In article , James says...
>
>
>
>On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 20:33:46 +0000 (UTC), Gemini_Styles{at}webtv.net
>(Gemini Styles) wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Some scholars believe that although Jesus was/is God and man
>>simultaneously, He did not operate as God on earth.  I would like to
>>know what everyone's take is regarding this matter?
>
>Hello,
>
>The Bible does not support the belief that Jesus was God.

Yes it does.

> Rather the
>Bible tells us that they are two separate persons.

No. It sometimes refers to them as distinct, but sometimes as identical. That
_is_ the central difficulty. How do we deal with this difficulty? By recognizing
that they are Trinity.

> You can see this for
>yourself.

What we can "see for ourselves" is that even in ONE VERSE, Father
and Son are
referred to BOTH as distinct AND as IDENTICAL!

This passage is the much celebrated John 1:1

   In the beginning was the Word
   And the word was with God (distinct)
   And the Word WAS God (identity)

>The Bible tells us that God has always existed. Ps 90:2,

And John 1:1 agrees with this. "In the beginning was the Word".

>"Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the
>world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God." (NIV)
>
>But that Jesus was created by God. Col 1:15,
>
>"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."
>(NASB)

There is NOTHING here to imply that He was _created_.


>Thus Jesus cannot be God since Jesus had a beginning.

Your premise is wrong so your conclusion is wrong also.
>
>The popular Trinity doctrine is a creation of men,

Only the _word_ Trinity is "a creation of men". The doctrine
itself is divinely
revealed.

> trying the merge the
>two (three) into one substance.

No, there is no _merging_ here. You really don't understand Trinity, do you? How
typical for a JW.

> That doctrine came into being at the
>Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.

Nonsense. Both Tertullian and Theophilus were using the word already over a
hundred years before Nicaea.

 That is well over 200 years AFTER the
>Bible was written. Those are the facts, and true believers accept God's
>word, over that of men.

No, those are NOT the facts, as I havce just shown.

>
>Notice also this popular encyclopedia, The New Encyclopædia
>Britannica:

But notice that however popular this citation is in JW tracts, it does NOT say
the same as you JWs do!

>
>"Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears
>in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to
>contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord
>our God is one Lord' (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed
>gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . .
>By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took
>substantially the form it has maintained ever since." (1976,
>Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.)


How could you fail to notice the difference? This article NEVER denies that the
Trinity doctrine itself is both true and in the NT. It is only the _explicit_
doctrine, and the _modern_ form that are new.

>Thus accepting the Trinity doctrine is more a matter of faith, than of
>Biblical evidence.

And how else do you dream of accepting biblical evidence if not as a matter of
faith? No matter how hard you strain, you cannot fool us into swallowing this
camel.

[snip]


-- 
---------------------------
Subudcat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.   )))


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/1/05 9:34:37 AM ---