Must one Hold to the trinity to be saved?

[DavyP]

I do not agree Davy.

You said...........
"Angels are sexless, spiritual created beings, who when took on physical forms always appeared as males, but are not human!"
Was that a slip up?"

Genesis 6 is speaking of MEN not angels. Angels are a-sexual and can not mate with anything much less human women.
"Sons of God" in Genesis can NOT in any way be angels!!!!!

I Job 1:6.......those SOns of God ARE angels as the LOCATION is in heaven and there were NO MEN in heaven then!

Matthew 22:30 clearly says that everything in heaven is asexual. That includes the saints who are there now, the church that will be later and the ANGELS who have been there since their creation.

Angels do not reproduce...they were created.

There is no such idea written about angels or any heavenly being in an asexual state. That idea is certainly nowhere written in God's Word!

Want to know where that asexual idea for the angels originated? It comes from pagan Androgyny. They believed that 'both' sexes were involved in God's creation of heavenly beings.

That pagan belief even crept into the Roman Church early on, as they do believe in female angels.

All angels have the outward appearance of men, as written in all Bible examples. This is even why the "sons of God" title is applied to women in Christ too, pointing to the the spirit state in the world to come.

What you are not understanding is about 'spirit'. That is NOT simply about ghosts. Nor demons.

Per Hebrews 4:12, we each have a 'spirit' inside us, and our soul is attached with it. At death of our flesh our spirit with soul leaves our flesh (Ecclesiastes 12:5-7; Matthew 10:28). Our spirit and soul are NOT made up of flesh matter. Our spirit is about another body Apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians 5 said we have if our flesh body were dissolved. It is the "spiritual body" he was declaring for the resurrection body type in 1 Corinthians 15. The idea of 'soul sleep' is an old Jewish theory based on their understanding of Genesis 2:7. They believe the soul is made up of flesh, when it is not. So they think our soul dies with our flesh body and must be resurrected along with our flesh. That is not what The New Testament Scriptures reveal at all.

Thus our 'spirit', or spirit body, is of that other dimension of God's creation, the heavenly. It's simply a body type for the heavenly dimension, that's the easiest way I can say it. That means it has a form and likeness that originates in the heavenly, which is from God's Own outward likeness and appearance. It would appear the way you are thinking of the idea of 'spirit' is like ghosts or demons, not understanding that other dimension of existence.

 

[DavyP]

I looked up Gabriel and the name means GOD is my strength. Michael means from GOD. I understand what you are saying about the image, because man was made in GODs image not the other way around. Therefore the image has always been.

I certainly question... your source.

Dan 8:16
16 And I heard a man's voice between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision.
KJV



OT:1403 Gabriy'el (gab-ree-ale'); from OT:1397 and OT:410; man of God; Gabriel, an archangel:

KJV - Garbriel.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006, 2010 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

 

[DavyP]

Correct!
Correct!
Correct!

He killed the animals in the Garden for Adam.
He also was in the burning bush.
He was also in the fiery furnace.
He was the cloud by day.
He was the fire by night.
He appeared to Isaac in Beersheba.
He wrestled with Jacob
He talked with Gideon.

Let's not hide the following fact that Jesus appeared to Abraham with the image of man back in Genesis 18...

Gen 18:1-5
18 And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,
3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
4 Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree:
5 And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said.
KJV

I can guarantee you, Abraham knew better than to bow to an angel and call him Lord. One of those "three men" was Lord Jesus, without a flesh body, because He had not been born through woman's womb yet back then.

Even in Daniel 4 when Nebuchadnezzar looked over in the hot fiery furnace, he saw Jesus in that fire with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and claimed His appearance was like The Son of God. So did Neb see a ghost? No, he saw our Lord Jesus Christ, even without flesh. Daniel also describes seeing The Father with the image of man per Daniel 7.

So theories of having to 'take on human form' just to appear on earth or to man in the flesh is just hype from men's doctrines, that all it is.

 

[Dave F.]

I certainly question... your source.

Dan 8:16
16 And I heard a man's voice between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision.
KJV



OT:1403 Gabriy'el (gab-ree-ale'); from OT:1397 and OT:410; man of God; Gabriel, an archangel:

KJV - Garbriel.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006, 2010 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

I just googled it. Every source they showed had the same definition.

 

[Cooper]

I have read your posts several times. For the life of me I can not understand your preoccupation over the word "PERSON" as seen in the Trinity.

Many theologians admit that the term “person” is not a perfect word to describe the three individual persons found in God. When we normally use the word person, we understand it to mean physical individuals who exist as separate beings from other individuals. But in God, there are not three entities nor three beings. God is a trinity of persons consisting of one substance and one essence. God is numerically one. Yet, within the single divine essence are three individual subsistences that we call persons.

I sail to see why that is a problem for YOU! You have talked all around the reason why but none of that talk is acceptable as an explination.

God is One. The ONE God, who is Spirit, is omnipresent in heaven, on earth, and in our hearts throughout time and space. God is not human and cannot be divided.

 

[DavyP]

I just googled it. Every source they showed had the same definition.

The name Gabriel is in two Hebrew parts, from the word 'geber' (OT:1397) which refers to man, and 'el' which refers to God.

So look up Hebrew 'geber' (OT:1397).

OT:1397
geber (gheh'-ber); from OT:1396; properly, a valiant man or warrior; generally, a person simply:

KJV - every one, man, mighty.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006, 2010 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)


OT:1397
geber — a man, a strong man, a warrior (emphasizing strength or ability to fight)
(from The Online Bible Thayer's Greek Lexicon and Brown Driver & Briggs Hebrew Lexicon, Copyright © 1993, Woodside Bible Fellowship, Ontario, Canada. Licensed from the Institute for Creation Research.)


GABRIEL
(man of God), an angel sent by God to announce to Zacharias the birth of John the Baptist, and to Mary the birth of Christ. He was also sent to Daniel to explain his visions. Dan 8:16; 9:21.
(from Smith's Bible Dictionary, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 2003, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

 

[DavyP]

God is One. The ONE God is omnipresent in heaven, on earth, and in our hearts throughout time and space. God cannot be divided, neither is God a tripartite person like we are. God is spirit.

I certainly disagree with you on that. The Godhead is made up of Three Persons, God The Father, God The Son, and God The Holy Spirit. And the 1 John 5:7 verse, which critics like Bruce Metzger hates, has been removed from most all newer New Testament versions. Yet there is ample proof that the verse existed in some of the early Greek texts and authors.

But, we don't have to rely on that single 1 John 5:7 verse to prove the triune nature of The Godhead. Jesus proclaimed Himself as God several times. Even the Isaiah 9 Scripture declares Jesus (one born of a virgin) as The Almighty, and The Everlasting Father. Also in Revelation, Jesus proclaims Himself as the first and the last, Alpha and Omega, which is only a reference to The GOD of The Old Testament in Isaiah 41.

And I love the following question Lord Jesus posed to the unbelieving Pharisees...

Luke 20:41-44
41 And He said unto them, "How say they that Christ is David's son?"

42 And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, "The LORD said unto my Lord, 'Sit Thou on My right hand,
43 Till I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.'"

44 David therefore calleth Him Lord, how is He then his son?
KJV

 

[YeshuaFan]

No. I simply recommend relying on the KJV for accuracy. If one wants to daily use another version, fine, but to make a Truth clear, I strongly advise referring to the KJV.

Furthermore, what is this 'KJV Only' attitude that those like myself keep getting from those who do not use the KJV? Am I attacking the other modern New Testament versions? You bet I am, I'll admit it, and their source material used for those modern versions is where doubters should be looking into, instead of just accepting what publishers and copyrightists say. I don't agree with their removing a lot of Scriptures that are in the manuscripts used for the KJV Bible. And when Gideon's goes to the editors of the ESV who own its copyright, and ask if Gideons can put back the missing Scriptures that are in the Majority Text (KJV New Testament text), that right there ought to be a red flag about the modern ESV New Testament translation.

One simply does not have to be a scholar to figure out there is Scripture missing in modern New Testament versions. I don't like that fact, but it is a fact. And if that fact offends brethren that use those modern NT versions, then maybe they should not just say they have made the version comparisons when they have not. (1 John 5:7 is in the KJV, and versions before the 1880s. That verse is totally stricken from modern New Testament versions).

Furthermore, the KJV is not the only... Bible that used the Received Texts for its New Testament. The Bible versions prior to Wescott and Hort's 1881 Greek NT translation used the Textus Receptus Greek manuscripts, also called the Received Texts or Majority Text.

You would not support any MV of the bible then, such as nas/esv/Nkjv?
And any who were translated off from the Critical text would be "corrupted and not reliable?"

 

[YeshuaFan]

No. I simply recommend relying on the KJV for accuracy. If one wants to daily use another version, fine, but to make a Truth clear, I strongly advise referring to the KJV.

Furthermore, what is this 'KJV Only' attitude that those like myself keep getting from those who do not use the KJV? Am I attacking the other modern New Testament versions? You bet I am, I'll admit it, and their source material used for those modern versions is where doubters should be looking into, instead of just accepting what publishers and copyrightists say. I don't agree with their removing a lot of Scriptures that are in the manuscripts used for the KJV Bible. And when Gideon's goes to the editors of the ESV who own its copyright, and ask if Gideons can put back the missing Scriptures that are in the Majority Text (KJV New Testament text), that right there ought to be a red flag about the modern ESV New Testament translation.

One simply does not have to be a scholar to figure out there is Scripture missing in modern New Testament versions. I don't like that fact, but it is a fact. And if that fact offends brethren that use those modern NT versions, then maybe they should not just say they have made the version comparisons when they have not. (1 John 5:7 is in the KJV, and versions before the 1880s. That verse is totally stricken from modern New Testament versions).

Furthermore, the KJV is not the only... Bible that used the Received Texts for its New Testament. The Bible versions prior to Wescott and Hort's 1881 Greek NT translation used the Textus Receptus Greek manuscripts, also called the Received Texts or Majority Text.

You only support the translations that used TR then, correct?

 

[YeshuaFan]

That was Lord Jesus Who met Abraham. There is only one Jesus Christ Who that Hebrews 7 Scripture can refer to, particularly in the Hebrews 7:3 verse.

So I don't know where you get ideas like 'preincarnate' from, certainly not from the Scriptures. Using such an idea as that suggests that you believe Jesus Christ never even existed prior to His being born in the flesh through Mary's womb.

Jesus came into existence when conceived in Mary as to His humanity, as before his incarnation was just the word of the father, one who was with the father and both were God!

 

[YeshuaFan]

The word 'incarnation' (and all forms), is not used in The Bible. It is a seminary theological idea.

Nor is there any such idea as Jesus, or angels 'taking human form', which also is purely a seminary theological idea, as such an idea is not written in The Bible either.

But I'll tell you what is written about that, if you're willing to listen. Lord Jesus appeared to Abraham with the image of 'man' at Abraham's tent door per Genesis 18, and Abraham went and prepared food and drink, and Jesus with the two other men with Him, which were the two angels He sent to Lot, they all sat and ate what Abraham prepared for them, and that WITHOUT A FLESH BODY.

It's those who cannot understand that which try to ADD... to the Scriptures the idea they 'took on human form', when no such idea is written. So what form were they before... they appeared to Abraham? No one can explain that idea because it is fallacy, and not written.

Lord Jesus has always... had the image of man, because that is His outward likeness which He created Adam also with, as written in Genesis 1:26-27, and that is Bible 101.

The Second person of the trinity came to earth and met with Abraham, and Moses in burning Bush, but was not Jesus until His birth!

 

[YeshuaFan]

There is no such idea written about angels or any heavenly being in an asexual state. That idea is certainly nowhere written in God's Word!

Want to know where that asexual idea for the angels originated? It comes from pagan Androgyny. They believed that 'both' sexes were involved in God's creation of heavenly beings.

That pagan belief even crept into the Roman Church early on, as they do believe in female angels.

All angels have the outward appearance of men, as written in all Bible examples. This is even why the "sons of God" title is applied to women in Christ too, pointing to the the spirit state in the world to come.

What you are not understanding is about 'spirit'. That is NOT simply about ghosts. Nor demons.

Per Hebrews 4:12, we each have a 'spirit' inside us, and our soul is attached with it. At death of our flesh our spirit with soul leaves our flesh (Ecclesiastes 12:5-7; Matthew 10:28). Our spirit and soul are NOT made up of flesh matter. Our spirit is about another body Apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians 5 said we have if our flesh body were dissolved. It is the "spiritual body" he was declaring for the resurrection body type in 1 Corinthians 15. The idea of 'soul sleep' is an old Jewish theory based on their understanding of Genesis 2:7. They believe the soul is made up of flesh, when it is not. So they think our soul dies with our flesh body and must be resurrected along with our flesh. That is not what The New Testament Scriptures reveal at all.

Thus our 'spirit', or spirit body, is of that other dimension of God's creation, the heavenly. It's simply a body type for the heavenly dimension, that's the easiest way I can say it. That means it has a form and likeness that originates in the heavenly, which is from God's Own outward likeness and appearance. It would appear the way you are thinking of the idea of 'spirit' is like ghosts or demons, not understanding that other dimension of existence.

Our physicals body shall be resurrected and be glorified!

 

[Major]

God is One. The ONE God, who is Spirit, is omnipresent in heaven, on earth, and in our hearts throughout time and space. God is not human and cannot be divided.

And that has NO meaning whatsoever as to why you have a problem with the word "PERSON" when used to identify the Godhead.

 

[Major]

Let's not hide the following fact that Jesus appeared to Abraham with the image of man back in Genesis 18...

Gen 18:1-5
18 And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,
3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
4 Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree:
5 And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said.
KJV

I can guarantee you, Abraham knew better than to bow to an angel and call him Lord. One of those "three men" was Lord Jesus, without a flesh body, because He had not been born through woman's womb yet back then.

Even in Daniel 4 when Nebuchadnezzar looked over in the hot fiery furnace, he saw Jesus in that fire with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and claimed His appearance was like The Son of God. So did Neb see a ghost? No, he saw our Lord Jesus Christ, even without flesh. Daniel also describes seeing The Father with the image of man per Daniel 7.

So theories of having to 'take on human form' just to appear on earth or to man in the flesh is just hype from men's doctrines, that all it is.

I really do not know what we are debating Davy.

Scripture records that on eight different occasions during the Old Testament period God took on a "human-like form."

I do not believe that it was FLEAH and BLOOD as that would be a problem for John 1:14 where we see .......
"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."

Now was He as an angel in human form? I do not know and neither do I care!!!!!

All that matter is that HE DID and that is that.

 

[Major]

There is no such idea written about angels or any heavenly being in an asexual state. That idea is certainly nowhere written in God's Word!

Want to know where that asexual idea for the angels originated? It comes from pagan Androgyny. They believed that 'both' sexes were involved in God's creation of heavenly beings.

That pagan belief even crept into the Roman Church early on, as they do believe in female angels.

All angels have the outward appearance of men, as written in all Bible examples. This is even why the "sons of God" title is applied to women in Christ too, pointing to the the spirit state in the world to come.

What you are not understanding is about 'spirit'. That is NOT simply about ghosts. Nor demons.

Per Hebrews 4:12, we each have a 'spirit' inside us, and our soul is attached with it. At death of our flesh our spirit with soul leaves our flesh (Ecclesiastes 12:5-7; Matthew 10:28). Our spirit and soul are NOT made up of flesh matter. Our spirit is about another body Apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians 5 said we have if our flesh body were dissolved. It is the "spiritual body" he was declaring for the resurrection body type in 1 Corinthians 15. The idea of 'soul sleep' is an old Jewish theory based on their understanding of Genesis 2:7. They believe the soul is made up of flesh, when it is not. So they think our soul dies with our flesh body and must be resurrected along with our flesh. That is not what The New Testament Scriptures reveal at all.

Thus our 'spirit', or spirit body, is of that other dimension of God's creation, the heavenly. It's simply a body type for the heavenly dimension, that's the easiest way I can say it. That means it has a form and likeness that originates in the heavenly, which is from God's Own outward likeness and appearance. It would appear the way you are thinking of the idea of 'spirit' is like ghosts or demons, not understanding that other dimension of existence.

You said..........
"There is no such idea written about angels or any heavenly being in an asexual state. That idea is certainly nowhere written in God's Word!"

However, GOD said in Matthew 22:30...............
"For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven"

We seem to either be reading from two different Bibles or we have a real problem understanding what is literally said.

What I know is what I READ in the Scriptures and when Jesus said “in the resurrection ... [they, resurrected saints] are like angels of God,” He obviously meant like angels in that they (we) will ......“neither marry nor are given in marriage” (v. 30).

He did not say they would be like angels in that they would have no physical bodies. Rather, what He did say was that they would be like angels in that they would be without sexual propagation = A-Sexual!

 

[Major]

Well, to be clear, I did not say the above in bold quotations.

And I think there was a lot more to what I wrote with that, "Was that a slip up?" question.


The "sons of God" title is a heavenly realm title, not a flesh one. The fact that God's Own outward likeness appearance is what He create aadam with proves that the image of man originated in Heaven with Him, and not from flesh, and that is Bible 101 per Genesis 1:26-27. I'm surprised at so many brethren who deny that Scripture as written.



You do realize you contradicted yourself in the above, don't you? In one sentence you claim the "Sons of God" is not about angels, and in the next sentence you claim the "sons of God" are angels. And there are 'men' in Heaven, because the word 'man' simply refers to the outward likeness of our Heavenly Father Who is in Heaven. Same with Lord Jesus in Old Testament times too, He appears in Heaven with that image of man. Even the Archangel Gabriel's name is 'man of God', look it up.



You have missed study of the Jude 6-7 Scripture that describes what those particular angels of Genesis 6 did. They left their first estate, meaning their position as heavenly angels. They obviously wanted the privileges of flesh men in regards to flesh woman, so they left their habitation and first estate. This is why these particular angels are locked in chains in the pit waiting on the judgement, as written.

Davy.....Post #361..........

You said.........
Sorry that I have to say, but yeah, you did point to that very idea, when you said, and I quote:

"Angels are sexless, spiritual created beings, who when took on physical forms always appeared as males, but are not human!"

Was that a slip up? Possibly, since that false idea has spread like wildfire among the Christian community like other un-Biblical notions, like the word 'man' always refers to a flesh human being when Biblically it always does not."

Isn't saying............
"Was that a slip up? Possibly, since that false idea has spread like wildfire among the Christian community like other un-Biblical notions" = A total rejection of the comment made by Yashua that angels are asexual ?????????

If not, then what is it??

NO sir, I did not contadiict anything. LOCATION and CONTEXT is what clarifies understanding.

I SAID that The LOCATION of the Sons of God in Job 1 and 6 is as you said heavenly! So the Sons of God there are angels.

The LOCATION of the Sons of God in Genesis 6 is the Earth which demands that in that case the Sons of God are HUMAN BEINGS as Matthew 22:30 confirms that angels do not have the ability to have sex.

It does not matter what Gabrail's name means!! What I SAID and say again is that there is NO Scripture which identifies Gabrial as an "Arch Angel". That designation is only said of Michael!

 

[Cooper]

I certainly disagree with you on that. The Godhead is made up of Three Persons, God The Father, God The Son, and God The Holy Spirit. And the 1 John 5:7 verse, which critics like Bruce Metzger hates, has been removed from most all newer New Testament versions. Yet there is ample proof that the verse existed in some of the early Greek texts and authors.

But, we don't have to rely on that single 1 John 5:7 verse to prove the triune nature of The Godhead. Jesus proclaimed Himself as God several times. Even the Isaiah 9 Scripture declares Jesus (one born of a virgin) as The Almighty, and The Everlasting Father. Also in Revelation, Jesus proclaims Himself as the first and the last, Alpha and Omega, which is only a reference to The GOD of The Old Testament in Isaiah 41.

And I love the following question Lord Jesus posed to the unbelieving Pharisees...

Luke 20:41-44
41 And He said unto them, "How say they that Christ is David's son?"

42 And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, "The LORD said unto my Lord, 'Sit Thou on My right hand,
43 Till I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.'"

44 David therefore calleth Him Lord, how is He then his son?
KJV

For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. (1 John 5:7 NKJV)

This is different from the chat we had regarding the word persons. Here we learn that the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit are ONE, with no mention of persons.

My concern is over those who say, “The Father is not the Word. The Word is not the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is not the Father, thereby substituting scripture with the teaching of man, and consequently denying the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit according to 1 John 5:7 above that says they are one.

May God bless.

 

[YeshuaFan]

And that has NO meaning whatsoever as to why you have a problem with the word "PERSON" when used to identify the Godhead.

Still sounds a lot like either Modualism or Oneness to me!

 

[YeshuaFan]

I really do not know what we are debating Davy.

Scripture records that on eight different occasions during the Old Testament period God took on a "human-like form."

I do not believe that it was FLEAH and BLOOD as that would be a problem for John 1:14 where we see .......
"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."

Now was He as an angel in human form? I do not know and neither do I care!!!!!

All that matter is that HE DID and that is that.

he was THE Angel of Yahweh, so that just meant was not an angel per say, but was the messenger of the father, and was appearing to resemble an angel!

 

[YeshuaFan]

I really do not know what we are debating Davy.

Scripture records that on eight different occasions during the Old Testament period God took on a "human-like form."

I do not believe that it was FLEAH and BLOOD as that would be a problem for John 1:14 where we see .......
"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."

Now was He as an angel in human form? I do not know and neither do I care!!!!!

All that matter is that HE DID and that is that.

None of those OT appearances were an Incarnation, as was just a temp form, as in the Incarnation is now forever more the God man!