Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How Can Trinity Believers Explain This
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 226 of 300 (168776)
12-16-2004 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Angel
11-08-2004 5:40 PM


Wasn't up to reading 224 posts in one thread tonight, so I'm going ahead and addressing the OP. I have looked through some of the posts, though, and I think I'm not repeating issues previously covered.
The trinity was created at the Council of Nicea in the form of the Athanasian creed in the year 325 AD.
I'll give you an unusual view of this, although I don't understand why it's unusual. The Council of Nicea did not create the Trinity doctrine as we know it. The Trinity doctrine as we know it is not in the Nicene Creed, and was invented later, Athanasius indeed having a lot to do with that. The Athanasian Creed is a good forty years after the Council of Nicea.
The Nicene Creed says, "We believe in one God, the Father...and in one Lord, Jesus Christ...And we believe in the Holy Spirit." Note that it specifically says, "We believe in one God, the Father."
The Trinity of the New Testament and the church fathers all the way up to Nicea taught one God, the Father, not one God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Tertullian, who is generally given credit for coining the term Trinity (although Athenagoras had used "Triad" a generation earlier) said something to this effect in his Against Praxeas:
quote:
When we speak about a sunbeam, we sometimes refer to it as the sun. But when we speak about the sun and sunbeam together, we immediately remove the term sun from the mere beam and apply it to the sunbeam only. It is the same way with the Son and the Father.
I'm paraphrasing, because I didn't feel like going to look it up. That is the example he used, though, and I emphasized "mere," because he did say "from the mere beam."
If you look through the NT, I think you will see that Tertullian is not only correct about the usage in his own day, but that the NT writers were the same way. They might use the term God to refer to the Word and Son of God, but when referring to both, they immediately cease using the term God and refer only to the Father as God. In fact, 1 Cor 8:6 uses the exact same terminology as the Nicene Creed.
The Council of Nicea is often said to have been convened to answer whether Jesus was God or not, which is true, I suppose, but not in the sense we normally mean it. The argument between Arius (an elder) and his bishop, as well as most other bishops, was over whether Jesus was created from the same "stuff" (matter) that you, I, and everything else was created from, or whether he was created from the "stuff" God is made from. In their terminology, we are matter, made from nothing, but God is eternal, so his "stuff" is not made from nothing. Therefore, if Jesus was created from nothing, then he's mortal, like us. He had a beginning, and he can have an end. If, however, he is made from God-stuff, then he is eternal, having always existed, in a sense, inside of God.
This is all described quite minutely by Tertullian, Athenagoras, and others, by the way. A reading of Against Praxeas, written by Tertullian, the "father" of the Trinity doctrine, will say everything I'm saying, and you'll be able to see it after that in all the other fathers, as well as in the Nicene Creed itself, which I'll show you in a minute.
Both sides agreed that Jesus was "created." The orthodox side believed he was created of God-stuff, while Arius taught he was created from matter. The Council of Nicea was convened to settle this battle.
The Nicene Creed addresses it directly. When it speaks of the one Lord, the Son of God, Jesus, it says he is "God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, begotten, not made,one in substance with the Father."
The words "one in substance" are one word in Greek, homoousios. That word was the heart of the great debate, as you can read in any history book.
They did make a change at the Council of Nicea. They added "begotten, not made." Prior to Nicea, all the fathers said Jesus was created, because Proverbs 8:22, which they all acknowledged as a prophecy of Christ, said he was. "I was created the beginning of all his works." They believed, however, that he was created from the substance of God, as Athenagoras and Tertullian both explain, while Arius had argued, heretically, that he was created from matter.
Tertullian said, "In the beginning, God was alone, yet not really alone, for he had his Logos inside of him, being inherently possessed of Logos." As he and others explain, God, in some unexplainable way, was able to birth his Logos outside of himself. In this sense, Christ the Word was born in the beginning and created in the beginning, but his birth/creation was not his beginning, for he had eternally existed, as the Father's Logos, inside of the Father.
The battle did not end at Nicea, though. Arius continued to convince emperors over the next few years, and Athanasius would convert them back. The battle that raged, which would make an incredible movie, full of intrigue, politics, and abundant bloodshed, led to both sides moving further away from each other, and Athanasius moved from the old orthodoxy to a Trinity in which the Son was equal to the Father, something no orthodox church father would have agreed to prior to Athanasius and the Athanasian/Arian battles.
The Athanasian Creed says, "We worship one God in Trinity...the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God: and yet there are not three Gods, but one God." Contrast this to the Nicene Creed, which says, "We believe in one God, the Father...and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God," and 1 Cor 8:6, which says, "But for us there is but one God, the Father...and one Lord, Jesus Christ."
That is the Trinity of the early church, and of Nicea; one and the same. There was one God, who had birthed his Logos, equal in substance but lesser in power, omnipresence, and knowledge, and a Holy Spirit, not very well defined, who seemed sometimes to be the Spirit of the Father, much as you and I have a spirit, and other times as the Spirit of the Son and other times as the Son himself! I know of no historian who's been able to come up with a good summation of the early church view of the Spirit, except to say he's quite poorly defined in the literature.
That's long, but I hope it's simple and clear. I hope it helps!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Angel, posted 11-08-2004 5:40 PM Angel has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by wmscott, posted 12-17-2004 6:52 PM truthlover has not replied
 Message 231 by Phat, posted 12-19-2004 1:44 AM truthlover has not replied

wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 227 of 300 (169572)
12-17-2004 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by truthlover
12-16-2004 12:53 AM


Very nice post, loved the historical background
Dear Truthlover;
Very nice post, loved the historical background you provided. I have read a bit on the history of the Trinity too, but I haven't tried bringing it into the debate since then I would probably end up arguing about what this or that historical source stated and due to the shifting power between the two camps, many people made differing conciliatory statements at different times while sometimes concealing their own beliefs. But the evidence as you point out is unrefutable that the early Christians did not believe in the Trinity and it only arose progressively centuries later.
On the holy spirit, it is not clearly defined because it is not a person, it is a thing or power. That is why it has no personal name, how people can be filled with and baptised with it. That is why the holy spirit isn't mentioned at John 17:3 "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ." and why Stephen despite being filled with the holy spirit, didn't see it. Acts 7:55-56 "But he, being full of holy spirit, gazed into heaven and caught sight of God's glory and of Jesus standing at God's right hand, and he said: "Look! I behold the heavens opened up and the Son of man standing at God's right hand."
Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by truthlover, posted 12-16-2004 12:53 AM truthlover has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Legend, posted 12-18-2004 9:00 AM wmscott has replied

Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 228 of 300 (169685)
12-18-2004 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by wmscott
12-17-2004 6:52 PM


Re: Very nice post, loved the historical background
dear wmscott,
wmscott writes:
But the evidence as you point out is unrefutable that the early Christians did not believe in the Trinity and it only arose progressively centuries later.
As I pointed out in Message 210, early Christians were also taught to pray to Jesus. Still, that doesn't stop you, today, from teaching that they shouldn't.
If you're going to use early church tradition to prove doctrine, you've got another thing coming.
** EDIT changed derive to prove
This message has been edited by Legend, 12-18-2004 09:42 AM

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by wmscott, posted 12-17-2004 6:52 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by wmscott, posted 12-18-2004 7:21 PM Legend has replied

wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 229 of 300 (169772)
12-18-2004 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Legend
12-18-2004 9:00 AM


Truthlover is correct.
Dear Legend;
What Truthlover posted is historical fact. ("The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies." Britannica) I have read the same account in secular history books. But I haven't resorted to using the historical development of the Trinity over time to show the fact that it has a post biblical origin, since I don't want to spend my time arguing about what this or that person said so long ago, when I all I have to do is use scripture to disprove the Trinity which is what counts in the end anyway. But since Truthlover brought up the historical angle, argue it with him.
As I posted before, you are in error on early Christians being taught to pray to Jesus, they were taught to pray to God in Jesus' name. John 16:23 "Most truly I say to YOU, If YOU ask the Father for anything he will give it to YOU in my name." They were to pray to Jehovah God in the name of Jesus. Christ is not Jehovah, he stands between us and his Father and acts as a go between, a mediator. 1 Timothy 2:5 "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus," Since Jesus is our mediator, he can not be Jehovah, for if he was there would be no mediator since we would be dealing directly with God himself. Paul stated that this was so at; Galatians 3:20 "Now there is no mediator where only one person is concerned, but God is only one." so since Jesus is the mediator he can not be Jehovah. For as Paul states, if Jesus and Jehovah were the same person, then there would be no mediator. It is not possible for Jesus to fulfill his roles as mediator and high priest, if he was part of a Trinity. The Trinity doctrine is in direct conflict with what Paul taught the congregations.
Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Legend, posted 12-18-2004 9:00 AM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Legend, posted 12-18-2004 8:49 PM wmscott has replied

Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 230 of 300 (169785)
12-18-2004 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by wmscott
12-18-2004 7:21 PM


Re: Truthlover is correct.
dear wmscott
I'm not disputing what Truthlover said. I am pointing out that you are using early church tradition as supporting evidence when it coincides with the doctrine you believe in, but ignore it when it contradicts your doctrine.
Paul taught that we should call upon Jesus's name (Rom 10:12, 1Cor 1:2), and also 2Tim 2:22. To me, this is teaching that we should pray to Jesus. Jesus himself said that if we ask something in his name, he will do it (John 14:13,14). We can play semantic games here and twist the definitions of words, but 'Calling upon' Jesus ** is ** praying to Jesus. Asking something in Jesus's name for Jesus to do ** is ** praying to Jesus.
It maybe my fault for not emphasizing this enough, but in your posts you are completely ignoring Jesus's Dual Nature. The Bible makes it clear that Jesus was a man (I think we both agree on this), but also divine (can do the things the father can, him and the father are one, angels worship him, etc.)
You also somehow seem to think that Jesus's role as a mediator contradicts the Trinity doctrine. Quick refresher : The Trinity teaches that God consists of three 'persons', of one essence. Within these three 'persons' there is subordination in order, but not in magnitude or power. In layman's terms, each 'person' has a specific role and behaviour but none is more powerful or important than the other. Jesus' role is the mediator of mankind to the Father, by virtue of his incarnation as a man (re: paragraph above, Jesus's dual nature).
In light of the above:
wmscott writes:
1 Timothy 2:5 "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus," Since Jesus is our mediator, he can not be Jehovah, for if he was there would be no mediator since we would be dealing directly with God himself.
Trinity: [Jesus is one 'person' of the one God and he is the mediator. He also has a dual nature, man and God]. That exactly coincides with this verse. Your logic is based on the assumption that there is only one 'person' in God. You've already assumed what you're trying to prove!
wmscott writes:
Galatians 3:20 "Now there is no mediator where only one person is concerned, but God is only one." so since Jesus is the mediator he can not be Jehovah. For as Paul states, if Jesus and Jehovah were the same person, then there would be no mediator.
Paul is using the word "person" in its everyday meaning of a physical individual, like you and me. He is saying that, while a promise depends on one person, a mediated agreement depends on two. The weakness of the law compared to the covenant of Abraham is shown because it depends on two parties -men and God, not God alone.
The Trinity is not three separate beings (persons-standard usage), but one being - three 'persons', or personae. If the word 'person' confuses you we can call it 'manifestation' or 'facets', whatever pleases you.
So, semantic games aside, Jesus can be the mediator and, at the same time, one 'person' of the one being we call God.
wmscott writes:
It is not possible for Jesus to fulfill his roles as mediator and high priest, if he was part of a Trinity.
Hopefully, I've just showed you that it is perfectly possible.

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by wmscott, posted 12-18-2004 7:21 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by wmscott, posted 12-21-2004 4:40 PM Legend has replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 231 of 300 (169837)
12-19-2004 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by truthlover
12-16-2004 12:53 AM


truthlover writes:
The argument between Arius (an elder) and his bishop, as well as most other bishops, was over whether Jesus was created from the same "stuff" (matter) that you, I, and everything else was created from, or whether he was created from the "stuff" God is made from. In their terminology, we are matter, made from nothing, but God is eternal, so his "stuff" is not made from nothing. Therefore, if Jesus was created from nothing, then he's mortal, like us.
Truthlover, you explain it all quite well. The issue is exactly this.
Has Jesus always existed as the son of the father, begotten and not created or was He the first created thing? Each side can provide scriptures to support their view and belief, so we have a split in thinking. I for one believe that Jesus always was, and that He is of the same substance as His Father. this does not mean that He is the father, only that He is not after the Father in time, since both are eternal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by truthlover, posted 12-16-2004 12:53 AM truthlover has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by robinrohan, posted 12-19-2004 12:21 PM Phat has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 232 of 300 (169889)
12-19-2004 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Phat
12-19-2004 1:44 AM


I had no idea that the Arian controversy was still going strong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Phat, posted 12-19-2004 1:44 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by lfen, posted 12-19-2004 2:24 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 235 by Phat, posted 12-19-2004 6:17 PM robinrohan has not replied

lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 233 of 300 (169896)
12-19-2004 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by robinrohan
12-19-2004 12:21 PM


How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Any day now I expect a thread to argue vociferously the number of angels that can dance on a pin!
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by robinrohan, posted 12-19-2004 12:21 PM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Legend, posted 12-19-2004 5:32 PM lfen has replied

Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 234 of 300 (169914)
12-19-2004 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by lfen
12-19-2004 2:24 PM


Re: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
what is there to argue about? the Bible clearly indicates it's 47!

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by lfen, posted 12-19-2004 2:24 PM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by lfen, posted 12-19-2004 8:50 PM Legend has replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 235 of 300 (169920)
12-19-2004 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by robinrohan
12-19-2004 12:21 PM


Another way to see it
RR writes:
I had no idea that the Arian controversy was still going strong.
As humans, we walk around with the potential to make kids. (1/2 of it, anyway. There is no argument that the substance of these future kids is not us. God always had His Son within His Creative Imagination, thus the Son was not created at any given point in time. Why? He was timeless as was His Father.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by robinrohan, posted 12-19-2004 12:21 PM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by lfen, posted 12-19-2004 8:46 PM Phat has not replied

lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 236 of 300 (169958)
12-19-2004 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Phat
12-19-2004 6:17 PM


Re: Another way to see it
There is no argument that the substance of these future kids is not us
This is a provocative thought! What ever do you mean by "substance" and what then is mother's milk?
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Phat, posted 12-19-2004 6:17 PM Phat has not replied

lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 237 of 300 (169959)
12-19-2004 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Legend
12-19-2004 5:32 PM


Re: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
what is there to argue about? the Bible clearly indicates it's 47!
Ah, I'm glad something is settled. wait a minute...
What about the galatic hitchhiker's heresy? I thought the number was 42?
lfen the confused

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Legend, posted 12-19-2004 5:32 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by jar, posted 12-19-2004 8:54 PM lfen has not replied
 Message 239 by Legend, posted 12-20-2004 12:40 PM lfen has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 238 of 300 (169960)
12-19-2004 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by lfen
12-19-2004 8:50 PM


Re: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Depends on whether they are dancing a Hora or a Line Dance.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by lfen, posted 12-19-2004 8:50 PM lfen has not replied

Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 239 of 300 (170093)
12-20-2004 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by lfen
12-19-2004 8:50 PM


Re: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
quote:
What about the galatic hitchhiker's heresy? I thought the number was 42?
ahh..you see this Douglas Adams chap went and mis-interpreted the Bible, changed the obvious 47 to a devious 42.
heresy, I tell you, heresy!

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by lfen, posted 12-19-2004 8:50 PM lfen has not replied

wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 240 of 300 (170540)
12-21-2004 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Legend
12-18-2004 8:49 PM


When there is only one there is no mediator
Dear Legend;
quote:
I'm not disputing what Truthlover said. I am pointing out that you are using early church tradition as supporting evidence when it coincides with the doctrine you believe in, but ignore it when it contradicts your doctrine.
Only the Bible is inspired, so it is the final authority. I do not ignore early church tradition, for it clearly shows how the Trinity developed after the Bible writing was completed, showing the Trinity to be developed from non biblical sources, for if the Trinity was scriptural or taught by Jesus or any of his disciples, the Trinity would have come in one complete package fully developed and fully explained. The long difficult and bloody birth of the Trinity reveals it as the offspring of the thoughts of men, not God.
quote:
Paul taught that we should call upon Jesus's name (Rom 10:12, 1Cor 1:2), and also 2Tim 2:22. To me, this is teaching that we should pray to Jesus. Jesus himself said that if we ask something in his name, he will do it (John 14:13,14). We can play semantic games here and twist the definitions of words, but 'Calling upon' Jesus ** is ** praying to Jesus. Asking something in Jesus's name for Jesus to do ** is ** praying to Jesus.
Incorrect, Paul never taught that we are to pray to Jesus, we are to call on his name by recognizing him as our lord and savior. Let's look at the verses and see if the term "calling upon" can refer only to prayer.
Acts 9:14 "he has authority from the chief priests to put in bonds all those calling upon your name." Saul wasn't hunting for people who said a pray to Jesus, he was looking for those who were Christians, followers of Jesus Christ.
Acts 3:6 "In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, walk!" Here Peter calls on the name of Jesus to heal someone, notice he wasn't praying to Jesus.
Acts 10:43 "everyone putting faith in him gets forgiveness of sins through his name." We are saved through Jesus' name, on the value of his sacrifice, notice the 'putting faith in", this is not referring to praying to Jesus, it is talking about much more, the whole life of being a follower of Jesus.
Acts 22:16 "Rise, get baptized and wash your sins away by your calling upon his name.' Once again the calling upon his name, is not a prayer, but a repentance and becoming a follower of Jesus.
Calling upon Jesus is not praying to Jesus, it is taking advantage of what Jesus has made available for us and bringing our lives in harmony with his will. Notice Colossians 3:17 "do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, thanking God the Father through him." we are to do everything in Jesus' name, and we are to thank Jehovah through Jesus. We are not to pray to Jesus, we are to Pray to Jehovah through Jesus as our mediator. To pray to Jesus would be to worship him and Jesus himself said. "'It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.'" Matthew 4:10 Jesus was very explicit that all worship was to be directed to Jehovah God alone.
quote:
Jesus can be the mediator and, at the same time, one 'person' of the one being we call God.
Not according to Paul. As I had posted before.
quote:
1 Timothy 2:5 "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus," Since Jesus is our mediator, he can not be Jehovah, for if he was there would be no mediator since we would be dealing directly with God himself.
Galatians 3:20 "Now there is no mediator where only one person is concerned, but God is only one." so since Jesus is the mediator he can not be Jehovah. For as Paul states, if Jesus and Jehovah were the same person, then there would be no mediator. It is not possible for Jesus to fulfill his roles as mediator and high priest, if he was part of a Trinity. The Trinity doctrine is in direct conflict with what Paul taught the congregations.
Now the way Trinitarians try to get around verses like this in the Bible is they play a sort of Trinity shell game, for one scripture they call the Trinity one and for the next they say three, which makes it sort like trying to hit a moving target. So let's pin the Trinity down, it has a dual nature of three and one at the same time and all times. It can not be three separate beings or just one being, it always has to be a three in one combo. According to the Trinity Jesus is God, and "God is only one" so Jesus if he is God, he and God are one person. Which would mean according to Galatians 3:20, that there was no mediator. The scripture is clear, God is one and if there is only one, there is no mediator. A mediator stands between the two parties in a contract and acts as a neutral party. According to what Paul taught, God is one and when there is only one there is no mediator, and yet at 1 Timothy 2:5 Paul stated that Jesus is the mediator between God and men. For Jesus to be the 'third party' between Men and God, he can't be God as the Trinity doctrine demands. Paul doesn't teach the Trinity, he is clearly stating that Jesus is not part of God, Jesus is a separate being who can act as an independent mediator. Jesus is the greater Moses, just as Moses acted as the mediator of the Law covenant, Jesus was the mediator of the New Covenant. Jesus is no more part of God than Moses was, both had very simular roles to play one being the prophetic fore type of the other. Numbers 21:7 "And Moses went interceding in behalf of the people." That is what a mediator does and it what Jesus does for us. Romans 8:34 "Christ Jesus is the one who died, yes, rather the one who was raised up from the dead, who is on the right hand of God, who also pleads for us." Even after he was raised to a higher position upon his return to heaven, Jesus Christ pleads before Jehovah for us as our mediator between us and God. Jesus could not fulfill this role as mediator if he was part of God, for as Paul said "there is no mediator where only one person is concerned, but God is only one." Paul even directly applied this point to Jehovah God in this verse. There is no way Jesus can be part of a Trinity and still be the mediator according to what Paul wrote under divine inspiration of the holy spirit.
Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Legend, posted 12-18-2004 8:49 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Legend, posted 12-21-2004 7:32 PM wmscott has not replied
 Message 242 by Legend, posted 12-22-2004 7:06 AM wmscott has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024