Is Jesus of New T LORD/Jehovah of the Old T?

Originally posted by JS357
Quote: ..."I have never met one trinitarian that will not confess at some point that the trinity "does not all make sense""

That is not a problem for trinitarians. In my religious training I was taught that the trinity is a mystery, but it is still true and faith in it is obligatory, to be saved. This, in part, was a way to differentiate between faith and b ...[text shortened]... m of trusting acceptance (my beliefs), and a realm of rigorous examination (your beliefs).😉

So you are willing to let your church teach you to just accept that God and his son and the holy spirit are all just "A mystery " and just believe it without explaining this to us clearly? Is that the way Jesus taught his followers?
Perhaps this issue of not being able to completely explain this to anyone just as the church fathers can't, is the reason none of them go door to door to teach the Bibe just as Jesus and his apostles said to do to all of us.

2 Timothy 3:14-17 (Today’s New International Version, ©2005)
14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that all God’s people may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Notice especially verse 16 & 17 that we should be able to "teach" and "training" and in 17 "thouroughly equipped" to do this.
But since no one in these churches can explain this mystery, no wonder they can't teach and don't even try. What a waist.............

Originally posted by RJHinds
Now I know you for sure you are not bothering to read any
of my references. I have answered this question before about
mention of the Holy Spirit along with the Father and Son. But
for some reason you can't see it or maybe you feel I am not
worthy enough for you to pay attention to. But may I ask
you a question about this mention of the "Father and S ...[text shortened]... you will at least accept that there
are two persons in the Godhead, the Father and the Son?

Lol...So two would be ok for you instead of the three?

Originally posted by divegeester
Are you telling me I'm not saved?

Psssst. You're saved. Pass it on.

YouTube&feature=related

Interesting...........

Originally posted by galveston75
Matthew 4:10 (New King James Version)

10 Then Jesus said to him, “Away with you, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the ((( LORD ))) your God, and Him only you shall serve".

Just another scripture that shows who we are to worship. Jesus, Jehovah's son says we are to worship no one but his Father. Jesus did not say to worship him or the ...[text shortened]...
Side note: LORD is all capitalized which indicates this is where Jehovah or YHWH should be.

Jude 1:4 says our ONLY Lord is Jesus Christ. The Father, speaking of the Son,
said, "Let all the angels of God worship Him". (Hebrews 1:5-6) And speaking
to the Son, the Father says, "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever". (verse 8)
Not only does the Father call the Son, God, but also Lord. "Thou, Lord, in the
beginning didst lay the foundation of earth, and the heavens are the works of
Thy hands." (verse 10)

Jesus said, "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom
of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. Many will
say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophecy in Your name, and in
Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' And
then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who
practice lawlessness.'" (Matthew 7:21-23 NASB)

Jesus never called His Father, Jehovah or YHWH, because that was the name
given to who Moses first identified as "the angel of the Lord", then as "the Lord",
and finally as "God" in Genesis 3 and 6. The Holy Bible never says the Father's
name is Jehovah or YHWH.

YouTube&feature=related

Good trinity explination but still wrong on a couple items.

Originally posted by divegeester
I say that Jesus is the one and only invisible God made visible, made lower than the angels. He is the one who sits on Heavens throne.

Isaiah 45:21b-23
The LORD/Jehovah speaks: [b]There is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Saviour; there is none but me. Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is n ...[text shortened]... led Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.[/b]

"I say that Jesus is the one and only invisible God made visible, made lower than the angels. He is the one who sits on Heavens throne."

God said it first, so ha ha! 😉

Originally posted by galveston75
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wsSyzAJV9U&feature=related

Good trinity explination but still wrong on a couple items.

You will also pobably find a couple of things wrong with my
explanation of "in the name of" that I posted for Robbie.
So here it is and let me know what is wrong.

"In the name" is a term used to indicate by whose authority something is
done. It is like "in the name of the King" meaning "in the authority of the
King". Baptizing in the name of John meant they were disciples of John the
Baptist and they had been given the authority by John to baptize for John.
Those spoken of as baptizing in the name of Jesus meant that Jesus had
given them the authority to Baptize. Now finally, when Jesus told His
disciples to go baptize, He had been give all authority in heaven and on
earth, so He now can tell His disciples to go baptize in the name of God,
meaning by God's authority. He clarifies who God is by saying the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 28:18-20)

Originally posted by RJHinds
You will also pobably find a couple of things wrong with my
explanation of "in the name of" that I posted for Robbie.
So here it is and let me know what is wrong.

"In the name" is a term used to indicate by whose authority something is
done. It is like "in the name of the King" meaning "in the authority of the
King". Baptizing in the name of John me ...[text shortened]... ies who God is by saying the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 28:18-20)

So which name is he referring to? His or his Father's or of the Holy Spirit?

Originally posted by galveston75
So which name is he referring to? His or his Father's or of the Holy Spirit?

As I was trying to explain by my post Jesus is not referring to any
specific name but in the authority of God. Read all of the scripture
verse starting with verse 18 where Jesus says all authority has been
given to Him.

Originally posted by RJHinds
As I was trying to explain by my post Jesus is not referring to any
specific name but in the authority of God. Read all of the scripture
verse starting with verse 18 where Jesus says all authority has been
given to Him.

Sure all authority is given to him. First who gives it to him? If he is equal to God in all aspects already though because of the trinity dogma, how can it be given to him as he would all ready have it as would the holy spirit?
Does not the trinity say they are all equal in all aspects, all knowing, all powerful? So how can one part be lacking in authority to begin with and then be given that authority by another part? Why is the holy spirit not given that authority? Is he not equal to the other two or is he not allowed to have that authority?
And why does God give it to Jesus if they are already 3 in 1? He would already have that authority in their being..right? So now only one I guess has that authority as God gave it up and the holy spirit never gets to have it I guess. Maybe someday the God/Jesus part will let the holy spirit have a shot at that authority thing I hope as it would only be fair to share I would think. I hope at that same time maybe he'll get a name too.
Maybe I need to think of them as a 3 headed human as that might help me out here. But then I still see problems as that really could never exist anyway but I'll try. But then maybe it must somewhere as God said we are made in his image.
I still see problems though with a being like that but I won't go there as it start to get really silly....

Originally posted by galveston75
Sure all authority is given to him. First who gives it to him? If he is equal to God in all aspects already though because of the trinity dogma, how can it be given to him as he would all ready have it as would the holy spirit?
Does not the trinity say they are all equal in all aspects, all knowing, all powerful? So how can one part be lacking in auth ...[text shortened]... oblems though with a being like that but I won't go there as it start to get really silly....

You may not accept the fact that Jesus is fully man as well as fully God.
Here He is speaking from His humanity and now since His resurrection
,even as a man, He has all authority in heaven and on earth. The common
expression He used to indicate that He now had the authority of God was
to tell them to go baptize "in the name of". I'm sure you must have some
expression that you use in the UK that are not meant to be taken literally.
Like here in the USA, we might say, "Let's hit the road" in which we
actually mean for us to get in the car or other vehicle and start moving
on the road to our destination. We do not mean for all of us to go out to
the road and hit it with our fist. "In the name of" is like that, it did not
mean to use a literal name. It indicated by whose authority He was telling
them to go teach and baptize.

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after
the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You may not accept the fact that Jesus is fully man as well as fully God.
Here He is speaking from His humanity and now since His resurrection
,even as a man, He has all authority in heaven and on earth. The common
expression He used to indicate that He now had the authority of God was
to tell them to go baptize "in the name of". I'm sure you must hav ...[text shortened]... ral name. It indicated by whose authority He was telling
them to go teach and baptize.

I'm in Vancouver Washington...

Originally posted by galveston75
I'm in Vancouver Washington...

Well then, in that case, it should make it even clearer to you
as to what I am saying.