Topic: Question on the Holy Trinity

[pTrader]

^ may shinare ako na Donya Santibanez meme sa FB regarding sa Heb 1:8 vs. Felix Manalo(screengrab sa FM movie with Dennis Trillo) hehe

Yung Trono pala ang interpretation ng INC na tinatawag na "Diyos" pala diyan eh noh?

Taken from the Moffat and the Godspeed version..

[pTrader]

To all who believes:

If the Holy Trinity postulates 3 equal Gods which existed co-equally even prior to creation, and Jesus Christ, the God with flesh, is supposed to be God the son, then who was God the son before the birth of Christ?

Thanks to anybody who will respond.

then who was God the son before the birth of Christ?


Old Testament:

Isa 48:
12“Listen to me, Jacob,
Israel, whom I have called:
I am he;
I am the first and I am the last.


Isaiah 44:6“This is what the Lord says—
Israel’s King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty:
I am the first and I am the last;
apart from me there is no God.

New Testament:

Rev 22:12“Look, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what they have done. 13I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
 
Rev 1:17When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. 18I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

Rev 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”



Old Testament:

Isa 48:
13My own hand laid the foundations of the earth,
and my right hand spread out the heavens;
when I summon them,
they all stand up together.

New Testament:

8But of the Son he says,

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
 9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”
 
10And,

“You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,
and the heavens are the work of your hands;
 11they will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment,
 12like a robe you will roll them up,
like a garment they will be changed.a
But you are the same,
and your years will have no end.”


He is the Son who is God and who is Lord.

[barrister]

^ may shinare ako na Donya Santibanez meme sa FB regarding sa Heb 1:8 vs. Felix Manalo(screengrab sa FM movie with Dennis Trillo) hehe

Yung Trono pala ang interpretation ng INC na tinatawag na "Diyos" pala diyan eh noh?

Ganon na nga... 

Bigyan ko muna ng intro, kasi hindi masasakyan ng ibang members na hindi masyadong mahilig sa relihiyon.
 
Alam natin na ang INC ay unique na relihiyon sa mga tinatawag ang sarili na "Kristiyano," dahil sa paniniwalang si Kristo ay hindi Diyos, kundi taong-tao lang.

Pag kinontra mo, tatadtarin ka ng mga proof verses nila, na madali lang namang depensahan, pero kung hindi ka sanay sa debate sa bibliya, ay talaga namang matatabunan ka.

Isa sa mga proof verses kontra sa INC, na nagpapatunay na Diyos si Kristo, ay ito:

8 But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom. (Heb. 1:8, NIV)

Madali lang namang intindihin ang sitas. Ang sabi ng Ama sa Anak --- Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever.  E di ang tawag ng Ama sa Anak ay Diyos din.

Malaking problema sa INC. Paano nila ngayong sasabihin na hindi Diyos si Kristo?

Ang solusyon ng INC --- mali raw ang translation. Ganito raw ang tamang translation:

he says of the Son, 'God is thy throne for ever and ever, thy royal sceptre is the sceptre of equity (Heb. 1:8, Moffatt)

Ang Diyos daw na tinutukoy ay ang Ama, hindi ang Anak.  Ang Ama na Diyos ang siyang trono ng Anak na tao.
 
Ang lumalabas, inuupuan ng Anak yung Ama.  Bastos na Anak pala yon.  Biro mo, mas mataas sa kanya ang Ama, pero inupuan lang niya ang Ama...    
 
Hindi totoo na tama ang translation ng Heb. 1:8 sa Moffatt Version.

Ang totoo, pag kinumpara sa original Greek, ang Moffatt ang version na mali --- http://biblehub.com/interlinear/hebrews/1.htm

Kaya nga yung ibang bible versions ay nagkakasundo sa tamang translation --- http://biblehub.com/hebrews/1-8.htmn

Other versions with the same translation error are the AAT (An American Translation) and NWT (New World Translation).

Moffatt (a one-man translation by James Moffatt); AAT New Testament (another one-man translation by Goodspeed); and NWT (by the Jehovah's Witnesses) are unreliable bible versions.

Heb. 1:8 is a quotation of Psalm 45:6.  Notice that Psalm 45:6 says the same thing:

6 Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom. (Psalm 45:6, NIV)

[rexFi]

nashare ko lang po din sa FB yon habang nangyayari yung pagka"inis" ng mga tao sa INC(actually lets call them INM from now on, apologies to our INC friends) dahil sa Edsa vs De Lima debacle.

[barrister]

Ang alam ko, offensive sa kanila yung tawaging INM.  Kaya iniiwasan ko ang ganon.

Para sa akin, kung pipintasan sila, dapat may matibay na batayan kung bakit natin sinasabing mali sila.  Hindi yung basta sasabihin na weirdo sila sa paniniwalang tao si Kristo.  Dapat alam natin ang mga talatang batayan nila, at kaya nating tumapat ng katuwiran sa katuwiran.  Otherwise, name-calling lang yon.

As for the INC rally, kita na natin ngayon kung ano ang naging deal sa Malacanang.  De Lima will resign early, will file charges against MILF members for the SAF 44 case, and will allow the next DOJ secretary to resolve the cases against the INC Sanggunian.

Sabi ni de Lima prior to the INC rallies, she will resign "early October" (presumably Oct. 11, since CoC filing will be on Oct. 12-16) to file her certificate of candidacy for the senate elections.  After the INC ended their rallies, de Lima said it is not true that there was a deal for her early resignation.  She later resigned as DOJ secretary on Sept. 24.

Before resigning, she filed charges on Sept 22 against 90 MILF & BIFF members for the SAF 44 case, but did not start preliminary investigations on the INC Sanggunian case.

Di ba ganon nga ang reklamo ng INC, bakit daw inuuna ang INC Sanggunian, samantalang hindi raw nakakasuhan ang MILF?

[pTrader]

Ganon na nga... 

Bigyan ko muna ng intro, kasi hindi masasakyan ng ibang members na hindi masyadong mahilig sa relihiyon.
 
Alam natin na ang INC ay unique na relihiyon sa mga tinatawag ang sarili na "Kristiyano," dahil sa paniniwalang si Kristo ay hindi Diyos, kundi taong-tao lang.

Pag kinontra mo, tatadtarin ka ng mga proof verses nila, na madali lang namang depensahan, pero kung hindi ka sanay sa debate sa bibliya, ay talaga namang matatabunan ka.

Isa sa mga proof verses kontra sa INC, na nagpapatunay na Diyos si Kristo, ay ito:

8 But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom. (Heb. 1:8, NIV)

Madali lang namang intindihin ang sitas. Ang sabi ng Ama sa Anak --- Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever.  E di ang tawag ng Ama sa Anak ay Diyos din.

Malaking problema sa INC. Paano nila ngayong sasabihin na hindi Diyos si Kristo?

Ang solusyon ng INC --- mali raw ang translation. Ganito raw ang tamang translation:

he says of the Son, 'God is thy throne for ever and ever, thy royal sceptre is the sceptre of equity (Heb. 1:8, Moffatt)

Ang Diyos daw na tinutukoy ay ang Ama, hindi ang Anak.  Ang Ama na Diyos ang siyang trono ng Anak na tao.
 
Ang lumalabas, inuupuan ng Anak yung Ama.  Bastos na Anak pala yon.  Biro mo, mas mataas sa kanya ang Ama, pero inupuan lang niya ang Ama...    
 
Hindi totoo na tama ang translation ng Heb. 1:8 sa Moffatt Version.

Ang totoo, pag kinumpara sa original Greek, ang Moffatt ang version na mali --- http://biblehub.com/interlinear/hebrews/1.htm

Kaya nga yung ibang bible versions ay nagkakasundo sa tamang translation --- http://biblehub.com/hebrews/1-8.htmn

Other versions with the same translation error are the AAT (An American Translation) and NWT (New World Translation).

Moffatt (a one-man translation by James Moffatt); AAT New Testament (another one-man translation by Goodspeed); and NWT (by the Jehovah's Witnesses) are unreliable bible versions.

Heb. 1:8 is a quotation of Psalm 45:6.  Notice that Psalm 45:6 says the same thing:

6 Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom. (Psalm 45:6, NIV)

Thanks for including Psalms 45:6

[pTrader]

Dealing with Moffat Version of Heb 1:8 granting their explanation about "'God is thy throne for ever and ever" but still verse 10 is resounding. INC will only stop at verse 8 and will not continue upto the last verse of Chapter 1.


8 he says of the Son, 'God is thy throne for ever and ever, thy royal sceptre is the sceptre of equity: 9 thou hast loved justice and hated lawlessness, therefore God, thy God, has consecrated thee with the oil of rejoicing beyond thy comrades' —

10 and, 'Thou didst found the earth at the beginning, O Lord, and the heavens are the work at thy hands; 11 they will perish, but thou remainest, they will all be worn out like a garment, 12 thou wilt roll them up like a mantle and they win be changed, but thou art the same, and thy years will never fail.'

Who has found the earth and who has created the heavens, the Son.

[pTrader]

INC will also throw Goodspeed version with the same Heb 1:8 argument but skipping verse 10.

Goodspeed:

Heb1:8 But of the Son he says, "God is your throne forever and ever! And a righteous scepter is the scepter of his kingdom!

9 You have loved right and hated wrong! That is why God, your God, has anointed you with exhilarating oil beyond all your comrades."

10 And "You, Lord, in the beginning founded the earth, And the sky is the work of your hands!

11 They will perish, but you continue! And they will all wear out like a coat,

12 And you will fold them up like a mantle, And change them as one changes his coat. But you are always the same, and your years will have no end!"

Moffatt (a one-man translation by James Moffatt); AAT New Testament (another one-man translation by Goodspeed); and NWT (by the Jehovah's Witnesses) are unreliable bible versions.

even unreliable bible version cannot escape the fact that Jesus is Lord and Jesus is Creator.

[jerix]

What should have been the intention of the creator why he has made himself just like the form of his creation and not explain this very clearly, which as a result is creating the divisiveness of his creations?

[barrister]

Can you give an example?  I might have misunderstood.

You mean the bible does not explain clearly that the Son is God?

[Nelson de Leon]

What should have been the intention of the creator why he has made himself just like the form of his creation and not explain this very clearly, which as a result is creating the divisiveness of his creations?

Can you give an example?  I might have misunderstood.

You mean the bible does not explain clearly that the Son is God?

I think what sir Jerix meant was why God (creator) has to become a man (just like the form of His creation).

[barrister]

I think what sir Jerix meant was why God (creator) has to become a man (just like the form of His creation).

If so, then I can't answer him.  That's because I disagree with his premise.

His premise is already based on a belief in either Trinitarianism or Unitarianism, but I don't believe in either doctrine.

[jerix]

I have to make this clear so that theologians here can answer.

There has always been a division among the Christians so that while some believe that Jesus is man, the others believe that Jesus is God. The basis of those belief is the bible and this is the only known basis of the faith. The bible has been the source of the division of Christians. It seems to me that this was not anticipated by the creator to whom we Christians address the faith. I believe it is not the intention of God that he be misunderstood. Because i think in the end he wants all of us to go back to him clean, unless what i am thinking is wrong. So why did he not talk and explain clearly before about his true nature and avoid confusion?

Does it really matter for him if some would consider him God and some consider him man only? or some would consider him 3 in 1, etc.?

[barrister]

I disagree with that view.

The bible explains that Jesus Christ is God.  Any confusion about Jesus' nature is not sourced from a correct understanding of scripture.

It is true that it is not plainly stated for everyone to easily understand, but that is God's intention --- not because He did not anticipate the confusion, but because His word was not intended for outsiders:


‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’ 10 Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed. (Is. 6:9-10)

11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see;  though hearing, they do not hear or understand. 14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: “‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. 15 For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’ (Mt. 13:11-15)


=======================================


Give us one bible citation that you think best proves Jesus Christ is not God, and I'll explain why it does not disprove His divinity. 

It's not a challenge.  I know that you have a neutral stand on this issue.  I just want to show you that there is no confusion in the bible about Jesus Christ's nature.

[romeoalltheway]

This topic has been debated for centuries by theologians,  philosophers and plebeans alike. Questions galore ad infinitum et ad nauseum. Never has there been a conclusion while every answer only led to more questions. But indeed why not? Thinking sets us apart from animals.

[barrister]

Nothing unusual there.  There are many other biblical issues that will never find unanimous agreement.

In this forum, nobody has ever changed his mind about his religious beliefs just because somebody posted a contrary explanation.  That's expected.

Existence of God lang nga hindi pa magkasundo, nature of Jesus Christ pa kaya ang mapagkasunduan...

[jerix]

I disagree with that view.

The bible explains that Jesus Christ is God.  Any confusion about Jesus' nature is not sourced from a correct understanding of scripture.

It is true that it is not plainly stated for everyone to easily understand, but that is God's intention --- not because He did not anticipate the confusion, but because His word was not intended for outsiders:

This is the question i have always been thinking, if he perfectly created man into his image what is the role of these OUTSIDERS in his own world? Did he create lemons?Apparently, he only gave the knowledge and wisdom of the secrets of his kingdom to the few. It appears that we have a very bias God. He created man with predestined faith; those chosen and those that would go to hell.

This is the reason why i do not have the intention to join any religious group today. I believe that it would be best for my spirit just to believe the existence of a God who will judge me based on what I do to my fellowmen. I just believe that karma would dictate my spiritual fate and not the religion that i belong in this lifetime.

[barrister]

This is the question i have always been thinking, if he perfectly created man into his image what is the role of these OUTSIDERS in his own world? Did he create lemons?Apparently, he only gave the knowledge and wisdom of the secrets of his kingdom to the few.

The outsiders are those who do not believe.  God did not create the outsiders; they themselves by their own free will chose to be outsiders.

God did not give the knowledge to a few that He pre-selected.  He gave the knowledge to the few who by their own free will chose to believe.

It appears that we have a very bias God. He created man with predestined faith; those chosen and those that would go to hell.

God created man with free will.  He did not create man with predestined faith.  Nobody is predestined to heaven or to hell.  Predestination is a false doctrine of Calvinism. It did not come from the bible.  Filipinos learned this Calvinism nonsense from the American Baptists.

Yes, God is biased.  His bias is in favor of those who believe and against those who don't believe.  That's based on man's free will.

This is the reason why i do not have the intention to join any religious group today. I believe that it would be best for my spirit just to believe the existence of a God who will judge me based on what I do to my fellowmen. I just believe that karma would dictate my spiritual fate and not the religion that i belong in this lifetime.

I am not a member of any religious denomination either.  That's because all of the sects that I have studied always have some doctrines that conflict with my understanding of the bible.

You will not understand the bible if you are not interested in the bible.  I said the bible explains that Jesus is God, but you did not ask me to cite any verse explaining that Jesus is God.  I asked you to give a citation saying Jesus is not God, but you did not even make an attempt to do so.

But that's OK.  Your lack of interest is the result your free choice.  You're free to believe or not to believe.

[jerix]

These so called OUTSIDERS i believe do not intend to be so. In fact all believers of Jesus intend to serve him the way they believe would be for the glory of the Christ. In fact nobody can claim authority to say that one is an outsider or not. It would only be the Christ himself who would judge. But all these Christ believers predict that it is them who would be saved by the Christ. So in the belief of a particular group, all those not in the group are outsiders or are not the chosen. If all religious group think that they are the chosen, then no one will go to hell. On the other hand, if all religious groups think that all of those who are outside their group will go to hell, then no one would be saved. 

I cannot cite any particular bible verse to support any doctrine I seem to stand for, other than what the different groups cite, which appear logical to me. There are some thoughts I have which are not supported by bible verses. Maybe because of the limitations of the bible, such as the translation, or even the origin of these scriptures.   

[barrister]

Of course they did not intend to be outsiders.  Why would anyone who wants salvation also want to be an outsider to salvation?

The way I see it, there are 2 alternatives.  Either believe the bible is the word of God, or don't believe the bible is the word of God.

If you think it is not possible to understand the bible or to ascertain the authenticity of scripture, then you should not believe the bible is the word of God. 

Because if the bible is indeed God's word, then God should have made sure that it would be possible to ascertain its authenticity and understand His word.  Otherwise, it would be nonsensical for God to reveal Himself through something that would not be possible for anyone to understand. 

Therefore, if the bible cannot be understood, then it must have been authored by man and not by God.

And if you don't believe the bible is the word of God, that's your free choice, and I respect that viewpoint.

[pTrader]

These so called OUTSIDERS i believe do not intend to be so. In fact all believers of Jesus intend to serve him the way they believe would be for the glory of the Christ. In fact nobody can claim authority to say that one is an outsider or not. It would only be the Christ himself who would judge. But all these Christ believers predict that it is them who would be saved by the Christ. So in the belief of a particular group, all those not in the group are outsiders or are not the chosen. If all religious group think that they are the chosen, then no one will go to hell. On the other hand, if all religious groups think that all of those who are outside their group will go to hell, then no one would be saved. 

I cannot cite any particular bible verse to support any doctrine I seem to stand for, other than what the different groups cite, which appear logical to me. There are some thoughts I have which are not supported by bible verses. Maybe because of the limitations of the bible, such as the translation, or even the origin of these scriptures.

The reason I posted elsewhere to seek Christ not religion.
What is your position in the sight of God can only be answer by you.

Being a member of any religion will not give you assurance of salvation. It is only through Christ.
Yes, you cannot judge a person if he will go to hell simply because you don't know what God is doing in his life.

Take note "‘Salvation comes from the Lord.’ ”

[rexFi]

^ but then a question will now "pop up" like "who" and "what"(nature) of the true Lord is.

And is the knowledge of it important for the individuals/corporate salvation?

[bumblebee]

^ but then a question will now "pop up" like "who" and "what"(nature) of the true Lord is.

And is the knowledge of it important for the individuals/corporate salvation?

It's about salvation. People wanting it should at least know what they're getting themselves into.

[pTrader]

^ Sad but true, people seek salvation not the Saviour

[bumblebee]

^ Sad but true, people seek salvation not the Saviour

I thought you believe in predestination? ie, no need to seek, it'll come eventually.

[rexFi]

As a Trinitarian though imo the ignorance of the technicalities by those who has not studied is ok but having contradictory beliefs is whats dangerous.

anyway...

[pTrader]

I thought you believe in predestination? ie, no need to seek, it'll come eventually.

yes, predestination :

Act 15:14Simona has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
 

16“ ‘After this I will return

and rebuild David’s fallen tent.

Its ruins I will rebuild,

and I will restore it,
 
17that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,

even all the Gentiles who bear my name,

says the Lord, who does these things’b —
 
18things known from long ago.c

[barrister]

^ but then a question will now "pop up" like "who" and "what"(nature) of the true Lord is.

And is the knowledge of it important for the individuals/corporate salvation?

The nature of Christ has relevance to salvation, although the relevance is indirect.

For example, if you believe Christ is only man, and the bible says you should not trust man, then you should not trust Christ:

Cursed is the one who trusts in man (Jer. 17:5)
Do not trust in princes, In mortal man, in whom there is no salvation. (Ps. 146:3)

Therefore, you should not trust Christ for salvation, because you will be cursed if you trust in mortal man, in whom there is no salvation.


======================================


Sabi ni Oprah Winfrey, there are many ways to God:  “One of the mistakes that human beings make is believing that there is only one way to live... there are many paths to what you call God.”

But the bible says there is only one way to God:

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (Jn. 14:6)

If Jesus is a man, and the bible says we should not trust in mortal man, then it cannot be true that Christ is the only way to salvation.

Whom do we believe?  Just take Oprah's New Age advice and do whatever you think is right. 

What do we do with the bible?  OK naman pala ang kahit anong tingin mong tama, e di itapon mo na rin ang bibliya mo...

[pTrader]

^ nasulat na rin:

Pro 14:12There is a way that appears to be right, but in the end it leads to death.

[bumblebee]

yes, predestination :

So you're contradicting yourself?