Butch5
Active
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2019
- Messages
- 3,223
Nick, do you purport to know my thoughts?You feel that way because you give no thought to what I said concerning it.
Nick, I am not open to the Trintiy because it is illogical and refuted by Scripture. I used to hold the doctrine and believed there was a hierarchy. The Scriptures have shown me otherwise.That is why you will not be open to the Trinity. If you viewed it within the hierarchy, then you would see it as possible. Otherwise, then without equivocating you must then accept Jesus as God, because if what you say is true that it's about power, and hierarchy is not a consideration then it can't be delegated or the originator no longer retains it and ceases to be "All might", but the other who the power was delegated to now becomes "All might".
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. Rev 1:8 KJV
I am the alpha and the omega, says [the] Lord - God the [one] being - the one who is and the [one who] was and the [one] coming, the Almighty. Greek Interlinear Rev 1:8
Regarding almighty, it can't be shared. It can't be spread among three persons. The word requires that it be applied to only one. The Father, Son, and Spirit cannot all be almighty at the same time.
Regarding Rev 1:18, yes, Jesus is referred to as almighty. However, we must understand the passage in context. Why is Jesus called almighty in this passage? It's because all authority was given to Him.
All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. King James Version, Mt 28:18–20.
All power was given to Jesus. That means at that point He was almighty. However, notice His words. The power was given to Him. That means He didn't have it previously. Before that point He was not almighty. That means that there was someone else who had all power. That was the Father. Paul also tells us that Jesus hands it back to the Father.
24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be tdestroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. King James Version, 1 Co 15:24–28.
All power was given to Jesus. However, when the end comes, He turns it all back over to the Father. And He Himself is subject to the Father
How can it make perfect sense when the concept of one being consisting of three beings is completely illogical and impossible?And yet to me it makes perfect sense! Maybe you have a graph that can reflect what you believe with who we know exists, in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and look at what you have. Maybe then you can say there is no hierarchy.
I don't have a graph. One isn't really necessary. We have the Father who begat a Son. The Son is the Father's agent in creation. The Holy Spirit is not a third person but rather is a manifestation of the Father.
I agree that they know each other fully. However, the distinction is necessary because they are two completely separate beings. Just as a father and son are two completely separate beings.Since you did not dispute my statement, I assume that, apart from my mention of the Holy Spirit, you acknowledge the validity of my position, particularly as you provided scripture to support what I said about the Father & Son. That they don't need the distinction because they know each other fully, is evident in Matthew 11:27, but for the sake of us knowing God it is made plain for us to see.
Once I have your agreement here, we can discuss the Holy Spirit.
Yes, they are one and the same. There are multiple reasons for this. Primarily because Jesus said it. As an example, when the angel appeared to Mary regarding the birth of Christ he said,Not preconceived, but taking into account that it also means "of its kind", as well as "to go out, come out, exit, go forth" etc.
Glad you don't see the Holy Spirit as Mother. However, I must ask this question that comes to me from what you stated above about the Holy Spirit. So, whenever the Holy Spirit is mentioned in scripture you believe it just as easily can be replaced with God the Father? So, that they are not just the same in essence, but are one and the same.
Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. King James Version, Lk 1:30–35.
If the Holy Spirit is a third person, then it is He and not God the Father who is the Father of Jesus. God is called the Father because He is the Father of Jesus. That requires that the Holy Spirit must be a reference to the Father. There are other examples that draw this same conclusion.
The manifestation can be the Father and/or His power and working. Jesus said the Father was in Him. How was that? He was baptized with the Holy Spirit.
Can you somehow reason through that for me?Yes.
No. What makes them different is that one was begotten out of the other. Yet, they are of the same essence. One had the title of God and one didn't. As an example, a man is king (title). He has a son. Him and his son are two completely separate beings. They are both of the same essence, human. Just because the son is the of the same essence as the father, the king, doesn't make the son a king.Are you saying that though they are of the same essence, that a title makes them different?
If so, doesn't that speak to what I've been saying all along about a hierarchy?
No, I don't know everything. I know people who have probably forgotten more than I know about Scripture. But I do know what I've studied.You must have many red flags, brother, or you know everything there is to know about Scripture that anyone has ever known. lol
I hope you get a chance to check out the .pdf file I shared.
I'll check it out.
I meant the Trinity doctrine makes no sense to me.Actually, it makes perfect sense that God lives in the "Now". We too in a certain way live it to it as well, though our awareness is quite restricted. Think of salvation and it will start to make more sense...or maybe not. lol
The problem I find with that is that the hierarchy idea is just another evolution of the doctrine, People keep trying to make it fit with Scripture and as such the doctrine keeps evolving. When the doctrine was codified, it read,I too felt that way, but unlike you, I made no decision to disbelieve the Trinity as a doctrine and move on to another doctrine of belief concerning God. As I mentioned before, until I was told the "Hierarchy," I neither professed faith in the Trinity nor rejected it. What I could say was that I did not know for certain.
With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><
"And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal.
"Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood."
According to the doctrine there is no hierarchy. They are all coequal. None is before and none is after. Yet today we have this idea of a hierarchy. This is simply an evolution of the doctrine. This begs the question, which version, if any, is from the Holy Spirit? If it's not the first one, then the second one cannot be true. If the Trinity doctrine that was codified in the 5th century is not the true doctrine, then the one that evolved from it cannot be true. That means the one that evolved cannot be of the Spirit since it states the opposite of the codified version.