The Bible Is All About Jesus Christ Being Exalted.

a reply to: Akragon

No actually... John of Patmos authored revelation... the idea that Jesus was the author is just Christian Dogma...

It does seem that way when first read but in the literary sense John was the ghost writer of Jesus.

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Actually the Father gave the revelations to Jesus who in turn gave the Revelation to His angel who in turn gave the Revelation to John who then penned the Revelation. So neither John or the angel were the authors but God and Jesus were the authors of Revelation. Being that God and Son are both one in image and likeness it can be understood as Jesus representing His Father.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Akragon

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Actually the Father gave the revelations to Jesus who in turn gave the Revelation to His angel who in turn gave the Revelation to John who then penned the Revelation. So neither John or the angel were the authors but God and Jesus were the authors of Revelation. Being that God and Son are both one in image and likeness it can be understood as Jesus representing His Father.

How does that work again? If Jesus is just passing on the revelations just like you described what the angel is doing, what is the difference that makes Jesus an author whereas the angel is not? Wouldn't "messenger" be a more appropiate terminology with that description you used in that particular instance? (Malachi 3:1) Is that explained with the final sentence? Is there any bible verse that uses the phrase "one in image and likeness" or explains that concept other than seperately mentioning that Jesus "is the image of the invisible God" (Col.1:15) and Jesus says that he and his Father are one (John 10:30) just as he wants his disciples to be one with him and his God as well (John 17:11,20-23)? The disciples aren't perfect images of God in the same sense Jesus is are they, even if they do become one with Jesus and his God and Father? The phrase "in the same sense Jesus is", is not in there for nothing, I'm well aware of the bible verse in Genesis talking about how "God created man(kind) in his own image" (Gen.1:27), but that's not exactly meant in the same sense as what's meant at Col.1:15 is it?

Malachi 3:1 (for those who won't read it)

3 “Look! I am sending my messenger, and he will clear up* [Or “prepare.”] a way before me. And suddenly the true Lord, whom you are seeking, will come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant will come, in whom you take delight. Look! He will certainly come,” says Jehovah of armies.

Angel: Insight, Volume 1

ANGEL

Both the Hebrew mal·ʼakhʹ and the Greek agʹge·los literally mean “messenger.”

Hebrews 2:7 (NW)

You made him a little lower than angels; you crowned him with glory and honor, and appointed him over the works of your hands.

Young's Literal Translation

Thou didst make him some little less than messengers, with glory and honour Thou didst crown him, and didst set him over the works of Thy hands,

Psalm 8:5 (NW)

You made him a little lower than godlike ones,* [Or “than angels.” Hebrew: ʼelo·himʹ (gods)]

And you crowned him with glory and splendor.

Question: who is "you" there? And who is "him"? If needed, here's the context:

Psalm 8

...
1 O Jehovah our Lord, how majestic your name is throughout the earth;

You have set your splendor even higher than the heavens!* [Or possibly, “You whose splendor is recounted above the heavens!”]
...

Just some additional information (all at once if I can, multiple sources):

The Hebrew word ʼelo·himʹ (gods) appears to be from a root meaning “be strong.” ʼElo·himʹ is the plural of ʼelohʹah (god). Sometimes this plural refers to a number of gods (Ge 31:30, 32; 35:2), but more often it is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. ʼElo·himʹ is used in the Scriptures with reference to Jehovah himself, to angels, to idol gods (singular and plural), and to men.

When applying to Jehovah, ʼElo·himʹ is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. (Ge 1:1)
...
At Psalm 8:5, the angels are also referred to as ʼelo·himʹ, as is confirmed by Paul’s quotation of the passage at Hebrews 2:6-8. They are called benehʹ ha·ʼElo·himʹ, “sons of God” (KJ); “sons of the true God” (NW), at Genesis 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1. Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, by Koehler and Baumgartner (1958), page 134, says: “(individual) divine beings, gods.” [whereislogic: not "false gods"] And page 51 says: “the (single) gods,” and it cites Genesis 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. Hence, at Psalm 8:5 ʼelo·himʹ is rendered “angels” (LXX); “godlike ones” (NW).

[whereislogic: For those willing to take Pauls''s word for it regarding the "him" and the "you" I asked a question about. Hebrews 2:9 (between brackets is mine):

But we do see Jesus, who was made a little lower than angels [real gods, individual divine beings, not false gods, as per Ps.8:5 which Paul just quoted in verse 7], now crowned with glory and honor for having suffered death, so that by God’s undeserved kindness he might taste death for everyone. [so...who made Jesus a little lower than angels or gods/godlike ones again?]]

The word ʼelo·himʹ is also used when referring to idol gods. Sometimes this plural form means simply “gods.” (Ex 12:12; 20:23) At other times it is the plural of excellence and only one god (or goddess) is referred to. However, these gods were clearly not trinities.​—1Sa 5:7b (Dagon); 1Ki 11:5 (“goddess” Ashtoreth); Da 1:2b (Marduk).

At Psalm 82:1, 6, ʼelo·himʹ is used of men, human judges in Israel. Jesus quoted from this Psalm at John 10:34, 35. They were gods in their capacity as representatives of and spokesmen for Jehovah. Similarly Moses was told that he was to serve as “God” to Aaron and to Pharaoh.​—Ex 4:16, ftn; 7:1.

[whereislogic: John 17:7,8 (Jesus praying to his God Jehovah)

Now they have come to know that all the things you gave me are from you; 8 because I have given them the sayings that you gave me, and they have accepted them and have certainly come to know that I came as your representative, and they have believed that you sent me.]
...[switching source]
Certain teachings were greatly modified. For example, in the Bible, Jesus is called “the Logos,” meaning God’s “Word,” or Spokesman. (John 1:1-3, 14-18; Revelation 19:11-13) Very early on, this teaching was distorted by Justin, who like a philosopher played on the two possible meanings of the Greek word logos: “word” and “reason.” ...
Moreover, by forcing the tie between Jesus and the logos of Greek philosophy, which was closely linked with the person of God, the apologists, including Tertullian, embarked on a course that eventually led Christianity to the Trinity dogma.*
...[switching]
In many places in the Scriptures ʼElo·himʹ is also found preceded by the definite article ha. (Ge 5:22) Concerning the use of ha·ʼElo·himʹ, F. Zorell says: “In the Holy Scriptures especially the one true God, Jahve, is designated by this word; . . . ‘Jahve is the [one true] God’ De 4:35; 4:39; Jos 22:34; 2Sa 7:28; 1Ki 8:60 etc.”​—Lexicon Hebraicum Veteris Testamenti, Rome, 1984, p. 54; brackets his.

The Greek Term. The usual Greek equivalent of ʼEl and ʼElo·himʹ in the Septuagint translation and the word for “God” or “god” in the Christian Greek Scriptures is the·osʹ.

The True God Jehovah. The true God is not a nameless God. His name is Jehovah. (De 6:4; Ps 83:18)

Sources: God: Insight, Volume 1
The Apologists—Christian Defenders or Would-Be Philosophers?

a reply to: Seede
John 10:26-36

26 But you do not believe, because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them everlasting life, and they will by no means ever be destroyed, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 What my Father has given me is something greater than all other things, and no one can snatch them out of the hand of the Father. 30 I and the Father are one.”

31 Once again the Jews picked up stones to stone him. 32 Jesus replied to them: “I displayed to you many fine works from the Father. For which of those works are you stoning me?” 33 The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy; for you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” 34 Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’? 35 If he called ‘gods’ those against* [Or “to.”] whom the word of God came—and yet the scripture cannot be nullified— 36 do you say to me* [Or “of him.”] whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?

Who's the "I" in the quotation Jesus uses above after "written in your Law"? Who is "he" in the next sentence of Jesus? Is anyone here familiar with the concept of distinguishing between different individuals by the usages of "he", "you", "me", "him", "I", "your", etc.? The concepts of giving and receiving stuff, or a sender and someone who was sent? Why does Jesus not say at the end there that he is God but instead "I am God's Son"?

Ps.82:6

6 “I have said, ‘You are gods,* [Or “godlike ones.”]

All of you are sons of the Most High.
...
1 God takes his place in the divine assembly;* [Or “in the assembly of the Divine One.”]

In the middle of the gods* [Or “godlike ones.”] he judges:

So having covered all that (both comments), who is Jesus a Faithful Witness of?

and from Jesus Christ, “the Faithful Witness,” ... (Rev.1:5)

Jesus is a Witness of Jehovah (and a servant of Jehovah God), always has been and always will be. He is one of Jehovah's Witnesses. See also the quotations after 7:00 below:

The name Jehovah and its theophoric names.

a reply to: whereislogic

Text How does that work again? If Jesus is just passing on the revelations just like you described what the angel is doing, what is the difference that makes Jesus an author whereas the angel is not?

My understanding is that Jesus is resurrected [restored] to His formal celestial authority as the “Word of God” and that we use the name Jesus as to referencing His terrestrial appearance. He is not of angelic substance such as the celestial creation is but is the substance of His Spirit Father. The Father begat Him and did not create Him.

The difference that makes Jesus [The Word] an author of Revelation is that He is the celestial physicality of His Spirit Father. “The Word” is the image and representative of the Father. “The Word “is the Creator of both celestial and terrestrial creation which includes the celestial host as well as the terrestrial host.

Now if you cannot believe this understanding then I understand your point and that would show a different perspective in the author of Revelation. If you regard Jesus as another created angel then you would be correct in your understanding. But nevertheless it would not change the authority that is shown here in that Jesus has more authority than this angelic messenger who showed John the revelations from the Father.

God the Father is likened to His Adam only through “The Word.” Being that the Father is total Spirit of unknown and unseen substance, to this creation, He shows Himself through His image of which He brought forth from His essence. This is the term called Begotten. There are many celestial and terrestrial sons of God but only one Begotten Son of God. This is the understanding of the Nazarene faith.

In finality then, The Spirit Father revealed to His “Word" many mysteries yet to come. But why not simply reveal the mysteries to the angel? In one sense that is exactly what happened. How so? Because the “Word” is God and has always been God.

Example would be that -- you decide that you want to go to the store. Your spirit controls the body and your spirit is the true you. This is called the mind which science believes is the detached energy source of your existence. The mind being the transformer will decide that you must go to the store. The Brain being central physical receptor then relays this message to the physical body of various members. You then have created action of the body. The spirit is the mind in both the celestial and terrestrial realms. In this case the Father is the mind and the “Word” is the brain. Just as you cannot see your mind so it is with the “Word”. The “Word” is the receptor of the Father and the Father is the energy source, or mind, that controls the “Word.” Both are one entity just as you and your mind is one entity. But not so with other created entities who have their own procreated minds and procreated brains. The Father (Mind), revealed revelations to the “Word” (Brian) and action was taken and given to the messenger who then gave it to John.

Each individual that is procreated from Adam will have a two fold entity. Each entity is procreated from the pattern of Adam and has a mind source of energy with a brain but the point is that the mind and the brain is still one entity just as Father and Son is one entity. That is the reason that we believe the author of Revelation is the Father and Son. One without the other cannot function.

a reply to: Seede

yeah, I don't get why they are not getting the point. He is God and can manifest himself in any way he wants, as a pillar of fire and cloud, as an angel, as the Lord of Hosts, as a babe in a manger or as God on the throne.

The lack of the Holy Ghost on their part may be the reason. And remember that JW's don't believe in the Holy Ghost so arguing with someone who does not believe in the Holy Ghost, who is part of the Godhead and is one with the Father and the Word (Jesus Christ).

a reply to: whereislogic

Ps.82:6 6 “I have said, ‘You are gods,* [Or “godlike ones.”] All of you are sons of the Most High.

In this lesson we are taught that Jesus was being accused of blasphemy in His claim that He was the Son of the Most High. That was the charge against Him as He stood trial in the hall of hewn stones. In this trial his defense was that anything that king David proclaimed was law and that is why Jesus reminded the ones who were about to stone Him that it was written in the Psalm of Asaph that the chief administrators of the people were gods or men of authority over the people.

Just as Moses was a god of his people so were many such rulers gods of their peoples. Now being that Asaph was accepted in the edicts of King David so it then was written in the laws of David. But God reminded these rulers that even though they were gods they will live and die like all men. They will perish and be judged as mortals.

Jesus used this Psalm of Asaph as teaching His accusers that the King has it written in law that there are mortal sons of God and it is not blasphemy for Jesus to claim the same to his people. The final result was that Jesus was acquitted by an overwhelming majority of the 70 judges of the Jerusalem Sanhedrin. He then faced a different charge in the Roman court of Pontius Pilate.

In your question - “So having covered all that (both comments), who is Jesus a Faithful Witness of?”

You are correct in that Jesus is the faithful witness. Being of The Most High it could never be otherwise.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

You are speaking as if this is fact "Chester". I contend my Gods and all Gods can do the same. You can't prove your point, any more than I can. Thus its not a point people can get or not get, rather it is an item of gnosis (beleif) not eídein (proof).

a reply to: ChesterJohn

yeah, I don't get why they are not getting the point. He is God and can manifest himself in any way he wants, as a pillar of fire and cloud, as an angel, as the Lord of Hosts, as a babe in a manger or as God on the throne.

It has nothing to do with having the "holy spirit"... Some people understand that Jesus didn't consider himself to be God in the flesh even though the narrator of John may have... said idea is lacking in three of the four gospels, and John was the last one written.

Jesus quite clearly considered himself a servant of the most high, not equal in any way... and only though trinitarian traditions can someone actually deny that fact and ignore the majority of what he actually taught as opposed to what others said of him.

Though i find it interesting that most trinitarians also use that same excuse as to why people don't agree that Jesus is God... they don't have the holy spirit

the majority of the Christian world are trinitarian, and if you recall Jesus said... "the path is narrow and few find it"

Trinitarianism IS the broad path... and most accept it

a reply to: Akragon

Text Though i find it interesting that most trinitarians also use that same excuse as to why people don't agree that Jesus is God... they don't have the holy spirit the majority of the Christian world are trinitarian, and if you recall Jesus said... "the path is narrow and few find it"

Luke tells us that Jesus said ---

Luke_10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

That could be interpreted several different ways. It could mean that Jesus saw Satan fall from heaven while He (Jesus) preexisted as the "Word of God" in heaven. It could also be interpreted as to mean that Jesus saw Satan fall from heaven as He (Jesus) was here on this earth. Regardless of how this is interpreted it cannot be denied (in Christian theology) that the fall of Satan and one third of the heavenly host was before or during the creation of Adam and if this be true it would make Jesus well over 3700 years old either in heaven or on this earth.

Common sense tells the Christian that if Jesus was 3700 + years old then His mother (Mary) also was 3700 years old. This is why most Christians will believe that Jesus must have preexisted as the Word of God in order to see Satan fall from heaven. Now if Jesus did preexist as the Word of God and see Satan fall from heaven,then His Spirit would have had to be the same in heaven as it is the earth just as your spirit will be the same on earth as in heaven. The spirit does not die with the body. This then explains to the Christian the duality of Jesus and God. Jesus was God in Spirit but not in flesh.

Now we come to the Holy Spirit. There is only one that is Holy and that is God and God is total Spirit. By this understanding the Holy Spirit is Spirit God. We have already established that "he Word of God" is the image of and is God. If there is only one God and God is Spirit then the Holy Spirit is God. If the Holy Spirit is God and the Word is God then all three identities are God. Note that I did not say all three entities are God because we are not describing three entities but are describing three identities of the same Spirit. All three (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are of the same Spirit substance where as the flesh of Jesus was not of the same everlasting substance. This is why Chester has repeatedly said, in his various posts, that you must have the infilling of the Holy Spirit to be of God. If you deny the Holy Spirit then you deny the Father and if you deny the Spirit of Jesus then you also deny the Spirit God. All three are one.

To solve this trinity puzzle you would have to understand that in all reality it does not reference three different entities called God but only shows that the image and the likeness that is described in the first chapter of Genesis is God.

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

The "Word" of God is not only God's image but is God. The "Word" is not an independent agent but is the visible Spirit God. The Holy Spirit is not an independent agent but is the Holy Spirit God. In this respect, God has shown us His chosen image and His likeness and has created His pattern in Adam. Adam therefore has shown an image of flesh and a likeness of everlasting spirit. Therefore God created by or through His visible "Word" who then became shown to us as Jesus.

When a person references that he/she has the Holy Spirit, that originally meant that that person accepts the God of Adam and the gifts of the God of Adam. Without the acknowledgement of the gifts of the Holy Father, that one does not have the infilling of the Holy Spirit God. Not that the person is not sanctified but only that the person does not have the revealed power which was given in the fourth chapter of Acts. To understand this is not given to us to understand because mortal man does not understand the mystery of spirit.

a reply to: Seede

He could have also meant he saw the fall of Satan though revelation..

Obviously, revelation is a well established thing in Christian dogma that is at least as credible as eye witness testimony..

Paul is credited with over half the NT and yet every bit of his information comes from revelation.


If jesus was god then wouldn’t he have known the plan and not have had to ask..

“Father why have you forsaken me?”

Jesus is clearly not privy to gods omnipresence in the Bible.. jesus has to question countless things and OBVIOUSLY didn’t know why god was allowing him to be crucified ..

a reply to: Akragon

Interesting point...

If the present dogma was correct, then that would negate all the thought that very few people will go to heaven..

a reply to: Seede

We already know according to johns gospel that Jesus preexisted... Though this does not mean because he preexisted that he was god... There are statements through out the bible showing that people preexist there incarnation on earth

As for the holy spirit, there are a stack of assumptions in your paragraph... And the fact remains that the bible lacks any statement saying said "holy spirit" is God... So thats a problem comsidering Jesus makes no claim to it either

In fact there is no puzzle to be solved when it comes to the trinity... Its fabricated by the early church... Its not some mystery thst no one can understand fully as i've heard so many times... Its not biblical, though keep in mind the church has had 2000 years to dig up any vague reference in the book to claim it is... Every claim of references to a trinity can easily be debunked with correct context or translations.. All of them are the result of deliberate mistranslations designed to prove something that doesn't exist

And Mr chester, like every other christian thst uses this idea that people don't understand something because they lack the only spirit is nothing but an attempt to make people feel inferior when they disagree... Classic eliteism

I appreciate your attempt to explain it but i've heard every explaination christians can possibly use... But the fact remains... The trinity isn't a biblical concept no matter how you try to work it out... Jesus didn't recognize a trinity... And neither did anyone else in the bible

And again, if you just take the simple fact that 90% of christianity is trinitarian... Which is the very wide path that most people take... Along with everything else that Jesus teaches, which is quite clearly not about a triune God

Pretty much everything points to a trinity being non existant... But purely false doctrine

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Paul is credited with over half the NT and yet every bit of his information comes from revelation.

Actually out of the 27 letters of the NT Paul penned only 7 of the 27 letters. That would be about a little less than 26 % of the NT. It is true that many Christians are taught that Paul penned 14 letters but that is not true at all. He is credited with 13 or 14 letters and they are grouped into the Pauline epistles but even that is a big misunderstanding.

As far as every bit of Paul's information came from Revelation literature is not true at all. Paul died about 66 to 68 AD while Revelation is believed to have been written between 90 to 100 AD. At the very least, Revelation was written 20 to 30 years after Paul had died.

a reply to: Akragon

But the fact remains... The trinity isn't a biblical concept no matter how you try to work it out... Jesus didn't recognize a trinity... And neither did anyone else in the bible

You are correct in that there is no triune Christine God. I do agree with you. Jesus could not have recognized a trinity simply because the Holy Spirit (Comforter) did not come until after Jesus died. Regardless of the nomenclature used, there is only one Holy Spirit in Christianity and that is "The Most High Father" of the Christ Jesus. Most all Christians are offshoots of the Roman and Greek organizations who are not taught who their God truly is. They are caught up in patterns of liturgy which are devised by the various organizations.

John_16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
John 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Even so, I will not argue the meaning of Trinity simply because that is the way the various denominations voted to understand the extensions of the Spirit God. The masses are taught that they have three entities of the same God which I believe I have explained what the Nazarene's do teach.

Thanks for the rap. I enjoyed it.

a reply to: Seede

I am not saying Paul wrote revelationS..

I am saying Paul wrote FROM revelation...AKA visions.

He had no first hand information about jesus. He had visions of jesus 30+ years after the crucifixion.


As far as Paul only actually writing 7 books. That is correct. MODERN scholars think the others were a forgery.

HOWEVER, for 1950 years they were attributed to Paul.. so I think that is still a fair statement, either way.

Plus if I’m right Paul was writing AFTER the Romans didn’t d their purges of anyone they consider



So for jesus to have been speaking of watching Lucifer’s fall in a vision. Would have been par for the course. That would be considered a perfectly legit way to see it go down.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Seede

Pretty much everything points to a trinity being non existant... But purely false doctrine

Agreed. So...why is it so succesful? Why are evolutionary philosophies so succesful in this system of things (a similar house of cards)? Why is young earth creationism more succesful than what the bible actually teaches regarding the subject of creation (no light before the suns/stars were created, not 24 hour-days, animals dying and leaving behind fossils long before humankind was created, etc.)? Why does the media promote every religious philosophy or way of thinking (type of spirituality) except that what is taught in the bible regarding true spirituality? Why is new age philosophy promoted and so succesful? Why am I constantly bombarded with the typical arguments you hear from atheistic or agnostic bible critics, philosophical naturalists and other forms of bible criticism and ridicule (incl. or focussed on criticism of or ridiculing the God of the bible, incl. the notion of his existence) when I'm watching cartoons on the comedy channel for example? Why so many hypocrites in religion often in it for making money and behaving no different than for example Trump, or even endorsing or voting for him?

He is a liar! (part 1 of 2)

I think Jesus' words at John 8:43-47 apply to quite a few more people in this world than most who think of themselves as Christians are inclined to think (especially regarding where they take their information about God from, arguments from Trinitarian theologians and preachers that are re-hashed or exactly the same arguments as the so-called "Church Fathers" and theologians of the 2nd to 6th century, when the doctrine of the Trinity, Arianism and Binitarianism were in development and the Trinitarians killed off all their rivals or outmaneuvered them politically in the Roman Empire making deals with Emperors such as Constantine or later Kings such as Clovis, who got his name from cleaving heads of Arians primarily, among others such as his close relatives who could lay a claim to the throne, in copy of Constantine who did the same after his so-called conversion to Christianity). John 8:

43 Why do you not understand what I am saying? Because you cannot listen to my word. 44 You are from your father the Devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father. That one was a murderer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of the lie. 45 Because I, on the other hand, tell you the truth, you do not believe me. 46 Who of you convicts me of sin? If I speak truth, why is it that you do not believe me? 47 The one who is from God listens to the sayings of God. This is why you do not listen, because you are not from God.”

Why are Trinitarians misrepresenting the history around their favored dogma? Why is this person who is criticial regarding this issue still calling it a "Christian" Trinity in the title of his video (I think he's an atheist) when the Pagan (Babylonian and Egyptian > Greek) roots of this doctrine are so well-evidenced in historical research and documentation including highly respected Encyclopedias such as the Encyclopaedia Britannica?

a reply to: whereislogic

Text Why are Trinitarians misrepresenting the history around their favored dogma? Why is this person who is criticial regarding this issue still calling it a "Christian" Trinity in the title of his video (I think he's an atheist) when the Pagan (Babylonian and Egyptian > Greek) roots of this doctrine are so well-evidenced in historical research and documentation including highly respected Encyclopedias such as the Encyclopaedia Britannica?

I don't think trinitarians do misrepresent The Most High God of Jesus. I believe that you have a tendency to mistake what they believe. There is no word in the KJV bible spelled trnity or triune but that does not mean that the Holy Ghost of John 14:26 is not true. That is my point. Who or what do you believe the Holy Ghost is? That is the question.

A trinitarian believes that the Holy Ghost of John 14:26 is an extension of the Most High El of some sort and it most certainly must be according to the Apostle John. The Scriptures of John 14: 16,17 also declare that this mystery is the Spirit of Truth which will be an a infilling in some who accept this. Most will not accept this Spirit of Truth which is called the Holy Ghost. So if you wish to not believe this Holy Spirit then so be it but Chester has chosen to believe John whereas you have chosen not to believe John. Nevertheless John did not say that if you accept the Holy Ghost you are a trinitarian and Chester did not say this in this posting.

Chester made the statement that those who do not understand are those who deny the Holy Ghost as part of God and is one with the Father and the Word (Jesus Christ). Actually James taught that same doctrine in the very first synagogue of the Jesus movement and being a Nazarene I also believe that same teaching. So in lite of that said, one can believe the Holy Ghost as a ministering Spirit of God or as an extension or entity of God.

I believe that it rests upon each individual to understand that actually no one truly knows how to define Spirit. We all have one (I believe) but none of us really understands what it is that we are. With all due respect to you, I cannot accept your doctrine and believe that is why you cannot accept my doctrine. Akragon is also correct when he says that I cannot prove any trinity. I cannot prove a triune God head but I believe in the Holy Ghost as the Spirit of truth from God and I believe that Jesus was the Begotten "Word " of God. I can put them all together and call them trinatarians or keep them separate and simply call them Father Son and Holy Ghost. I believe God knows what I mean better than I know what I mean.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: whereislogic

Text How does that work again? If Jesus is just passing on the revelations just like you described what the angel is doing, what is the difference that makes Jesus an author whereas the angel is not?

My understanding is that Jesus is resurrected [restored] to His formal celestial authority as the “Word of God” and that we use the name Jesus as to referencing His terrestrial appearance. He is not of angelic substance such as the celestial creation is but is the substance of His Spirit Father.

You sound like Emperor Constantine there (who reminds me of Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars, even their names are similar, perhaps a little insider joke of the writer).

Myth 4: God Is a Trinity

What is the origin of the myth?
...
“The Council of Nicaea met on May 20, 325 [C.E.]. Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, ‘of one substance with the Father.’ . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination.”​—Encyclopædia Britannica (1970), Volume 6, page 386.
...
“The impression could arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention. In a sense, this is true . . . The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.”​—New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Volume 14, page 299.
...
FACT:

The Trinitarian dogma is a late fourth-century invention
...
What does the Bible say?

“Stephen, filled with the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at God’s right hand. ‘Look! I can see heaven thrown open,’ he said, ‘and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God.’”​—Acts 7:55, 56, The New Jerusalem Bible.

What did this vision reveal? Filled with God’s active force, Stephen saw Jesus “standing at God’s right hand.” Clearly, then, Jesus did not become God again after his resurrection to heaven but, rather, a distinct spiritual being [whereislogic: a god/heavenly being/spirit (being)].
...
The dogma that Constantine championed was intended to put an end to dissensions within the fourth-century Church. However, it actually raised another issue: Was Mary, the woman who bore Jesus, “the Mother of God”?

Myth 5: Mary Is the Mother of God (next page from the article)

I changed up the order a bit and left out some stuff this time because I just shared the 2 same articles (pages in that article or publication) in another thread that touches on the subject of the veneration of Mary as "the Mother of God".

First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia

Much of the debate hinged on the difference between being "born" or "created" and being "begotten". Arians saw these as essentially the same; followers of Alexander did not. The exact meaning of many of the words used in the debates at Nicaea were still unclear to speakers of other languages. Greek words like "essence" (ousia), "substance" (hypostasis), "nature" (physis), "person" (prosopon) bore a variety of meanings drawn from pre-Christian philosophers,...

John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.

Source: Trinity: Reasoning (but of course primarily the dictonary being quoted there)

This issue is also raised in the presentation below which quotes the dictionary above; if you consider it in light of what's quoted from wikipedia and in the 2nd video regarding the words "essence", "substance", "nature" and "person" and the relevant bible quotations you may notice how it's relevant to your usage of "substance" (2:29 - 3:32, keypoint at 3:14):

Keypoint (quotation from wiki above) at 8:10 below but I'm including the video for the relevant biblical context (the biblical quotations starting at 6:35 in particular the last 2, Col.2:8 and 1 Timothy 6:20):

Just to be clear, switching to Binitarianism rather than Trinitarianism isn't going to change the origin of the arguments that conflate Jesus with Jehovah God (it started out as Binitarianism anyway as one can notice from the historical information regarding the development of the Athanasian Creed and the doctrine of the Trinity in the video above). And neither does it make you sound any less like Constantine even if you do change up the phrase about "substance" ever so slightly (but still arguing for the same or almost the same concept depending on how you exactly meant it; one can always argue that one didn't mean it the same way as Constantine, especially because one phrased it differently, still boils down to the same pattern* of conflation though even if one manages to argue that it was meant differently in any coherent fashion).

*: and accompanying love for (Pagan) philosophy as per Col.2:8 and 1 Timothy 6:20 (the Pagan Greek philosophers like Plato in particular, who got some of their stuff from the Pagan Egyptian and Babylonian philosophers and priests, hence the terminology "Babylon the Great" is so applicable as used in the bible to describe what's going on here regarding false religion, there's a little more to it).

Ancient Babylonian religious concepts and practices are found in religions worldwide

“The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato’s] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel (Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.

“Egypt, Persia, and Greece felt the influence of the Babylonian religion . . . The strong admixture of Semitic elements both in early Greek mythology and in Grecian cults is now so generally admitted by scholars as to require no further comment. These Semitic elements are to a large extent more specifically Babylonian.”—The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston, 1898), M. Jastrow, Jr., pp. 699, 700.

Their gods: There were triads of gods, and among their divinities were those representing various forces of nature and ones that exercised special influence in certain activities of mankind. (Babylonian and Assyrian Religion, Norman, Okla.; 1963, S. H. Hooke, pp. 14-40

Babylon the Great: Reasoning

a reply to: Seede
The quotation from John 10 and that comment is to be seen in light of the bolded phrases from the previous comment:

At Psalm 82:1, 6, ʼelo·himʹ is used of men, human judges in Israel. Jesus quoted from this Psalm at John 10:34, 35. They were gods in their capacity as representatives of and spokesmen for Jehovah. Similarly Moses was told that he was to serve as “God” to Aaron and to Pharaoh.​—Ex 4:16, ftn; 7:1.

[whereislogic: John 17:7,8 (Jesus praying to his God Jehovah)

Now they have come to know that all the things you gave me are from you; 8 because I have given them the sayings that you gave me, and they have accepted them and have certainly come to know that I came as your representative, and they have believed that you sent me.]
...[switching source]
Certain teachings were greatly modified. For example, in the Bible, Jesus is called “the Logos,” meaning God’s “Word,” or Spokesman. (John 1:1-3, 14-18; Revelation 19:11-13) Very early on, this teaching was distorted by Justin, who like a philosopher played on the two possible meanings of the Greek word logos: “word” and “reason.” ...
Moreover, by forcing the tie between Jesus and the logos of Greek philosophy, which was closely linked with the person of God, the apologists, including Tertullian, embarked on a course that eventually led Christianity to the Trinity dogma.*
...
The True God Jehovah. The true God is not a nameless God. His name is Jehovah. (De 6:4; Ps 83:18)

You did not answer my questions about John 10 in the comment you responded to. I hope you're not avoiding them on purpose and/or you figured they were rhetorical and/or overlooked them (you actually did answer one question, the one that was rhetorical and already answered in my comment). I would like some clear definitive unambiguous answers that correspond with a proper use of the English language and logic or reason. Preferrably something that doesn't follow a particular pattern of argumentation that I've described as a "house of cards" in some of my latest commentary, but perhaps that's too much to ask for. I don't know.

Here are they again (incl. the relevant quotations and bolded phrases which you also seemed to have ignored, talked past, or were distracted from in your response):

John 10:26-36

26 But you do not believe, because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them everlasting life, and they will by no means ever be destroyed, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 What my Father has given me is something greater than all other things, and no one can snatch them out of the hand of the Father. 30 I and the Father are one.”

31 Once again the Jews picked up stones to stone him. 32 Jesus replied to them: “I displayed to you many fine works from the Father. For which of those works are you stoning me?” 33 The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy; for you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” 34 Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’? 35 If he called ‘gods’ those against* [Or “to.”] whom the word of God came—and yet the scripture cannot be nullified— 36 do you say to me* [Or “of him.”] whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?

Who's the "I" in the quotation Jesus uses above after "written in your Law"? Who is "he" in the next sentence of Jesus? Is anyone here familiar with the concept of distinguishing between different individuals by the usages of "he", "you", "me", "him", "I", "your", etc.? The concepts of giving and receiving stuff, or a sender and someone who was sent? Why does Jesus not say at the end there that he is God but instead "I am God's Son"?

Ps.82:6

6 “I have said, ‘You are gods,* [Or “godlike ones.”]

All of you are sons of the Most High.
...
1 God takes his place in the divine assembly;* [Or “in the assembly of the Divine One.”]

In the middle of the gods* [Or “godlike ones.”] he judges:

So having covered all that (both comments)...

I've laid a bit of extra emphasis this time in red. The first 2 questions there are the least rhetorical, I'd really like a straight answer, should be simple to give it in my eyes (even while ignoring the contradictions with Trinitarian and Binitarian dogma a straight and honest answer would produce). The bolded question now with red emphasis regarding the relation to the previous comment I made before that comment, is perhaps slightly rhetorical, one can still respond to it in some manner, the answer could be limited to "yes" or "no" but that wouldn't be very helpful in figuring out how people think about these subjects and why they reason that way and have become incapable of recognizing the most simple straightforward speech and teachings for what it so clearly says and explains when I'm reading it. The final question is perhaps the most rhetorical, still, an answer might be appropiate if you think I'm wrong about all this and you wish to help me figure out the truth of the matter as per the advice regarding the subject of “reprove those who contradict” (Titus 1:9,10), "Give a reproof to a wise person and he will love you." (Pr.9:8b) and by following Jesus' fine example: “‘All those for whom I have affection, I reprove and discipline." (Rev.3:19).

Oh, and regarding the bolded phrase "They were gods in their capacity as representatives of and spokesmen for Jehovah." It might be useful to remember the literal meaning for the word that has been translated "angel" (which is a god/godlike one/heavenly being), namely "messenger". That in relation to what's mentioned about John 1:1:

"Certain teachings were greatly modified. For example, in the Bible, Jesus is called “the Logos,” meaning God’s “Word,” or Spokesman. (John 1:1-3, 14-18; Revelation 19:11-13) Very early on, this teaching was distorted by Justin, who like a philosopher played on the two possible meanings of the Greek word logos: “word” and “reason.” ...
Moreover, by forcing the tie between Jesus and the logos of Greek philosophy, which was closely linked with the person of God, the apologists, including Tertullian, embarked on a course that eventually led Christianity to the Trinity dogma."

Too much repetition? Here's some related information from the bible I didn't share in this thread yet I think.
Hebrews 1:

Long ago God spoke to our forefathers by means of the prophets on many occasions and in many ways. 2 Now at the end of these days he has spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things. 3 He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact representation of his very being, and he sustains all things by the word of his power. And after he had made a purification for our sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.

How much clearer does the distinctation between the one doing the appointing and the one being appointed need to be made for some people to notice it or acknowledge it? (just wondering to myself out loud, neither rhetorical nor a genuine question, just expressing some wonderment or amazement)

a reply to: Seede
In the end your response to John 10 sounds about as distracting as James White's response to it in the (video)debate below with the biased incorrect title (so I'll just rename it):

James White vs Greg Stafford (2 people who profess to be Christians who both have some incorrect views)

Relevant timeframes are: 30:30 - 34:00 (background), 34:17 - 38:30 and more at 1:16:12 - 1:26:40. Discussion about the keytext (from John 10) starts at 34:31. Try not to get confused by what's mentioned in the 17 seconds after 34:00 which is why I skipped it in those recommended timeframes (or whatever is mentioned after 38:30 for that matter, then I have to start going through my caveats with that debate).
Oh, and one more recommendation, take note of the keyword "significant" after 49:30 and compare with Matthew 7:13,14 (the text Akragon quoted something from before). Those timeframes skip past James White's argumentation and go straight to the response as well (where any relevant way of arguing or thinking by James White will be discussed, rather than the distractions themselves, the distractions from the questions raised concerning John 10 and related verses, tap-dancing around those questions with red herrings and such, see especially after 1:16:12, allthough you'll have to look elsewhere for James White's tap-dancing moves, Greg Stafford stays on subject). Funny but another crucial point at 1:22:30. After 1:23:00 Hebrews 1 comes up as well and one of James White's distracting tap-dancing moves is paraphrased.

In case someone can't resist going beyong 1:26:40, instead of listing my caveats:


My personal favorite (in particular the 2nd couplet after "But something more than this, is your most precious gift."):
New Song - Kingdom Melody 148 - You Gave Your Only-Begotten Son ( jw.org ) lyrics

Who is "You" in that title? And who is His "Only-Begotten Son"? You cannot coherently* answer both questions with the same answer. *: with a proper use of language, logic and reason. Those who do (allthough likely not in direct response to such questions but according to Trinitarian and Binitarian dogma and thinking, they won't spell it out when responding to such questions, then they conveniently split up these 2 individuals again as 2 "persons" and can answer these questions seperately, ignoring how that contradicts Trinitarian and Binitarian dogma and often borders on "modalism" depending on how it's argued, a "heresy" condemned by the Catholic Church long ago (quoting them), showing more contradictions in Trinitarian and Binitarian thinking; allthough this happens more when texts come up that have Jesus saying that his Father is greater than he is or knows things that he doesn't know, that sort of stuff), end up taking away all the credit from Jehovah and his love for humanity for giving His "Only-Begotten Son". It's not a very grateful attitude (see ending of the song). It's conducive for those arguing that the God of the so-called "Old Testament" is the harsh or vindictive guy (or worse terminologies) whereas Jesus is the good guy though. Which comes from another ancient philosopher whose name escapes me for a moment, I remember someone with the accountname Malocchio (who seemed to have a muslim background) arguing these philosophies quite a while ago on the green religion forum. But many others have argued similar things on these forums. Ah, found it, Marcion was the philosopher whose name I couldn't remember...
Does God Change? Awake!—2000

The Bible’s Viewpoint

Does God Change?

ANTHROPOLOGIST George Dorsey described the God of the “Old Testament” as “a savage God.” He added: “Yahweh is . . . utterly unlovely. He is the God of plunderers, of torturers, of warriors, of conquest.” Others have reached similar conclusions regarding the God of the “Old Testament”—Yahweh, or Jehovah. Thus, some today wonder whether Jehovah was in fact a cruel God who eventually changed his character to become the loving and merciful God of the “New Testament.”

Such an idea about the God of the Bible is not new. It was first propounded by Marcion, a semi-Gnostic of the second century C.E. Marcion repudiated the God of the “Old Testament.” He considered that God to be violent and vindictive, a tyrant who offered material rewards to those worshiping him. On the other hand, Marcion described the “New Testament” God—as revealed through Jesus Christ—as a perfect God, a God of pure love and mercy, of graciousness and forgiveness.
...