of a different kind. 1 John 2:1 also reveals that Jesus is our “parakletos” (Comforter). John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7 above and 1 John 2:1 below are the only verses that use this Greek word which means “ADVOCATE and COMFORTER.” So the Greek text also reveals that our COMFORTER and Advocate is JESUS CHRIST the righteous! “If any man sin, we have an advocate [parakletos] (Comforter) with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:” 1 John 2:1

Then we see things quite different. For me, when God's word says that God sent His Son to save me, I believe He had a Son to send.

Therefore according to the above,God did not send His only begotten Son into the world...He sent someone else who became a son. You rend John 3:16, 1 John 4:9, and a number of other passages, meaningless. And who is this....Proverbs 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son’s name, if thou canst tell?

So in connection with your statement quoted, please explain 1 Cor. 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. Face the fact Ezra that in your continual upholding of the co-equal co-eternal relationship of the trinity, it is a denial of the Father and Son. John 3:16,17 becomes a nonsense. Who did the Father really send to die on our behalf? Can you answer this? Can you answer Jesus' question to Peter, "who do you say that I am?" Is Jesus a true Son, or isn't He? Real, or metaphorical? Literal, or simply a role they play? I ask this because the trinity and a literal Father/Son concept must be mutually exclusive. To believe in a literal Father/Son one MUST reject the trinity as taught in the creeds. Period. Like I said, this is not about human reasoning. It is about accepting or rejecting revelation. I admit, there are aspects to God we will never in this life figure out...but what He has revealed, throughout the NT and in a couple of places in the OT, is that the Godhead is made up of a Father (described as God in 1 Cor. 8:6), and His Son, (described as the Lord in the same passage). Two separate individual beings who both share the same eternal Holy Spirit, and who are willing to share that same Spirit with us. Now this is not a denial of the deity or divinity of Jesus. But if we accept the Son-ship of Christ, which the Bible testifies to throughout, it is and must be a denial of His having been in existence for as long as His Father, and there is nothing in scripture, anywhere, that says different. In all other things, Jesus is as much God as His Father, but by inheritance.

I call the Holy Spirit "it" because the Bible says "the" Holy Spirit. Ephesians 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 1 John 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. Jesus, being limited for eternity by His human body, is still present in and with us, but how? By His Holy Spirit. When He made the promise of sending another comforter, He meant Himself in another form. Read the context here.... John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, (the original Comforter was not Jesus, but the Father...'the Father of all comfort'2 Corinthians 1:3 Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort)...that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him (how did the disciples already know this person, and dwell with this person,if it weren't Jesus Himself?); for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. 18 ¶ I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. Of course the Holy Spirit dwells within us...but why must this be a third co-equal co-eternal God as described in the 3person/3 God trinity? Why cannot this indwelling Spirit simply be what the Bible, in innumerable places, describes Him to be...the Spirit of Christ? What is more natural and more wonderful than to acknowledge and accept simple Biblical revelation as fact that it is Jesus Christ Himself, and the Father Himself, who dwell within us, through their shared Spirit? Romans8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the SPIRIT OF GOD dwell in you. Now if any man have not the SPIRIT OF CHRIST, he is none of his. John3:34, 35: For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him. 35: The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. The Father gave the Son his Spirit, it’s this Eternal Spirit that doesn’t back off from burdens that encouraged the Son of God to offer himself for us. It’s this Spirit of the Father given to the Son that enabled him to live a life without spot and every believer can possess this eternal Spirit of the Father if they submit to Him and His Son. John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

He can be a Son of His Father, and NOT a Son of His Father at the same time? Come on Ezra, stop beating about the bush and face the question. Either Jesus is God's Son, or He isn't. Either God is the Father of Jesus, or He isn't. This has nothing to do with human logic...it is all about believing and accepting what is written, and not going beyond what is revealed. The trinity is going way beyond what is revealed, because it inherently denies the personalities of both Father and Son. And John informs us in no unequivocal terms that to deny the Father and Son, is antichrist. If you cannot answer these from scripture, then you cannot face John 17:1-3.

The Holy Spirit is not an impersonal force, it is Christ Himself. It is not a third person however that dwells within us, it is the Father AND the Son. Christ in us, the hope of glory. If anyone does not have the Spirit of CHRIST, he is none of His. God is Spirit. And it is that Spirit, the Spirit OF GOD, that dwells i us. Why invent a third person to make something that is already difficult to fully comprehend, into something that is nonsensical?

There are two vital questions which we need to ask ourselves. The first one is, Who was this Person that God sent? This question is critical because if the sending of this Person is the key factor in the revelation of God's love, then it must be clear that the key question is, "What was the RELATIONSHIP between this Person & God?" Let me illustrate my point. If John 3:16 had read, "God so loved the world that He gave an angel whom He created…." or, "God so loved the world that He gave His friend…." Would the action really have impressed us with the fact that God's love for us is very great? Men would have understood if God had claimed to have given an angel. We would have comprehended it if God had claimed to have given His friend, but would this really have revealed God's love for man? The plain fact is, God's consistent testimony is that He gave HIS SON. In the very words of that Son, "His only begotten Son." How great is God's love for us? The answer to that question pivots around the issue of Who Jesus really was. ONLY AS WE CAN DISCERN THE TRUE IDENTITY OF CHRIST CAN WE APPRECIATE THE ENORMITY OF THE SACRIFICE WHICH GOD MADE FOR MAN, & THEREFORE THE MAGNITUDE OF HIS LOVE FOR US. A relevant question is, "WHY does the Bible call Jesus the "Son of God." Is this term one that was coined by the gospel writers, was it a FIGURATIVE term, was it a TITLE like the term "prophet (as some have suggested)?" The plain fact of the matter is that God Himself in the presence of a multitude of people proclaimed, "This is my beloved SON (Matt. 3:17)." Again, Jesus Himself over and over declared that He was the SON OF GOD, & MORE THAN THAT, "THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD." (John 3:16) The testimony of these two Beings none dare contradict, or ascribe to tradition, custom or misunderstanding. Surely, God knew the identity of Jesus & Jesus Himself must have known His own identity. Let us then make note of the fact that in seeking to convey to human minds the relationship between God & Jesus, both Jesus & God have used the word "Son" & "Father". ANY HUMAN BEING THEREFORE IS GUILTY OF THE GREATEST PRESUMPTION IF HE CONCLUDES THAT JESUS IS ANYONE OTHER THAN THE SON OF GOD. DID GOD MERELY USE HUMAN TERMINOLOGY WHEN HE REFERRED TO JESUS AS HIS "BELOVED SON," SO THAT WE COULD UNDERSTAND HOW HE FEELS ABOUT JESUS? Was this an attempt on the part of God to mislead us, or to enlighten us? Does God want us to believe something is so, even though it isn't? IF GOD WANTS US TO THINK OF JESUS AS HIS SON, WHY SHOULD WE THINK OF HIM AS BEING GOD HIMSELF? Are we wiser than God? When God says, "this is my beloved Son," how can we be so presumptuous as to say, "He was NOT really God's Son, but that He was God Himself!!" Let us be certain of this: God has given us the information which we need & what He tells us is what He expects us to believe & to receive. Furthermore, the only safety in this world lies in believing & receiving that word. The second vital question which we must ask is, WHEN DID JESUS BECOME THE SON OF GOD? This question is a critical one because God's love for us is revealed in the gift of His Son. Yet, God could NOT have loved Christ as a Son UNTIL He became His Son. Does this sound logical? God's love for His Son must be measured from the time when He had a Son. If Jesus had existed before He became God's Son, then God may have loved Him as a brother, as a friend, may even have been said to love Himself, if as some say, Jesus was God Himself. HOWEVER, HE COULD NOT HAVE LOVED HIM AS HIS SON UNTIL HE BECAME HIS SON. ***WHEN DID JESUS BECOME THE SON OF GOD? Strenuous efforts have been made to prove that God NEVER had a Son BEFORE Jesus came to earth. Such efforts have come from all quarters, but all of them fail in the light of the plain simple word of God. Was there a time when God said, "Son, you may go?" 1 John 4:9 says that God sent His only begotten Son into the world. WHEN did this happen? Was it BEFORE Jesus came into the world or was it AFTER He came into the world? Did God first send Jesus into the world & then AFTER His arrival here, say, "Son, you may go into the world?" These questions may seem ridiculous, but they need to be asked in order that it may become clear how unreasonable is the position that Jesus NEVER became God's Son until AFTER He had come into the world. BASIC LOGIC SHOULD TELL US THAT IF GOD SENT HIS SON INTO THE WORLD (John 3:17; 1 John 4:9) THEN HE MUST HAVE HAD A SON TO SEND (Mark 12:6). He did not send Himself to become His Son, He did not send His friend to become His Son, He did not send a part of Himself to become His Son. AT THE MOMENT WHEN JESUS WAS SENT, HE WAS ALREADY THE SON OF GOD. *** To believe that Jesus was NOT God's Son UNTIL He was conceived in Mary's womb would present the ridiculous idea that Jesus arrived BEFORE He was sent. Or that God sent His Son BEFORE He had a Son. TESTIMONY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT There are several verses in the Old Testament which clearly reveal the truth that God had a Son LONG BEFORE Jesus ever came to the earth. "Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, AND WHAT IS HIS SON'S NAME, if thou canst tell?" (Prov 30:4) Which TWO beings was this verse speaking of? One of them is clearly the Creator of all things, the One who "bound the waters in a garment" & "established all the ends of the earth." However, there is another person mentioned. HERE LONG BEFORE CHRIST WAS BORN IN BETHLEHEM THE QUESTION IS ASKED, "WHAT IS HIS SON'S NAME?" If God did NOT have a Son at that time what is the meaning of the question? Again when we look at Proverbs 8:22-31 it is difficult for us to misunderstand the meaning of the passage. Of Whom is this passage speaking? The first few verses of the chapter indicate that it is speaking of "wisdom." However, as often happens with Old Testament prophetic or poetic passages the subject changes from a GENERAL application to A SPECIFIC application to someone in particular. IT IS CLEAR THAT THESE VERSES MUST BE SPEAKING OF A PERSON, RATHER THAN THE ABSTRACT QUALITY OF WISDOM BECAUSE IT STATES THAT "I WAS BROUGHT FORTH" (v 24, 25). If we were to conclude that this refers to the quality of wisdom, then we would also have to conclude that there was a time, BEFORE God brought forth wisdom, when wisdom did NOT exist & that therefore at one point, God was NOT wise. THIS PERSON MENTIONED IN VERSES 22-31 HAS SOME VERY PARTICULAR SPECIFICATIONS WHICH COULD APPLY TO ONLY ONE BEING IN THE UNIVERSE. Let us look at some of these specifications: 1. The person was "brought forth" (born, begotten. v 24, 25) The term "brought forth" is translated as "given birth" in the NIV & also in the BBE (Bible in basic English). In the NLT & the NJB as "I was born." Nearly every other version translates it as "brought forth." 2. the Person was "set up"(born) BEFORE anything was created. A period referred to as "everlasting" (v 23) 3. The Person was PRESENT during all the creative acts of God (v 27-29) 4. The companionship of this person with God was constant & brought "delight" to God (v 30) Who is it that the Bible says was "begotten" by God (John 3:16) from the days of "everlasting" (Micah 5:2) Who was present & active during the creation of the entire universe (Eph 3:9; Gen 1:26), & Who brought delight to the heart of God (Matt 3:17)? Only ONE Being in the entire universe fits the description. THIS PASSAGE IS CLEARLY REFERRING TO JESUS CHRIST, THE SON OF GOD, WHO, ACCORDING TO 1 COR 1:24 IS THE WISDOM OF GOD. "…the Son of God declares concerning Himself: "The Lord possessed Me in the beginning of His way, before His works of old. I was set up from everlasting. . . . When He appointed the foundations of the earth: then I was by Him, as one brought up with Him: and I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him." Proverbs 8:22-30. Those who deny that Jesus is truly the Son of God have two problems with this passage. FIRSTLY, they see clearly that IT SPEAKS Of A STARTING POINT FOR CHRIST. A time when He was "brought forth." Regardless of the fact that this time is so far back in eternity as to be referred to as "everlasting," they have a problem because they feel that Jesus is God Himself & as such could not have had a beginning. SECONDLY, they feel that the term "brought forth" implies creation & of course, if Jesus was created then He could not have been a divine being & it would not have been possible for Him to have paid the price for man's redemption. BORN OR CREATED? Yet, the Scriptures are greater than the opinions, the fears, the misconceptions & the biases of men. ACCEPTING WHAT THE SCRIPTURES SAY AS THEY SIMPLY READ WOULD BRING UNDERSTANDING & WOULD CLEAR UP THE DIFFICULTIES. Let us examine the second objection first. Are we suggesting that Jesus was CREATED if we accept that He was BORN of God? Let us be reasonable. IS THERE ANYWHERE IN THE BIBLE WHERE "BORN" MEANS "CREATED" OR VICE VERSA? This matter is very simple. Creation has to do with forming, or bringing something into existence using materials which are NOT a part of myself or without the use of pre-existing materials. BEGETTING, OR THE BIRTH PROCESS IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. IN BIRTH, THE NEW ENTITY WAS ONCE A PART OF THE ORIGINAL & IS COMPOSED OF THE SAME SUBSTANCE & POSSESSES THE SAME QUALITIES AS THE ORIGINAL. The new entity may even be said to have existed BEFORE he was born in the sense that his life was already present in his parent's life (Heb 7:9,10). THE BIBLICAL TESTIMONY EVERYWHERE CONCERNING CHRIST IS THAT HE WAS BORN OF GOD, NOT CREATED BY GOD. The other objection has to do with the question, could Christ truly be God if He had a beginning? Well, first of all Jesus could NEVER be God (Himself). There is only ONE Being in the Bible Who bears the title "God" and this is the Father (John 17:3; 1 Cor 8:6; Rev 21:22). However, the relevant question is, could Jesus be a DIVINE being, could He possess the qualities of God if He had a beginning? When a child is born, what qualities is he born with? Apart from the fact that his development is not complete, does he come short of his parents in any way? OBVIOUSLY, IF JESUS WAS BORN, BEGOTTEN, BROUGHT FORTH BY GOD, THEN HE MUST POSSESS ALL THE QUALITIES OF GOD! It is evident that He is NOT inferior to God in any way, but possesses in His NATURE every attribute which by nature belongs to God. HOW DOES THE FACT THAT HE HAD A BEGINNING TRILLIONS OF YEARS AGO NEGATE HIS DIVINITY? This is like saying that because a human son is not as old his father, he is not as human as his father! THE KEY QUESTION, IS WHETHER JESUS WAS BORN OR CREATED. Jehovah's Witnesses claim that He was created. Trinitarians say He was neither born nor created. THE BIBLE HOWEVER, TEACHES THAT HE WAS BEGOTTEN OF GOD WAY BACK IN THE DAYS OF "EVERLASTING". This is the only conclusion which fits all the facts of Scripture. ENLIGHTENED OR CONFUSED? Many & varied are the ways in which the enemy of all truth has sought to obliterate this truth. Another group of Christians, zealous for the traditions of past centuries have speculated (and pushed these speculations on others) that Jesus, Who was God Himself, decided billions of years ago to ACT in the ROLE of a son, while God Himself (another one) would ACT in the ROLE of a Father. At the same time God Himself (still another one!) would ACT in the ROLE of Holy Spirit. This decision was taken by God Himself Who was not three Gods, but one God ACTING IN THREE ROLES!! When theories such as these have been embedded into the minds of simple people it is no wonder that when they are asked simple questions such as "Who is God?" Or "was Jesus the true Son of God?" All they can do is stammer & stutter & give a blank stare. Is this what God was trying to tell us when His son made the following simple, straightforward, but sublime statement? (John 3:16-17) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. {17} For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. UNPOPULAR TRUTH Why is the devil so fiercely opposed to the truth that Jesus IS THE TRUE SON OF GOD? It is not difficult to find the answer to this question. The Bible declares that God's love is revealed in the fact that God gave His Son to die for mankind (John 3:16; 1 John 4:9,10). How can we understand & appreciate the wonder of that love if we fail to discern the IDENTITY of the One Who was sent? If we fail to grasp the value of the gift that was given & what it cost God to give it? It is only as we understand Christ's IDENTITY that we shall love God as we should (1 John 4:19). Therefore our love for God & our victory over sin are linked to the truth that Jesus IS the Son of God. "Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God (1 John 5:5)?" No wonder the devil hates this truth! What is difficult to understand is why Christians should so determinedly oppose the plainest statements of the word of God. WHY SHOULD PERSONS WHO CLAIM TO LOVE GOD & TO DESIRE HIS GLORY SO STUBBORNLY OPPOSE THE ONE TRUTH WHICH REVEALS THE LOVE OF GOD MORE FULLY THAN ANYTHING ELSE IN THE UNIVERSE? This truly is a mystery almost as great as the so-called Trinity! Hundreds of years ago during the fourth century AD the spirit of compromise, the desire for worldly popularity combined with the influence of paganism, brought the doctrine of the trinity into the Christian faith. Since that time it has become so deeply ingrained into the traditions of Christendom that it has become the foundation doctrine of MOST Christian denominations & it is considered blasphemy to speak against it, but why do Christian men & women cling so tenaciously to the error? Why, in the light of the plain statements of Scripture, do they continue to embrace a Trinitarian God? The answer is popularity. No church will be accepted today (this has been true for the past 1500 years) unless it professes belief in the trinity. A denial of the trinity will result in a church instantly receiving the label of CULT. Therefore, this doctrine which is entirely founded upon the TRADITIONS of men rather than the word of God has risen to such universal prominence that when one simply expresses the Biblical truth that Jesus is the Son of God, he is accused of heresy. THE APOSTLE'S TESTIMONY Did the apostles believe in a trinity? Apart from the books of Luke & Acts the entire New Testament was written by men who had been personally taught by the Lord Jesus. Even the apostle Paul, though he never knew Jesus personally while He was on earth testifies that he was taught personally by Christ (Galatians 1:11,12). Did Jesus reveal a Trinitarian God to these apostles? Did He teach them this doctrine which was so radically different from the Old Testament concept of God? If He did, why didn't they proclaim it as forcefully & as clearly as they proclaimed that Jesus was the Son of God? Why is it that this doctrine "is not EXPLICITLY TAUGHT in the New Testament (Encarta Britannica)" but is rather "INFERRED" from certain passages? Is this the way that God reveals important truths? Merely giving HINTS & leaving us to FORMULATE our conclusions? Why is it that the statements of the New Testament consistently declare that there is only ONE GOD & that this one God is the Father (1 Cor. 8:4-6; John 17:3; Eph. 4:6)? Didn't these apostles know the truth about God? How can we conclude that their writings suggest that God is a Trinity when they themselves proclaimed Him to be an INDIVIDUAL? Do we have the contradictory situation where Christ's appointed depositories of His truth HINTED that God was a Trinity, but DECLARED that He was a single Person? Why would they do this? Is it that they were suggesting something which they weren't sure of & which they left to later generations of "theologians" to properly work out? DO YOU SEE HOW CLEARLY THIS FITS INTO THE TEACHINGS & PRINCIPLES OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM? The Roman Church teaches that the revelations of the Scriptures are NOT a complete revelation, sufficient to reveal the way of salvation. They claim that the TRADITIONS & teachings of the "church" are a continuing source of revelation & therefore, they take the position that the teachings of the church are ABOVE the Bible. For them, it does not pose a problem that the Trinity is NOT taught in the Bible. It is enough that the Church accepted the doctrine & that for many centuries it has been a teaching of the Church. This for a Roman Catholic is enough to make the doctrine truth. Protestants, however, insist that the Bible contains all the truth which is necessary for salvation, hence the protestant principle of "sola Scriptura," (The Bible only). When Protestants take the position that a doctrine which is not explicitly taught in the Scriptures, but was developed gradually during the years subsequent to the time of Christ & the apostles, is to be accepted as truth, this is a dangerous precedent. In taking this position they have stepped onto the ground of Roman Catholicism & have thereby opened the door to the acceptance of all the other unscriptural & even anti-scriptural teachings of Rome, particularly in light of the fact that Rome herself boasts that the trinity doctrine is the very foundation of all her other teachings and dogma.

Copied from another thread..... History reveals a very much dubious origin for the trinity doctrine. Forced upon the church by the Roman clergy after having been approved by a pagan emperor; formulated 300 years or more after the apostles; not taught explicitly anywhere in scripture thus an assumed doctrine; believers in other views or perspectives of the Godhead lied about and persecuted; pronounced as the foundation upon which all other doctrines of Rome are based; That to my mind is sufficient evidence to reject it utterly. There is sufficient scriptural evidence on top of the above circumstantial evidence above to at least cast serious doubt as to the veracity of the trinity doctrine as taught in most churches. 1 Corinthians 8:6 is a good place to start. Do not presume that those who reject the trinity necessarily reject the deity of Christ. Nor let others judge you or scare you into not studying. Do not be afraid of discovering truth, and do not allow the "church", creeds, or tradition to dictate what you must or must not believe. God loves someone who seeks, and is willing to learn and discover Who He really is.

History reveals a very much dubious origin for the trinity doctrine. Forced upon the church by the Roman clergy after having been approved by a pagan emperor; formulated 300 years or more after the apostles; not taught explicitly anywhere in scripture thus an assumed doctrine; believers in other views or perspectives of the Godhead lied about and persecuted; pronounced as the foundation upon which all other doctrines of Rome are based; That to my mind is sufficient evidence to reject it utterly. Is there no-one who dares to disagree with my previous post above and the mountain of scriptural evidence against the trinity?

Actually, if you look back into history, you may understand, if your eyes are open, that there has already been a tribulation, that lasted for 1000 years....that is why it was called the dark ages. If you were a Christian in those days, either you surrendered to the Pope, or you died. Simple as that. But many today don't see that as a tribulation. That some sources say approximately 100 million people suffered and died because of the Christian scruples doesn't seem to make a connection with many. But that is another story. There is to come one more tribulation, a global version of the European one I spoke of above. The reason I asked if those expecting a pre-trib rapture would recognize the tribulation if it came about that the rapture was post-trib, was that the vast majority of Christians today have little idea of how the tribulation will take effect. It is not going to meet the expectations of most Christians therefore many will not even recognize it when it happens. Like I said in my former post. If the tribulation to come was not a middle east war between Israel and all-comers, (which theory I do not go along with), and turned out as I believe to be a war between a small remnant group of true Christian believers and a global apostate union of church and state, just as it was in a localized form during the dark ages, I would suggest that because the vast majority of todays Christians will align themselves with the apostate power, the tribulation as such will only be truly experienced by the remnant. Only they will be aware of what is actually going on, the rest will be in darkness, believing they are doing God's will by destroying the faithful. In fact, I will add even more. As the various bowls of God's wrath are poured out upon the world it will be that small remnant who will be accused of incurring God's wrath because of their stubborn refusal to join and worship with the majority in accordance to the decrees laid out through the deceptions of Babylon the Great, the mother of harlots. So many, and I dare to suggest you included, believe the Antichrist to be a vile evil dictator who is atheist, anti everything Godly, especially the Christian church, and will be readily recognized. I put it to you that that is far from the truth. The Antichrist is already here, and has been since the time of the early church. And far from being an evil entity forcing everybody to do evil, it is an apostate Christian entity forcing the world to be 'Christian' after its own image. Think about that carefully and read again Revelation 13.

Whatever life Christians have, comes only through being firmly attached to the vine. That is, through our abiding in Christ...staying connected to Him though the heavens fall. Our sanctification, the process by which the Father recreates us in the image of His Son, is accomplished only as we abide in the Son. Sadly, and I have been guilty of this, many neglect to do what is necessary to stay connected. They neglect to pray...they neglect to read the word...they neglect to witness. The Spirit of God however will remind them of their duty. Some, because they have fallen back into the world fail to respond to the Spirit's pleadings. I did respond, and through repentance was accepted back int communion with my Lord. Had this affected my salvation? I was fence sitting. I believed in God, and believed the truth of the gospel. I had both feet in the world, but was not willing to let go completely because I knew the consequences of completely letting go of my faith. I did not enter a church...pray....or read a Bible for many years. I knew the truth, yet was not living up to what light I had. I was lukewarm. I had known my Savior for many years, but for several reasons had fallen into a state against which Jesus warns that makes Him literally sick. I would be reticent in claiming salvation under such conditions.

Would a pre-trib believer recognize the tribulation if it turns out to be a post-trib event? And what if both pre-trib and post-trib believers are wrong about the nature of the tribulation? What if Armageddon isn't a middle east war between Israel and everyone else, but a war with a global apostate ecumenical Christian world in union with the governments of the world (the harlot church/woman riding the beast) against the church? And what if the Antichrist isn't some Assyrian riding a black horse guns levelled at Israel and all things godly, but an apostate church system that sees itself as prophet, priest, and king instead of Christ? With the vast majority on the side of ecumenism and but a very small remnant "keeping the commandments of God and having faith in Jesus" (Revel. 14:12) it would be a repeat of two brothers fighting as in Cain against Abel. And the controversy would be over the same subject...worship. (See Revel. 13). Todays Christians believe they have it all worked out. No-one gives it a moments consideration that they also could be as deceived as their worldly next-door neighbor. Todays church actually believes that the nation of Israel is Satan's prime target, and that the church is just a secondary object of attention. But Jesus wasn't speaking to Israel when he said "take care that no man deceive you". Far too many have believed in the theories of the Darbys and the Schofields and the La Hayes and Lindsays and the Hunts of this world.

Nowhere does the Bible describe our bodies as being 'supernatural', whatever that means. It reveals we will live for ever, yes, but nowhere does that suggest we will not require food in order to keep it in a healthy condition...even Jesus ate after His resurrection...and to suggest that we won't be able to eat of the tree of life with its 12 fruits is absurd. You are going to extreme lengths just to defend your "right" to eat swines flesh. Yet no-one is forbidding you from doing so. We are merely pointing out that it is Biblically or scripturally inadvisable to do so...the Manufacturer's specific instructions on how to care for our bodies is clear. He told Adam what was food and what wasn't. He told Noah what was food and what wasn't. He told Israel what was food and what wasn't. He reminded the NT church to continue to abstain from blood and things strangled. God has not changed the basic genetic makeup of predatorial eaters of carrion just to suit the uninhibited tastes and unbridled appetites of Christians. Yet you have your freewill. No-one can fore you to eat anything or to abstain from anything. It is like putting sugar into your petrol tank. You do so at your own risk.