How Can Trinity Believers Explain This

quote:

---

John 14:28 states "You heard that I said to you, I am going away and I am coming [back] to you. If you loved me, you wold rejoice that I am going my way to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am."

​

Yea, maby wmscott or Angel will explain it to ya...

---

I can already anticipate Angel's explanation : "Well it's there, I can see it though you can't, but I can, so there!" LOL!!Here's another explanation:
Jesus says the Father is greater than him, because his position was different than that of God, not His nature. We know (Heb. 2:9) that Jesus was made for a little while lower than the angels, when he became a man. The Father sent the Son (1 John 4:10), as a man, as well as God. So Jesus, the man , admits that his Father is greater than him. Also, as a man, he needs to pray to the Father (John 17).In conclusion, Jesus is not denying that he is God. He's simply acknowledging that he is also a man and as a man, he is subject to the laws of God so that he may redeem sinners.Now, your turn:
If Jesus was not God, how come....He is worshiped by men, angels and demons (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33, Jos 5:13-15, Mar 5:6). ?
He is called God, by God (Heb. 1:8) ?
He can do the things God, the Father can ? (John 5:19). ?
He is prayed to (Acts 7:59). ?
He is sinless (1 Pet. 2:22; Heb. 4:15). ?
He knows all things (John 21:17). ?
He gives eternal life (John 10:28). ?
All the fullness of deity dwells in Him (Col. 2:9). ?

---

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

quote:

---

I know no one group of people who are affiliated with such tight woven beleifs "religion" that is so well researched and explainable as Jehovah's Witnesses.

---

You've obviously never talked to any Mormons. Or Christadelphians. Or 7th Day Adventists.

quote:

---

Anyways, if you have a question regarding the Bible that you want answered, I guarantee there is a J dub in your relative area that can answer it

---

Nope...not in my area....no sireee.

---

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

He is worshiped by men, angels and demons (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33, Jos 5:13-15, Mar 5:6). ?

---

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is true that the word 'proskyneo' can simply mean homage or obeisance. However, it can also have the stronger meaning of 'worship' and, generally, implies a change in posture, mainly bowing at the knees. The word is encountered throughout the Bible and is used in relation to God in, at least, the following passages: (Matt. 4:10, Luke 4:8, John 4:20, Rev. 11:16 ). If the translation you are using is consistent then I would expect these passages too, to have been translated as 'obeisance' to God, rather than 'worship' God. Is that the case? If not, then I see no reason to change the meaning of the word when referring to Jesus!--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

He is called God, by God (Heb. 1:8) ?

---

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The translation error is on your side:To begin with, saying "God is your throne" doesn't make sense. What does it mean to say, " God is your throne." What would that mean? Is God, Jesus' throne? God alone is on His throne and He isn't a throne for anyone else!Yes, Psalm 45 is dealing with a king which would make one wonder why he would be addressed as God. But, it is not uncommon for NT writers to take a verse in the OT that seemingly deals with one subject and apply it to another. In fact, in Ezekiel 28:12-17 is a section that deals with the fall of the devil. Verse 13 says describes how he was in the garden of Eden. Verse 14 says he was the anointed cherub, (v. 15), etc. But the context of this section begins with an address to the king of Tyre (v. 12). Yet, right after Ezekiel is told to write to the King of Tyre he then goes on to describe what the great majority of theologians agree with is a description of the devil's fall. So, we need to look at the context that the writer of Hebrews put Psalm 45:6 into. He addressed it to Jesus. Therefore, Psalm 45 is a Messianic Psalm and must in interpreted in light of the NT, not the other way around!Also worth noting here is verse 10: "Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Thy hands..." This is a quote from Psalm 102:24-25 which says, "I say, 'O my God, do not take me away in the midst of my days, Thy years are throughout all generations. 25Of old Thou didst found the earth; And the heavens are the work of Thy hands.'" Clearly, God is the one being addressed in Psalm 102. It is God who laid the foundations of the earth. Yet, in Heb. 1:10, Jesus is called 'Lord' and is said to be the one who laid the foundation of the earth. This becomes even more interesting when we note that in Isaiah 44:24 it says, "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, And spreading out the earth all alone." If God was laying the foundations of the earth alone, that would mean that either Jesus has to be God, second person of the trinity, who laid the foundation the same as YHWH did, or we have a contradiction in the Bible. Clearly this section of Hebrews is proclaiming that Jesus is God. Therefore, contextually, it is also best to translate Heb. 1:8 as, "Thy Throne, O God. . ." and the Father call Jesus God.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

He can do the things God, the Father can ? (John 5:19). ?

---

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On the contrary, Jesus, in explaining his relationship with God, shows his Oneness with the Father. He makes clear that :* The Son does nothing independently (he is not a separate being); He is fully submitted to the Father's will - by choice, not by coercion (v20: "For the Father loves the Son")
*. The Son has the same power as the Father - even to raise the dead (v21)
* The Son even has the right of judgment - a prerogative of God only (v22)
* All should honor Jesus just as they honor the Father; if they don't honour the Son then they don't honour the father (v24)Also, going back to v19. how could a 'lesser' God ( as you imply ) do all the things he sees the Father can?All of the above are a strong indication that the Son and the Father are one.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

He is prayed to (Acts 7:59). ?

---

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jesus taught this same basic prayer on another occasion (Matthew 6:9-13). The fact that he repeats it here shows how important it is; the fact that he does not repeat it the exact same way as in Matthew shows that it was not to be used as a word-by-word ritual. It's HOW to pray that Jesus is teaching here, not the exact words.Let's not forget that the Father says "come to Jesus" (John 6:45). He also draws us to Jesus ( John 6:44) . Jesus himself said "Come to me" (Matt. 11:27-28). How can you do this without praying to him ?Now, about Stephen: although he does indeed see a vision of Jesus in verse 56 he doesn’t cry out to Jesus until verse 59. In between seeing Jesus in v.56 and crying out to Him in v.59 Stephen is "driven out of the city" and stoned by a hostile mob (verse 58), suggesting that the vision of Jesus had passed.A point worth mentioning with this passage is its parallel with Luke 23:46, which records Jesus’ prayer to the Father from the scene of crucifixion:"And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit"" (Luke 23:46)
Compare this with (Acts 7:59), what Stephen says :
"And they stoned Stephen, calling upon [God], and [he] saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. ."As the author of Luke was the writer of both Acts and the Gospel of Luke he obviously saw the same function in both cases, as he uses the same words to describe both. Jesus prayed to the Father and Stephen prayed to Jesus.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

He is sinless (1 Pet. 2:22; Heb. 4:15). ?

---

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If Jesus is sinless he clearly is more than just a man, as no man is sinless. Only God and the angels are sinless. Which one is he ?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

He knows all things (John 21:17). ?

---

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note that Jesus did not correct Peter and say, "Hang on Peter, I do not know all things.", but instead he said "Tend my sheep", thereby accepting Peter's statement that He knew all things!As for the fact that Jesus had earlier clearly stated that there were things that he didn't know, this is because he is of a dual nature, both man and god at the same time.That is why we have verses like Luke 2:52 that says "Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.". It is not a denial of him being God, but a confirmation of him being man. Not accepting this, exposes a number of contradictions in the Bible, like knowing all things and not knowing something, as you point out.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

He gives eternal life (John 10:28). ?

---

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note that the Father has given Jesus authority "over all flesh". This is referring to the physical manifestation of God among sinners, i.e. Jesus, the man. And it's Jesus, the man, who is praying to the Father (just like in Luke 23:34) . The focal point here, is that Jesus has the power to give eternal life. He also has the power to forgive sins (Mark 2:5-7; Eph. 1:7), judge the world (John 5:22, 27), and control nature (Matt. 8:26). Since only God can do these things, what is the logical conclusion here ? .--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

All the fullness of deity dwells in Him (Col. 2:9). ?

---

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But, in Isaiah 10:21, God is called the Mighty God. So if Jesus is not the Almighty God and only the mighty God, then that makes Jesus God since GOD is called the mighty God!!

---

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

wmscott,sorry for the delay in getting back to you, but I had to travel a lot with work in the last few days. You raised many interesting points in your post. For the sake of readability and also because of time constraints, I will attempt to answer one or two points at a time. Here goes, When Jesus says (Luke 4:8) "It is written, 'It is Jehovah your God you must worship...", he is quoting from scripture and this is what is of significance. He could easily banish Satan, as God. Instead, he fights Satan as a man, using the only human resources available, i.e. scripture. This is why he says "It is written" and he doesn't say straight 'It is Jehovah your God you must worship'. This is also why he doesn't say 'worship me'. Jesus is making a point of countering evil with scripture, not explicitly specifying who should be worshipped.The problem with the transaltion of 'proskyneo' is that, as I pointed out, the same word is used in relation to God. The only plausible translation, in relation to God, is 'worship'. You don't do 'obeisance' to God, you worship God. As the same word is also used in relation to Jesus, I see no reason to change it, unless the context gives strong reason to do so. So far, I can't see this as being the case.But if you prefer not to get stuck on specific words and translations, look at how both Jehovah and Jesus are given the same worship by the 24 elders in the book of Revelation. Jehovah is "worthy to receive glory and honor and power" (4:11). Jesus is "worthy to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing" (5:12). Every creature in heaven and on the earth give identical praise and worship to both God and Christ in verse 5:13-14. No differentiation in worshiping God and Jesus there. But both Psalms 45:6 and Heb 1:8 make perfect sense when translated as "Your throne, O God, is for ever.....". Where do you see the change in verses or meaning ?The Greek transcript says: "o Thronos sou o Theos". In order for this verse to be definitively translated as "God is your throne" there would have to be the verb "to be" in the sentence, i.e. "o Thronos sou eine o Theos". The verse could be translated as "God is your throne", in a loose manner, if the context implied it, but the absence of the verb "eine (to be)" is a strong indication that this verse should be literally translated as "Your throne, O God..." Therefore, in the context of the passage, the author of Hebrews says that Yahweh is saying to Jesus, "Your throne, O God, will last forever." In the process of saying this, the often used Greek word "Kyrios", meaning Lord or master, is not used, but the strong word "Theos", which can only be translated as God.Psalm 89:29 cannot ne used as support of the 'God is your throne' theory, because it doesn't aim to explain Jesus's position with respect to the Father, as Hebrews 1 does. Psalm 89:29 has a symbolic meaning when applied to Jesus. By his 'seed' we are to understand his subjects, all believers, his spiritual seed, the children which God has given him (Heb. 2:13). This is that seed which shall be made to endure for ever, and his throne amongst them, 'as the days of heaven'. What it says here is that Christ will always have a people in the world to serve and honour him. 'Throne' doesn't refer to God's or Jesus's relation to, or authority over, each other, but it symbolizes Jesus's place amongst his 'seed'.You also seem to be reading 'God appoints Jesus as King' where it says '...whom he hath appointed heir of all things...' ! Jesus is the heir of all things because the world is not the way God created it - man's sinfulness has corrupted it. God gave the world to man but man forfeited it to Satan. The purpose of Jesus's coming was to redeem the earth back to God, hence he is the rightful 'heir'.Furthermore, Jesus Himself indicated that He was the heir of all creation through the parable of the vineyard (Matthew 21:33-44). Jesus represents the heir of the vineyard, who is killed by the workers. Jesus said that he would be the cornerstone which was rejected by the builders.Jesus the man, is not the King, he's the heir, who came -in human form- to reclaim the world, in the name of the king (the Trinity God).The entire context of Hebrews chapter 1 teaches that the Son is God, equal to the Father as deity and sits with the Father on the heavenly throne. I've explained Hebrews 1:2 above. Where is he called the "master worker" ? It's not in Proverbs."All things came into existence through him" (John 1:3) is referring to the Word, who, BTW, is God (John 1:1), therefore he is uncreated (as Paul says in Colossians 1:16).Speaking of Colossians, I notice that you insert the word "[other]" in there. This is an extrapolation on your behalf. No such word (or grammatical reason to insert this word) exists in the Greek scripture. Colossians 1:16 clearly says that Jesus created all things.Genesis 1:26 does indeed point to God speaking to Jesus (not Jesus the man, as he wasn't incarnate yet, but the Word, i.e. Jesus before he became man). If you choose to interpret this as proof for the concept that Jesus is God's little helper, there are scriptures that make clear that God doesn't need a "master worker"."Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, 'I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself, and spreading out the earth all alone'" (Isaiah 44:24).this verse is clearly saying that there is only one God, who's stretching out the heavens ALONE.compare this with Colossians 1:15-16 where Jesus is the creator of all things. If you think that Jesus is a separate being and God's master creator, this poses a contradiction between the two verses. The only plausible explanation is that Jehovah is not simply the name of the Father, but that it is the name of God the Trinity. Therefore, since Jesus is God in flesh, it can be said that Jesus created all things and that Jehovah did it alone.One more thing: if I'm reading you correctly, you seem to believe that Jesus was created by God and he's 'like' God but not 'quite' God. In my eyes, that gives us 2 gods (albeit one 'lesser' than the other). This is contradicted in the Bible:"Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." (Isaiah 43:10)"Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any." (Isaiah 44:8)

---

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

JML,please read the rest of the thread before makiing any comments,

---

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

Back in Message 94, I said :

quote:

---

The Trinity doctrine does not appear in the Bible, it is derived from the Bible.

---

In the same message (and elsewhere) I also referred to a number of verses which point towards the Trinity doctrine. Back in Message 168, I said :

quote:

---

Jesus says the Father is greater than him, because his position was different than that of God, not His nature. We know (Heb. 2:9) that Jesus was made for a little while lower than the angels, when he became a man. The Father sent the Son (1 John 4:10), as a man, as well as God. So Jesus, the man , admits that his Father is greater than him. Also, as a man, he needs to pray to the Father (John 17).

---

So, like I said, please look at the whole thread before further comments. I hate having to quote myself.thanks,

---

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

Then, how do you explain that YHWH is called the Mighty God in Jeremiah 32:18 and Isaiah 10:21 ?

---

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

dear wmscott,continuing on the points you raised back in Message 191.

quote:

---

(John 5:19)
* The Son does nothing independently (he is not a separate being); He is fully submitted to the Father's will - by choice, not by coercion (v20: "For the Father loves the Son")
*. The Son has the same power as the Father - even to raise the dead (v21)
* The Son even has the right of judgment - a prerogative of God only (v22)
* All should honor Jesus just as they honor the Father; if they don't honour the Son then they don't honour the father (v24)
Also, going back to v19. how could a 'lesser' God ( as you imply ) do all the things he sees the Father can?

---

This is reasoning that is drawn on and can be applied only to humans. But God is not human, so you cannot apply this on this occasion. The Trinity consists of three separate 'persons' (please note the quotes), each with their own will, but who are One in essence and purpose. If there are two separate beings (Father and Son), each with their own will and essence, there is nothing stopping one from leaving / disagreeing / contradicting the other, other than subjugation, as in a Master / Servant relationship. In a Trinity, this can never happen, as the two have their own will but are one essence and their purpose is one, not by coercion (as it would be if they were two separate beings), but by love and that is emphasised in v20: "For the Father loves the Son". First of all, where is it said that the power was granted to him ? You are confusing Delegation of Authority with Granting Power . Nowhere it is mentioned that Jesus didn't have the power before. It's just that now, he has the authority, given to him by the Father.Second,in Philippians 2, Paul implies that Jesus emptied Himself of all powers, privileges, and abilities he had enjoyed previously in order to become a man just like you or me, yet without sin."But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men" (Phil 2:7)This suggests that he had the power before he became incarnate.Whichever way you look at it, you cannot say that he didn't have the power before.Also, to preempt you, delegation of authority does not imply subordination in stature or power.To use a crude analogy, if you think of me and my colleague John, we both have the same status and power, but he is producing test documents, while I'm producing design documents. This is our role at work. If, one day, he gives me the authority to produce test documents myself, I'll accept it and do it, not because I'm ordered to do so (we are of the same status at work) but because I like and respect him. Just because he delegated his authority, doesn't mean he's now my boss, or that he's more capable than I am, it's just that he's given me authority to do something that he's been doing. I always had the ability (power), I just didn't have the authority. I now have it and will exercise it at my own will.This is the situation in John 5:21 : "For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth [them]; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. "The Son here is not only doing the same divine acts as the Father (notice both the raising and the quickening), but doing it as the result of his own will and without any restrictions, even as the Father does it. This statement is very significant in relation to the miracles of Jesus, distinguishing them from similar miracles of prophets and apostles, who as human instruments were employed to perform supernatural actions, while Jesus did all as the Father's commissioned agent indeed, but in the exercise of his own absolute right of action. Jesus has the same power as the father and the will to use it as he sees fit. Again, notice the word "commited", which implies delegation of authority. No indication of transfer of power there. Just because "the Father judges no one at all" doesn't mean that the Father packed up and left, but that he is governing by Jesus Christ, so that man is not overawed by dealing with God directly, but has the comfort of access to him by a Mediator. Why does the Father let Jesus do the judging? Because Jesus walked in the same places we walk. He was tempted at all points like all men (Hebrews 4:15). An interesting point is that God (Jehovah) made numerous judgements in the OT:"For Jehovah shall judge his people, and repent himself for his servants, when he seeth that their power is gone, and there is none shut up, or left." (Deuteronomy 32:36)"And therefore will Jehovah wait, that he may be gracious unto you, and therefore will he be exalted, that he may have mercy upon you: for Jehovah is a God of judgment: blessed are all they that wait for him." (Isaiah 30:18)"Ye shall fall by the sword; I will judge you in the border of Israel; and ye shall know that I am Jehovah. (Ezekiel 11:10)"Now, in the NT does God change his mind and stop judging people and gives the power to Jesus ? Ofcourse not, he's still judging, as before, but now he reveals that Jesus is the one who does the judgement. Why does he tell us that now? because now we know Jesus and can empathize with him because he was a man, just like us.What is interesting is how you can explain that Jehovah judges in the OT and the NT {John) says that "the Father judges no one at all" ?! My explanation: Jehovah is the name of the Trinity God. He judges now, as he always did and we now know that he judges through Jesus. What is your explanation ? I'm quite glad you brought Philipians up, as I had forgotten about these verses. First of all, a couple of errors in your translation :
1) "God exalted him to a superior position" - there is no superior position here. The correct translation is "highly exalted". The Greek word is "hyper-ypsosen", literally translated as "raised above".
2) "the name that is above every [other] name" - There is no "other" here. The sentence is literally translated as "the name which is above every name"
3) The translation of the Greek "eharisato" as "kindly gave" is misleading, as it has connotations of acts of charity and mercy and not of freely giving between equals. The word is literally translated as "has gifted" (past perfect tense of verb "gift") and can also be translated as "has given".The correct translation for verses 2:9-11 is:
9 "Wherefore God also has highly exalted him, and given him the name which is above every name"
10 "That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth; "
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (KJV)What does the first part of verse 9 tell us ? He's obviously highly exalted (in both his human and divine nature),after being humbled - verse 7 "But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant... ". His exaltation was the reward for his humiliation. Because he humbled himself, God highly exalted him. He exalted his whole person, the human nature as well as the divine. As it befits the divine nature, it could only be the recognizing of his rights, or the display and appearance of the glory he had with the Father before the world was (Jn. 17:5), not any new acquisition of glory. Thereby, the Father himself is said to be exalted ("to the glory of God the Father").But how highly exactly is he exalted? is it as high as God the Father? this becomes obvious in the second part of the sentence. God has given him "the name which is above every name", (note the definitive article "the" before "name"). That is a name second to none, a clear reference to the divine Name YHWH. God calls Jesus (again) by his own name!This is further re-inforced in verses 10-11, where the whole world is brought into submission to him!
Paul's use of "those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth" is intended to convey the absolute totality of all creation recognizing the superiority of Jesus. The author is drawing on Isaiah 45:23: "I have sworn by Myself; The word has gone out of my mouth in righteousness, And shall not return, That to Me every knee shall bow, Every tongue shall take an oath". Note that it is to YHWH that all knees bow and tongues confess to in Isaiah; in Philippians it is to Jesus, showing that Jesus is YHWH!classic Trinitarian stuff, this. Don't know how I'd forgotten about it!**EDITED for spelling errorsThis message has been edited by Legend, 11-27-2004 06:03 AM

---

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

As I pointed out in Message 193, Luke 4:8 is about fighting evil with scripture, not a statement about who should and shouldn't be worshipped. Furthermore, there are numerous passages in the Bible that suggest that Jehovah (YHWH) was the name used for the Trinity God. I'm quoting myself from Message 193

quote:

---

compare this with Colossians 1:15-16 where Jesus is the creator of all things. If you think that Jesus is a separate being and God's master creator, this poses a contradiction between the two verses. The only plausible explanation is that Jehovah is not simply the name of the Father, but that it is the name of God the Trinity. Therefore, since Jesus is God in flesh, it can be said that Jesus created all things and that Jehovah did it alone.

---

.Worshipping Jehovah (Trinity God) doesn't preclude worshipping Jesus, on the contrary, it demands it! Paul is saying here, that there is no valid way to God that does not come through Jesus. How do you infer that Jesus can't be God if he is the mediator ?? God consists of three 'persons', with Jesus having the role of the mediator. How does the above verse contradict this ? yeeess, we both agree that Jesus is the mediator... what is your point? well, Jesus contradicts you :"And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son."(John 14:13)
"If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it .
"(John 14:14) Rom 10:12 says , for there is the same Lord (Jesus v. 9) over all, who is rich to all those CALLING UPON him. If Jesus is not to be prayed to, then why does Paul say that they will be rich who call upon him? Similarly, Paul says in 1Cor 1:2, together with all who everywhere are calling upon the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours and in 2Tim 2:22 he says, but pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace, along with those who CALL UPON THE LORD out of a clean heart. If Christians should not pray to Jesus, then why did the early Christians call upon Jesus? How can a person call upon Jesus without praying to him? The indication that Stephen's vision ended before he was stoned is that in between seeing Jesus in v.56 and crying out to Him in v.59 Stephen is "driven out of the city" and stoned by a hostile mob (verse 58). Are you suggesting that Stephen was having the vision all along while running away from the city pursued by an angry mob who were stoning him ?!Also note in verse 57 "Then they cried out... " (emphasis is mine). "Then" indicates chronological sequence. First, he had the vision (v56), then they chased him out (v57). "And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God , and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." (Acts 7:59)He is calling upon God using Jesus's name!
He is using the same words that Jesus used to pray to the Father in Luke 23:46 (receive the spirit)!
If this is not a prayer, then what is it ??!
Also, how is this rejecting Jesus's role as the mediator ?Acts 7:59 and Luke 23:46 were written by the same author and use the same wording to describe an action undertaken by two different persons, It is clear that the author intended for both persons to be seen as doing the same action, i.e. praying!

---

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

Agreed. I used this argument not realising that you believed Jesus to be divine. Now that I see that you do, this point is moot. Quick note on this. Jesus was a perfect man. He was also God incarnate. Jesus had two natures, one human and one divine. By sacrificing his human self, he matched what Adam lost. He was not a "god-man", he was "god and man". Neither of us knows the nuances of Peter's speech, or what he was thinking at the time. I take the text at face value, Jesus "knew all things".

---

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

quote:

---

Note that the Father has given Jesus authority "over all flesh". This is referring to the physical manifestation of God among sinners, i.e. Jesus, the man. And it's Jesus, the man, who is praying to the Father (just like in Luke 23:34) . The focal point here, is that Jesus has the power to give eternal life. He also has the power to forgive sins (Mark 2:5-7; Eph. 1:7), judge the world (John 5:22, 27), and control nature (Matt. 8:26). Since only God can do these things, what is the logical conclusion here ?

---

The scribes were perfectly right in believing that only God can forgive sins.
Their error was not in their reasoning, nor in their desire to examine this new teacher, but in their refusal to see who Jesus was (much like you do). So, Jesus demonstrates that he has the power and authority of God, to forgive sins. That's exactly what he does, only not using those words. He calls himself Son of Man, which is a Messianic title (Daniel 7:13-14). He never admonishes the scribes for believing that only God can forgive sins and he never refutes the statement. Instead he says he has the authority and cures the paralytic. To sum it up: he reads the scribes' minds, he -indirectly- accepts that only God forgives sins and then he forgives and cures the paralytic. If that's not a demonstration of him being God, I don't know what is! Like I explain in Message 209 delegation of authority doesn't necessary imply physical empowerment. Even if it did, Philippians 2:7, suggests that Jesus emptied himself of powers to become a man. So, either way, "the authority is given him by God" doesn't mean that he is lower than God.The OT prophets were performing 'miracles' as a direct instrument of God. Jesus has the power and authority to do miracles at will ( John 5:21 - "quickeneth whom he will" ). You can't even compare the two.

---

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

wmscott,thanks for your reply and comments.Just for the record, I am not a Trinitarian, not even a Christian. I used to be and at the time, I had no problem accepting the Trinity doctrine. Like I've said in a previous post to Buzzsaw, the Trinity is a good way of overcoming some of the difficulties that arise when interpreting the Bible. It may not be the best way and it's definitely not the only way, it's just a good way. I would have thought that my non-belief would suggest that I do! In this thread, I've tried to explain the doctrine - to the best of my ability - and defend my position that the doctrine is supported -not contradicted- by the Bible. I'm not saying that non-trinitarian doctrines are wrong, I'm saying that the Trinity doctrine isn't wrong - hope you can see the difference between the two.The beauty of the Bible -and partly reason for its success- is that it's so wonderfully ambiguous and open to interpretation. A lot of basic concepts aren't clear and have to be inferred or interpreted. I personally know of at least 4 churches (Catholic, JWs, LDS, 7th-day Adv) that teach things vastly different to each other, but all based on the Bible! It's not easy to discard someone else's interpretation, because the bible isn't black & white. There's a lot of grey in it.Still, some posters here, have rejected the Trinity doctrine off hand and refused to even try to understand it, which I find very fanatical and close-minded. It seems that you understand the principles behind it, though you disagree with it, and -unlike others and to your credit- can support your views with biblical evidence.Anyhow, I am considering the points you raised in your last post. Just a few quick notes off the top of my head:I used the 'me and my colleague John' analogy to illustrate that Delegation of Authority doesn't necessarily imply subordination in power or stature. I didn't -in any way- suggest that the Trinity consists of separate beings, as happens in my analogy. At the end of the day, in my analogy, I could turn round and say 'listen John, I like and respect you, but I refuse to do your work, I got other things on my plate, etc.'. This can never happen in the Trinity because, although all three 'persons' have their own will and role, they are of one essence and can never contradict or conflict with each other.There is no direct analogy -in everyday terms- that I could use to describe the Trinity. Like I said in a previous post, the 'separate wills = separate beings' logic is drawn on humans and can only be applied to humans. You can't infer that because something is true for men it must be true for God.Also, as you've raised this point in previous posts too: I can accept that the Devil was trying to break the bond of love between the Father and the son. But I think the most important thing here is that he was trying to make Jesus deny his human nature. Satan is not testing Jesus, the God, that would be stupid, as you say. He's testing Jesus the man. Jesus became a man so that he could live with the same rules and constraints that the rest of us are, so that he could redeem us. If Jesus didn't feel pain, fear, hunger, temptation, etc. he wouldn't be an 'equivalent ransom', his human existence would be pointless. As Jesus was being tempted by Satan, he could have turned round and use his divine power to easily defeat him. However, in doing so, he would have denied his human nature, his sacrifice would be pointless, Satan would have won. So, Jesus fights Satan the only way a man can: by using the scriptures as his weapon and that is the important message (IMHO) of those verses.

quote:

---

What is interesting is how you can explain that Jehovah judges in the OT and the NT {John) says that "the Father judges no one at all" ?! My explanation: Jehovah is the name of the Trinity God. He judges now, as he always did and we now know that he judges through Jesus. What is your explanation ?

---

But, if Jehovah is the name of the Father (as you claim), that still doesn't explain why does John say that "the Father judges no one at all" while the OT repeatedly states that the Father judges?! If John meant that he doesn't judge any longer, why didn't he say so ? John's statement, at face value, suggests that the Father's role is not one of judging. This is contradicted in the OT, unless you accept that the word Jehovah refers to the Trinity God, not just the Father,I will reply to the rest of your points as soon as I get a chance.

---

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

quote:

---

One more thing: if I'm reading you correctly, you seem to believe that Jesus was created by God and he's 'like' God but not 'quite' God. In my eyes, that gives us 2 gods (albeit one 'lesser' than the other). This is contradicted in the Bible:
"Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." (Isaiah 43:10)
"Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any." (Isaiah 44:8)

---

The verses you cite do not acknowledge, or even hint at, the existence of other Gods. The Bible acknowledges those that are CALLED gods (1 Cor. 8:5) that are not, by nature, gods at all (Gal. 4:8). The judges of Psalm 82 were called "gods" because in their office they determined the fate of other men. Also, in Exodus 21:6 and 22:8-9, God calls earthly judges "gods" .In contrast, in Isaiah, God talks about himself, proclaiming that there are no other gods. Not only that, he also proclaims that he doesn't even know of any other gods! (Isaiah 44:8). Even if Jesus was a 'lesser' god, as you claim, why would God deny the existence of 'a God beside him' ?! He doesn't claim there is no other God 'like him' or 'of the same power', he emphatically states "Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any." (emphasis is mine}. Why doesn't he know of any God beside him ?Also: Deut. 4:35, "To you it was shown that you might know that the Lord, He is God; there is no other besides Him." Paul doesn't state that everything was created through Jesus he states that everything was created by Jesus. (Col 1:15). Paul states that are many who are called gods (1 Cor. 8:5) but aren't, by nature, gods at all (Gal. 4:8). Paul also makes it clear, like in Isaiah, that there is only one God. may I refer you to Message 197, where I'm asking : In these verses, and also in Isaiah 9:6, the Hebrew word for "mighty" (gibbor) is used.

---

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

The big difference is that Jesus never used his power for self-serving purposes. All miracles he performed were to help others and not himself. He had to suffer and be tempted like a man and, in doing so, he demonstrated how men can deal with suffering and temptation and that is exactly what he's doing when tempted by Satan. Had he used his divine power to banish Satan, he would have detached himself from the rest of mankind, as the rest of us can never deal with temptation by miraculously removing its source, but have to endure it and fight it by faith and willpower.Consequently, he could never be an 'equivalent sacrifice' and Satan would have ultimately won.

---

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

Matthew 11:25-26 : Jesus indirectly praises those who received his message. The ' wise and intellectual' ones are people who through pride and arrogance refused to accept his message. I personally think, he's referring here to the scribes and Jewish intelligensia who mocked him. He calls his disciples 'babes', in that they are men docile and humble, men who, conscious that they know nothing, do not question his teachings. He is not referring to any 'hidden knowledge', he is saying that people who are arrogant, materialistic and clever (in the bad sense of the word) have the message 'hidden from them'. He then goes to claim that the Father is revealed only through him (v27). To claim, based on those verses, that 'the hidden knowledge is revealed, once you understand it' is wild extrapolation, IMHO.I think to even suggest that the Father does not reveal some things to some people is absurd, especially in the wide context of the N.T 'salvation for all' message. If there is some 'hidden knowledge' that is not revealed to all, or if some 'code' is needed to understand God's word, then what is the point of Jesus's life and death? Why did he live and die, if the real meaning of his life is only available to a selected few under terms and conditions?!How can you verify that this knowledge you have is true if it's hidden and selectively revealed to some (especially when many of them have a contradicting set of knowledge revealed to them)? How do you know that your 'code key' is the right one and someone else's isn't, when they both are derived from (and fit in) the bible? The issue here is how you derive this 'deeper understanding' ? If you've already decided on your theology then you can shoehorn the Bible into it. It's the other way round that's the tricky bit: deriving your theology based on the Bible. The sad fact is that the Bible is ambiguous and inconsistent. The Bible can be what you want it to be. The proof of this is that we're having this debate, it's that there are -without exaggeration- hundreds of churches, each with different beliefs and dogmas, all based on the Bible. No offence taken, on the contrary your description gives me great insight. It's always good to know how other people think. Using the scriptures you can show that :
- there is only One God (Isaiah 43:10, 44:6).
- there are many Gods - (Genesis 1:26, 3:22, 11:7).
-God can be seen (Gen. 18:1, Exodus 6:2-3, Gen. 17:1 )
-God cannot be seen (John 1:18, Exodus 33:20)
- God does not change (Malachi 3:6)
- God changes (Exodus 32:14)
- We are saved by works (James 2:24, Matthew 19:1617)
- We are saved by grace (Ephesians 2:8-9, Rom. 3:20,28)
- All sins can be forgiven (1 John 1:9, Acts 13:39).
- All sins can not be forgiven (Matthew 12:31, Mark 3:29)
- It's ok to kill , as long as it's endorsed by God (Numbers 31:17).
- It's not ok to kill (Luke 18:20).I could go on for a couple of pages, but I hope by now you get my point, which is this:The Bible, at face value, does not offer a clear, unambiguous basis for a theological framework. You have to infer and form your theology, based on (what you consider to be) the most plausible interpretation of different verses, taking into account the linguistic, historical, cultural and contextual constraints.
Once you have concluded the direction of your theological concepts (i.e. you have formed a theological bias), you will interpret any subsequent ambiguous verses, using this bias.So, for example, Trinitarians will interpret the verses of God's appearances, as proof of the multi-faceted God, because that fits in with their dogma, not because any grammatical or contextual reason dictates that they should.You (JWs) will interpret the word 'firstborn', as proof that Jesus was created, because it fits in with your dogma, not because any grammatical or contextual reason dictates that you should (BTW, on the contrary 'firstborn', in the Bible, is used to denote hierarchy and importance not physical creation)LDS will interpret Matt 5:48 "...perfect, as your Father in heaven" as proof that they can become Gods, because it fits in with their dogma, not because any grammatical or contextual reason dictates that they should.Allow me to use your 'driving to the store' analogy, which is a good analogy but we have to change the constraints slightly to better illustrate the situation :We both set together to drive to the store. The catch is , neither of us has been to the store before, all we have is a map. Furthermore, the map is slightly skewed, the distances on it do not reflect the real terrain and the compass on it does not reflect the magnetic north. Now, you are familiar with some of the roads of the map, because you've driven in them before and I'm familiar with some other roads, because I've driven in them before. Based on all this, we both come up with an itinerary on how to get to the store, but your route is different to mine.Because, your route goes through the roads you are familiar with, you are convinced that this is the quickest and safest route and are very reluctant to even look at mine. Similarly, I am very skeptical about your route, as the roads you are using are not familiar to me.Epilogue:
we won't know which one is the correct route until if and when we get to the store. It could be that both routes are correct and they both lead to the store. It could be that they are both flawed and we never get to the store. Like Satan says in South Park, to people arriving in hell, 'sorry guys, but the mormons were right!'

---

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