Who or What is the Trinity ?

. The writer of Hebrews, under the inspiration of the HS, has commanded God's angels to worship the Son. Also, "firstborn" in this case means "highest in rank; first in pre-eminence, the one with the right to rule." Since Jesus is God's ONLY Son.
That is not what it says in the original but rather "and let all the angels of God worship him (God)" and the word "Son" is not used in the text.

The rest of what you said, I pretty much agree with, but the words "Only Begotten Son" do not make Jesus a literal Son of God's own ontology and in fact, when the Jews accused Jesus of making himself equal unto God by calling himself the "Son of God", they didn't get this from their OT Scriptures.


For in their own OT scriptures both David and Solomon are called God's Son in the singular and for David in Psalm 2:7 and for Solomon in 2 Samuel 7:14 and only after them did the writer of Hebrews use these two passage to refer to Jesus also and it is because he was the Son of David and Solomon unto whom the promise of God was made concerning his heir coming from their line of descendants.


Son of God in the OT therefore simply meant "the human heir that was to rule upon the Throne of God over his people first and then also over the whole world through Jesus their greatest descendant and the greatest of anointed human heirs to the throne.

The Jews would have known this but didn't want Jesus to be that heir because they hated him for exposing them as hypocrites in front of all the people and therefore they got their idea about him calling himself God's Son from their Father the Devil and Jesus as Jesus told them also.


John 8:44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!

Therefore the Devil twisted their own OT scriptures in their minds in order to accuse Jesus of something that he wasn't doing at all and that is why he said "when he lies he speaks of himself, for he is a liar and the Father of it".
 
This might help explain things about John 1:1, in a humorous:

Sorry but I am not interested in explanations given by apostate churches on John 1:1-3, for I have God's Holy Spirit working together with the written scriptures to teach me the truth.


John 17:3 "This is eternal life, that they might know you (Father) The Only True God and Jesus the Christ whom you have sent".


John 5:26 "For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has given unto the Son to have life in himself also".


John 6:57 "For just as The Living Father has sent me and I live because of the Father, so he who eats of me shall live because of me".


I would like to call your immediate attention to the words "Just like" in John 6:57, for what Jesus is clearly saying in this verse, is that those who eat of him (receive his sacrifice for their sins) will live because of him JUST LIKE HE LIVES BECAUSE OF THE FATHER AND WHICH CLEARLY MEANS THAT JESUS RECEIVED HIS OWN LIFE FROM THE FATHER THE SAME AS WE WILL THROUGH HIM.
 
That is not what it says in the original but rather "and let all the angels of God worship him (God)" and the word "Son" is not used in the text.

The rest of what you said, I pretty much agree with, but the words "Only Begotten Son" do not make Jesus a literal Son of God's own ontology and in fact, when the Jews accused Jesus of making himself equal unto God by calling himself the "Son of God", they didn't get this from their OT Scriptures.


For in their own OT scriptures both David and Solomon are called God's Son in the singular and for David in Psalm 2:7 and for Solomon in 2 Samuel 7:14 and only after them did the writer of Hebrews use these two passage to refer to Jesus also and it is because he was the Son of David and Solomon unto whom the promise of God was made concerning his heir coming from their line of descendants.


Son of God in the OT therefore simply meant "the human heir that was to rule upon the Throne of God over his people first and then also over the whole world through Jesus their greatest descendant and the greatest of anointed human heirs to the throne.

The Jews would have known this but didn't want Jesus to be that heir because they hated him for exposing them as hypocrites in front of all the people and therefore they got their idea about him calling himself God's Son from their Father the Devil and Jesus as Jesus told them also.


John 8:44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!

Therefore the Devil twisted their own OT scriptures in their minds in order to accuse Jesus of something that he wasn't doing at all and that is why he said "when he lies he speaks of himself, for he is a liar and the Father of it".
I did some research--the "let all God's angels worship him" is absent from Deut. 32:43, apparently in the Masoretic text, but DOES occur in the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is interesting; I will look into it more.

however, Heb. 1 still has God calling His own Son "God." He also attributes something God did, in the OT (vs. 10-12) to the Son, in the NT.

And the writer, inspired by the HS, does say that all God's angels should worship Him.

Son of God means MUCH more than simply the "human heir" who will rule. It means The Messiah, the Word made flesh Who dwelt among us.
 
I did some research--the "let all God's angels worship him" is absent from Deut. 32:43, apparently in the Masoretic text, but DOES occur in the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is interesting; I will look into it more.

however, Heb. 1 still has God calling His own Son "God." He also attributes something God did, in the OT (vs. 10-12) to the Son, in the NT.

And the writer, inspired by the HS, does say that all God's angels should worship Him.

Son of God means MUCH more than simply the "human heir" who will rule. It means The Messiah, the Word made flesh Who dwelt among us.
No, that is not true, for first off, Psalm 45 was written for David's anointed descendants to the throne for their wedding ceremony and secondly it says "Therefore God even your God has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows (other human brothers) and therefore this proves that it was a man and not God who was anointed.


Next, Hebrews 10-12 follows after verse 9 where the writer of Hebrews quoted Psalm 45:7 where he switched referents from the Son to his God that anointed him and it is only at this point that he quotes Psalm 102:25-28 which addresses Yahweh the Son's God who anointed him from verse 9 of Hebrews 1.
 
Sorry but I am not interested in explanations given by apostate churches on John 1:1-3, for I have God's Holy Spirit working together with the written scriptures to teach me the truth.


John 17:3 "This is eternal life, that they might know you (Father) The Only True God and Jesus the Christ whom you have sent".


John 5:26 "For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has given unto the Son to have life in himself also".


John 6:57 "For just as The Living Father has sent me and I live because of the Father, so he who eats of me shall live because of me".



I would like to call your immediate attention to the words "Just like" in John 6:57, for what Jesus is clearly saying in this verse, is that those who eat of him (receive his sacrifice for their sins) will live because of him JUST LIKE HE LIVES BECAUSE OF THE FATHER AND WHICH CLEARLY MEANS THAT JESUS RECEIVED HIS OWN LIFE FROM THE FATHER THE SAME AS WE WILL THROUGH HIM.
There is nothing apostate about the Greek koine language. The Word was God. The great I AM.

God granted that Jesus have life on earth, as the Messiah. But I think John 5:26 is more about Jesus having spiritual life to give to us, which comes from the Father. Not to mention, eternal life after death. Remember what John 1:4 says "In Him was life, and that life was the light of men."

When we believe in Jesus, we too live, spiritually alive and eternally alive after death, because of Jesus.

Nice chatting with you. Thank you for your pleasant demeanor. :)
 
Last edited:
Sorry but I am not interested in explanations given by apostate churches on John 1:1-3, for I have God's Holy Spirit working together with the written scriptures to teach me the truth.
John 17:3 "This is eternal life, that they might know you (Father) The Only True God and Jesus the Christ whom you have sent".
John 5:26 "For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has given unto the Son to have life in himself also".
John 6:57 "For just as The Living Father has sent me and I live because of the Father, so he who eats of me shall live because of me".
I would like to call your immediate attention to the words "Just like" in John 6:57, for what Jesus is clearly saying in this verse, is that those who eat of him (receive his sacrifice for their sins) will live because of him JUST LIKE HE LIVES BECAUSE OF THE FATHER AND WHICH CLEARLY MEANS THAT JESUS RECEIVED HIS OWN LIFE FROM THE FATHER THE SAME AS WE WILL THROUGH HIM.
The only apostate here is you full of puffed up pride and arrogance.
 
No, that is modalism
It is what you described...
David called God the Lord--all caps LORD, meaning YHWH--his SHEPHERD.
Because Jesus did not proceed out from God yet
Jesusus said HE is the good shepherd. 1 Peter 5 has Peter calling Jesus the "chief shepherd."
Yes he is he also said that he came out from God
But Jesus DID call Himself by God's holy covenant Name--"Before Abraham was, I AM."
God never said his name was I Am
But man can--hence, why Jesus became Incarnate AS a man, so He was born of a woman, born under the Law, to redeem us from the curse of the Law, by becoming a curse for us. He kept the Law perfectly AS a man. But He never ceased to be God even in His incarnation, but limited His power and glory in His humbled state--He "who was rich became poor, for our sakes."
You just described Jesus being his own father...
 
There is nothing apostate about the Greek koine language. The Word was God. The great I AM.
I have no problem with the word being God in the beginning, I also don't have a problem with the Logos still remaining God in God's own nature, for God himself cannot change.

The problem is, that John never said that the word remained God when it was "made" "ginomai" flesh and that word "made or became" is the Greek word "ginomai" and it is used in the NT 670 times and never is it defined or translated to mean that one substance is only added to another while both substances remain distinct from one another".



What it does mean in cases like John 1:14 however, is that when the Logos became flesh, it changed in its substance and just like it meant also when Jesus made the water into wine.

I have looked at every passage where this words "ginomia" is used and it doesn't mean what trins believe John 1:14 is saying period.
 
There is nothing apostate about the Greek koine language. The Word was God. The great I AM.

God granted that Jesus have life on earth, as the Messiah. But I think John 5:26 is more about Jesus having spiritual life to give to us, which comes from the Father. Not to mention, eternal life after death. Remember what John 1:4 says "In Him was life, and that life was the light of men."

When we believe in Jesus, we too live, spiritually alive and eternally alive after death, because of Jesus.

Nice chatting with you. Thank you for your pleasant demeanor. :)
Sorry but that doesn't cover John 6:57 where Jesus said "just as" he Jesus lives because of the Father, so will we live because of him if we received his flesh and blood sacrifice for our sins.


This very clearly reveals that Jesus received his life for himself from God in the same way that we will from him if we truly believe on God through him and accept his atonement for our sins.
 
The bold in red above is not true at all and you can check this out yourself, for in every other place where the writer of Hebrews compares the angels with the Son, he uses passages from the OT and there is no passage in the OT for the above in red.

The reason why there is none, is because in this case the writer was giving a quote from Luke 2:

Luke 2:11 Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord. 12 This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.”

13 Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying,

14 “Glory to God in the highest heaven,
and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.”

15 When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let’s go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about.”


Notice who was worshiped at the birth of Jesus, for it wasn't Jesus but rather the Father and it was done as a sign to those who saw and heard it.


You will not find any other passage where it says Jesus was worshiped by the angels when he was born and like I said, the writer always gave an OT reference when comparing the angels to the Son but not here and that is because it was something that all of the disciples passed on by word of mouth and which was then written in Luke 2:11-15.
It was The Father, Son, Holy Spirit Who worshipped at the birth of Christ.
ALL three Persons were present at His conception.
 
I have no problem with the word being God in the beginning, I also don't have a problem with the Logos still remaining God in God's own nature, for God himself cannot change.

The problem is, that John never said that the word remained God when it was "made" "ginomai" flesh and that word "made or became" is the Greek word "ginomai" and it is used in the NT 670 times and never is it defined or translated to mean that one substance is only added to another while both substances remain distinct from one another".



What it does mean in cases like John 1:14 however, is that when the Logos became flesh, it changed in its substance and just like it meant also when Jesus made the water into wine.

I have looked at every passage where this words "ginomia" is used and it doesn't mean what trins believe John 1:14 is saying period.
God NEVER ceases to be God, and The Word did NOT change His substance.
 
No, that is modalism.

David called God the Lord--all caps LORD, meaning YHWH--his SHEPHERD. Jesus said HE is the good shepherd. 1 Peter 5 has Peter calling Jesus the "chief shepherd."

No, if you are talking about Psalm 110:1 the word for Lord is not Yahweh in the case of Jesus but Adon and not Adonay but Adon and the capitals are added by the Translators.
But Jesus DID call Himself by God's holy covenant Name--"Before Abraham was, I AM."

Not hardly because Jesus was speaking of Abraham seeing his day in a vision and not seeing him personally and it was only upon their twisting his words when they said "you are not yet 50 years old and you have seen Abraham" that Jesus said this and he was still speaking of God's vision that he gave unto Abraham when he said it also.

In other words, in God's vision, foreknowledge and plan, "before Abraham was, Jesus was foreordained to be standing in front of them in the first person present tense".

Kind of like when in Jeremiah 1:5 God told Jeremiah, before I formed you in the womb I knew you (intimately), for it is the same word used of a husband knowing his wife sexually.

See also Paul's words in Romans 8:29, for Jesus the man was the very model that God predestined all others who would be his elect sons, to be conformed to the image of and that included Abraham also, and thus before Abraham was in God's vision and plan, Jesus is and thus he is called the firstborn because of that.
But man can--hence, why Jesus became Incarnate AS a man, so He was born of a woman, born under the Law, to redeem us from the curse of the Law, by becoming a curse for us. He kept the Law perfectly AS a man. But He never ceased to be God even in His incarnation, but limited His power and glory in His humbled state--He "who was rich became poor, for our sakes."

The only thing that was incarnated was a copy into flesh of the Logos that was God and remained God in God's nature.


Hebrews 1:3 is actually revealing the same thing also, for when it says in the translations "and the express image of his person" that word for "express image" is the Greek word "charakter" and which was used to speak of an image from one substance being pressed and copied into another substance.

It was used to speak of the images of the emperors of Rome copied and pressed into the coins or the image on a signet ring pressed into a wax seal, but it never referred to anything that was not copied, for the word is not used that way at all.


Also anytime you want to discuss Philippians 2:5-8, let me know, for I can show you by the very Greek words used by Paul and the context, that Paul wasn't even speaking of the nature or ontology of Jesus at all but only his God given authority and it was that which he humbled himself in and not any attributes as being God, for Paul was never saying that he was God.


For starters that word "huparchon" which is translated as "being or existing" in verse 6, is used better than 60 times in the NT and it means "to begin quietly under" and it is never used of anything that never had a beginning either.

For this reason it is also only used of God twice, once in Acts 17:24 "God who created the world, is (huparchon) Lord of heaven and earth" and do notice that God only began to exist (huparchon) as the Lord of heaven and earth after he created it first and that is why Paul speaks of him creating it first in the verse.


Then it is used again by Paul in Acts 17:27 when he says "he (God) is (huparchon) not far from any of us" and notice again, that he only began to be exist not far from any of us after he first created us.

So you see that the word is only ever used of things that began and it is never used of God to speak of his purely eternal existence and that is also why Paul used in in Philippians 2:6 for Jesus, because he had a beginning of his existence and did not exist eternally like your churches are falsely teaching.


Then you have that word "morphe" translated "form" and which makes no sense at all for Paul to use if he was truly saying that Jesus pre existed as God and then became a man, for if he wanted to say that, he certainly wouldn't have used the word "morphe" at all and wouldn't have needed to either.

For the word "morphe" doesn't mean nature as in actual ontology or substance but only the characteristics or appearance of a substance instead and I can also prove this by how the word is used in other places of the NT.

Notice also, Jesus explained why in John 14:8-10 when they saw him they saw the Father also and he never said that it was because he also was God but rather this is what he said in verse 10, "the words that I speak unto you, I speak not of myself, it is the Father who dwells within me, he is doing the works".

So we see here why and in what way Paul is describing Jesus as beginning in the form of God, it was because God as the Father was dwelling within him and revealing himself through Jesus by the works that he was doing and Jesus even told us this more than once also.


Notice also in Acts 2:22, that Peter says the same exact thing, that the miracles were not done by Jesus but by the Father who was dwelling within him and revealing himself through the miracles done through Christ.

Acts 2:22 “Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.

Anyhow, this is a good start, and whenever you want to go further, let me know, for I would be glad to discuss this with you any time.
 
Last edited:
Exodus 3
Jewish Publication Society Exo 3:14 And God said unto Moses: 'I AM THAT I AM'; and He said: 'Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel: I AM hath sent me unto you.'
where does it say God said my name is I Am ?...suppose I say that I Am a welder does that mean my name is welder?
CJB
God said further to Moshe, “Say this to the people of Isra’el: ‘Yud-Heh-Vav-Heh [Adonai], the God of your fathers, the God of Avraham, the God of Yitz’chak and the God of Ya‘akov, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever; this is how I am to be remembered generation after generation.
ERV
And God said, “Tell the Israelites that you were sent by Yahweh, the God of your ancestors—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob. This will always be my name. It is how I want the people to remember me from now on.
NOG
Again Elohim said to Moses, “This is what you must say to the people of Israel: Yahweh Elohim of your ancestors, the Elohim of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, has sent me to you. This is my name forever. This is my title throughout every generation.

It is right there in the front of you yet you choose to ignore it.
 
No, if you are talking about Psalm 110:1 the word for Lord is not Yahweh in the case of Jesus but Adon and not Adonay but Adon and the capitals are added by the Translators.


Not hardly because Jesus was speaking of Abraham seeing his day in a vision and not seeing him personally and it was only upon their twisting his words when they said "you are not yet 50 years old and you have seen Abraham" that Jesus said this and he was still speaking of God's vision that he gave unto Abraham when he said it also.

In other words, in God's vision, foreknowledge and plan, "before Abraham was, Jesus was foreordained to be standing in front of them in the first person present tense".

Kind of like when in Jeremiah 1:5 God told Jeremiah, before I formed you in the womb I knew you (intimately), for it is the same word used of a husband knowing his wife sexually.

See also Paul's words in Romans 8:29, for Jesus the man was the very model that God predestined all others who would be his elect sons, to be conformed to the image of and that included Abraham also, and thus before Abraham was in God's vision and plan, Jesus is and thus he is called the firstborn because of that.


The only thing that was incarnated was a copy into flesh of the Logos that was God and remained God in God's nature.


Hebrews 1:3 is actually revealing the same thing also, for when it says in the translations "and the express image of his person" that word for "express image" is the Greek word "charakter" and which was used to speak of an image from one substance being pressed and copied into another substance.

It was used to speak of the images of the emperors of Rome copied and pressed into the coins or the image on a signet ring pressed into a wax seal, but it never referred to anything that was not copied, for the word is not used that way at all.


Also anytime you want to discuss Philippians 2:5-8, let me know, for I can show you by the very Greek words used by Paul and the context, that Paul wasn't even speaking of the nature or ontology of Jesus at all but only his God given authority and it was that which he humbled himself in and not any attributes as being God, for Paul was never saying that he was God.


For starters that word "huparchon" which is translated as "being or existing" in verse 6, is used better than 60 times in the NT and it means "to begin quietly under" and it is never used of anything that never had a beginning either.

For this reason it is also only used of God twice, once in Acts 17:24 "God who created the world, is (huparchon) Lord of heaven and earth" and do notice that God only began to exist (huparchon) as the Lord of heaven and earth after he created it first and that is why Paul speaks of him creating it first in the verse.


Then it is used again by Paul in Acts 17:27 when he says "he (God) is (huparchon) not far from any of us" and notice again, that he only began to be exist not far from any of us after he first created us.

So you see that the word is only ever used of things that began and it is never used of God to speak of his purely eternal existence and that is also why Paul used in in Philippians 2:6 for Jesus, because he had a beginning of his existence and did not exist eternally like your churches are falsely teaching.


Then you have that word "morphe" translated "form" and which makes no sense at all for Paul to use if he was truly saying that Jesus pre existed as God and then became a man, for if he wanted to say that, he certainly wouldn't have used the word "morphe" at all and wouldn't have needed to either.

For the word "morphe" doesn't mean nature as in actual ontology or substance but only the characteristics or appearance of a substance instead and I can also prove this by how the word is used in other places of the NT.

Notice also, Jesus explained why in John 14:8-10 when they saw him they saw the Father also and he never said that it was because he also was God but rather this is what he said in verse 10, "the words that I speak unto you, I speak not of myself, it is the Father who dwells within me, he is doing the works".

So we see here why and in what way Paul is describing Jesus as beginning in the form of God, it was because God as the Father was dwelling within him and revealing himself through Jesus by the works that he was doing and Jesus even told us this more than once also.


Notice also in Acts 2:22, that Peter says the same exact thing, that the miracles were not done by Jesus but by the Father who was dwelling within him and revealing himself through the miracles done through Christ.

Acts 2:22 “Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.

Anyhow, this is a good start, and whenever you want to go further, let me know, for I would be glad to discuss this with you any time.
John 8:58 has NOTHING to do with any foreknowledge or foreordination. Sheer fiction.
And The ONE and ONLY Lord is The Lord of heaven and earth.
 
Isaiah 42:8

I am the Lord; that is my name;
my glory I give to no other,
nor my praise to carved idols.
You should do a little research before you answer in ignorance...https://biblehub.com/lexicon/isaiah/42-8.htm
NOG
I am Yahweh; that is my name. I will not give my glory to anyone else or the praise I deserve to idols.
YLT
I [am] Jehovah, this [is] My name, And Mine honour to another I give not, Nor My praise to graven images.
ERV
“I am Yahweh. That is my name. I will not give my glory to another. I will not let statues take the praise that should be mine.
 
Back
Top