sonofarthur

actually, mathematics is man-made too. I am a math teacher so let me explain. The laws of arithmetic are not man-made, so 1 plus 1 always equals 2 (according to how we have generally agreed to express that truth). Mathematics though, or the way in which we solve problems and express said solutions, IS man-made. Logic, as a concept that reflects how the world NORMALLY operates, i.e. cause and effect, was not man-made but natural (God-made). Logic though is not a concept, but the communication or expression of this interaction. When I say "man-made logic" I am referring to the way we describe the cause and effect, whys, and wherefores of ideas. This is kind of abstract. I'm sorry. It has been a long idea. There are three methods of reasoning (proof) that are conventional (agreed upon generally) within logic. They are: Deductive Reasoning, Inductive Reasoning, and Proof by contradiction. Deductive Reasoning is solid. When it is used it is easy to test its validity. Inductive Reasoning predicting the behavior of the whole by observing the parts; finding a trend. The problem with inductive reasoning is that it is built upon the assumption that what is being tested in uniform and unchanging, which is not always the case. When using inductive reasoning, one has to make sure that the system being tested is closed. Proof by contradiction is especially tricky. But, it is my favorite. This kind of proof is the only way that you can test your assumptions. If your assumptions logically derive two statements that exclusive (both can't be right simultaneously) then there is some flaw in your set of assumptions. The difficulty in this type of reasoning is that it can be suprisingly difficult to identify a true contradiction. All three methods of reasoning are built upon underlying assumptions. If those assumptions are off, then the whole building is suspect.

It seems that the other thread I started has started to die down... so I thought I would bring up another topic close to my heart... I think a lot of times students of the Bible make mistakes in their reading of the Bible on certain topics because of the false logic that they employ in their studies. We need to remember, that logic itself is manmade and thus fallible. That being said, there are certain things that are inherently true that can be determined from the proper use of the laws of logic. What is logic. The word itself derives from a word many of us here have studied, "logos" (greek). Logos generally means a communication or transmission of information about a particular topic. For example, as THE LOGOS of God, Jesus is the communication from God of Himself to mankind. The laws of logic, which in their foundation are truely mathematical, are the standards by which men can draw conclusions from their assumptions. When the laws are followed, the conclusion is valid. If the assumptions are wrong, then the conclusion might be wrong even though the conclusion is VALIDLY drawn. On the other hand, IF the assumptions are correct, then valid conclusions are correct. Conclusions that are valid based solely upon correct assumptions, are called SOUND conclusions. By studying this very issue, I was able to find the errors in TWI's teaching regarding the deity of Jesus. The problem with VPW's JCING is that his conclusions ARE valid, but his assumptions are flawed. Many people from a WAY background have an extremely HARD time discarding TWI teaching on this topic. I believe that this is because they cannot find the logical errors within JCING. The problem is that they are examining the logic, and not evaluating the assumptions underlying the book. VPW, never laid out his assumptions. I am not even sure that he realized that he was making certain extrabiblical assumptions.

someone mentioned Way myspacers. Where would we find them? I don't have much experience with myspace. I went there once and kept getting sent nasty pictures from people asking me to be their friend. I already have that kind of friend (my wife) and I don't want anymore. then again, if I could figure out how to block the spammers on MySpace, I would love to use the service.

year2027, good point!! Often the Bible is written from God's perspective, and He sees us from the perspective of what we will ultimately be. Thus, God doesn't delineate for us in flashing yellow lights the different tenses of salvation. Often our confusion is the result of the fact that we are trapped in the flow of time trying to comprehend timeless truth.

Oak, You have asked good questions. You have asked where the Bible clear lays out the how of the Trinity. I think there are some partial answers in the scripture. To some degree God's answer is "we see in a glass dimly, but then we shall see face to face" (2 Corinthians). While that may not be the best answer we want, it is probably the best answer that we are given. That being said, there are clues given within the scripture as the how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit interact with each other. The Father sent the Son. The Father sends the HS on the request of the Son. The HS doesn't speak of his own initiative but speaks on behalf of both the Father AND the Son. The HS directs and leads the believer. I remember somewhere that the marriage relationship has been given as a picture of Christ and His Church. In the same passage, this relationship of oneness is also used to symbolize the relationship between the Father and the Son. (I will give verse references later if you request. I am at work and don't have my books with me and don't want to misquote.) I appreciate your question Oak. But listen. Just because the HOW is not clearly defined and layed out in scripture does NOT give anyone warrant to deny that which IS clearly laid out in scripture. THAT Jesus is God is clear in scripture. HOW He is God and man simultaneously is NOT clearly laid out. Men have tried to logically deduce some of the answers to HOW. To some extent, I think they are right. At times, they have missed the mark. That there is only ONE God is clear in scripture. Tbone has done a decent job at defining what the Bible means by "one". There can be no division in oneness, but when we say that God is one we don't mean one in person or will. It is CLEAR in scripture that Jesus prays to, talks to, received orders from, relies upon, and even worships the Father. Thus, it can easily and rightly be derived that the Father and the Son are distinct in some way. But to take this distinction so far as to conclude that Jesus is somehow a lesser or secondary or different god is to contradict the clear verses. Here is the problem as I see it: men want to have all the answers. When we don't understand things we tend to discount it. We HAVE been given ENOUGH information to know WHO God is, but we do not understand HOW God is who He is. Thus, we need Faith. Someone shared a good piece of wisdom with me when I was struggling with this topic: If we could understand God then He would cease to be God. Our minds are too small to understand God entirely. He is simply TOO big and TOO complex. Nevertheless, He relates to us on our level. Our focus should be on the person of Jesus as that is how God has decided to most fully reveal Himself to us. The Father said, "this is my beloved Son, hear ye Him". The Holy Spirit testifies of Jesus. Jesus said of himself, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." If we focus on Jesus, all the rest will become clear in time and eternity. But we must never make the gross error of twisting and denying the clear scriptures that declare WHO Jesus is, just because we cannot understand them.

Good. Keep searching. Let me know what you find. I don't claim to have all the answers. The question of whether or not Jesus had the ability to sin is one of them. That being said, I do think the question is somewhat a moot one. The fact is, whether or not He could have sinned, He never DID. Thus, He was a perfect human and able to atone for the sins of others with His death. When I say that I am satisfied, I don't mean that I am no longer wanting an answer. I only mean that my lack of a clear understanding on this issue does not hinder my willingness or ability to have faith in other things which ARE clear from scripture. I am sure that there are plenty of things in the Bible that I do NOT understand. There are many things that I will NEVER understood in this life, because the Bible doesn't provide CLEAR explanations for everything it says. I don't want to become so focused on the things that are unclear that I fail to embrace and obey the things that ARE clear. Jesus is clearly called God in the Bible. The Bible clearly, and repeatedly claims that there is only one TRUE God. I am left with three options: 1) I can throw away the whole thing (in essence what you are doing if you twist scripture to deny its clear message) 2) I can believe that Jesus is the one True God 3) I can call Jesus a false GOD (this would be even more devastating than #1

T-bone!! Where can I get that book? Thank you for redirecting the conversation in a productive way... I think I allowed myself to get distracted off the topic.

I was planning to stay on one thread at a time, but I couldn't pass this up!! The problem seems to be the method in which teacher success is evaluated. I am a middle school math teacher in Texas and I would say the problems are much worse here than in the NorthEast. I taught HS for 5 years but moved to MS this year after getting fed up with what was sent up to me in the HS. When a teacher tries to use "big words" like horizontal and vertical the students object and stop wanting to work hard. "Why do you use such big words mister?" They would prefer me to use non-mathematical words like "straight" or "flat". In truth, I use both so that they can connect, but I am careful to point out to them that "all lines are straight" and "flat" is an ambiguous term. But then they get even more confused. "What does 'ambiguous' mean?" More and more I am coming to the conclusion that the problem with math is not math, but english. The kids don't know how to communicate, orally or by writing. and yet state tests all use the "big" words. Then the math teacher is held accountable for the failings of the english and reading teachers. UNLESS, that math teacher, like me, takes the time to use big words in the class every day. Then, the students think that the teacher "doesn't know how to teach"! The other fundamental problem is the assumption that ALL students can learn at the same pace with the same circumstances. Studies have shown that 33% of students cannot mentally grasp Algebra until they are 15. Yet, No Child Left Behind mandates that all students take algebra by the time they are in ninth grade (age 14). This sets students up for failure. If we waited one more year, they would be ready. Why is this? one reason: Lawmakers are arrogant and ignore the research so that they can enact laws that make them feel good and get them re-elected.

My friend, that is sophistry. Pure and simple malarky. You are, once again, engaging in an argument from silence. If you want to be technical, I believe the Bible DOES tell us how God (a spirit) became flesh (John 1:14). Even if you discount my reading of John 1:14, which waybrains have all messed up anyway, then you are still left with an argument from silence. I, for one, will not place limits upon God that He has not clearly placed upon Himself. God manifested himself in the flesh realm SEVERAL times in the OT. Consider the burning bush for starters. If you think the bush was really just Spirit, then how did Moses (a natural man) see it? Consider angels: they came into "concretion" (to use VPW's terms) many, many times. Are you saying that Angels can do something that God Himself is UNABLE to do??? Tskk, tskk!! You almost sound Gnostic! Excuse me, but James 1:13 is not a limitation placed upon God, but upon evil. Evil is not strong enough to tempt him. This verse doesn't say that God cannot do something, but that something (evil) cannot do something to God. That is an ad hominem attack. That is another ploy of the Waybrain. If your opponent starts to make too much sense, then just insult him.

What the Hey, I agree that Matthew 4:10 doesn't say that we can only worship God. But what verse from the OT was our Lord referring to? Do you even know? I guess that I will give you some benefit of the doubt.. afterall the verse reference is not too common. You have to go way back to an obscure reference in THE TEN COMMANDMENTS!!!! But like I say, I shouldn't assume that you have ever read those. That would be way too presuming of me. I will quote it for you since it might be hard for you to find: Exodus 20:1-4 1Then God spoke all these words, saying, 2“I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 3“You shall have no other gods £before Me. 4“You shall not make for yourself £an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. 5“You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. Notice that verse 3 says that you should have "no other gods before Me" and then verse 5 reads, "You shall not worship OR serve them..." Jesus WAS saying we should ONLY WORSHIP GOD!!! He was quoting the OT, silly! Someone will ask why Jesus's words sound a little different. Let us not forget, Jesus quoted from the "translation" of his day: The Septuagint. A little got lost in the translation, but we know that Jesus knew and his hearers at the time knew the reference to the OT to which He was referring. It was only the most revered part of the Hebrew scriptures!! Also, it can be well-documented that Jesus would often paraphrase old testament passages to make points knowing full well that his hearers knew the rest of the passage he was paraphrasing. Bible teachers do that today. Paul the Apostle did it too. Certainly in Matthew 4, Jesus knew that Satan knew the reference. Jesus didn't need to get into the hebrew GRAMMAR with the devil to convince him. He just made reference to the SUM AND SUBSTANCE of the word of God from Exodus 20. The principle here is that whenever the NT gives us a quote from the OT, then we should find the reference the quote is from and then read the context of the original verse so we can know what is meant by the person doing the quoting in the NT. I challenge you to demonstrate to me proof that those passages were "forged"! This is SO typical of Way thinking! This is the typical strategy: If the Bible clearly says something that you disagree with, then call it a figure of speech. If you can't find a way to call it a figure of speech, then call it a forgery (you don't need proof for that). If all else fails, just ignore the verse and hope no one ever brings it up. If they do, tell them that they are possessed. (What the Hey hasn't gotten to the last tactic yet, but I thought I would predict it just in case.) One more note, 1 John 5:7 was a forgery. Everyone agrees with that. So don't throw that one at me. But, you were not quoting 1 John 5:7 were you. What evidence do you have that the verse you quoted was a forgery?

Cman, if you want good answers to good questions (which yours seem to be), then you will need to give us a good enough amount of time to respond. I, for one, do not live in front of the monitor. So far, all of the points that What the Hey has brought up have been things I have already prayed through, studied through, and came to a resolution about. But, the exact question you brought up from Hebrews 9:28 is new to me. Thus, I reserve the right to modify my answer later, but let me tell you what this verse does NOT say. Just because Jesus will come in the future without sin does not mean that his first coming was with sin. Just because Jesus will come in the future "unto salvation" does not mean that his first coming was not also "unto salvation". At first consideration of your question I can say that this verse must be understood in the context of Hebrews 9, which is all about Christ fulfilling the duties of the high priest in atoning for our sins. He DID appear with sin (i.e. a sin offering) before the true Holy of Holies. There, after "ascending" to this heavenly temple but before appearing to the eleven and later finally ascending several days later, He offered his own blood (a sin offering) for the salvation of mankind. When He returns He will not need to offer up a sin offering. This has already been accomplished. "Unto Salvation": Our salvation comes in tenses (as I point out in a different thread). Our future salvation (of our bodies) has not occured yet, although it has already been paid for. I am not sure, but perhaps this verse from Hebrews 9 is talking about the future tense of our salvation. At that time our bodies will be redeemed when we are resurrected. Now, I will stop on this tangent. Perhaps we can continue it on another thread. So what!!!?!?!? There is only ONE God!!! Are you suggesting that the Father was engaging in Idolatry? God Forbid!! (exactly)

This issue is a hotly debated issue among trinitarians. I do think it is a secondary point because of the following. Whether or not the Bible calls Jesus "God" is not dependent on whether or not Jesus could sin. If the Bible calls Jesus God, which I contend that it does so clearly repeatedly, then our job is not to use this one issue that we don't understand as justification for the re-writing and twisting of all of the several clear verses declaring Christ's Deity. Another thing VPW did teach correctly is this: we should NEVER interpret clear verses in the light of unclear verses. Instead, we should interpret unclear verses (or concepts) in the light of clear verses (or concepts). I added the phrase "or concepts" in light of my previous post about how the Bible should be used as a manual in interpreting itself. That being said, let us get back to the sub-topic at hand: Clear statements of scripture: 1) Jesus was tempted in all points, but he never sinned (Hebrews) 2) God cannot be tempted to commit evil (James) 3) Jesus is called God (again in Hebrews 1:8 spec, but in several other verses we have made mention of and will again in the future. What is unclear from a direct reading of scripture: How was Jesus tempted? Could Jesus have sinned? (it is clear that he didn't sin, but did he have the ability?) Personally, I think that the second question here is not clearly answered in scripture. I am satisfied with the following conclusion on this matter: "Whether or not Jesus had the ability to sin, it seems clear that he had the ability to NOT sin." It was not Jesus's ability to sin that made him a suitable redeemer... but it was his ability to live a perfect life resisting sin.

I wasn't making that conclusion.. I was only pointing out that your logic would take you there if you followed your stated logic all the way through. I agree that Jesus was sinless. I think that metecho means something different than you do, for other reasons, but that is off topic. Since we agree that Jesus was sinless, I don't think we need to go there right now. So I won't go down that road at present. Now you are the one who is reading INTO this verse (from Numbers) what you understand from the rest of scripture. That is okay. We shouldn't take verses out of the context of the rest of the Bible. But, notice that you sacrifice your original argument here. If YOU say that Numbers 23 is only referring to a certain type of man which you say that Jesus was not, then how can you use this verse to say that Jesus could not be God?? If you have other verses we should discuss them, but I think you just put Numbers 23 to rest. It doesn't prove your point. According to how YOU just interpreted it, it merely says that God is not a man that takes part fully in Adam's Flesh and Blood. Since you say Jesus did not partake fully, then God could be Jesus. I agree. I agree, but his pure blood doesn't mean that He was not God either. You haven't shown this from scripture. So what, so are you and so am I. 1 Thessalonians says that we are spirit, soul, and body. Just because the Bible declares that God is Spirit doesn't preclude Him from being other things as well. This, my friend, is an argument from silence, and it won't fly. The Bible never calls God an Adam but so what. I never claimed that being an Adam made Jesus God. He is God also, but these are not mutually exclusive. Hold the phone! If you are going to place limits on what God can do, then you are going to have to give me verses on that. The only thing that I have ever read that God cannot do is lie.

and yet, Jesus Himself willingly received worship in the Bible, go fig! take a gander at these verses: Matthew 2:11 Matthew 14:33 Matthew 28:9 Matthew 28:17 John 9:38 But when others were worshiped, like other men or angels, they would rebuke the one doing the worshiping: Acts 10:25 is just one example but there are others too. Starbird, the verse you quoted is one of the strongest evidences in the Bible that Jesus is God.

cman-- Let us be clear. Do you believe that Jesus has ever sinned?

You are making two statements that seem to say the same thing. I agree that Jesus was tempted. Being tempted to sin is not the same thing as actually sinning. Jesus was tempted. He just never fell prey to the temptation. He never sinned. Honestly, cman, I don't understand how ANYONE can actually be a born again Christian that thinks that Jesus ever sinned. This is one of the most central tenets of the Faith. Even wayites believe that Jesus was sinless. If Jesus sinned, then He died for his own sin, and then we would still need to pay for ours also!! Perhaps a good side-conversation would be about the definition of death since Wayology honked that one up bigtime too... but I don't think that we need to resolve that one in order to answer the question of whether or not Jesus was God. I would love to have that side topic after we finish this one. However, typing online is NOT my main priority. I don't know about anyone else here since I don't know any of you (except Evan) personally. My main service to the Body is currently reaching out to and sharing the Gospel with Hindus that come to college in the USA and then training them to be disciples of Jesus Christ. I am not here to change anyones mind. I am here to sharpen my own understandings and skill at explaining. In that process I am wanting others to analyze and critique what I have to say (currently about who God is). Honestly, I am finding this thread extremely helpful to me as it forces me to think through and revisit certain verses and ideas that I haven't thought about in a while. Praise God!!

Isn't that the amazing thing? Jesus NEVER sinned. That is why when he did die he wasn't paying for His sins. Thus his payment that legally atone for your sins, as he chooses to do so when you receive his offer of forgiveness. All other humans ARE worthy of death in that they DO sin. I don't see how you can argue with Romans 3:23 when it says that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. The only way you can make an exception to this verse is where the Bible itself makes an exception (i.e. Jesus as we read in Hebrews). Cman, are you saying that you have never sinned?

Cman- I don't see how what I said about Jesus being the second Adam has anything to do with the verse about the pre-fallen perfection of Lucifer that you quoted. When I say that Jesus was a perfect human, what I mean to say is that He was human as human was designed to be. He walked in unfettered communion with the Father through the Holy Spirit. He was sinless. God created man and designed him to perfect. Adam sinned and all humans (except Jesus) have inherited sinfulness from Adam. Romans 5 says, We also read in Romans 3:23 that, The only exception to this rule is the Man Jesus as we read in Hebrews 4:15: Call it what you will (fallen state, depravity, etc), until a person has been redeemed by Christ then he is separated from God and destined to commit sin. Whether he inherits the penalty that Adam earned or not doesn't matter much since every man commits his own sin thus making himself "worthy of death". One more point of clarity: I don't worship Jesus because He was a perfect man. He wasn't the first perfect man. Until Adam sinned he was also a perfect man. We worship Jesus because He is more than perfect man. He is also God and Lord.

Cynic makes a very interesting point. If you follow What the Hey's logic, then you have to conclude that Jesus must have been a liar since he was human. I disagree with this conclusion and I disagree with the logic that produces it. CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT!!! God is not a man THAT HE SHOULD LIE! I find it interesting to note that the NT also tells us that God cannot lie, but it never says that God is not a man. When the OT was written, the incarnation of God (Jesus) into human form had not occured yet. Incidentally, no "creation" occured at the incarnation. Jesus is NOT a created being. Another cool point, do you realize that Jesus was MORE human than you and I. As fallen beings, you and I fall short of what God designed "human" to be. Jesus, as the second Adam, was a perfect human. Humans were not designed to lie. This is a result of the fall. However, if we were to accept the reasoning of What the Hey, then we would think that MAN=LIAR and thus God designed it that way. When God says that he is not a man THAT He should lie... He is not even equating manhood with liarhood. If he were, then Jesus would be a liar. All that God was saying is that He (God) is not a [fallen] man in that He does not lie. Men do lie. But that doesn't mean that everything men say is a lie. Even dummies get 100% on tests once in a while. The human writers of the Bible like Paul, John, Moses, Ezekiel,... they were all fallen men and thus sinful. But, that doesn't mean that the Bible is a lie. But, if we read the Bible like What the Hey has read it, then we should chuck out the whole thing as a book of lies.

It's called the Straw Man Fallacy (for those interested). I believe that the Bible does provide us all of the mental info we need to know what it means (although we do need the HS to help us sort it out for our understanding). The problem with the Weirwillian approach is HOW he taught us that the Bible interprets itself. He said that every verse will be understood in this order: 1) in the verse where it is written, then 2) in the immediate context 3) as the topic (or word) has been used before 4) through the use of scripture buildup Weirwille's order was all wrong here. It was backwards. The correct order should be 1) Fear God (this is the beginning of knowledge): This means we should first submit ourselves to God for Him to teach us (this is done through prayer and is witnessed by a determination to obey what we learn thus being a doer of the Word and not a hearer only) 2) Then, the HS will use the Bible to interpret the Bible as we read the Bible in this order: A) Scope First: We need to understand the big picture (to whom, when, where, why, how a particular book of the Bible was written B) Then we look at the immediate context (what is the point of the passage? What is the intent of the writer? What is the intent of the author (HS)? What change in our behavior or attitude is being solicited by the passage? C) Finally, after doing all the previous, we can understand the individual verse, sentence, or phrase. I just spoke with my mother-in-law (a lifelong trinitarian) about this. The doctrine of the trinity has never been intended to be the complete, end-all statement about who God is. God is MUCH bigger than the nicene creed, or any other creed, can express. God is even bigger than the Bible itself can express. The Bible declares that we see through a glass dimly. We only have a glimpse of who God is. The writers of these creeds recognized this. The only reason that they wrote the creeds was to battle division and heretical teachings that were beginning to become widespread in the church. Until then in the history of the church THERE WAS general agreement about the individual elements of the creed. Yes, there were always some false teachers around. They are even mentioned in the letters of Jude, 2 Peter, and 1 John, and others. But, these false teachers were NEVER considered to be genuine by any Christian communities at large. Polycarp, a disciple of John the Apostle, told a story of John's reaction to running into a well-known gnostic teacher of the time. John was at a public bathhouse cleaning up (I think this was in Ephesus). Polycarp was outside waiting for him. When the gnostic teacher entered into the bathhouse, John donned a robe and ran outside drenching wet and told Polycarp, "let us depart... the enemy of the truth is here." The point of this story is that some today tend to think that these false teachers were just as widespread as the true believers during the first few centuries of the church. The truth is that they only were there in pockets from time to time. The church as a whole was in agreement upon central tenets of the gospel and that is why the writings of these false teachers were NEVER accepted by the church (or any sections of the church beyond limited localities for one generation). All of this was true until the coming of Arius. Why did he cause such a stir? It is because his NEW teachings that Jesus was not God (although he wasn't a unitarian either) started to attract a widespread following. It was because his teachings became so widespread that a church council had to be called. It was from this that it was recognized that a statement of faith had to be written so that the common, uneducated man would have help determining who the false teachers were. I think that the creed could have been written earlier if the church had had the need. Fortunately, when they did have a need to gather all of the leaders, the government was finished persecuting the church (for the time being). This allowed the leaders from far and wide to gather peacefully and discuss the issue. Again, they never intended the creed to be a FINAL, EXHAUSTIVE statement about who God is.

What makes you think that the word "flesh" refers to the soul (or to the body for that matter)? It might refer to the body, but I am pretty sure it is not referring to the soul.

One should never try to interpret clear passages in the light of unclear or ambiguis passages. (Atleast Vic was right on that one.) You are using the issue of Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit to make a point. That issue is a very argued and unclear topic. I have heard probably 5 or 6 different, equally plausible explanations of what this is, and I am unconvinced of any of them. One thing, though, that seems obvious to me is that God the Father forgives people for blasphemy against Him ALL the time. Just because on the issue of blasphemy there is a difference between when you do it to the Son and when you do it to the Spirit doesn't make The Holy Spirit "greater" than the Son. Also, what does it mean to be greater??? I admit that the Jesus said that his Father was "greater" than Himself (John 14:28). So. Knowledgeable Trinitarians know that there are biblical distinctions between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These are not just distinctions of will (which we have already discussed). They are also distinct in function. For example, the Father didn't die on the cross...but the Son did. The son doesn't author the scripture, but the Holy Spirit does (1 Peter 1:21). The Holy Spirit doesn't speak of his own initiative but only what the Father and/or Spirit tell Him to say (John 16:13). On the other issue, the Holy Spirit is clearly distinct from the Father. John 14:16 and 17 read, 16“I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; 17that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you. This is an argument from silence. That is not a good argument. The Father said to Jesus "Your throne, Oh God, is..." Hebrews 1:8. The very word of God (as authored by the Holy Spirit) calls Jesus God MANY times. The fact of the matter is, we don't have many quotes in the NT of the Father. We have MANY more quotes from Jesus. Who knows whether the Father has ever called the Son, "my God"? I don't know, and neither do you. Certainly, as a human, who walked on this Earth as you and I should also walk, he would refer the Father as "My God". So. This does not prove your point, but it does prove a point I made earlier. NTFWPs have a hard time sticking to one issue at a time. The issue at hand is, does the Bible say that Jesus is God?

Respectfully, I disagree with your use of grammar. The word "THAT" is extremely important. This verse is only saying that God is not like men in that they lie and He does not. Nevertheless, even if I were to agree with your reading of that verse, nothing in this statement says that God cannot BECOME a man as well in the future. The verse was written before the incarnation of Jesus and only describes God's being at THAT time. In regards to Potato, our reading of the grammar is perhaps not "crystal clear". Notwithstanding, this doesn't affect the issue of whether or not Jesus, a man, could not also be God.

Potato, I think it would be good for us to look at some examples of what you are saying. As far as the word "clearly" goes: I do NOT believe any of it is "CLEAR" if by clear you mean that it is fully understandable. I also agree that there are different ways of interpreting individual verses. It took the church over 300 years to figure out how to verbalize, in a succinct statement, what the whole church agreed that the Bible taught. So, I guess you couldn't call the verbalization itself clear (i.e. the creedal statement of the trinity). When I use the word clearly, I am talking about the individual elements of the creed such as Jesus being God, The Holy Spirit being a person, the Father and Son interacting with each other, clear presence of some kind of distinction between the Father, Son, and the HS... I think it is foolhardy to argue anything here from the perspective of the creed itself. I think it is better to look at the individual elements. What I have seen time and again is that NTFWPs (Non-trinitarians from a Way Persuasion) are unable to discuss these elements one at a time. To oversimplify for the sake of discussion I propose we individually discuss the following key points: 1) God is One 2) Jesus is a person and is God 3) The Father is a person and is God 4) The Holy Spirit is a person and is God 5) Jesus, The Father, and the Holy Spirit are not the same person I think the reason that NTFWPs cannot discuss these topics individually is because they think that these 5 claims are self-contradictory. I disagree. What IF the Bible "CLEARLY" makes everyone of these claims? Does that mean that the Bible contradicts itself? I can try to explain why these claims are not self-contradictory. If you fully accept all five claims then, WHALLA!, you are a trinitarian (even though you might not be able to express it just like the church of the first 300 years had difficulty expressing what they "CLEARLY" believed as judged by their writings from the time.)

In Ephesians 2:8 we read "For we are saved by grace, through faith...". In the greek the word "are saved" is in the past tense. Thus, this verse SHOULD read "were saved" or "am saved (past tense)". Hebrews says that God has "perfected (past tense) forever those who are being sanctified (present tense salvation)". Our salvation comes in three tenses: Past, Present, and Future. Christians have been saved. Christians are currently being saved. Christians will be saved. Some will even break this down further (I'm only 80% sure): The dead (disconnected from God) spirit of man is what is saved (past tense). The soul of man is what is saved (present tense). The body of man is what will be saved (future tense). I am not sure about which tense the new birth is referring to... but I tend to think that the new birth refers to the whole process also. We are not just our body, our soul, OR our spirit of man. We are all three together and all three aspects of our being need to be redeemed (born again). As far as eternal security, refer to the verse from Hebrews that I quote above.