God's Word vs. Traditions of Men

[Ovedya]

Acts,

Just a couple of questions to begin the morning with:

Do you believe that all genuine believers in the Lord posess the nature of God?

If so, then how much of this divine nature do the believers have?

Do you believe the New Testament when it states that God dwells within the believers? If so, how much of God dwells in the believers? According tot he Scriptures who indwells the believers?

[Guest Acts1711]

That is a lot for one man to respond to...

True, some of the comparisons may not stand the test...but you really had to use a lot of non-scriptural explanation to explain those away. So much of what you just told me doesn't make since to the human mind, and I am supposed to take it on faith. It was full of extra biblical explanations. And yes Jesus was without sin!! H fulfilled the law buddy...this is the extraordinary feat he accomplished. He was also born without a sin nature. Born. Why would God go through the trouble of being born anyway? Why did God tell Eve, from your seed? Not, I will come to Earth as a man, which I already am 1/3 man, and always have been, and now my 1/3 God will create 1/1 man on this planet...he will be like my 1/3 man side...which is subjective to my 1/3 God side, the father...I'm sorry but this is confusion. It is not the preaching of Jesus or Paul. It is not biblical. The resurrection from the dead means nothing to a man if a man has not been raised from the dead. And to you Jesus was not a man he was a Godman. A contradictory statement in itself.

God word is easy to understand. The Trinity didn't come around until the 3rd century. No other bible believing faith supports such an idea. And every explanation you give me appears to be a dance. That starts with a preconceived belief. This isn

[Fr Chuck]

Easter Bunnies, are from pagan non Chrsitian traditions. Thier practice is not Chrsitian and go against Chrsitian teachings.

I shake in fear at the churches that have Santa Claus, easter bunnies and the such at Church events.

[Ovedya]

No other bible believing faith supports such an idea....

Therefore, by your implication, you are saying that adherants of the Trinity are not "Bible believing." So, since perhaps 90% of all those included in Christendom are not Bible believing? That's quite a condemnation!

If not I'm afraid my side will not be fairly represented. I'll be guilty by lack of time to respond to the ambush....which I assume is a fair winning position?! Since we got this whole guilty by acquaintance stuff...silly.

Acts, no on is here to "win" anything. If that is your approach to this matter, then we might as well all quit and part ways.

[ayin jade]

There are many references in the old testament where the Lord says that He will provide the means of salvation, through Himself. He states that He will provide His own arm for salvation. This is not a 3rd century invention as you state.

[Guest shiloh357]

That is a lot for one man to respond to...

True, some of the comparisons may not stand the test...but you really had to use a lot of non-scriptural explanation to explain those away. So much of what you just told me doesn't make since to the human mind, and I am supposed to take it on faith. It was full of extra biblical explanations. And yes Jesus was without sin!! H fulfilled the law buddy...this is the extraordinary feat he accomplished. He was also born without a sin nature. Born. Why would God go through the trouble of being born anyway? Why did God tell Eve, from your seed? Not, I will come to Earth as a man, which I already am 1/3 man, and always have been, and now my 1/3 God will create 1/1 man on this planet...he will be like my 1/3 man side...which is subjective to my 1/3 God side, the father...I'm sorry but this is confusion. It is not the preaching of Jesus or Paul. It is not biblical. The resurrection from the dead means nothing to a man if a man has not been raised from the dead. And to you Jesus was not a man he was a Godman. A contradictory statement in itself.

God word is easy to understand. The Trinity didn't come around until the 3rd century. No other bible believing faith supports such an idea. And every explanation you give me appears to be a dance. That starts with a preconceived belief. This isn

[apothanein kerdos]

How come no one has pointed out that Genesis 1:26 'elohiym 'asah is plural? That's enough evidence for me, and was for my Zada who was a Jewish canter (which means fluent in Hebrew) and even he realized that this was plural. Why is it plural?

[Waimahia]

Super Jew wrote, "How come no one has pointed out that Genesis 1:26 'elohiym 'asah is plural? That's enough evidence for me, and was for my Zada who was a Jewish canter (which means fluent in Hebrew) and even he realized that this was plural. Why is it plural?"

The phrase is plural to denote plurality in the Godhead. It does not, per se, denote trinity.

Waimahia

[Guest shiloh357]

How come no one has pointed out that Genesis 1:26 'elohiym 'asah is plural? That's enough evidence for me, and was for my Zada who was a Jewish canter (which means fluent in Hebrew) and even he realized that this was plural. Why is it plural?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually Elohim is not a numerical plural. It is known as a plural of intensity. Here is an example I have used before. If you wanted to say that you saw blood on the floor, you would use the dahm (blood). If you wanted to say that there is a lot of blood on the floor, you would use the plural form dahmim (bloods). Obviously it is not a numerical plural.

The same with Elohim. It is really communicating God's greatness. Elohim is more like "The Great God." In Genesis 1, Elohim is Yeshua/Jesus. When you compare it with John 1 and Colossians 1: 13-18.

Acts 17:11 is making the mistakes that most anti-Trinitarians make. He is assuming that since He cannot get His mind around the Trinity, then it must not be true. We cannot figure God out. He is infinite and we are finite. We called to believe Him. The first step to understanding where the Bible is concerned is to believe what the Bible says. The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is God. Frankly I don't think a person can be a Christian and deny the deity of Jesus. The deity of Jesus is a core, essential belief.

[Guest Acts1711]

Shiloh, I apologize...don't get so spiteful with me. And I apologized for typing (out of my book) someone elses words. But I see forgiveness to you is not forgetness. I guess that is ok...a totally different discussion. My comments on flooding me with scripture was totally taken wrong. I'm not going to attempt to straighten it out.

The theme of the Bible is God and his relationship with man. 2 men, 2 actions, 2 important responses. By man death came into the world. It was man who became unrighteous before the Lord and it was by man that it was to be corrected. We both agree on this. Where we do not agree is that this 2nd man was actually God in man's clothing. It wasn't man at all! Or it was. "100%man and 100% God"....words must mean nothing to you! You cannot be 200% of anything. At least use terms that make since like...50% man 50% God...or in the case of the Trinity 33.33% each. So the argument is...Jesus was a man or a Godman, Rather Jesus and the Father are both one in the same yet different (also makes utterly no sense). God is both infinite and finite...also just as foreign to the human mind, a mind created in the image of God's. Infinite God is not. Show me that verse. You see infinite is a secular term...a term by mathematicians that makes sense with the absence of God. God being both the beginning and the end makes this a reality with the absence of infinity. Just a side thought.

This Thread was not meant to be a Trinitarian vs. Unitarian thread. (And yes there must be a winner, its not about the win but the saving of the other side, right? So, its not fair to build a strawman off my comment of winning.) Because I have debated on threads before, and in person many times before. I am declining from continuing this thread...I apologize but I just do not have the time to refute every single scripture put forth. However, I have sat through and participated in refuting all of these and more scriptures. Many made more sense in their new light and (I am honest) a few did not. HOWEVER (again), I see that the overall redemption story makes sense and scriptures are clearer when you do not need to squeeze the non-understandable Trinity (a term absent from the Bible)into it. I have just weighed it out. And obviously so have you ( and made up your mind). I have heard many of your statements before. While a couple are new and I am very curious to look into them. I thank you for that. Although I sense little respect for myself from you guys, I want to stress that I do hold true to the Bereans (regardless, of some hateful comments on this board). But I did not mention the doctrine of the trinity with want to convince. It was just an accident that we got off onto it. This conversation is fruitless. I guess I am going to hell (which I also do not believe in...yes there is a firey pit that BURNS you into nothingness, even the devil burns and "IS NO MORE"...)... ...Not to jump to conclusions...but I assume you believe in Hell (*clears throat* Hades) and like I foretold that you would say I was not saved because of my beliefs you also tell me I am wrong and going to burn for all eternity with the Devil bouncing around in his happyest, a flaming pool of pain... I am saved, I challenge you to explain my beautiful relationship with God...my answered prayers...my prophecies fulfilled and my ability to speak in tongues (gasp...he said speak in tongues)...

Sarcasm is wrong...I know...I will pray in repentance. But I am trying to not get frustrated because I can't type as fast and well as I can talk...I don't think I like wasting my life on the internet everyday...God has called me to do much more. And you too...so stop spending so much time in front of your electronic screens and go save some souls. I don't care if you make them Trinitarian! Because I know that Trinitarians are saved... Because they call on the name of Jesus... and believe...and are given holy spirit. And so am I for I do the same and trust in the same gospel.