Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Faith Sharing Area => Topic started by: Alien on November 13, 2014, 09:58:54 AM
-
For the Trinitarians, what do you find the best way of trying to explain the Trinity to someone? The idea of "three centres of consciousness" in God seems to me to be a path well worth exploring, though I am aware that there is no complete way of explaining "how it all works." There are various illustrations of the Trinity, but do they do more harm than good? For the record I subscribe to a totally mainstream understanding of the Trinity (at least I think I do!), i.e. that God is one God of three persons (the best English word we can find to use here), that the Father is truly/fully God, the Son is truly/fully God, the Spirit is truly/fully God, but the Father is not the Son nor is he the Spirit etc.
I'm asking here how best to explain the Trinity rather than, here, argue whether the idea of the Trinity is correct. That might be better on a separate thread.
-
Personally I tend to shy away from analogies if at all possible. The Creed is a good place to start and by that I mean the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (for the Orthodox that is the only Creed we use). Of course you need to explain terms such as "consubstantial", "begotten" and "proceeds".
-
How to explain the Trinity without going into the jargon of theology speak is something I've been trying for a long, long time.
If we use the word 'mystery', it's like a red rag to a bull as far as non-theists go - but whether we like it or not, mystery is what it is.
I don't really suppose we CAN give a practical explanation of the triune nature of God without it turning into a theological tract.
I've used the water analogy, the shamrock - even the banana - yes, the banana - think about it - before now to try to demonstrate the unity of the Three while being One...they've helped a bit, but only a bit.
-
Perhaps it can be explained by symbolism e.g. The Ocean is the totality (God) the father or source of all. The Waves are the offspring of the ocean (the Son(s)) and the Water which is within and unifies is the Spirit. From the point of view of a wave looking horizontally and superficially there is separation from other wave forms and transience. If it looks within the illusion of separation changes to unity, wholeness, holiness, permanence.
-
I think that all explanations and illustrations fall short. The Trinity is one of the great mysteries.
-
Ekim
That is probably one of the best descriptions I have heard. It actually makes sense to me thank you.
Krysta
-
Krysta
You're welcome, but please bear in mind that I am not of the Christian faith. I think the symbolism fits quite well with the teachings of Jesus but a Christian might insist that his Creed says that there is only one 'Son of God', one wave (perhaps a tidal wave?).
-
A trinity of sorts...
They are one person
They are two alone
They are three together
They are for each other
Helplessly Hoping by Crosby, Stills and Nash
-
All attempts at explanation can only fall short, how can we truly comprehend the essential nature of God. The inter-relational aspect of the Trinity inspires me, that God exists in this eternal relational form, and that through those relationships He expresses the many aspects of His nature.
-
I now find that one should allow the Holy Spirit to do the job,but for one's own sake a good study of scripture and the pointers to the doctrine are good to have.
Also a passing look at the NWT is enough to show that these people went to great lengths to lay a false trail,away from this doctrine, considering as they say it is not in scripture.
~TW~
-
All attempts at explanation can only fall short, how can we truly comprehend the essential nature of God. The inter-relational aspect of the Trinity inspires me, that God exists in this eternal relational form, and that through those relationships He expresses the many aspects of His nature.
An alternative view is that of the Christian mystics, where the emphasis is not upon trying to intellectually comprehend 'essential nature' and form a relationship with it but more discover that essence within and unite with it. Some example quotes:
William Law ..... This pearl of eternity is the Temple of God within you, the consecrated place of divine worship, where alone you can worship God in spirit and in truth.
Richard of Saint Victor ..... If you wish to search out the deep things of God search out the depths of your own spirit.
Meister Eckhart ..... People often say to me ‘Pray for me’. And I think to myself: Why ever do you go out? Why not stop at home and mine for your own treasure? For indeed the whole truth resides in you.
and... The eye with which I see God, God sees me; my eye and God's eye is one eye, one seeing, one realising and one love.
-
I've always favored the mystic perspective that the reality of the trinity is unkowable, but that that is the very point of contemplating it.
Basically the idea is that through contemplating something that it is impossible for us to resolve we experience a transcendant state of 'unknowing' and through that a closer understanding of god than something merely intellectual.
It was promoted by some medieval monk I think but I have forgotton his name.
-
I've always favored the mystic perspective that the reality of the trinity is unkowable, but that that is the very point of contemplating it.
Basically the idea is that through contemplating something that it is impossible for us to resolve we experience a transcendant state of 'unknowing' and through that a closer understanding of god than something merely intellectual.
It was promoted by some medieval monk I think but I have forgotton his name.
Hi Samuel,
Perhaps you are referring to the influence that the 5th/6th century writings of a Christian theologian Dionysius the Areopagite(Denys) had on medieval thought. His rather unusual methods were aimed at cleansing the mind of all knowing, a sort of kenosis, in order to reach some sort of mystical union with God.
-
Yes, I think that's it Antithesis. Nice one :)
-
It was promoted by some medieval monk I think but I have forgotton his name.
If you're thinking about the book 'The Cloud of Unknowing', I don't think the author's name is known.
-
...
Perhaps you are referring to the influence that the 5th/6th century writings of a Christian theologian Dionysius the Areopagite(Denys) had on medieval thought. His rather unusual methods were aimed at cleansing the mind of all knowing, a sort of kenosis, in order to reach some sort of mystical union with God.
Sounds a bit of a plonker.
-
I never had trouble with it when I was a Christian. I suppose I saw the father, son and holy spirit as the aspects that make up God. I didn't take the bible literally or see God as a bearded man in the sky so there wasn't really a problem.
-
I didn't take the bible literally or see God as a bearded man in the sky .
Who does see God as a bearded man in the sky?
I was charicaturing the biblical literalist view of God as something quite human. You don't think there's a type of Christian who see God in this way?
If you see God as not so different from a man then the three in one thing won't work. Likewise if try to make sense of the bible as a literalist then the trinity is going to make problems. I was simply pointing out that because of the way I thought about God the trinity wasn't a problem. For many Christians it makes no sense at all.
-
I like to show the scripture where God sends God that does and can make inroads.
~TW~
-
A point worth noting is Sassy has nothing to say on the Trinity because this person is outside of the Trinity as a Unitarian,in the wilderness.
~TW~
-
For the Trinitarians, what do you find the best way of trying to explain the Trinity to someone? The idea of "three centres of consciousness" in God seems to me to be a path well worth exploring, though I am aware that there is no complete way of explaining "how it all works." There are various illustrations of the Trinity, but do they do more harm than good? For the record I subscribe to a totally mainstream understanding of the Trinity (at least I think I do!), i.e. that God is one God of three persons (the best English word we can find to use here), that the Father is truly/fully God, the Son is truly/fully God, the Spirit is truly/fully God, but the Father is not the Son nor is he the Spirit etc.
I'm asking here how best to explain the Trinity rather than, here, argue whether the idea of the Trinity is correct. That might be better on a separate thread.
God in three persons... all seperate persons but from one source like a match stick split into three. God being the head and Christ and the Spirit being the other two parts. God being the main person over the other two parts. for without the head the match would not be a match.
Christ clearly made it clear that God sent him and God himself gave him the words to speak. In the Book of Daniel it is clear that ONLY the anti-christ would put himself above God and all that is God.
"Then the king will do as he pleases, and he will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will speak monstrous things against the God of gods; and he will prosper until the indignation is finished, for that which is decreed will be done.
Christ never at any time put himself above God or made himself equal to God because his power came from God.
God put all creation under him and that means he will eventually put himself back under God
The only way to fully understand the trinity is to be part of the life God provides through the existence of himself, the Spirit and Jesus Christ.
The truth is that the Bible is the witness of God in man by the power of the Holy Spirit. The Prophets were Holy men of God because the Holy Spirit gave them the words to speak. They killed the Prophets as Christ taught. But we know also that Christ came so all men can be forgiven of their sins and by the baptism of the Spirit have a new life guided by God.
All one in Christ through the power and presence of the Holy Spirit.
-
For the Trinitarians, what do you find the best way of trying to explain the Trinity to someone? The idea of "three centres of consciousness" in God seems to me to be a path well worth exploring, though I am aware that there is no complete way of explaining "how it all works." There are various illustrations of the Trinity, but do they do more harm than good? For the record I subscribe to a totally mainstream understanding of the Trinity (at least I think I do!), i.e. that God is one God of three persons (the best English word we can find to use here), that the Father is truly/fully God, the Son is truly/fully God, the Spirit is truly/fully God, but the Father is not the Son nor is he the Spirit etc.
I'm asking here how best to explain the Trinity rather than, here, argue whether the idea of the Trinity is correct. That might be better on a separate thread.
God in three persons... all seperate persons but from one source like a match stick split into three. God being the head and Christ and the Spirit being the other two parts. God being the main person over the other two parts. for without the head the match would not be a match.
Christ clearly made it clear that God sent him and God himself gave him the words to speak. In the Book of Daniel it is clear that ONLY the anti-christ would put himself above God and all that is God.
"Then the king will do as he pleases, and he will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will speak monstrous things against the God of gods; and he will prosper until the indignation is finished, for that which is decreed will be done.
Christ never at any time put himself above God or made himself equal to God because his power came from God.
God put all creation under him and that means he will eventually put himself back under God
The only way to fully understand the trinity is to be part of the life God provides through the existence of himself, the Spirit and Jesus Christ.
The truth is that the Bible is the witness of God in man by the power of the Holy Spirit. The Prophets were Holy men of God because the Holy Spirit gave them the words to speak. They killed the Prophets as Christ taught. But we know also that Christ came so all men can be forgiven of their sins and by the baptism of the Spirit have a new life guided by God.
All one in Christ through the power and presence of the Holy Spirit.
So Sass let us clear the Ground is Christ God,Yes or No.
~TW~
-
So Sass says she is C of E {As I said I am church of England } and does not accept the deity of Christ.
Is the C of E teaching that bad.
~TW~
-
So Sass says she is C of E {As I said I am church of England } and does not accept the deity of Christ.
Is the C of E teaching that bad.
~TW~
Nope. I thought Sass said once she was Christadelphian. Have I remembered that incorrectly, Sass?
-
For the Trinitarians, what do you find the best way of trying to explain the Trinity to someone? The idea of "three centres of consciousness" in God seems to me to be a path well worth exploring, though I am aware that there is no complete way of explaining "how it all works." There are various illustrations of the Trinity, but do they do more harm than good? For the record I subscribe to a totally mainstream understanding of the Trinity (at least I think I do!), i.e. that God is one God of three persons (the best English word we can find to use here), that the Father is truly/fully God, the Son is truly/fully God, the Spirit is truly/fully God, but the Father is not the Son nor is he the Spirit etc.
I'm asking here how best to explain the Trinity rather than, here, argue whether the idea of the Trinity is correct. That might be better on a separate thread.
God in three persons... all seperate persons but from one source like a match stick split into three. God being the head and Christ and the Spirit being the other two parts. God being the main person over the other two parts. for without the head the match would not be a match.
Christ clearly made it clear that God sent him and God himself gave him the words to speak. In the Book of Daniel it is clear that ONLY the anti-christ would put himself above God and all that is God.
The Trinity doesn't put the Son "above God" or "all that is God". I'm not sure you have understood what the Trinity entails. Trinitarians don't claim that....
Christ never at any time put himself above God
But no-one is claiming that, Sass. or made himself equal to God
Really? How about John 5:18, which says, "For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.". John seems pretty clear what Jesus was saying here. because his power came from God.
God put all creation under him and that means he will eventually put himself back under God
Where did you get that last bit, please??
The only way to fully understand the trinity is to be part of the life God provides through the existence of himself, the Spirit and Jesus Christ.
Eh? You are using the word Trinity in a sense that Trinitarians don't mean. Get your own word!The truth is that the Bible is the witness of God in man by the power of the Holy Spirit. The Prophets were Holy men of God because the Holy Spirit gave them the words to speak. They killed the Prophets as Christ taught. But we know also that Christ came so all men can be forgiven of their sins and by the baptism of the Spirit have a new life guided by God.
All one in Christ through the power and presence of the Holy Spirit.
Yep. Very Trinitarian.
-
It has been argued that only the Johanine accounts in Scripture hint (or, in the case of the fourth Gospel, trumpet the fact of) Jesus' divinity.
HHere's a very basic, though useful, site, giving some of the proofs of His divinity in the synoptics:
http://www.kylemcdanell.com/2013/08/12-proofs-of-jesus-deity-from-synoptic.html
(I think they've missed a few, by the way)
-
God put all creation under him and that means he will eventually put himself back under God
Where did you get that last bit, please??
Sounds like 1 Corinthians 15:28 to me ?
-
Gentlemen and Ladies can we keep Sass in our prayers and thank you all,for your concern.
~TW~
-
God put all creation under him and that means he will eventually put himself back under God
Where did you get that last bit, please??
Sounds like 1 Corinthians 15:28 to me ?
Yes, it does. Sass will be able to confirm.
So what does 1 Cor 15:28 say. There may be a bit of a problem in, say, the NIV translation, which is, "When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject (hypotassō) to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all." It can equally validly read, "When he has done this, then the Son himself will subject himself to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all", i.e. middle voice rather than passive.
For some other uses of the verb hypotassō, see Luke 2:51, "Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But his mother treasured all these things in her heart." This speaks of Jesus being subject/obedient to Joseph and Mary. I wouldn't think Sass would argue that Jesus was inferior to Joseph and Mary. Similarly, Ephesians 5:21 says, "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." This uses the same verb as Luke 2:51 and 1 Cor 15:28. With people submitting to each other they can't all be inferior to each other.
See http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/q_jesus_subject.htm for more details
-
So Sass says she is C of E {As I said I am church of England } and does not accept the deity of Christ.
Is the C of E teaching that bad.
~TW~
Nope. I thought Sass said once she was Christadelphian. Have I remembered that incorrectly, Sass?
You did NOT remember anything... At NO time has it ever been so.
I am Church of England.
-
Really? How about John 5:18, which says, "For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.". John seems pretty clear what Jesus was saying here.
John 5:18King James Version (KJV)
18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
By saying that God was his Father they said he was making himself equal to God.
However that does not say he was making himself to be God.
Christ taught us to pray
"Our Father", in saying that as Gods Children does that make us equal to God or make us God?
Read the passage correctly...
King James Bible
I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
Had you read the bible then you would not have used that verse out of context.
It is clear that the verse did not say Christ was God. But that because he called God his Father that he was making himself equal to God in their eyes...
Where did you get that last bit, please??
1 Corinthians 15:28King James Version (KJV)
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
Eh? You are using the word Trinity in a sense that Trinitarians don't mean. Get your own word!
No! I am referring to the actions of the Trinity what it means to be in the trinity.
In fact just by looking at the actual bible passages you can see that God is God and Jesus is the Son of God. You like many others DO NOT read and know what the bible actually says.
-
So Sass says she is C of E {As I said I am church of England } and does not accept the deity of Christ.
Is the C of E teaching that bad.
~TW~
Nope. I thought Sass said once she was Christadelphian. Have I remembered that incorrectly, Sass?
You did NOT remember anything... At NO time has it ever been so.
I am Church of England.
Sorry, my mistake then.
As Church of England you subscribe then to the following Articles of Religion?
I. Of Faith in the Holy Trinity
There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in the unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church."
-
Really? How about John 5:18, which says, "For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.". John seems pretty clear what Jesus was saying here.
John 5:18King James Version (KJV)
18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
By saying that God was his Father they said he was making himself equal to God.
However that does not say he was making himself to be God.
That's what John says he was doing. John as in the writer of this piece inspired, authoritative Scripture. Not the Jews alone, but John. It is what Scripture teaches.Christ taught us to pray
"Our Father", in saying that as Gods Children does that make us equal to God or make us God?
No, because Jesus was using the term in a different manner. John distinguishes that manner from the way Jesus used the term in John 5:18.
Read the passage correctly...
Yes. I always try to do that.
King James Bible
I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
Had you read the bible
I have read my bible. Lots of times. Perhaps you mean, "If you (Alien) had read it and understood it correctly."then you would not have used that verse out of context.
It is clear that the verse did not say Christ was God. But that because he called God his Father that he was making himself equal to God in their eyes...
John 10:33-39 (quoting Psalm 82:6)
"We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”
If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside—
what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?
Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father.
But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”
Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp."
This is 5 chapters later. Here the Jewish leaders recognised that Jesus was claiming to be equal with the Father, that he himself was God. Jesus replies that in the OT God spoke to some people and could refer to them as elohim (or in the LXX Greek theos), the word used for God himself as well as judges and other powerful people. It seems to me that he is saying that, heck, if God could refer to people like that he were merely humans, then surely the title of theos/elohim should be applied to Jesus. Importantly, he then goes on to speak of how that term should be applied to him, i.e. the he was in the Father and the Father in him. The Jews knew what that meant. That's why they again tried to seize him and stone him, not because he was elohim/theos only in the sense used of people/judges/whatever in Psalm 82:6, but as being one in substance with the Father."
Where did you get that last bit, please??
1 Corinthians 15:28King James Version (KJV)
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
Acknowledged. 2Corries realised that and I have already responded to this above.
Eh? You are using the word Trinity in a sense that Trinitarians don't mean. Get your own word!
No! I am referring to the actions of the Trinity what it means to be in the trinity.
You are using the term Trinity in a sense not meant by Trinitarians throughout the centuries. This will lead to unnecessary confusion, even if your understanding of it is correct (which it isn't).
In fact just by looking at the actual bible passages you can see that God is God and Jesus is the Son of God. You like many others DO NOT read and know what the bible actually says.
It is by looking at the Scriptures, Hebrew and Greek, that we come to the conclusion that the Son is part of the Trinity in the classical sense.
-
So Sass says she is C of E {As I said I am church of England } and does not accept the deity of Christ.
Is the C of E teaching that bad.
~TW~
Nope. I thought Sass said once she was Christadelphian. Have I remembered that incorrectly, Sass?
You did NOT remember anything... At NO time has it ever been so.
I am Church of England.
Sorry, my mistake then.
As Church of England you subscribe then to the following Articles of Religion?
I. Of Faith in the Holy Trinity
There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in the unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
The last sentence is a telling sentence...
It is duly noted that it does not say that God is three persons. Nor does the bible.
In the unity of the Godhead there is three Persons not one Person being all three.
One substance? What substance, the power is easy and eternity.
So explain the Substance... If God is a Spirit then who is the Holy Spirit?
If a Godhead is all equally co-existent then how can a man be guilty of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit without being guilty of blasphemy against the Father and Son. And vice versa how can a Man be guilty of Blasphemy against God and Christ but not the Holy Spirit?
You are bandying words and even tenets of a FAITH which is not biblical and was not taught by Christ or the Prophets.
VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church."
Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of the LORD unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts.
King James Bible
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
The New Covenant according the Prophet Jeremiah.
Jeremiah 31:31-34King James Version (KJV)
31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Being a believer is about living according to EVERY word that proceeds from the mouth of God.. Not the hearts and minds of men.
The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the Trinity...
But the truth is known to man by God being in them by the truth of Christ and the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
No man needs written tenets who are part of the body of Christ unto salvation in the sense of the living word within.
-
so: not CofE then, Sass?
-
:) Being a believer is about living according to EVERY word that proceeds from the mouth of God..
-----------------------------
But Sass you want Genesis 1:1,John 1:3,Rev 1:8,Rev 22:13.Rev 1:17-18 deleted from the bible
so not EVERY word Sass,because you do not believe them,these scriptures must be deleted.
~TW~
-
Really? How about John 5:18, which says, "For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.". John seems pretty clear what Jesus was saying here.
John 5:18King James Version (KJV)
18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
By saying that God was his Father they said he was making himself equal to God.
However that does not say he was making himself to be God.
That's what John says he was doing. John as in the writer of this piece inspired, authoritative Scripture. Not the Jews alone, but John. It is what Scripture teaches.Christ taught us to pray
"Our Father", in saying that as Gods Children does that make us equal to God or make us God?
No, because Jesus was using the term in a different manner. John distinguishes that manner from the way Jesus used the term in John 5:18.
Read the passage correctly...
Yes. I always try to do that.
King James Bible
I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
Had you read the bible
I have read my bible. Lots of times. Perhaps you mean, "If you (Alien) had read it and understood it correctly."then you would not have used that verse out of context.
It is clear that the verse did not say Christ was God. But that because he called God his Father that he was making himself equal to God in their eyes...
John 10:33-39 (quoting Psalm 82:6)
"We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”
If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside—
what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?
Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father.
But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”
Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp."
This is 5 chapters later. Here the Jewish leaders recognised that Jesus was claiming to be equal with the Father, that he himself was God. Jesus replies that in the OT God spoke to some people and could refer to them as elohim (or in the LXX Greek theos), the word used for God himself as well as judges and other powerful people. It seems to me that he is saying that, heck, if God could refer to people like that he were merely humans, then surely the title of theos/elohim should be applied to Jesus. Importantly, he then goes on to speak of how that term should be applied to him, i.e. the he was in the Father and the Father in him. The Jews knew what that meant. That's why they again tried to seize him and stone him, not because he was elohim/theos only in the sense used of people/judges/whatever in Psalm 82:6, but as being one in substance with the Father."
One in substance with the Father? As Sass said, what do you mean by substance?
In John 10:33 John is reporting what the Jews said. What they said about him and what Jesus said about himself are not the same. They said 'you make yourself God'; Jesus said 'I said, I am the Son of God'.
So does Jesus actually claim to be God, in that passage? I'm not sure he does.
I think we need to understand the word 'Trinity'. 'Tri-unity' implies unity between Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We need to ask, what kind of unity? Jesus says that when they see him doing the works of the Father, they will know that the Father is in him and he is in the father. This kind of unity demonstrates to people that Jesus is God's Son. It doesn't seem to be an attempt to say that Jesus is God, per se.
I know there are verses like John 20:28, where Thomas says, my Lord and my God. But John's primary purpose is to help people believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and so have eternal life through his name. What name? Jesus, Christ, the Son of God. So in my personal opinion, it is better to think of Jesus' identity that way.
-
...Although I don't have a problem with saying that the Father and the Son (and the Spirit) are both called by the same name (YHWH) and so are both, in that sense, God.
-
One in substance with the Father. It means exactly what it says, that God is one, that the Son is not a created being and there was never a "time", even in eternity, when the Son (or the Holy Spirit for that matter) was not.
-
so: not CofE then, Sass?
Either answer the points in my post and the scriptures or admit you cannot justify your position.
-
:) Being a believer is about living according to EVERY word that proceeds from the mouth of God..
-----------------------------
But Sass you want Genesis 1:1,John 1:3,Rev 1:8,Rev 22:13.Rev 1:17-18 deleted from the bible
so not EVERY word Sass,because you do not believe them,these scriptures must be deleted.
~TW~
If you cannot answer my post then you show that I am right and you are wrong. Already shown you have taken one out of context.
King James Bible
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
You have posted verses above. Already addressed Revelation 1:8
So as to be clear....
1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
Revelation of Jesus Christ which GOD gave to Christ to shew his servants things to come. Which Christ sent an angel to reveal to John.
3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.
4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;
John had told that God gave Christ the revelation and now the angel having given him the revelation writes to the seven churches.
5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
Again made us KINGS AND PRIESTS unto God and his Father to him be the glory and dominion for ever and ever. Clearly John is now referring to God as Jesus Father and unto God be the Glory.
Note he is not saying God and his Father as two separate persons but referring to God being both Christs GOD and Father.
7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
We know that what Christ has given to John is a Revelation froM God to give to his servants... Therefore when John states the above it is God talking about Jesus Christ in verse 7 and referring to himself in verse 8.
Now the first two verses show clearly that the words of this prophecy... is given to Christ from God. Therefore these words are God and where it refers to himself it is about God not Christ and where he refers to Christ it is about Christ not God.
But this whole Prophecy is God given to Christ to reveal to John through an angel....
I already addressed the issue in my post.
When John wrote this the NT did NOT and I repeat did not exist.
The ONLY scripture which God,Christ, the Prophets, and the Disciples referred to as SCRIPTURE were the Old Testament teachings.
That which were given unto the Prophets especially the Law to Moses.
Paul warned everyone including you that you needed to check everything taught by HIM and anyone else by the Scriptures to see if it was so.
It is a fact the Jews held different beliefs the Pharisee and the Sadducee because Christ was to give them the correct teaching...
If you do not answer the points raised in my last post then you ignore the teachings of God, Jesus Christ, the Prophets, and the Disciples.
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Does not even have anything to do with the issue.
It has never been denied GOD the Father created the world by speaking the WORD.
That ALL things came into being because God spoke them into being.
But that verse does not and will never make Christ God in flesh.
For the bible tells you that Jesus Christ came in the flesh...
34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
You cannot change the truth that God himself is the power of the highest. That the Holy things is and cannot be changed the Son of God.
God himself is Holy and Christ belongs to God which makes him a Holy Thing. It does not make him God.
Now you lost your argument in my last post... You know as this progresses you are not liking the truth because you cannot change it.
God in three persons not God is three persons.
-
One in substance with the Father. It means exactly what it says, that God is one, that the Son is not a created being and there was never a "time", even in eternity, when the Son (or the Holy Spirit for that matter) was not.
No it doesn't....
As God is a Spirit John 4:24King James Version (KJV)
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
It is a fact God is a Spirit and Christ taught this. Worshipped in Spirit and Truth...
Jesus Christ is on the right hand of God.
55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
You cannot escape that Jesus Christ is NOT God and that Stephen sees by the power of the Holy Ghost what he witnessed and Jesus standing on the right hand of God. Not literally standing on Gods hand was he?
But stood next God in heaven.
You can literally give biblical references from the NT but at no time do you have any reference from the OT to support what you think you know. And even the NT you take out of context.
-
...Although I don't have a problem with saying that the Father and the Son (and the Spirit) are both called by the same name (YHWH) and so are both, in that sense, God.
Isaiah 42:8 (KJ21) | In Context | Whole Chapter
8 I am the Lord; that is My name. And My glory will I not give to another, neither My praise to graven images.
When Stephen looked up into heaven the writer of Acts tells us something very clearly.
55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
What Glory do you think Stephen saw?
You have read what I wrote Spud and now you too are beginning to see what the Disciples taught and what man taught are two different things. THE Roman Catholic Church are the worse offenders. Hence Christs Church is built on two things... Spirit and Truth the words of God. So that man may go against the Church of Rome and it can fall. But the Church of Christ born of Spirit and Truth cannot be touched because the Kingdom is not of this world or manmade.
There was NO NT and No REVELATION when the Disciples received the Holy Spirit as spoken about in Acts. Just as when Peter spoke about Jesus Christ in Acts 10 the people believed on the name of Jesus, gentiles who have never studied the word of God.
Jesus said: " I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father but by me."
These words were said... Christ did not need to write them down because the disciples knew the OT and they knew what the OT said about the Messiah.
Peter makes it clear:
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
God with Christ not God is Christ...
7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.
9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
Even then people were saying God had come in the flesh... But as you see the truth is that Jesus Christ came in the flesh.
Christ said:- " I have not come to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me."
If you go beyond the teachings of Christ then you do not have Christ or God.
The doctrines of CHrist are revealed through the four gospels.
John shows that Christ is the one whose words needed to be heeded.
2 John 1:2King James Version (KJV)
2 For the truth's sake, which dwelleth in us, and shall be with us for ever.
John 16:13King James Version (KJV)
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
Jesus said that the Spirit could not come to us until he had left...
-
You can literally give biblical references from the NT but at no time do you have any reference from the OT to support what you think you know. And even the NT you take out of context.
I would suggest that you are doing much the same, Sass; not just in this case, but in many others as well. The OT is full of references to the tri-une nature of God, and one doesn't even have to rely on the original language to get this understanding.
In fact, the first reference is in the first verse of Genesis. The word that is translated 'God' in Genesis 1:1 is plural, not singular. Later in the same chapter, God says 'Let us make man ... '. I assume that you think this is a just a Biblical form of the 'royal "we"'?
-
Wasn't there a time when the 'ancients' believed in more than one god anyway?
Before they had the proverbial kicked out of them?
Nick
-
so: not CofE then, Sass?
Either answer the points in my post and the scriptures or admit you cannot justify your position.
Hold the bus - you're the one who claimed to be CofE, not me.
Since, as Alien, an ordained reader in that denomination, kindly posted the Articles confirming that the CofE accepts only One God who is Triune in nature, did you join that denomination, taking vows of membership, under false pretences?
Or did you join, believing that the church you joined, was in error, and, therefore, given your stance, not preaching your idea of the Gospel?
Either way, there is a discrepency there.
-
One in substance with the Father. It means exactly what it says, that God is one, that the Son is not a created being and there was never a "time", even in eternity, when the Son (or the Holy Spirit for that matter) was not.
No it doesn't....
As God is a Spirit John 4:24King James Version (KJV)
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
It is a fact God is a Spirit and Christ taught this. Worshipped in Spirit and Truth...
Jesus Christ is on the right hand of God.
55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
You cannot escape that Jesus Christ is NOT God and that Stephen sees by the power of the Holy Ghost what he witnessed and Jesus standing on the right hand of God. Not literally standing on Gods hand was he?
But stood next God in heaven.
You can literally give biblical references from the NT but at no time do you have any reference from the OT to support what you think you know. And even the NT you take out of context.
I have nothing to say to rank heretics. Now go away.
-
so: not CofE then, Sass?
Either answer the points in my post and the scriptures or admit you cannot justify your position.
Hold the bus - you're the one who claimed to be CofE, not me.
Since, as Alien, an ordained reader in that denomination, kindly posted the Articles confirming that the CofE accepts only One God who is Triune in nature, did you join that denomination, taking vows of membership, under false pretences?
Or did you join, believing that the church you joined, was in error, and, therefore, given your stance, not preaching your idea of the Gospel?
Either way, there is a discrepency there.
Time to pick some nits. Readers (aka Licensed Lay Ministers) get "admitted to the office of Reader". We don't get ordained. We are normal. :)
Becoming a member of the C of E, for good or ill, involves living in the parish or worshipping at a church for 6 months or more. You can formally transfer from another Trinitarian denomination without fuss and a few do, but not many. We have baptists, Methodists and URC who are active members in our main congregation. You can be on the church electoral role without transferring. People tend to only formally transfer if they are going to go forward for Readership or ordination or stuff like that.
-
That's OK but some do believe ALL in the Bible happened.
I don't. In fact I just watched a very well made film, EXODUS, last week & marvelled at how ANYONE can think good of this horrendous creature forcing people to worship it under pain of death & destruction ?!!?!?!?
So now the film has become the bible.Do you know what verse this applied to,have you checked.
No of course you have not checked.
~TW~
-
so: not CofE then, Sass?
Either answer the points in my post and the scriptures or admit you cannot justify your position.
Hold the bus - you're the one who claimed to be CofE, not me.
Since, as Alien, an ordained reader in that denomination, kindly posted the Articles confirming that the CofE accepts only One God who is Triune in nature, did you join that denomination, taking vows of membership, under false pretences?
Or did you join, believing that the church you joined, was in error, and, therefore, given your stance, not preaching your idea of the Gospel?
Either way, there is a discrepency there.
Time to pick some nits. Readers (aka Licensed Lay Ministers) get "admitted to the office of Reader". We don't get ordained. We are normal. :)
Becoming a member of the C of E, for good or ill, involves living in the parish or worshipping at a church for 6 months or more. You can formally transfer from another Trinitarian denomination without fuss and a few do, but not many. We have baptists, Methodists and URC who are active members in our main congregation. You can be on the church electoral role without transferring. People tend to only formally transfer if they are going to go forward for Readership or ordination or stuff like that.
The words we use in making readers are "setting apart" rather than ordination.
And, being the Hirk, they/we are nothing if not red-tape engulfed.
Even if someone is a certified reader in the Methodist or CofE/Episcopalian church, the Kirk expects them to be assessed and trained in the CofS.
At least I didn't have to jump through hoops before being accepted.
Only elders (ruling and teaching aka ministers) and ruling, are ordained.
-
That's OK but some do believe ALL in the Bible happened.
I don't. In fact I just watched a very well made film, EXODUS, last week & marvelled at how ANYONE can think good of this horrendous creature forcing people to worship it under pain of death & destruction ?!!?!?!?
So now the film has become the bible.Do you know what verse this applied to,have you checked.
No of course you have not checked.
~TW~
What the H are you on about?? What the film referred to??? Bit thick or what????
Chaps, would you please get back to the topic of the thread and purpose of this particular board. Ta.
You'll be lucky! :)
-
Sorry but what was it again ??? ;)
-
That's OK but some do believe ALL in the Bible happened.
I don't. In fact I just watched a very well made film, EXODUS, last week & marvelled at how ANYONE can think good of this horrendous creature forcing people to worship it under pain of death & destruction ?!!?!?!?
So now the film has become the bible.Do you know what verse this applied to,have you checked.
No of course you have not checked.
~TW~
What the H are you on about?? What the film referred to??? Bit thick or what????
Tripped monkey did you fall on your head 8) .When you go to the flicks stick to Donald Duck you might understand that.
So back to the Trinity.
~TW~
-
Wasn't there a time when the 'ancients' believed in more than one god anyway?
Before they had the proverbial kicked out of them?
Nick
Yes, but only one people group believed in a single God with more than one 'element'.
-
Why do some here all that it says in The Bible is literally or even figuratively true????
The bending over backwards antics on these forums is worthy of the best contortionists !!!! ::) ;)
Nick
They are, aren't they, Nick. A circus owner would be impressed by some of those same skills that you've shown yourself capable of, too.
-
OH SORRY
Back to lazy english then.
Why does The Bible have to be ALL true? IE No mythology or stories????
Who says that it is all true, Nick? Stories abound thoughout the pages of the material. In the New Testament, they're sometimes known as parables; in other parts they'd deemed to be analogies.
-
That's OK but some do believe ALL in the Bible happened.
I have yet to meet a single person who believes that ALL the Bible is true - even here. As I said before there is no argfument that the story of the Good Samaritan, or of the Prodigal Son, or the Shepherd looking for the lost sheep, etc. are just that: stories that have an underlying truth to learn.
-
Sassy, in your reply to TW you didn't address Revelation 1:11 and 17-18, what do you make of these?
-
...Although I don't have a problem with saying that the Father and the Son (and the Spirit) are both called by the same name (YHWH) and so are both, in that sense, God.
Isaiah 42:8 (KJ21) | In Context | Whole Chapter
8 I am the Lord; that is My name. And My glory will I not give to another, neither My praise to graven images.
When Stephen looked up into heaven the writer of Acts tells us something very clearly.
55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
What Glory do you think Stephen saw?
You have read what I wrote Spud and now you too are beginning to see what the Disciples taught and what man taught are two different things. THE Roman Catholic Church are the worse offenders. Hence Christs Church is built on two things... Spirit and Truth the words of God. So that man may go against the Church of Rome and it can fall. But the Church of Christ born of Spirit and Truth cannot be touched because the Kingdom is not of this world or manmade.
I thought that being at the right hand of God was a symbol for having all authority given to him. In my post I said that the word 'trinity' needs to be understood. I forgot that the word 'tri-une' is an adjective describing God. It seems pretty obvious that if Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, that makes him part of God, in the same way that anyone is part of his or her father.
Yet he is also fully human, and so has two identities- 'God' (being part of the godhead) and the Son of God.
-
...
Yet he is also fully human, and so has two identities- 'God' (being part of the godhead) and the Son of God.
I would suggest using the term "truly human" rather than "fully human" since "fully human" might be understood to mean "truly and only human". "Truly" is what the Nicene Creed uses. If interested, have a butchers at the Temptation of Christ thread #27. If you want to stick to what the Council of Chalcedon 451 AD used, it spoke of Jesus having two "natures" rather than two "identities". It may be that "identities" is suitable, but "natures" is the usual way of expressing it.
-
...
Yet he is also fully human, and so has two identities- 'God' (being part of the godhead) and the Son of God.
I would suggest using the term "truly human" rather than "fully human" since "fully human" might be understood to mean "truly and only human". "Truly" is what the Nicene Creed uses. If interested, have a butchers at the Temptation of Christ thread #27. If you want to stick to what the Council of Chalcedon 451 AD used, it spoke of Jesus having two "natures" rather than two "identities". It may be that "identities" is suitable, but "natures" is the usual way of expressing it.
Just realized that I said "It seems pretty obvious that if Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit". However, I should have said, "conceived by the power of the holy spirit". So what I then said, "that makes him part of God, in the same way that anyone is part of his or her father. " makes no sense. :-[
-
People's egos bouncing off each other. ::)
God must be tutting away up there. LOL ;)
Appears you have the worldly view of everything.
EGOS? nothing to do with people disagreeing about what is God taught and what is man taught... :o
-
One in substance with the Father. It means exactly what it says, that God is one, that the Son is not a created being and there was never a "time", even in eternity, when the Son (or the Holy Spirit for that matter) was not.
No it doesn't....
As God is a Spirit John 4:24King James Version (KJV)
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
It is a fact God is a Spirit and Christ taught this. Worshipped in Spirit and Truth...
Jesus Christ is on the right hand of God.
55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
You cannot escape that Jesus Christ is NOT God and that Stephen sees by the power of the Holy Ghost what he witnessed and Jesus standing on the right hand of God. Not literally standing on Gods hand was he?
But stood next God in heaven.
You can literally give biblical references from the NT but at no time do you have any reference from the OT to support what you think you know. And even the NT you take out of context.
I have nothing to say to rank heretics. Now go away.
You mean you have nothing to say because you only have what man has taught you and the references I have made show you it is wrong...
Heretic... what is laughable about that is the Church you belong to had the Borgias who during the reign of Alexander VI, they were suspected of many crimes, including adultery, incest, simony, theft, bribery, and murder by arsenic poisoning....
You worship the madonna who is NOT God and fully Human. Only Rome worshipped the black madonna before Christianity and then used Mary to worship their Madonna again.
Mary is NOT the mother of God. She gave birth to Jesus Christ the Son of God., She was nothing more than a vessel. Blessed by God.
Luke clearly tells us that Christ was born by the power of God, that Mary had only given permission to be used for the purpose.
Before you go shouting heretic you might want to think about the Church you belong to.... It has the worst record for using it's (so called power) to commit sin against man and sin NOT and NOTHING TO DO with GOD.
Christs Church was neither established or built on such hypocrisy and evil. If YOU want to call names I suggest you come out from the false church first and try living in the true Church and faith of Jesus Christ.
And the tenets of that true Church....
-
For the Trinitarians, what do you find the best way of trying to explain the Trinity to someone? The idea of "three centres of consciousness" in God seems to me to be a path well worth exploring, though I am aware that there is no complete way of explaining "how it all works." There are various illustrations of the Trinity, but do they do more harm than good? For the record I subscribe to a totally mainstream understanding of the Trinity (at least I think I do!), i.e. that God is one God of three persons (the best English word we can find to use here), that the Father is truly/fully God, the Son is truly/fully God, the Spirit is truly/fully God, but the Father is not the Son nor is he the Spirit etc.
I'm asking here how best to explain the Trinity rather than, here, argue whether the idea of the Trinity is correct. That might be better on a separate thread.
God in three persons... all seperate persons but from one source like a match stick split into three. God being the head and Christ and the Spirit being the other two parts. God being the main person over the other two parts. for without the head the match would not be a match.
Christ clearly made it clear that God sent him and God himself gave him the words to speak. In the Book of Daniel it is clear that ONLY the anti-christ would put himself above God and all that is God.
"Then the king will do as he pleases, and he will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will speak monstrous things against the God of gods; and he will prosper until the indignation is finished, for that which is decreed will be done.
Christ never at any time put himself above God or made himself equal to God because his power came from God.
God put all creation under him and that means he will eventually put himself back under God
The only way to fully understand the trinity is to be part of the life God provides through the existence of himself, the Spirit and Jesus Christ.
The truth is that the Bible is the witness of God in man by the power of the Holy Spirit. The Prophets were Holy men of God because the Holy Spirit gave them the words to speak. They killed the Prophets as Christ taught. But we know also that Christ came so all men can be forgiven of their sins and by the baptism of the Spirit have a new life guided by God.
All one in Christ through the power and presence of the Holy Spirit.
So Sass let us clear the Ground is Christ God,Yes or No.
~TW~
Christ is the Son of God.... In the OT and NT God was With Christ...
You fell under the same illusions as many people. Jesus Christ as the Jews will tells you about the Messiah was to be human fully human.
And Adam who was made by God was not God even when God breathed life into him.
1 Corinthians 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
King Jame Bible.
24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
You cannot change what is written... Christ and God are two different persons... God puts his words into his mouth.
18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
King James Bible
For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
As you can see Jesus told the truth, his words were Gods as God intended... You do not know your bible. If you want to question me then you first have to prove you know the truth.
You do not remain in the teachings of Christ. His teaching can be found in the OT but yours cannot....
-
ad_o (and the rest of us, for that matter) will be intensely interested that you think the Borgias ruled the Orthodox church, Sass.
-
One in substance with the Father. It means exactly what it says, that God is one, that the Son is not a created being and there was never a "time", even in eternity, when the Son (or the Holy Spirit for that matter) was not.
No it doesn't....
As God is a Spirit John 4:24King James Version (KJV)
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
It is a fact God is a Spirit and Christ taught this. Worshipped in Spirit and Truth...
Jesus Christ is on the right hand of God.
55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
You cannot escape that Jesus Christ is NOT God and that Stephen sees by the power of the Holy Ghost what he witnessed and Jesus standing on the right hand of God. Not literally standing on Gods hand was he?
But stood next God in heaven.
You can literally give biblical references from the NT but at no time do you have any reference from the OT to support what you think you know. And even the NT you take out of context.
I have nothing to say to rank heretics. Now go away.
You mean you have nothing to say because you only have what man has taught you and the references I have made show you it is wrong...
Heretic... what is laughable about that is the Church you belong to had the Borgias who during the reign of Alexander VI, they were suspected of many crimes, including adultery, incest, simony, theft, bribery, and murder by arsenic poisoning....
You worship the madonna who is NOT God and fully Human. Only Rome worshipped the black madonna before Christianity and then used Mary to worship their Madonna again.
Mary is NOT the mother of God. She gave birth to Jesus Christ the Son of God., She was nothing more than a vessel. Blessed by God.
Luke clearly tells us that Christ was born by the power of God, that Mary had only given permission to be used for the purpose.
Before you go shouting heretic you might want to think about the Church you belong to.... It has the worst record for using it's (so called power) to commit sin against man and sin NOT and NOTHING TO DO with GOD.
Christs Church was neither established or built on such hypocrisy and evil. If YOU want to call names I suggest you come out from the false church first and try living in the true Church and faith of Jesus Christ.
And the tenets of that true Church....
Firstly, I'm not a Roman Catholic. I'm an Orthodox Christian. And yes, that you don't believe in the Most Holy Trinity is against the holy scriptures, fathers and councils. Secondly, that you don't accept the new testament as scripture is further proof of your heresy.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made:
Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and was made man;
And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried;
And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures;
And ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father;
And He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, Whose kingdom shall have no end.
And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke by the Prophets;
And we believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.
We look for the Resurrection of the dead,
And the Life of the age to come. Amen.
This is the Apostolic faith as defined by the 318 Nicene fathers and 150 Constantinopolitan fathers who say with one voice with the whole Church that those who disagree are anathema.
-
ad_o (and the rest of us, for that matter) will be intensely interested that you think the Borgias ruled the Orthodox church, Sass.
Anchorman in my studies of the book of Revelation I have seen that God uses Evil to destroy Evil also he also hardens the hearts of some unbelievers which leaves them out on a limb.This can be seen in Revelation chap 9.In the case of Sass I think this has happened because of the demonic doctrines that comes from this person,I feel it is all to late with this person.
11 They had as king over them the angel of the Abyss, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon and in Greek is Apollyon (that is, Destroyer).
~TW~
-
I'm not disagreeing with you, TW.
Sass seems somewhat confused -
She uses a Trinitarian translation of Scripture to justify her somewhat unique take on the nature of God.
She claims allegiance to the CofE, which is unashamedly grounded in the doctrine of the Trinity.
And she claims either A, Ad-O is a member of the Roman Catholic Church, or
B, that Alexander VI was the ruler of the Orthodox church (I'm not sure which)
Either way, she's a crazy, mixed up kid!
-
ad_o (and the rest of us, for that matter) will be intensely interested that you think the Borgias ruled the Orthodox church, Sass.
I suppose you believe that two of the popes from the Roman Catholic Church were NOT Borgias...
You are like the Pharisees and Sadducees with Christ... You think you know better than Christ and God. Makes no difference who was what in RC it is not the Church of Christ and in all truth YOU don't believe it to be so.
You remember the Ear-ticklers????
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
You are such as above in that you appease those who do not have sound doctrine so be acceptable to all. Roman Catholic church was simply Rome losing their power to the true Church of Christ and so keeping control of the people and the world by false teachings ensuring their false beliefs and black madonna kept to the forefront and conning millions... Both will come to an end because the sound doctrines of Christ show that even the false teachings cannot save you.
One way to God.... Jesus Christ and he states clearly...
"I (NOT the belief Trinity) is the way, the truth and the life."
The truth is you can only receive the Holy Spirit by believing in Jesus and so know both the Father and Son.
The truth is within now....
Jeremiah 31:31-34.
You and others are too frightened to allow the truth of Jesus to help you see that you have wandered away from the truth.
A mans faith has to stand on his own convictions not those of others.
Only Jesus Christ can save us... Not you, not the disciples and no teachings of Man. All have to be taught individually by Gods Spirit.
John 16:13 as the OT confirms.
-
It is you who are following the doctrine of men, for you are your own pope. It also seems you don't know the difference between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but then I always knew you were thick.
-
It is you who are following the doctrine of men, for you are your own pope. It also seems you don't know the difference between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but then I always knew you were thick.
hi Bruv sometimes we have to say enough is enough and with Sass that is the case.
Hi AM :D Keep up the good work be strong watch out, I am in Fort William at the end of May.
~TW~
-
ad_o (and the rest of us, for that matter) will be intensely interested that you think the Borgias ruled the Orthodox church, Sass.
I suppose you believe that two of the popes from the Roman Catholic Church were NOT Borgias...
You are like the Pharisees and Sadducees with Christ... You think you know better than Christ and God. Makes no difference who was what in RC it is not the Church of Christ and in all truth YOU don't believe it to be so.
Eh?
What I believe or not is immaterial. Two of the RC popes were indeed Borgias.
What ghas that to do with the denomination to which Ad_O belongs?
(Which, like the denomination to which you claim to adhere, is totally, completely and utterly Trinitarian....)
-
You remember the Ear-ticklers????
-
Is that a Unitarin schismatic sect.......one which specialises in judgemental proclamations, egomaniacs and self-righteousness?
-
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
You are such as above in that you appease those who do not have sound doctrine so be acceptable to all. Roman Catholic church was simply Rome losing their power to the true Church of Christ and so keeping control of the people and the world by false teachings ensuring their false beliefs and black madonna kept to the forefront and conning millions... Both will come to an end because the sound doctrines of Christ show that even the false teachings cannot save you.
One way to God.... Jesus Christ and he states clearly...
"I (NOT the belief Trinity) is the way, the truth and the life."
The truth is you can only receive the Holy Spirit by believing in Jesus and so know both the Father and Son.
The truth is within now....
Jeremiah 31:31-34.
-
Ah....you belong to the aforementioned 'Ear tickler Unitarians-r-us" sect, then?
-
You and others are too frightened to allow the truth of Jesus to help you see that you have wandered away from the truth.
A mans faith has to stand on his own convictions not those of others.
Only Jesus Christ can save us... Not you, not the disciples and no teachings of Man. All have to be taught individually by Gods Spirit.
John 16:13 as the OT confirms.
-
That would be the author of the Gospel who set down Jesus' claims to Deity, then?
-
It is you who are following the doctrine of men, for you are your own pope. It also seems you don't know the difference between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but then I always knew you were thick.
Look at your reply A0,
The Pope is NOT Gods representative on earth the Holy Spirit is the person sent to the Church to lead and teach. All popes are and have been manmade representatives of teachings not given by God.
One day you will stand before God and he will tell you himself that NO pope was ordained or given by him to represent him.
That Peter was not a Pope and that ONLY God can forgive sins through Jesus Christ. Hence Christ said: " YOUR sins are forgiven."
No pope represents God and no Pope speaks for God.
The Jewish high priests did, till the final high priest Jesus Christ.
To God there is no one more special than anyone else.
Peter himself said:
34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
Look at your reply...
It has nothing from the scriptures does it?
It has nothing to counteract what the scriptures and Christ himself taught.
So why not wake up to the truth.
You can huff and puff but the Church of Christ is built on solid rock and it ain't gonna fall down for the makeshift one you believe in.
Jesus Christ is LORD of all and the RC are just counterfeit.
They put a man as a representative of God on earth.
The true Church is Spirit and Truth and the RC cannot prevail against it...
-
The ;true Church;, Sass, are those who accept Christ Jesus - God Incarnate - for who He says He is.
They are members of umpteen sundered denoominations, with just as many governing authorities...but they have one thing in common: their acceptance of Christ Jesus, God Incarnate, as LORD.
-
It is you who are following the doctrine of men, for you are your own pope. It also seems you don't know the difference between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but then I always knew you were thick.
hi Bruv sometimes we have to say enough is enough and with Sass that is the case.
Hi AM :D Keep up the good work be strong watch out, I am in Fort William at the end of May.
~TW~
All bluster and all revealing that you cannot counteract or disprove what I have said...
We can see the dust as you run away.... God isn't fooled. You have been told the truth now you will answer on the day of judgement as to why you believed something not taught in the OT.
-
The ;true Church;, Sass, are those who accept Christ Jesus - God Incarnate - for who He says He is.
They are members of umpteen sundered denoominations, with just as many governing authorities...but they have one thing in common: their acceptance of Christ Jesus, God Incarnate, as LORD.
Wrong:-
The true Church as those born of Spirit and Truth.
John 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
See how far you have fallen away.
Jesus Christ is the Son of God and John 3:16 and Acts 10 show that the truth does not say that Jesus is God incarnate.
It shows God spoke through Christ and God was with Christ.
Nowhere does the teaching you have posted appear in the OT or even the NT.
You have to believe Christ came in the flesh and that he is to be called/known as the Son of God for he is a Holy thing.
Eternal life is clear in the words of Christ. himself...
King James Bible
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Clearly eternal life is to know THE only TRUE God and Jesus Christ whom the ONLY true God sent...
So clearly you are not representing the truth and doctrine Christ taught... I am the way, the truth and life, NO ONE comes to THE FATHER but by me...
Now try and tell everyone that Jesus Christ is God when Christ himself shows God sent him. And eternal life is knowing both of them.
-
.....this from a person who rejects the Trinity but claims to adhere to a denomination which has it as its' core doctrine.
....er......
-
It is you who are following the doctrine of men, for you are your own pope. It also seems you don't know the difference between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but then I always knew you were thick.
Look at your reply A0,
The Pope is NOT Gods representative on earth the Holy Spirit is the person sent to the Church to lead and teach. All popes are and have been manmade representatives of teachings not given by God.
One day you will stand before God and he will tell you himself that NO pope was ordained or given by him to represent him....
Sass,
AO is not a Roman Catholic so all this stuff about Popes and Peter is irrelevant.
-
Sass Christ is worshiped end of matter,only God is worshiped.God is the creator,Christ is the creator.
~TW~
-
It is you who are following the doctrine of men, for you are your own pope. It also seems you don't know the difference between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but then I always knew you were thick.
Look at your reply A0,
The Pope is NOT Gods representative on earth the Holy Spirit is the person sent to the Church to lead and teach. All popes are and have been manmade representatives of teachings not given by God.
One day you will stand before God and he will tell you himself that NO pope was ordained or given by him to represent him.
That Peter was not a Pope and that ONLY God can forgive sins through Jesus Christ. Hence Christ said: " YOUR sins are forgiven."
No pope represents God and no Pope speaks for God.
The Jewish high priests did, till the final high priest Jesus Christ.
To God there is no one more special than anyone else.
Peter himself said:
34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
Look at your reply...
It has nothing from the scriptures does it?
It has nothing to counteract what the scriptures and Christ himself taught.
So why not wake up to the truth.
You can huff and puff but the Church of Christ is built on solid rock and it ain't gonna fall down for the makeshift one you believe in.
Jesus Christ is LORD of all and the RC are just counterfeit.
They put a man as a representative of God on earth.
The true Church is Spirit and Truth and the RC cannot prevail against it...
Again, what the hell are you on about? Of course I don't believe that the Pope of Rome is God's representative on Earth. I'M NOT ROMAN CATHOLIC. As for the Holy Spirit, you demonstrate that he is not in you, for you deny who he is.
-
What did God do 'with people' BEFORE Jesus????
-
What did God do 'with people' BEFORE Jesus????
Do you mean what were the fate of the dead before Christ? They were is Hades awaiting Christ.
-
Well what's the bloody point of that.?!?!? :o
Why not have Jesus right from the start as any good teacher might do ???? ???
-
Well what's the bloody point of that.?!?!? :o
Why not have Jesus right from the start as any good teacher might do ???? ???
Eh? God was there from the start, only we messed it up.
-
What did God do 'with people' BEFORE Jesus????
There was never a time before Jesus he was very busy in the OT.
~TW~
-
What did God do 'with people' BEFORE Jesus????
There was never a time before Jesus he was very busy in the OT.
~TW~
Busy talking about a God of vengeance; only to change it to a God of love in the NT!
-
What did God do 'with people' BEFORE Jesus????
There was never a time before Jesus he was very busy in the OT.
~TW~
Busy talking about a God of vengeance; only to change it to a God of love in the NT!
BA would you like me to show you.
~TW~
-
What did God do 'with people' BEFORE Jesus????
There was never a time before Jesus he was very busy in the OT.
~TW~
Busy talking about a God of vengeance; only to change it to a God of love in the NT!
BA would you like me to show you.
~TW~
I have asked you to about 17 or 18 times over the last weeks!
-
Well what's the bloody point of that.?!?!? :o
Why not have Jesus right from the start as any good teacher might do ???? ???
Isn't this in the faith sharing are a so we should be allowing it to be less confrontational?
Well YOU'RE not going to be much use when we get the BIG Muslim takeover here in the UK, are you????? ;) ::)
-
What did God do 'with people' BEFORE Jesus????
There was never a time before Jesus he was very busy in the OT.
~TW~
Busy talking about a God of vengeance; only to change it to a God of love in the NT!
BA would you like me to show you.
~TW~
I have asked you to about 17 or 18 times over the last weeks!
Have you and I have never seen it.
~TW~
-
What did God do 'with people' BEFORE Jesus????
There was never a time before Jesus he was very busy in the OT.
~TW~
Busy talking about a God of vengeance; only to change it to a God of love in the NT!
BA would you like me to show you.
~TW~
I have asked you to about 17 or 18 times over the last weeks!
Have you and I have never seen it.
~TW~
In the thread on the Flood.
-
.....this from a person who rejects the Trinity but claims to adhere to a denomination which has it as its' core doctrine.
....er......
You still cannot see because you have left the truth behind for a manmade teaching.
Since a child I have believed in God and known his Son Jesus Christ died for sin. God teaches me not man. You see faith brings a living relationship. You see it written
John 17:3
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
1611 version
And this is life eternall, that they might know thee the onely true God, and Iesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
The doctrine of Christ, his own words and his own teaching.
2 John 1:9King James Version (KJV)
9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
What the NT teaches Not suggests and no hints is that God is the only true God and that he sent Jesus Christ the son of God. Eternal life is knowing both the true God and Jesus Christ whom the true God sent.
It is also true that Christ said he and the Father would reveal himself to whomsoever obeyed his teachings....
Christ said " Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." Christ answered from the true scriptures. Man today follows the teachings of other men. But the OT and NT show that God himself through the Spirit teaches those who belong to him and leads them in all truth. It is not in the power of the written word (note: given to men by the Holy Spirit) it is by the power of the same Spirit teaching them as individuals within the body of Christ.
John 16:13King James Version (KJV)
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
Acts 1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
There is no rejection of the trinity as Father, Son and Holy Spirit exist.
What the Trinity does not teach is that Jesus is God. Jesus himself clearly taught that Eternal life is....And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
As you can see Christ did not and does not claim to be the only true God... just sent by the ONLY true God. I believe the doctrines of Christ.
You should not continue with the teachings of men but adhere to the words of Christ as we know he spoke the words of God.
-
It is you who are following the doctrine of men, for you are your own pope. It also seems you don't know the difference between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but then I always knew you were thick.
Look at your reply A0,
The Pope is NOT Gods representative on earth the Holy Spirit is the person sent to the Church to lead and teach. All popes are and have been manmade representatives of teachings not given by God.
One day you will stand before God and he will tell you himself that NO pope was ordained or given by him to represent him....
Sass,
AO is not a Roman Catholic so all this stuff about Popes and Peter is irrelevant.
Not everyone is a Christian on this site... does that make the truth about God irrelevant?
When you useless arguments because you cannot argue against the truth of Christ's words what does that mean? It means when you read the scriptures and see the NT teachings produced from Christ you cannot deny the truth it tells you. You have no answer for the reality before you. So you purposely NOT blindly look to keep what you have learned in error. And furthermore adhere and seek to show further error to cover the fact.
-
Sass Christ is worshiped end of matter,only God is worshiped.God is the creator,Christ is the creator.
~TW~
You have gone beyond the doctrines of Christ....
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Christs own words condemn you as does the words of John
7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.
9Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God: he that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him, God speed.
As you can see the disciple John makes it clear that Jesus Christ came in the flesh.
We know that this is the truth because Peter taught it too.
36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:)
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
Why not put yourself aside and God first. Ask God to show you the truth.
That both he taught through Christ and the disciples.
That eternal life is knowing the ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus Christ whom the ONLY TRUE GOD sent...
-
It is you who are following the doctrine of men, for you are your own pope. It also seems you don't know the difference between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but then I always knew you were thick.
Look at your reply A0,
The Pope is NOT Gods representative on earth the Holy Spirit is the person sent to the Church to lead and teach. All popes are and have been manmade representatives of teachings not given by God.
One day you will stand before God and he will tell you himself that NO pope was ordained or given by him to represent him.
That Peter was not a Pope and that ONLY God can forgive sins through Jesus Christ. Hence Christ said: " YOUR sins are forgiven."
No pope represents God and no Pope speaks for God.
The Jewish high priests did, till the final high priest Jesus Christ.
To God there is no one more special than anyone else.
Peter himself said:
34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
Look at your reply...
It has nothing from the scriptures does it?
It has nothing to counteract what the scriptures and Christ himself taught.
So why not wake up to the truth.
You can huff and puff but the Church of Christ is built on solid rock and it ain't gonna fall down for the makeshift one you believe in.
Jesus Christ is LORD of all and the RC are just counterfeit.
They put a man as a representative of God on earth.
The true Church is Spirit and Truth and the RC cannot prevail against it...
Again, what the hell are you on about? Of course I don't believe that the Pope of Rome is God's representative on Earth. I'M NOT ROMAN CATHOLIC. As for the Holy Spirit, you demonstrate that he is not in you, for you deny who he is.
At no time have I denied the Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ or God.
Why do you lie? But you deny the doctrines of Christ and the Apostles.
Christ said:
Version of John 17:3.
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Peter said:
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
John said:
I remain within the doctrines of Christ and the Apostles...
Verse 9 shows you have left the teachings of Christ and the Apostles.
7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.
9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
-
What did God do 'with people' BEFORE Jesus????
Do you mean what were the fate of the dead before Christ? They were is Hades awaiting Christ.
Really? Then how come Jesus taught the parable of Dives and Lazarus...
Is Enoch in hell? Is Abraham in Hell or Lazarus?>
Is King David in hell before the coming of Christ?
22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
Genesis 5:24King James Version (KJV)
24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.
You think God would put Enoch in Hell?
What do you mean?
-
Well what's the bloody point of that.?!?!? :o
Why not have Jesus right from the start as any good teacher might do ???? ???
Isn't this in the faith sharing are a so we should be allowing it to be less confrontational?
Well YOU'RE not going to be much use when we get the BIG Muslim takeover here in the UK, are you????? ;) ::)
As with Hitler when the time comes their is a mighty fall and no one ever forgets how he deals with the enemies of his people....
-
It is you who are following the doctrine of men, for you are your own pope. It also seems you don't know the difference between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but then I always knew you were thick.
Look at your reply A0,
The Pope is NOT Gods representative on earth the Holy Spirit is the person sent to the Church to lead and teach. All popes are and have been manmade representatives of teachings not given by God.
One day you will stand before God and he will tell you himself that NO pope was ordained or given by him to represent him....
Sass,
AO is not a Roman Catholic so all this stuff about Popes and Peter is irrelevant.
Not everyone is a Christian on this site... does that make the truth about God irrelevant?
No, of course not. However, if you read back over your posts you will see that they read as if you were taking AO to task for holding Roman Catholic beliefs. He was rather rude to you, calling you thick, but that does not mean you were right to take him to task for RC beliefs when he is in fact Orthodox.When you useless arguments because you cannot argue against the truth of Christ's words what does that mean? It means when you read the scriptures and see the NT teachings produced from Christ you cannot deny the truth it tells you. You have no answer for the reality before you. So you purposely NOT blindly look to keep what you have learned in error. And furthermore adhere and seek to show further error to cover the fact.
That's a bit of a rant, Sass. I'll reply to sensible points you make, e.g. attempts to demonstrate what Scripture says, but I'm not going to respond to rants. Life is too short for that.
-
What did God do 'with people' BEFORE Jesus????
Do you mean what were the fate of the dead before Christ? They were is Hades awaiting Christ.
Really? Then how come Jesus taught the parable of Dives and Lazarus...
Is Enoch in hell? Is Abraham in Hell or Lazarus?>
Is King David in hell before the coming of Christ?
22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
Genesis 5:24King James Version (KJV)
24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.
You think God would put Enoch in Hell?
What do you mean?
The old testament saints were in Hades, that is, the abode of the dead. When our Lord died on the cross he descended into Hades, had Satan bound, preached the gospel to them and opened the way to heaven through his resurrection from the dead. Adam and Eve were the first to be lead out, as is depicted in our iconography. Our Lord said that no man had yet entered heaven.
-
It is you who are following the doctrine of men, for you are your own pope. It also seems you don't know the difference between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but then I always knew you were thick.
Look at your reply A0,
The Pope is NOT Gods representative on earth the Holy Spirit is the person sent to the Church to lead and teach. All popes are and have been manmade representatives of teachings not given by God.
One day you will stand before God and he will tell you himself that NO pope was ordained or given by him to represent him.
That Peter was not a Pope and that ONLY God can forgive sins through Jesus Christ. Hence Christ said: " YOUR sins are forgiven."
No pope represents God and no Pope speaks for God.
The Jewish high priests did, till the final high priest Jesus Christ.
To God there is no one more special than anyone else.
Peter himself said:
34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
Look at your reply...
It has nothing from the scriptures does it?
It has nothing to counteract what the scriptures and Christ himself taught.
So why not wake up to the truth.
You can huff and puff but the Church of Christ is built on solid rock and it ain't gonna fall down for the makeshift one you believe in.
Jesus Christ is LORD of all and the RC are just counterfeit.
They put a man as a representative of God on earth.
The true Church is Spirit and Truth and the RC cannot prevail against it...
Again, what the hell are you on about? Of course I don't believe that the Pope of Rome is God's representative on Earth. I'M NOT ROMAN CATHOLIC. As for the Holy Spirit, you demonstrate that he is not in you, for you deny who he is.
At no time have I denied the Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ or God.
Why do you lie? But you deny the doctrines of Christ and the Apostles.
Christ said:
Version of John 17:3.
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Peter said:
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
John said:
I remain within the doctrines of Christ and the Apostles...
Verse 9 shows you have left the teachings of Christ and the Apostles.
7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.
9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
You deny the Holy Spirit because you deny who he is. Whatever it is you believe in it's not the Holy Spirit Christ speaks of. You deny the Son also and the plain words of the scriptures.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...and the the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."
Your doctrine is neither from the Holy Spirit nor the Apostles.
-
Gentle folk Sass is not interested in scripture,AO cited this scripture,
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...and the the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."
So the word a spirit became flesh,he came in the Flesh. Nothing could be clearer.But Sass does not want that.Result reject scripture.
So what does Sass want ? This will do nicely-------- 28 “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
And Sass say's there the Father is greater then Jesus so he cant be God,we could add no one knows the day or hour,so Jesus cant be God because he does not know the day or hour,if he was God he would know.
So Sass is only interested in the scriptures that have been twisted and given a different meaning by the cult he or she follows.
~TW~
-
So Sass is only interested in the scriptures that have been twisted and given a different meaning by the cult he or she follows.
A very sad situation, as she she has obviously spent a lot of time in the word. Please Sassy, bring this to the Lord in prayer, ask Him for wisdom, it is He that leads us into all truth.
-
One for Sass------------------------- 28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Believed what Sass “My Lord and my God!”
~TW~
-
As with Hitler when the time comes their is a mighty fall and no one ever forgets how he deals with the enemies of his people....
I forget..... does that make you wrong? ::)
-
One for Sass------------------------- 28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Believed what Sass “My Lord and my God!”
~TW~
-
As with Hitler when the time comes their is a mighty fall and no one ever forgets how he deals with the enemies of his people....
I forget..... does that make you wrong? ::)
You mean she might be infallable?
-
A couple of verses on the Trinity which I had not considered before:
Acts 20:28 (KJV)
28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
1 Timothy 3:16 (KJV)
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
-
A couple of verses on the Trinity which I had not considered before:
Acts 20:28 (KJV)
28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
1 Timothy 3:16 (KJV)
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Hiya 2Corrie, your fellow Trinitarian here. 1 Timothy 3:16 is actually not a good verse to use as the original is probably "He was manifest in the flesh".
-
As with Hitler when the time comes their is a mighty fall and no one ever forgets how he deals with the enemies of his people....
I forget..... does that make you wrong? ::)
Did Sass just compare god to Hitler?
-
A couple of verses on the Trinity which I had not considered before:
Acts 20:28 (KJV)
28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
1 Timothy 3:16 (KJV)
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Hiya 2Corrie, your fellow Trinitarian here. 1 Timothy 3:16 is actually not a good verse to use as the original is probably "He was manifest in the flesh".
Just a note to Trinitarians the JW's in their new bible completely re-write Colossians in order to hide clue's and hints to Christ deity.
So Sass take note these Anti-Christ remove the deity of Christ which they say is not there in the first place,very strange and dis-honest.
~TW~
-
What 'new Bible, TW?
Is this a new mistranslation, or a mistranslation of the already existing mistranslation, the NWT?
-
What 'new Bible, TW?
Is this a new mistranslation, or a mistranslation of the already existing mistranslation, the NWT?
Hi Bruv good to see you back :) they have re-printed the NWT and taken even more liberty's the brackets around the word other in Col 1 : 16-17 have been removed and it reads Jesus created all other things------------------Of course it should read all things so now no brackets you can view it on line .
http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/
All other things have been created through him+ and for him. 17 Also, he is before all other things,+ and by means of him all other things were made to exist,
~TW~
-
Cheers!
So it's a new printing of a new mistranslation of a deliberate mistranslation by un-named people whose abilities to translate are not up for scrutiny....in other words, it's as honest as anything else which comes from Brooklyn?
-
Cheers!
So it's a new printing of a new mistranslation of a deliberate mistranslation by un-named people whose abilities to translate are not up for scrutiny....in other words, it's as honest as anything else which comes from Brooklyn?
Yes and if you would like our New tract-----------Beware of the New word Translation -----PM me.
~TW~
-
As with Hitler when the time comes their is a mighty fall and no one ever forgets how he deals with the enemies of his people....
I forget..... does that make you wrong? ::)
Did Sass just compare god to Hitler?
Hitler had a mighty fall because GOD deals with the enemies of his people.
Which relates to how God deals with the enemies of his people... You hope you never go there...
-
A couple of verses on the Trinity which I had not considered before:
Acts 20:28 (KJV)
28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
1 Timothy 3:16 (KJV)
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Hiya 2Corrie, your fellow Trinitarian here. 1 Timothy 3:16 is actually not a good verse to use as the original is probably "He was manifest in the flesh".
Just a note to Trinitarians the JW's in their new bible completely re-write Colossians in order to hide clue's and hints to Christ deity.
So Sass take note these Anti-Christ remove the deity of Christ which they say is not there in the first place,very strange and dis-honest.
~TW~
The silly thing is how you ignore the truths....
King James Bible
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
So Thomas upon seeing Christ did NOT see God...
King James Bible
No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.
God dwelleth in us as he dwelt in Christ. And we are one as Christ and God were one....
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Eternal life is knowing both God the ONLY true God and Jesus Christ, whom the only true God sent...
11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
How are God and Christ one as we are all one?
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
Words and teachings of Christ take president over any of the verses you totally misrepresent.
Jesus Christ is the Son of God and he came in the flesh. He made know what God is really like to us. BUT eternal life is knowing both God the Father the ONLY true God and Jesus Christ whom the only true God sent.
Through the years men have misunderstood the reality and teachings which the disciples themselves made clear.
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
God anointed/GAVE Christ the Holy Ghost and power. He went about doing godd and healing all who were oppressed by the devil; for GOD WAS WITH HIM.
It may take time but eventually if you read and ask God for guidance you will see it was always GODS intention for Christ to be called and known as the SON OF GOD.
Luke 1.
Furthermore it is written:
1 Corinthians 12:3King James Version (KJV)
3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
Jesus is LORD.... I can say it because it is true. So why do you pretend you have any authority to falsely accuse me?
-
A couple of verses on the Trinity which I had not considered before:
Acts 20:28 (KJV)
28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
1 Timothy 3:16 (KJV)
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Hiya 2Corrie, your fellow Trinitarian here. 1 Timothy 3:16 is actually not a good verse to use as the original is probably "He was manifest in the flesh".
Just a note to Trinitarians the JW's in their new bible completely re-write Colossians in order to hide clue's and hints to Christ deity.
So Sass take note these Anti-Christ remove the deity of Christ which they say is not there in the first place,very strange and dis-honest.
~TW~
The silly thing is how you ignore the truths....
King James Bible
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
So Thomas upon seeing Christ did NOT see God...
King James Bible
No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.
God dwelleth in us as he dwelt in Christ. And we are one as Christ and God were one....
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Eternal life is knowing both God the ONLY true God and Jesus Christ, whom the only true God sent...
11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
How are God and Christ one as we are all one?
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
Words and teachings of Christ take president over any of the verses you totally misrepresent.
Jesus Christ is the Son of God and he came in the flesh. He made know what God is really like to us. BUT eternal life is knowing both God the Father the ONLY true God and Jesus Christ whom the only true God sent.
Through the years men have misunderstood the reality and teachings which the disciples themselves made clear.
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
God anointed/GAVE Christ the Holy Ghost and power. He went about doing godd and healing all who were oppressed by the devil; for GOD WAS WITH HIM.
It may take time but eventually if you read and ask God for guidance you will see it was always GODS intention for Christ to be called and known as the SON OF GOD.
Luke 1.
Furthermore it is written:
1 Corinthians 12:3King James Version (KJV)
3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
Jesus is LORD.... I can say it because it is true. So why do you pretend you have any authority to falsely accuse me?
Sass get a life the word Lord means God.
~TW~
-
A couple of verses on the Trinity which I had not considered before:
Acts 20:28 (KJV)
28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
1 Timothy 3:16 (KJV)
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Hiya 2Corrie, your fellow Trinitarian here. 1 Timothy 3:16 is actually not a good verse to use as the original is probably "He was manifest in the flesh".
Just a note to Trinitarians the JW's in their new bible completely re-write Colossians in order to hide clue's and hints to Christ deity.
So Sass take note these Anti-Christ remove the deity of Christ which they say is not there in the first place,very strange and dis-honest.
~TW~
The silly thing is how you ignore the truths....
King James Bible
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
So Thomas upon seeing Christ did NOT see God...
King James Bible
No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.
God dwelleth in us as he dwelt in Christ. And we are one as Christ and God were one....
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Eternal life is knowing both God the ONLY true God and Jesus Christ, whom the only true God sent...
11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
How are God and Christ one as we are all one?
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
Words and teachings of Christ take president over any of the verses you totally misrepresent.
Jesus Christ is the Son of God and he came in the flesh. He made know what God is really like to us. BUT eternal life is knowing both God the Father the ONLY true God and Jesus Christ whom the only true God sent.
Through the years men have misunderstood the reality and teachings which the disciples themselves made clear.
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
God anointed/GAVE Christ the Holy Ghost and power. He went about doing godd and healing all who were oppressed by the devil; for GOD WAS WITH HIM.
It may take time but eventually if you read and ask God for guidance you will see it was always GODS intention for Christ to be called and known as the SON OF GOD.
Luke 1.
Furthermore it is written:
1 Corinthians 12:3King James Version (KJV)
3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
Jesus is LORD.... I can say it because it is true. So why do you pretend you have any authority to falsely accuse me?
Sass get a life the word Lord means God.
~TW~
Get an education from the LORD God.
Baal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baal
Jump to Word - The spelling "Baal" derives from the Greek Báal (Βάαλ), which ... The word's Biblical senses as a Phoenician deity and false gods ... In these languages, baʿal signified "owner" and, by extension, "lord", a"master", or "husband". ... Arabic: بعلـة ), meaning "mistress" in the sense of a female owner or lady ...
You need to educate yourself about the term Lord.
The LORD in the OT is replacing Gods name YAHWEH and was NOT orginally written as Lord. So where you see the word in capitals in the OT it has replaced the name YAHWEH.
So God is still Yahweh and that is Gods name.
Lord does NOT mean God as in Yahweh. Because Lord can be used for many things.
'The house of Lords' is not the house of gods.
God's Hebrew name "YHWH" is used in the Old Testament, English translations usually use "LORD" in capital letters.
The truth is that a lie is easier for masses to believe. NO teaching in the OT or the NT says that the Messiah will be God made man.
In fact it says that he will be a prophet like Moses whom God speaks to. Moses was like a god unto Pharaoh but he never became God.
Whatever you say you cannot obey Christs first two commandments if you call Christ God and love him more than God. You can only love Christ if you Love the LORD GOD with all your heart mind body and soul. Note you never actually had anything with which to defend your position.
What next. Going to wake one morning and find you cannot justify Christ being God but Christ representing God to us and God speaking through him.
Christ clearly tells you; ''My words are SPIRIT and they are life.''
Whom does God impart his words to man through.
-
Sass you really are a mess,and I see little hope for you in this brainwashed state. Just a little verse here that explodes your myth,but you will not see, why it does, explode your myth.
See if you can fathom it out. 16 I, Jesus, have sent My messenger (angel) to you to witness and to give you assurance of these things for the churches (assemblies). I am the Root (the Source) and the Offspring of David, the radiant and brilliant Morning Star.
~TW~
-
Some verses for Sass, who like to refer to the Spirit.
However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. Rom 8.9
By whom did the prophet's speak?
Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, 11 trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow. 1 Peter 1-11
-
Some verses for Sass, who like to refer to the Spirit.
However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. Rom 8.9
By whom did the prophet's speak?
Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, 11 trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow. 1 Peter 1-11
Any thoughts Sass?
-
Sass you really are a mess,and I see little hope for you in this brainwashed state. Just a little verse here that explodes your myth,but you will not see, why it does, explode your myth.
See if you can fathom it out. 16 I, Jesus, have sent My messenger (angel) to you to witness and to give you assurance of these things for the churches (assemblies). I am the Root (the Source) and the Offspring of David, the radiant and brilliant Morning Star.
~TW~
It says Jesus not God. That there is the difference..
Jesus came down in the flesh not God.
1 John 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time.
Why is it you cannot see the truth.
-
Some verses for Sass, who like to refer to the Spirit.
However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. Rom 8.9
You are clutching at straws.... 2 Corin.
By whom did the prophet's speak?
Do you mean by what power did the Prophets speak the word of God/
The same as Christ, as he said...''My words are SPIRIT and they are LIFE.''
''I can do nothing of myself, the Father who is with me does his own work.''
Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, 11 trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow. 1 Peter 1-11
2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.
Are you now realising that the NT teaches Christ and the Father a two different persons.
Tell me do you know both the one true God and Jesus Christ whom the one true God sent.
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent?
-
Of course the Father and the Son are two distinct persons.
The Most Holy Trinity 101.
Number 1: The persons are not to be confused.
Nevertheless, as the scriptures say "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us". Are you calling the Holy Spirit a liar? You are an Arian!
-
Also remember a few weeks ago Sass tells us she is C of E and in the other thread,she tells us when the Russians are marching down the hills of Jerusalem that is the end of the world. Strange teachings from the C of E, or as Sass lost the plot.
~TW~
-
Also remember a few weeks ago Sass tells us she is C of E and in the other thread,she tells us when the Russians are marching down the hills of Jerusalem that is the end of the world. Strange teachings from the C of E, or as Sass lost the plot.
~TW~
And the moon landings were a fake? (Hint that is not CofE teaching :)).
-
Sass you really are a mess,and I see little hope for you in this brainwashed state. Just a little verse here that explodes your myth,but you will not see, why it does, explode your myth.
See if you can fathom it out. 16 I, Jesus, have sent My messenger (angel) to you to witness and to give you assurance of these things for the churches (assemblies). I am the Root (the Source) and the Offspring of David, the radiant and brilliant Morning Star.
~TW~
It says Jesus not God. That there is the difference..
Jesus came down in the flesh not God.
1 John 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time.
Why is it you cannot see the truth.
Then why did Jacob say that he had seen God face to face and yet had lived? You really aren't getting it :(
-
Then why did Jacob say that he had seen God face to face and yet had lived?
As well as the seventy elders (Exodus 24:9), Manoah and his wife (Judges 13:22), Solomon (1 Kings 11:9), Isaiah (Isaiah 6:5), and Moses (Numbers 12:8 ).
-
Then why did Jacob say that he had seen God face to face and yet had lived?
As well as the seventy elders (Exodus 24:9), Manoah and his wife (Judges 13:22), Solomon (1 Kings 11:9), Isaiah (Isaiah 6:5), and Moses (Numbers 12:8).
You can add Gideon to that list as well (Judges 6:22-23)
-
Also remember a few weeks ago Sass tells us she is C of E and in the other thread,she tells us when the Russians are marching down the hills of Jerusalem that is the end of the world. Strange teachings from the C of E, or as Sass lost the plot.
~TW~
It is one of the oldest prophetic prophesies believed to be from Daniel about the end times. The King of the North etc. I threw it in, but your learning is not advanced. Asking questions about things you do not know. It was also foretold by some Christians, one in particular about the one money system like the euro by this person in the 70's and the chip they now use in animals being placed under the skin in humans hand and head eventually.
The truth is you laugh and mock because you know nothing about the end times. You are really searching to widen that knowledge but getting nowhere fast.
You think and follow your human senses instead of listening for God in your inner man and being. Even the word of God tells us...
King James Bible
And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:
You don't mock me, you mock the God and the very word of God, you claim to believe in. Everytime you speak out against me...Gods words show you have no real faith in his Words AT ALL.
-
Sass you really are a mess,and I see little hope for you in this brainwashed state. Just a little verse here that explodes your myth,but you will not see, why it does, explode your myth.
See if you can fathom it out. 16 I, Jesus, have sent My messenger (angel) to you to witness and to give you assurance of these things for the churches (assemblies). I am the Root (the Source) and the Offspring of David, the radiant and brilliant Morning Star.
~TW~
It says Jesus not God. That there is the difference..
Jesus came down in the flesh not God.
1 John 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time.
Why is it you cannot see the truth.
Then why did Jacob say that he had seen God face to face and yet had lived? You really aren't getting it :(
The book of Genesis says Jacob wrestled a man.
Read the chapter. Though Jacob spoke with God in that place the man never claimed to be God. In fact the man speaks about God.
24 And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.
It says he wrestled with a man is that wrong? Would it not say he wrestled with God if it was God?
28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.
The man never referred to himself as God he said you have power with God and with men.
30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
Where in the verses before does Jacob see God face to face. It was dark and we know that no man has seen God face to face and can live.
Stephen sees God and the Son as he dies.
55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
King James Bible
And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
Jacob met with God just as Moses did. They both met him presence to presence/face to face but none saw his face.
It was dark with Jacob he wrestled a man. But he was in the presence of God just as we know when Jesus was here God was with him and all who saw Christ were in the presence of God at the same time.
Think about it... God is not a liar.
King James Bible
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
They spoke to God presence to presence God being there speaking for himself. But at no time did they see God.
The disciples were JEWS who knew those scriptures off by heart. Even they knew that NO man had seen God. But Like Moses Christ was given authority as being God when he spoke unto us the words of God.
You need to study all the references and have a complete picture. Yes God to spoke to these people in their presence...face to face so to speak but NO man has actually seen God and lived.
-
Then why did Jacob say that he had seen God face to face and yet had lived?
As well as the seventy elders (Exodus 24:9), Manoah and his wife (Judges 13:22), Solomon (1 Kings 11:9), Isaiah (Isaiah 6:5), and Moses (Numbers 12:8 ).
What do you think it all means?
Which came first... Jacob or Moses?
Was the law present before Moses or after?
What is impossible for man is not impossible for God.
Whose words do we believe? We know that man has free will. Does Genesis tell the truth?
Who is telling the truth? If God says no man may see his face and live. Did Jacob mean he had seen Gods face when he said he had spoke to him face to face.
Did these people seeing the evidence of the presence of God actually behold his face? And the disciple John was he born of the Spirit? Was he speaking the truth when he said:
King James Bible
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Jesus said:
King James Bible
Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
Jesus said only he had seen the Father God.
What you have to do is reason this through. God says no man can see his FACE and live and Christ says no man hath seen the Father except for himself.
Are they confusing being the actual presence of God with actually seeing the face and person God?
Tell me what God looks like from the events of those who witnessed his presence.
-
Not to mention Abraham in the plains of Mamre. It was definitely the LORD that appeared to him there. How can this be Sass, are you confused? He that has not he Son has not the Father.
-
Not to mention Abraham in the plains of Mamre. It was definitely the LORD that appeared to him there. How can this be Sass, are you confused? He that has not he Son has not the Father.
Again you are deliberately IGNORING the facts.
You see that NO man has seen God. No one denies they have spoken with him.
YOU are unable to discern the scriptures and deliberately ignoring the facts.
You are the person worse than confused you lack the truth.
-
Then why did Jacob say that he had seen God face to face and yet had lived?
As well as the seventy elders (Exodus 24:9), Manoah and his wife (Judges 13:22), Solomon (1 Kings 11:9), Isaiah (Isaiah 6:5), and Moses (Numbers 12:8 ).
What do you think it all means?
Since Jesus implies that he existed before Abraham I think that these appearances of God were something to do with Jesus.
Which came first... Jacob or Moses?
Jacob.
Was the law present before Moses or after?
The written law was not given until Moses.
What is impossible for man is not impossible for God.
Agreed.
Whose words do we believe? We know that man has free will. Does Genesis tell the truth?
Yes.
Who is telling the truth? If God says no man may see his face and live. Did Jacob mean he had seen Gods face when he said he had spoke to him face to face.
There is quite a lot about being spared having seen God face to face. Eg. Jacob at Peniel, the seventy elders at Sinai, Israel at Sinai (Deut. 5:4), and Isaiah in the temple.
Did these people seeing the evidence of the presence of God actually behold his face?
No, they either met a human manifestation of God, or they saw the glory with the fire inside (not God himself but a manifestation of Him).
And the disciple John was he born of the Spirit? Was he speaking the truth when he said:
King James Bible
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
I suspect John sees Jesus as similar to the man with whom Jacob wrestled, ie a human manifestation of God. (The Father is not physical, He is invisible)
Jesus said:
King James Bible
Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
Jesus said only he had seen the Father God.
What you have to do is reason this through. God says no man can see his FACE and live and Christ says no man hath seen the Father except for himself.
Are they confusing being the actual presence of God with actually seeing the face and person God?
Tell me what God looks like from the events of those who witnessed his presence.
-
Not to mention Abraham in the plains of Mamre. It was definitely the LORD that appeared to him there. How can this be Sass, are you confused? He that has not he Son has not the Father.
Again you are deliberately IGNORING the facts.
You see that NO man has seen God. No one denies they have spoken with him.
YOU are unable to discern the scriptures and deliberately ignoring the facts.
You are the person worse than confused you lack the truth.
Sorry but you are confused because you don't understand the whole truth. You keep parroting the same scripture, but it is plain to see there are contradictions with that scripture which cannot be resolved until you accept that Jesus is YHWH. Read Genesis 18 again, it's so obvious.
-
Very definitely a theophany, the three angels being the three persons of the Most Holy Trinity.
-
Then why did Jacob say that he had seen God face to face and yet had lived?
As well as the seventy elders (Exodus 24:9), Manoah and his wife (Judges 13:22), Solomon (1 Kings 11:9), Isaiah (Isaiah 6:5), and Moses (Numbers 12:8 ).
What do you think it all means?
Since Jesus implies that he existed before Abraham I think that these appearances of God were something to do with Jesus.
Well according to the bible our names were written in the book of life before the foundation of the world. Well before Abraham. Does that mean we existed before Abraham?
The Lambs book of the living being in existence from the foundation of the world does that mean before Abraham Christ and we were?
In God and before God, all these things existed before any of them happened.
God knowing the END from the beginning.
But Jesus Christ said:
King James Bible
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
It isn't about what we think it is about truth.
Which came first... Jacob or Moses?
Jacob.
Was the law present before Moses or after?
The written law was not given until Moses.
What is impossible for man is not impossible for God.
Agreed.
Whose words do we believe? We know that man has free will. Does Genesis tell the truth?
Yes.
Who is telling the truth? If God says no man may see his face and live. Did Jacob mean he had seen Gods face when he said he had spoke to him face to face.
There is quite a lot about being spared having seen God face to face. Eg. Jacob at Peniel, the seventy elders at Sinai, Israel at Sinai (Deut. 5:4), and Isaiah in the temple.
Did these people seeing the evidence of the presence of God actually behold his face?
No, they either met a human manifestation of God, or they saw the glory with the fire inside (not God himself but a manifestation of Him).
And the disciple John was he born of the Spirit? Was he speaking the truth when he said:
King James Bible
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
I suspect John sees Jesus as similar to the man with whom Jacob wrestled, ie a human manifestation of God. (The Father is not physical, He is invisible)
Jesus said:
King James Bible
Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
Jesus said only he had seen the Father God.
What you have to do is reason this through. God says no man can see his FACE and live and Christ says no man hath seen the Father except for himself.
Are they confusing being the actual presence of God with actually seeing the face and person God?
Tell me what God looks like from the events of those who witnessed his presence.
The truth is Spud God has always seen the end from the beginning. He has made known the end from the beginning. But he has not told anyone, not even Jesus Christ the day and hour of his return.
Had Jesus been God, then he could not help but know because God does not and cannot change.
Jesus was a human being for God shares his Glory as the one true God with no one. The one truth which shows God was with Jesus who was a Holy Thing and who was to be known/called the Son of God.
Only the One true God knows everything...
-
Not to mention Abraham in the plains of Mamre. It was definitely the LORD that appeared to him there. How can this be Sass, are you confused? He that has not he Son has not the Father.
Again you are deliberately IGNORING the facts.
You see that NO man has seen God. No one denies they have spoken with him.
YOU are unable to discern the scriptures and deliberately ignoring the facts.
You are the person worse than confused you lack the truth.
Sorry but you are confused because you don't understand the whole truth. You keep parroting the same scripture, but it is plain to see there are contradictions with that scripture which cannot be resolved until you accept that Jesus is YHWH. Read Genesis 18 again, it's so obvious.
That would be to call GOD a liar. You don't know your scripture the same as you have NO scripture to support calling Jesus God. As I have just proved God knows everything but Christ does not. Because only God is omnipresent...in all places at all times. Had Christ been omnipresent and knowing all the end from the beginning then he would have told the Disciples the day and hour of his return.
The truth is you are not being honest with yourself or me. You think what you wrote is hidden from the atheist but God and men who know Christ and the truth can see you have no argument and no scripture to support anything about what you claim. In fact the scripture of the anti-christ the son of perdition proves you wrong. But you refuse to see it.
The fact is the LORD spoke to these people they were in the presence of God but none of them saw God.
You need to ask the Jews why they too believe no one has seen God and why the bible/Torah does not mean what you are trying to make it say.
Abraham saw three men he did not see God. God spoke/appeared to Abraham
Numbers 12:6-8
6 And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.
7 My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house.
8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?
1 Timothy 6:15-16
15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.
What does God actually look like. You see God has spoken with men throughout history the glory of his presence but never has any man seen God in his true presence and glory.
You can make what you will of it. But the disciples and Jews were not taught that any man has actually seen the one TRUE God in his real form.
Jesus Christ, NEVER claimed to be God or wanted to be worshipped above God.
His first commandment is very clear... If you love Christ you can ONLY show this by LOVING GOD first with all your heart, mind, body and soul. If you love Christ more than you do not obey Christ. If you worship Christ as God then you break the first commandment. If you teach others to do this then you do not love your neighbour and break his second commandment.
God first, and your neighbour...
As John says... If you cannot love your brother whom you do see, you cannot love God who you don't see.
What is love?
-
Very definitely a theophany, the three angels being the three persons of the Most Holy Trinity.
Is is God in three persons not God is three persons...
You need to think about this.... God is everywhere before the foundation and creation of the world. He is the ONLY true immortal. SO explain what it means to be human.
-
Very definitely a theophany, the three angels being the three persons of the Most Holy Trinity.
Is is God in three persons not God is three persons...
You need to think about this.... God is everywhere before the foundation and creation of the world. He is the ONLY true immortal. SO explain what it means to be human.
God is three persons. The persons are distinct and not to be confused, yet there is only one divine nature, each person being fully God as to substance. This is basic Trinitarian theology which you are obviously ignorant of. Otherwise you would know that Christ is God instead of holding to the heresies of Arius and all the other arch-heretics.
-
Hi Sassy
Message 137- I see your point about John 8:58. Jesus did, after all, just say that Abraham rejoiced to see his day, implying that Jesus is talking about that in verse 58. (The Jews' reply to Jesus in verse 57 seems rather obscure). But how would you interpret John 12:41? Is John saying that it was Christ whom Isaiah saw in the temple?
-
Very definitely a theophany, the three angels being the three persons of the Most Holy Trinity.
Is is God in three persons not God is three persons...
You need to think about this.... God is everywhere before the foundation and creation of the world. He is the ONLY true immortal. SO explain what it means to be human.
God is three persons. The persons are distinct and not to be confused, yet there is only one divine nature, each person being fully God as to substance. This is basic Trinitarian theology which you are obviously ignorant of. Otherwise you would know that Christ is God instead of holding to the heresies of Arius and all the other arch-heretics.
No! God in three persons and that means that we are all one in Christ as Christ and God are one. All separate persons but all one in the same way as Christ and God by the power of Gods Spirit.
No where does the bible says God, Jesus Christ and Holy Spirit make up one God
In fact Jesus says blasphemy of the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. How can you be forgiven blasphemy of Christ or God the Father but not the Holy Spirit if all are God?
Christ made it clear his words were Spirit. Luke made it clear that Jesus was born by the power of Holy Spirit and the highest power God.
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
You disobey Gods will if call Christ anything but the Son of God.
You are trying so hard to make Christ God. But God shows that it was NEVER his intention for Christ to be known as God.
Peter tells it as it is...
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
How easy it is to believe a lie when following the teachings of man. How easy for it to embed so that it becomes a sin against the God you claim to love.
God was with Christ as he was with Moses. Just as men were to heed the words from Moses given by God... So they were to heed the words of the Messiah given by God. For God was with Christ as he was with Moses.
-
Hi Sassy
Message 137- I see your point about John 8:58. Jesus did, after all, just say that Abraham rejoiced to see his day, implying that Jesus is talking about that in verse 58. (The Jews' reply to Jesus in verse 57 seems rather obscure). But how would you interpret John 12:41? Is John saying that it was Christ whom Isaiah saw in the temple?
King James 2000 Bible
God, who at many times and in various manners spoke in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
To be all God they would have to be equal in all things and ways.
But Christ is not equal to God as he does not know everything and God does.
Only the Father knows the hour of his return.
He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
The Church built on the belief Christ is the Son of God.
-
I knew you were a heretic.
-
I knew you were a heretic.
Only by manmade and worldly standards...
My Saviour says the same as I do...
17Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
You see Christ said he ascended to his God and my God.
So why argue about such little details when you see the Son of God says he ascended to HIS God and our God...
We all grow up believing what sometimes we never question. But when we read the bible as God intends us to read it, with the living God before our eyes. WELL then we know that Christ never said he was God and never said you should believe he was God.
-
I actually had a JW prove to me that Jesus is God today!!!!
When talking about who we should pray to the JW asked; "So Was David Praying to an ANGEL at 1Cron 21:16"
That verse says in the NWT "When David raised his eyes, he saw Jehovah’s angel standing between the earth and the heavens with a drawn sword+ in his hand extended toward Jerusalem. David and the elders, covered with sackcloth,+ at once threw themselves down with their faces to the ground.+
Now when I read this verse I can certainly see David and the elders bowing down to Jehovah's Angel (or the Angel of the Lord), but not praying to him.
The JW was kind enough to provide the answer and posted verse 17.
17 David said to the true God: “Was it not I who said to number the people? I am the one who sinned, and I am the one who did wrong;+ but these sheep—what have they done? O Jehovah my God, let your hand, please, come against me and my father’s house; but do not bring this scourge on your people.”+
So, the JW, in saying that David was praying to an angel, provides me with a verse that says he "said to the true God..." So if David was praying to this Angel, the writer seems to be saying that David was praying to the true God.
The Watchtower Society also says that Jehovah's Angel (the Angel of the Lord) is none other than God's firstborn son.. who is that? Well of course it's Jesus.
In their Watchtower article from September 15th 2010 entitled "Your Leader is One, the Christ" the Society say:
2, 3. What active role did God’s Son play in Israel?
2 Centuries before the founding of the Christian congregation, Jehovah had an angelic leader over his people Israel. After bringing the Israelites out of Egypt, Jehovah told them: “Here I am sending an angel ahead of you to keep you on the road and to bring you into the place that I have prepared. Watch yourself because of him and obey his voice. Do not behave rebelliously against him, for he will not pardon your transgression; because my name is within him.” (Ex. 23:20, 21) It is reasonable to believe that this angel, who had ‘Jehovah’s name within him,’ was God’s firstborn Son.
So let us sumarise
1. David prays to an angel in 1 Chronicles 21 16-17 and the Bible writer calls this angel the true God.
2. The Watchtower Society calls this Angel God's firstborn Son
Therefore Jesus must be God.
Thank you Mr JW. You have been very helpful.
~TW~
-
It looks like he unwittingly proved that, since God's firstborn son = the angel of God (according to the WT) = addressed as God, therefore the Son is God.
Did he agree?
-
It is reasonable to believe that this angel, who had ‘Jehovah’s name within him,’ was God’s firstborn Son
(Quoting the WT in TW's post)
But this doesn't prove that the angel of God is God's Son, they have only said it is reasonable to believe it.
Does anyone know if this can be properly shown from the Bible?
-
You disobey Gods will if call Christ anything but the Son of God.
What about calling Him YHWH? There are a lot of NT passages in which an OT reference to YHWH is quoted in reference to Christ. For example, 1 Peter 2:7,8 which applies Isaiah 8:13,14 to Christ, implying that Christ is YHWH.
-
Hi Sassy
Message 137- I see your point about John 8:58. Jesus did, after all, just say that Abraham rejoiced to see his day, implying that Jesus is talking about that in verse 58. (The Jews' reply to Jesus in verse 57 seems rather obscure). But how would you interpret John 12:41? Is John saying that it was Christ whom Isaiah saw in the temple?
King James 2000 Bible
God, who at many times and in various manners spoke in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
To be all God they would have to be equal in all things and ways.
But Christ is not equal to God as he does not know everything and God does.
Only the Father knows the hour of his return.
He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
The Church built on the belief Christ is the Son of God.
That is a good question (why is the Son not all-knowing, like the Father?). But could we just establish who Isaiah saw in the temple (Is. 6:1), if no-one can see God face to face?
-
I knew you were a heretic.
Only by manmade and worldly standards...
My Saviour says the same as I do...
17Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
You see Christ said he ascended to his God and my God.
So why argue about such little details when you see the Son of God says he ascended to HIS God and our God...
We all grow up believing what sometimes we never question. But when we read the bible as God intends us to read it, with the living God before our eyes. WELL then we know that Christ never said he was God and never said you should believe he was God.
Not man made but from the Holy Spirit. The scriptures clearly teach that both Christ and the Holy Spirit are God along with the Father, but like Arius you listen to the Devil instead.
-
I knew you were a heretic.
Only by manmade and worldly standards...
My Saviour says the same as I do...
17Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
You see Christ said he ascended to his God and my God.
So why argue about such little details when you see the Son of God says he ascended to HIS God and our God...
We have to interpret any passage in such a way that it doesn't contradict another passage. That's in one of the 39 articles of the CofE. So with this verse in John, we need to remember what John has told us, for example, in the first few verses of chapter 1, and what he tells us Thomas says to Jesus after his resurrection. When Jesus talks about his God, the only way this can be reconciled with Thomas' exclamation is if Jesus is referring to God the Father whilst at the same time being himself God the Son.
-
It is reasonable to believe that this angel, who had ‘Jehovah’s name within him,’ was God’s firstborn Son
(Quoting the WT in TW's post)
But this doesn't prove that the angel of God is God's Son, they have only said it is reasonable to believe it.
Does anyone know if this can be properly shown from the Bible?
Spud The Angel OF the Lord is Jesus http://biblehub.com/judges/6-22.htm
~TW~
-
It is reasonable to believe that this angel, who had ‘Jehovah’s name within him,’ was God’s firstborn Son
(Quoting the WT in TW's post)
But this doesn't prove that the angel of God is God's Son, they have only said it is reasonable to believe it.
Does anyone know if this can be properly shown from the Bible?
Spud The Angel OF the Lord is Jesus http://biblehub.com/judges/6-22.htm
~TW~
It's taken me a while to get this, but I think you're right. In Exodus and Judges Moses and Joshua worship the Angel of the Lord but in Revelation 19:10 22:8-9 John is told not to worship the angel who is showing him the visions, so the AOTL can't be a created angel.
-
It is reasonable to believe that this angel, who had ‘Jehovah’s name within him,’ was God’s firstborn Son
(Quoting the WT in TW's post)
But this doesn't prove that the angel of God is God's Son, they have only said it is reasonable to believe it.
Does anyone know if this can be properly shown from the Bible?
Spud The Angel OF the Lord is Jesus http://biblehub.com/judges/6-22.htm
~TW~
It's taken me a while to get this, but I think you're right. In Exodus and Judges Moses and Joshua worship the Angel of the Lord but in Revelation 19:10 22:8-9 John is told not to worship the angel who is showing him the visions, so the AOTL can't be a created angel.
Spud also note once Jesus is born the angel OF THE LORD makes no more appearances ,that is very telling.Is it job done spud.
~TW~
-
Spud also note once Jesus is born the angel OF THE LORD makes no more appearances ,that is very telling.Is it job done spud.
~TW~
Acts 12:7 might be an exception?
-
Spud also note once Jesus is born the angel OF THE LORD makes no more appearances ,that is very telling.Is it job done spud.
~TW~
Acts 12:7 might be an exception?
I don't think so. I think there is a clear distinction between the terms, 'The angel of the Lord' and 'an angel of the Lord'. The former is found in several places in the OT and I am one of those who holds to the view that these are theophanic appearances of Jesus in the OT. I stand under correction but am not aware of this term being found in the NT.
The latter is found frequently in both the Old and New and in these instances clearly seems to be a reference to an ordinary angel (if there is such a thing). Unlike 'The angel of the Lord' who is eternal, these are created spiritual beings, created before God laid the foundations of the earth, as they were there to sing for joy when they witnessed this event (Job 38:7).
-
Hi Dave,
I have also held to the same view regarding the Angel of Yahweh in the OT, that he is a theophany of Christ. It just seems strange to think of Christ appearing to people before he was born, and there doesn't seem to be any specific teaching of it in the NT. Although given John 1:1, I assume Jesus is 'the Word of the Lord' who came to the prophets of the OT.
I also find it strange that the NT uses a phrase which is very similar to the OT phrase 'the angel of Yahweh'. Which is the correct translation in the NT: an angel of the Lord, or the angel of the Lord?
You seem to think it is 'an angel'. Yet the KJV translates it 'the angel'.
-
Hi Dave,
I have also held to the same view regarding the Angel of Yahweh in the OT, that he is a theophany of Christ. It just seems strange to think of Christ appearing to people before he was born, and there doesn't seem to be any specific teaching of it in the NT. Although given John 1:1, I assume Jesus is 'the Word of the Lord' who came to the prophets of the OT.
I also find it strange that the NT uses a phrase which is very similar to the OT phrase 'the angel of Yahweh'. Which is the correct translation in the NT: an angel of the Lord, or the angel of the Lord?
You seem to think it is 'an angel'. Yet the KJV translates it 'the angel'.
Hi Spud,
Well you have certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons with that quote from the KJV. I must confess that I have not used the KJV for serious Bible Study for over 30 years so my comments were based on more recent translations such as the NIV, NASB and ESV. I now find that there are several places where the KJV uses ‘the angel’ while the others use ‘an angel’. This is where I wish I had more than a rudimentary (an exaggeration in itself) knowledge of Greek. I have looked at Strong’s Concordance and also at an interlinear Greek/English New Testament which I have but neither throw much light on which would be the preferred translation. Perhaps Alien, who at least has done some formal studies in Greek, can come galloping across on his white stallion to help us (avoiding encounters with windmills on the way) and provide some insights here.
I must say I am uncomfortable with the KJV’s use of the angel of the Lord in some places. Matt 1:20 and 2:13 serve as examples here. In the first Mary is already pregnant while the second concerns the flight to Egypt. Philippians 2:5-8 tells us that when Jesus came to live amongst us as a man He ‘emptied himself’, or set aside, His divine attributes, including omnipresence and became fully man. I then have a problem with a theophanic appearance of Jesus while He was present on earth, whether as a man, or still in the womb or as a young child.
Enjoy what is left of the day.
-
I guess it would make things a lot easier if, in the Greek, the phrase meant an angel and not the angel! Thanks for your thoughts, Dave, and meanwhile maybe someone could blow their horn and summon Alien?!
-
I guess it would make things a lot easier if, in the Greek, the phrase meant an angel and not the angel! Thanks for your thoughts, Dave, and meanwhile maybe someone could blow their horn and summon Alien?!
Spud give it up,go with the flow the Lord is now a man in Heaven,the study of revelation is worthwhile.
~TW~
-
...the Lord is now a man in Heaven.
~TW~
I can see that that would be significant.
-
Malachi 3:1 is quite helpful.
-
Hi Dave,
I have also held to the same view regarding the Angel of Yahweh in the OT, that he is a theophany of Christ. It just seems strange to think of Christ appearing to people before he was born, and there doesn't seem to be any specific teaching of it in the NT. Although given John 1:1, I assume Jesus is 'the Word of the Lord' who came to the prophets of the OT.
I also find it strange that the NT uses a phrase which is very similar to the OT phrase 'the angel of Yahweh'. Which is the correct translation in the NT: an angel of the Lord, or the angel of the Lord?
You seem to think it is 'an angel'. Yet the KJV translates it 'the angel'.
Hi Spud,
Well you have certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons with that quote from the KJV. I must confess that I have not used the KJV for serious Bible Study for over 30 years so my comments were based on more recent translations such as the NIV, NASB and ESV. I now find that there are several places where the KJV uses ‘the angel’ while the others use ‘an angel’. This is where I wish I had more than a rudimentary (an exaggeration in itself) knowledge of Greek. I have looked at Strong’s Concordance and also at an interlinear Greek/English New Testament which I have but neither throw much light on which would be the preferred translation. Perhaps Alien, who at least has done some formal studies in Greek, can come galloping across on his white stallion to help us (avoiding encounters with windmills on the way) and provide some insights here.
I must say I am uncomfortable with the KJV’s use of the angel of the Lord in some places. Matt 1:20 and 2:13 serve as examples here. In the first Mary is already pregnant while the second concerns the flight to Egypt. Philippians 2:5-8 tells us that when Jesus came to live amongst us as a man He ‘emptied himself’, or set aside, His divine attributes, including omnipresence and became fully man. I then have a problem with a theophanic appearance of Jesus while He was present on earth, whether as a man, or still in the womb or as a young child.
Enjoy what is left of the day.
Can't hang around long. I've tied Dobbin up, but someone might nick him since he is such a handsome stead.
Mt 1:20 "An angel of the Lord".
Mt 2:13 "An angel of the Lord".
I've not followed the discussion fully, but would suggest you don't worry too much about whether "the" is there in the Greek or Hebrew. It isn't always used quite the same way as in English.
Angelos in Greek, basically means "messenger" and, as such, says nothing about whether the messenger is supernatural or not or, even, whether someone separate is sending him. In fact, John the Baptist is described as an "angelos" in Mark 1.2, which is a quote from Malachi 3:1 where "mal'ak/mal'ach" means messenger in very much the same way as "angelos". Just to complicate things "Malachi" just means "my messenger" so is that his name (like "Fred") or his title?
I think you will have to decide based very much on the context.
-
Hi Dave,
I have also held to the same view regarding the Angel of Yahweh in the OT, that he is a theophany of Christ. It just seems strange to think of Christ appearing to people before he was born, and there doesn't seem to be any specific teaching of it in the NT. Although given John 1:1, I assume Jesus is 'the Word of the Lord' who came to the prophets of the OT.
I also find it strange that the NT uses a phrase which is very similar to the OT phrase 'the angel of Yahweh'. Which is the correct translation in the NT: an angel of the Lord, or the angel of the Lord?
You seem to think it is 'an angel'. Yet the KJV translates it 'the angel'.
Hi Spud,
Well you have certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons with that quote from the KJV. I must confess that I have not used the KJV for serious Bible Study for over 30 years so my comments were based on more recent translations such as the NIV, NASB and ESV. I now find that there are several places where the KJV uses ‘the angel’ while the others use ‘an angel’. This is where I wish I had more than a rudimentary (an exaggeration in itself) knowledge of Greek. I have looked at Strong’s Concordance and also at an interlinear Greek/English New Testament which I have but neither throw much light on which would be the preferred translation. Perhaps Alien, who at least has done some formal studies in Greek, can come galloping across on his white stallion to help us (avoiding encounters with windmills on the way) and provide some insights here.
I must say I am uncomfortable with the KJV’s use of the angel of the Lord in some places. Matt 1:20 and 2:13 serve as examples here. In the first Mary is already pregnant while the second concerns the flight to Egypt. Philippians 2:5-8 tells us that when Jesus came to live amongst us as a man He ‘emptied himself’, or set aside, His divine attributes, including omnipresence and became fully man. I then have a problem with a theophanic appearance of Jesus while He was present on earth, whether as a man, or still in the womb or as a young child.
Enjoy what is left of the day.
Can't hang around long. I've tied Dobbin up, but someone might nick him since he is such a handsome stead.
Mt 1:20 "An angel of the Lord".
Mt 2:13 "An angel of the Lord".
I've not followed the discussion fully, but would suggest you don't worry too much about whether "the" is there in the Greek or Hebrew. It isn't always used quite the same way as in English.
Angelos in Greek, basically means "messenger" and, as such, says nothing about whether the messenger is supernatural or not or, even, whether someone separate is sending him. In fact, John the Baptist is described as an "angelos" in Mark 1.2, which is a quote from Malachi 3:1 where "mal'ak/mal'ach" means messenger in very much the same way as "angelos". Just to complicate things "Malachi" just means "my messenger" so is that his name (like "Fred") or his title?
I think you will have to decide based very much on the context.
Many thanks for the response Alien. Your input much appreciated. Dave
-
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
Only God knows ALL things.
Jesus Christ the Son if God would know ALL things He would know the day of his return. But he is not God the Father he is the Son of God.
God has told the end from the beginning. God is the true Alpha and Omega the beginning and end of everything,
Christ cannot be God if he does not know all things.
They write things like....
Answer: Omniscience is defined as “the state of having total knowledge, the quality of knowing everything.” For God to be sovereign over His creation of all things, whether visible or invisible, He has to be all-knowing. His omniscience is not restricted to any one person in the Godhead—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all by nature omniscient.
But Christ the Son isn't for he does not know everything and he admits only the true God does.
-
Sass do you not think that Philippians 2:5-11 explains why the Lord when incarnate did not know (or choose to know) all things?
Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.
-
Sass do you not think that Philippians 2:5-11 explains why the Lord when incarnate did not know (or choose to know) all things?
Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.
Hi 2 Corrie we have another silly answer from Sass nothing changes,she seems to have forgotten this " “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me".Mind you did she ever know that.
~TW~
-
Sass do you not think that Philippians 2:5-11 explains why the Lord when incarnate did not know (or choose to know) all things?
Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.
Being in the form of God not being God.
Do you understand what it means to be in the form of rather than being God?
God knows ALL things he never stops knowing all things. Christ was a man and man was made in Gods image. But Christ spoke and acted in the same manner/form as God would in person had Christ been God and not the Son of God. A son does as his Father as Christ did and shown in Christs own words.
39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
We to are to think as Christ and have the same mind. "To do the will of our Father, God.
-
Sass do you not think that Philippians 2:5-11 explains why the Lord when incarnate did not know (or choose to know) all things?
Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.
Hi 2 Corrie we have another silly answer from Sass nothing changes,she seems to have forgotten this " “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me".Mind you did she ever know that.
~TW~
Some times you break your teeth chewing stones.
As Christ said:
King James Bible
Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.
Followed by:
King James Bible
And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
Christ becomes subject to God the Father again, when he returns everything back under God so God may be ALL and in ALL.
So Christ is given authority... God does not require to be given anything that already belongs to him.
Acts 10:38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
Christ received his power from God. Jesus had the Holy Ghost and power from God.
Truth will eventually cause the scales to fall from your eyes.
-
So do you think Jesus was created then?
-
So Sass like your friends in the JW's and other cults you have no answer.
~TW~
-
So do you think Jesus was created then?
Isn't all flesh created?
Wasn't Christ a human being?
Did God speak about him and hence he became the word made flesh the word below made flesh?
King James Bible
I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
Was Adam Created by the words of God?
The book of life written before the foundation of the world.
Where did we come into existence? Was it at our birth or when God wrote the Lambs book of the living?
When did Christ and us come into actual existence?
King James Bible
For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
Jesus Christ came in the flesh. What do you say about Jesus. Was it God or Jesus who came in the flesh?
If you want to try and trick me then please learn what the bible says and understand that it gives the answers. So were we all there before the beginning or just our names before the foundation of the world?
-
Sass you ask--------------Isn't all flesh created?
Wasn't Christ a human being?
Did God speak about him and hence he became the word made flesh the word below made flesh?
The answer is read this------------- 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
So the bible says you are wrong.
~TW~
-
Sass you ask--------------Isn't all flesh created?
Wasn't Christ a human being?
Did God speak about him and hence he became the word made flesh the word below made flesh?
The answer is read this------------- 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
So the bible says you are wrong.
~TW~
The OT does not teach that and we know if it isn't in the OT it is to be rejected.
Pauls own teachings or is Pauls teachings also falling on deaf ears?
It is referring to God.
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
It is clear that GOD created the heaven and earth. That the word is God and it was his word which spoke everything into being.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
This refers to God himself as you can see by reading Genesis 1 for yourself.
Gods word has always come to man through the Holy Spirit and Gods Spirit was with him at the beginning. The word being there before the foundation of the world.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
God gave all things life that is living and his word is the light to our feet.
King James Bible
. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
Christ is the one John bears witness to. Jesus is the light of Gods word the culmination of all his promises and the reason for the writings of the Prophets give to them by the Holy Ghost who spake through them.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
Christ is the light of the world. Because he brings the truth of Gods word to all mankind the final truth which shows all that God has tried to teach man through his word throughout time from the very beginning.
You need to check the OT to know what is truth and what is not acceptable by God. God does NOT share his glory as God with anyone.
Christ said if you love me you will obey my commandments, he has made his first commandment as this:
King James Bible
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
To love God with all your mind is to obey what he teaches.
King James Bible
While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.
As you can see God can speak also for himself. He spoke out about Jesus and he called him his beloved Son. He said to listen to him. Doesn't he command the same in Deut 18:18.
You can hum and ha about everything but you cannot change what the true God taught or has said. A true son obeys his Father as Christ taught.
-
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.
Clearly Christ is God incarnate as the scriptures say but you are blinded by the doctrines of men and a follower of the wicked Arius.
-
I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another,Nor My praise to graven images
Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
-
The second part is from the gospel (according to St. John, if I remember correctly).
-
2Corrie's spot on (as usual).
The text is from John 17, vs 4 & 5.
BTW, I forget......Sass has, as yet, not clearly answered the question put to her.
Was Jesus created?
If so, when?
-
2Corrie's spot on (as usual).
The text is from John 17, vs 4 & 5.
BTW, I forget......Sass has, as yet, not clearly answered the question put to her.
Was Jesus created?
If so, when?
Sass it would be nice if you could show us the scriptures that relate to the creation of Jesus.
~TW~
-
"HE WAS CONCEIVED BY THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY"
18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
The Prophets of the OT all referred to Christ and we know Christ summed all the teachings of the Prophets and the Law into two commandments.
It was by Gods word all things that are created were created.
God promised the Israelites to raise them up a Prophet from among their own brethren. Which means Christ was made flesh he was the Word made flesh because he exhibited all that was in the OT in thought, word and deed. Obeying Gods word and obeying the law (whole) and teachings of the Prophets.
When you understand this about Christ...
King James Bible
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
The word of God was all about Christ the word made flesh. In that he exhibited every truth that God has written about him through the Prophets and law.
Christ was the culmination and the reason for the words God gave unto men through the Prophets via the Spirit.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
The disciples understood and knew that Gods word had now been made flesh. That what God had written and the Prophets preached has now been fulfilled. The promises of God are all YES in Christ because Christ is Gods word now in flesh.
A human being without sin promised from God since the beginning and the culmination of all the TEACHINGS of the Prophets and the LAW.
So to die as a human being Christ had to be Flesh.
Just as Adam was made flesh formed from Soil and life breathed in from God.
All humans are from the breath of God. Christ is no different he was born by Gods word and the breath breathed into man by God. All life proceeds from the Father.
All things have happened where Father and the Spirit have been.
Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.
The power of the Holy Spirit is there on all three occasions. At the beginning of creation. The conception of John and Jesus Christ.
The creed says the Holy Spirit is the Lord and giver and life.
And it is a fact that Christ came to baptise with the Holy Spirit.
King James Bible
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
King James Bible
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
King James Bible
For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
As you can see Christ was created man. He became flesh as all men became flesh by the power of Gods words.
We are flesh and yet we are children of God because:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
All things that were created were spoken into being.... Even Christ whose words came from God by the power of the Holy Spirit.
" My words are SPIRIT and they are life."
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
All things come from thee O Lord and of thine own do we give thee.
Jesus was fully human as his suffering shows that in flesh and by Gods word as all humans are born by the power of Gods words and we see that the Holy Spirit is called the Lord and giver of life. His presence in man provides light and life.
Why not show what God teaches in his word rather than what man has taught you.
-
We all have shown you using the sacred scriptures. Here is mine again:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.
Clearly the sacred scriptures say that Christ is God.
St. John the Baptist's mother also testifies to this:
Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
The Lord himself says:
Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am.
And in the Apocalypse:
And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth, who hath loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us a kingdom, and priests to God and his Father, to him be glory and empire for ever and ever. Amen. Behold, he cometh with the clouds, and every eye shall see him, and they also that pierced him. And all the tribes of the earth shall bewail themselves because of him. Even so. Amen. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, saith the Lord God, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.
And again:
And he that sat on the throne, said: Behold, I make all things new. And he said to me: Write, for these words are most faithful and true. And he said to me: It is done. I am Alpha and Omega; the beginning and the end.
And again:
Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to render to every man according to his works. I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.
-
Thank you A_O that reply is superb.
~TW~
-
Instead of parroting the same scriptures why not address out points Sass. God does not share His glory, how be it then that the Lord can say
"Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was."
btw, none of us denies that Jesus came in the flesh :)
-
For Sass
http://www.bibleprobe.com/jesus-is-God.htm
~TW~
-
We all have shown you using the sacred scriptures. Here is mine again:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.
It isn't scripture. Christ and the Prophets never referred to is and nothing and I mean nothing was given in the OT to say God would add to his scriptures.
It does not say Christ was God made flesh. But the words God spoke in Deuteronomy now became flesh...
THAT IS CHAPTER 18;18 and you need to go and read the OT because in the NT the gospels Christ teaches that eternal life is to know the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he sent.
John 17:3King James Version (KJV)
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
It is the words of Christ we are to accept.
Clearly the sacred scriptures say that Christ is God.
No the true scriptures show that the Son of God would be a Prophet from the people own.
15 The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;
18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
St. John the Baptist's mother also testifies to this:
Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
Elizabeth, knew Mary was carrying the Messiah. But this is not scripture and is not a testament at all of your false teaching. He does not say Christ is God.
In fact God himself spoke out and said this...
King James Bible
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
That is Gd SPEAKING and saying Christ is his Son and he is pleased with him.
The Lord himself says:
Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am.
That is simply Christ saying he existed before Abraham.
28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
Now in content you see Christ was NOT calling himself I am.
56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Abraham, knew about Christ before Christ came. Was Christ not promised. Didn't everyone who knew God know about Christs coming.
You need to ask God to guide your thoughts. Not it is NT and note that Christ has clearly told everyone in verse 42 that he was sent from God and came from God. Christ NEVER declared himself to be God, The OT does not declare Christ to be God, But God speaks through him.
And in the Apocalypse:
And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth, who hath loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us a kingdom, and priests to God and his Father, to him be glory and empire for ever and ever. Amen. Behold, he cometh with the clouds, and every eye shall see him, and they also that pierced him. And all the tribes of the earth shall bewail themselves because of him. Even so. Amen. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, saith the Lord God, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.
And again:
And he that sat on the throne, said: Behold, I make all things new. And he said to me: Write, for these words are most faithful and true. And he said to me: It is done. I am Alpha and Omega; the beginning and the end.
And again:
Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to render to every man according to his works. I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.
The book of Revelations clearly states that GOD GAVE this Prophecy to Christ. to give to his angel to give to John
King James Bible
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
So God told Jesus what to say to the angel and to give it to John.
The message came from God about himself and Christ. Seems you do not follow the protocol.
-
Just dismiss the scripture then. You're no better than a Marcionite. You shouldn't be on this board. You're not a Christian. Go away.
-
We all have shown you using the sacred scriptures. Here is mine again:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.
It isn't scripture. Christ and the Prophets never referred to is and nothing and I mean nothing was given in the OT to say God would add to his scriptures.
It does not say Christ was God made flesh. But the words God spoke in Deuteronomy now became flesh...
THAT IS CHAPTER 18;18 and you need to go and read the OT because in the NT the gospels Christ teaches that eternal life is to know the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he sent.
John 17:3King James Version (KJV)
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
It is the words of Christ we are to accept.
Like the words "before Abraham was I am" ?
And the words "Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was."
and I take umbrage at you using the NT to prove points 'it's not scripture'... ;)
-
Just dismiss the scripture then. You're no better than a Marcionite. You shouldn't be on this board. You're not a Christian. Go away.
Sass is quoting scripture and you are failing to deal with it by the looks of it.
-
Just dismiss the scripture then. You're no better than a Marcionite. You shouldn't be on this board. You're not a Christian. Go away.
Sass is quoting scripture and you are failing to deal with it by the looks of it.
No, she is dismissing it. I have already given plenty of examples from the scriptures which show that Christ is God. It suits her to dismiss the NT because it proves her to be a follower of wicked doctrines. As for the OT, it must br read in the light of the NT, otherwise it is like looking through a veil.
-
Just dismiss the scripture then. You're no better than a Marcionite. You shouldn't be on this board. You're not a Christian. Go away.
Sass is quoting scripture and you are failing to deal with it by the looks of it.
No, she is dismissing it. I have already given plenty of examples from the scriptures which show that Christ is God. It suits her to dismiss the NT because it proves her to be a follower of wicked doctrines. As for the OT, it must br read in the light of the NT, otherwise it is like looking through a veil.
No you have not. And you have not used anything from the OT to support anything you wrote. I have done both. Quoted NT supported by OT. You have ignored the replies to you even those which show even Christ saying the One true God and himself are two separate persons. Jakswan is right you have NOT given any scriptures which support your claim. NONE. ZERO. ZILCH... Clinging to straws because you have NOTHING to support your claim but a Church whose foundations were not in Christ and committed some of the worst evils since the world began.
Christs church is TRUTH and SPIRIT based in the true love of God the Father. Not mankind who tried to use the truth for their own evil twisted hunger for power of people. God does not give power over people or to control people. He empowers people to be his people full of truth, grace, love through the Spirit.
You may have left your original church but Christs Church does not have walls and has one teacher, the Holy Spirit. You cannot find anything in the WORDS of Christ or even the OT to support what you claim. That is fact.
-
So far, it looks as if Sass has the better argument, unless Jesus was schizoid and given to praying to himself as Elohim.
-
Just dismiss the scripture then. You're no better than a Marcionite. You shouldn't be on this board. You're not a Christian. Go away.
Sass is quoting scripture and you are failing to deal with it by the looks of it.
No, she is dismissing it. I have already given plenty of examples from the scriptures which show that Christ is God. It suits her to dismiss the NT because it proves her to be a follower of wicked doctrines. As for the OT, it must br read in the light of the NT, otherwise it is like looking through a veil.
No you have not. And you have not used anything from the OT to support anything you wrote. I have done both. Quoted NT supported by OT. You have ignored the replies to you even those which show even Christ saying the One true God and himself are two separate persons. Jakswan is right you have NOT given any scriptures which support your claim. NONE. ZERO. ZILCH... Clinging to straws because you have NOTHING to support your claim but a Church whose foundations were not in Christ and committed some of the worst evils since the world began.
Christs church is TRUTH and SPIRIT based in the true love of God the Father. Not mankind who tried to use the truth for their own evil twisted hunger for power of people. God does not give power over people or to control people. He empowers people to be his people full of truth, grace, love through the Spirit.
You may have left your original church but Christs Church does not have walls and has one teacher, the Holy Spirit. You cannot find anything in the WORDS of Christ or even the OT to support what you claim. That is fact.
The Word of God says:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.
Checkmate, pal! Keep to your manmade doctrines and no doubt you will join Arius in the depths of hell.
-
NT or OT?
-
So far, it looks as if Sass has the better argument, unless Jesus was schizoid and given to praying to himself as Elohim.
The problem is that Sass's argument actually contradicts Jesus' own teaching and the teaching of the Old Testament. He wasn't schizoid or given to paying to himself; he was speaking to element of the Godhead that remained in heaven but whose nature he was 100% part of.
-
Just because it wasn't defined before Nicaea it doesn't mean it wasn't believed. It also ignores how these things are defined, which is usually in response to a heresy. in this case Arius' wicked doctrine and I have no doubt that he is in the depths of hell with all the other heretics and schismatics. The belief in the Trinity is most definitely apostolic as the council itself confirms and all the subsequent councils.
-
So far, it looks as if Sass has the better argument, unless Jesus was schizoid and given to praying to himself as Elohim.
The problem is that Sass's argument actually contradicts Jesus' own teaching and the teaching of the Old Testament. He wasn't schizoid or given to paying to himself; he was speaking to element of the Godhead that remained in heaven but whose nature he was 100% part of.
What's a Godhead? I don't recall any words of Jesus saying that he was speaking to it. He apparently said to somebody 'Why do you call me good ... only God is good' which seems to indicate that he did not think that his nature was identical to that of his God's. Even if it was identical, I can't see that this would mean that Jesus was God. I think more research is needed into the meaning of 'Elohim', it might give an indication why Joshua and Elohim are not identical.
-
So far, it looks as if Sass has the better argument, unless Jesus was schizoid and given to praying to himself as Elohim.
The problem is that Sass's argument actually contradicts Jesus' own teaching and the teaching of the Old Testament. He wasn't schizoid or given to paying to himself; he was speaking to element of the Godhead that remained in heaven but whose nature he was 100% part of.
What's a Godhead? I don't recall any words of Jesus saying that he was speaking to it. He apparently said to somebody 'Why do you call me good ... only God is good' which seems to indicate that he did not think that his nature was identical to that of his God's. Even if it was identical, I can't see that this would mean that Jesus was God. I think more research is needed into the meaning of 'Elohim', it might give an indication why Joshua and Elohim are not identical.
On the contrary, what Jesus is saying in that past from the Gospel is that he is indeed God. Something like "You don't know who I am yet you call me good. Only God is good". In other words "I am God and you do not know it".
-
So far, it looks as if Sass has the better argument, unless Jesus was schizoid and given to praying to himself as Elohim.
The problem is that Sass's argument actually contradicts Jesus' own teaching and the teaching of the Old Testament. He wasn't schizoid or given to paying to himself; he was speaking to element of the Godhead that remained in heaven but whose nature he was 100% part of.
What's a Godhead? I don't recall any words of Jesus saying that he was speaking to it. He apparently said to somebody 'Why do you call me good ... only God is good' which seems to indicate that he did not think that his nature was identical to that of his God's. Even if it was identical, I can't see that this would mean that Jesus was God. I think more research is needed into the meaning of 'Elohim', it might give an indication why Joshua and Elohim are not identical.
On the contrary, what Jesus is saying in that past from the Gospel is that he is indeed God. Something like "You don't know who I am yet you call me good. Only God is good". In other words "I am God and you do not know it".
If the other words are better why didn't he use the words.
-
So jakswan and ekim you have both decided to become Greek Scholars and you suggest that A_O has got it wrong.Ignoring the evidence or should I say never checking you decide Sass is right as usual you swim against the tide.
We do not believe in the Trinity because it sounds nice or is fun we believe it because it is contained in scripture.
Now the Watchtower Society have the same view as Sass and in order to prove they are right they have rewritten the bible producing their own version told many lies added words and changed words.And have suggested Greek Scholars agree with them.
Well if you pair really want to know then look at this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s69sc6o4qXA
only a few minutes you might learn something.
~TW~
-
So jakswan and ekim you have both decided to become Greek Scholars and you suggest that A_O has got it wrong.Ignoring the evidence or should I say never checking you decide Sass is right as usual you swim against the tide.
No, I just suggested Sass was winning the debate from a theological point of view.
-
So jakswan and ekim you have both decided to become Greek Scholars and you suggest that A_O has got it wrong.Ignoring the evidence or should I say never checking you decide Sass is right as usual you swim against the tide.
No, I just suggested Sass was winning the debate from a theological point of view.
Not at all.
-
So jakswan and ekim you have both decided to become Greek Scholars and you suggest that A_O has got it wrong.Ignoring the evidence or should I say never checking you decide Sass is right as usual you swim against the tide.
No, I just suggested Sass was winning the debate from a theological point of view.
Well now she has sunk from a theological view.what advice would you give her in view of the you view video.
~TW~
-
Well now she has sunk from a theological view.what advice would you give her in view of the you view video.
~TW~
It was just a passing observation TW I'm not that bothered.
-
So far, it looks as if Sass has the better argument, unless Jesus was schizoid and given to praying to himself as Elohim.
The problem is that Sass's argument actually contradicts Jesus' own teaching and the teaching of the Old Testament. He wasn't schizoid or given to paying to himself; he was speaking to element of the Godhead that remained in heaven but whose nature he was 100% part of.
What's a Godhead? I don't recall any words of Jesus saying that he was speaking to it. He apparently said to somebody 'Why do you call me good ... only God is good' which seems to indicate that he did not think that his nature was identical to that of his God's. Even if it was identical, I can't see that this would mean that Jesus was God. I think more research is needed into the meaning of 'Elohim', it might give an indication why Joshua and Elohim are not identical.
On the contrary, what Jesus is saying in that past from the Gospel is that he is indeed God. Something like "You don't know who I am yet you call me good. Only God is good". In other words "I am God and you do not know it".
That sounds more like somebody's spin on what was said, to make it fit with a particular theology. It bears no resemblance to the Greek.
-
Well now she has sunk from a theological view.what advice would you give her in view of the you view video.
~TW~
It was just a passing observation TW I'm not that bothered.
Well when the JW knocks on your door you now know he is not all he seems to be,at least you never dodged the issue like ekim so you get a star for that.*
~TW~
-
So far, it looks as if Sass has the better argument, unless Jesus was schizoid and given to praying to himself as Elohim.
The problem is that Sass's argument actually contradicts Jesus' own teaching and the teaching of the Old Testament. He wasn't schizoid or given to paying to himself; he was speaking to element of the Godhead that remained in heaven but whose nature he was 100% part of.
What's a Godhead? I don't recall any words of Jesus saying that he was speaking to it. He apparently said to somebody 'Why do you call me good ... only God is good' which seems to indicate that he did not think that his nature was identical to that of his God's. Even if it was identical, I can't see that this would mean that Jesus was God. I think more research is needed into the meaning of 'Elohim', it might give an indication why Joshua and Elohim are not identical.
On the contrary, what Jesus is saying in that past from the Gospel is that he is indeed God. Something like "You don't know who I am yet you call me good. Only God is good". In other words "I am God and you do not know it".
That sounds more like somebody's spin on what was said, to make it fit with a particular theology. It bears no resemblance to the Greek.
What you have to do is read it in light of the rest of the scriptures which, as I have shown, clearly demonstrate that Christ is God, such as the first chapter of St. John's gospel which is explicit.
-
1....So jakswan and ekim you have both decided to become Greek Scholars and you suggest that A_O has got it wrong.Ignoring the evidence or should I say never checking you decide Sass is right as usual you swim against the tide.
2....We do not believe in the Trinity because it sounds nice or is fun we believe it because it is contained in scripture.
3.... Now the Watchtower Society have the same view as Sass and in order to prove they are right they have rewritten the bible producing their own version told many lies added words and changed words.And have suggested Greek Scholars agree with them.
Well if you pair really want to know then look at this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s69sc6o4qXA
only a few minutes you might learn something.
~TW~
1. I didn't say Sass was right but just that she appeared to be putting forward a better argument. Nobody really knows what Jesus said. All we have is hearsay evidence written by people who may or may not have been eye witnesses, probably in a language remote from that used by Jesus. I don't call it 'swimming against the tide' but more 'escaping from herd mentality'.
2. Yes I understand that. There are many religions with many varying scriptures and blind belief in any of them is not something I would advocate.
3. I have no interest in the Watchtower Society
-
1....So jakswan and ekim you have both decided to become Greek Scholars and you suggest that A_O has got it wrong.Ignoring the evidence or should I say never checking you decide Sass is right as usual you swim against the tide.
2....We do not believe in the Trinity because it sounds nice or is fun we believe it because it is contained in scripture.
3.... Now the Watchtower Society have the same view as Sass and in order to prove they are right they have rewritten the bible producing their own version told many lies added words and changed words.And have suggested Greek Scholars agree with them.
Well if you pair really want to know then look at this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s69sc6o4qXA
only a few minutes you might learn something.
~TW~
1. I didn't say Sass was right but just that she appeared to be putting forward a better argument. Nobody really knows what Jesus said. All we have is hearsay evidence written by people who may or may not have been eye witnesses, probably in a language remote from that used by Jesus. I don't call it 'swimming against the tide' but more 'escaping from herd mentality'.
2. Yes I understand that. There are many religions with many varying scriptures and blind belief in any of them is not something I would advocate.
3. I have no interest in the Watchtower Society
No you have no interest in the WT but it is nice to know the latest scam and deception then you will not end up like Sass ;) deceived.
~TW~
-
So far, it looks as if Sass has the better argument, unless Jesus was schizoid and given to praying to himself as Elohim.
The problem is that Sass's argument actually contradicts Jesus' own teaching and the teaching of the Old Testament. He wasn't schizoid or given to paying to himself; he was speaking to element of the Godhead that remained in heaven but whose nature he was 100% part of.
What's a Godhead? I don't recall any words of Jesus saying that he was speaking to it. He apparently said to somebody 'Why do you call me good ... only God is good' which seems to indicate that he did not think that his nature was identical to that of his God's. Even if it was identical, I can't see that this would mean that Jesus was God. I think more research is needed into the meaning of 'Elohim', it might give an indication why Joshua and Elohim are not identical.
On the contrary, what Jesus is saying in that past from the Gospel is that he is indeed God. Something like "You don't know who I am yet you call me good. Only God is good". In other words "I am God and you do not know it".
That sounds more like somebody's spin on what was said, to make it fit with a particular theology. It bears no resemblance to the Greek.
What you have to do is read it in light of the rest of the scriptures which, as I have shown, clearly demonstrate that Christ is God, such as the first chapter of St. John's gospel which is explicit.
When I looked at Christianity, I was more interested in the words attributed to Jesus rather than the journalists who allegedly recorded them and commentated upon his life and death. John's Gospel has little resemblance to the synoptic gospels and looks to be more written by somebody steeped in the 'logos' mysteries. Where does Jesus say he is God?
-
So far, it looks as if Sass has the better argument, unless Jesus was schizoid and given to praying to himself as Elohim.
The problem is that Sass's argument actually contradicts Jesus' own teaching and the teaching of the Old Testament. He wasn't schizoid or given to paying to himself; he was speaking to element of the Godhead that remained in heaven but whose nature he was 100% part of.
What's a Godhead? I don't recall any words of Jesus saying that he was speaking to it. He apparently said to somebody 'Why do you call me good ... only God is good' which seems to indicate that he did not think that his nature was identical to that of his God's. Even if it was identical, I can't see that this would mean that Jesus was God. I think more research is needed into the meaning of 'Elohim', it might give an indication why Joshua and Elohim are not identical.
On the contrary, what Jesus is saying in that past from the Gospel is that he is indeed God. Something like "You don't know who I am yet you call me good. Only God is good". In other words "I am God and you do not know it".
That sounds more like somebody's spin on what was said, to make it fit with a particular theology. It bears no resemblance to the Greek.
What you have to do is read it in light of the rest of the scriptures which, as I have shown, clearly demonstrate that Christ is God, such as the first chapter of St. John's gospel which is explicit.
When I looked at Christianity, I was more interested in the words attributed to Jesus rather than the journalists who allegedly recorded them and commentated upon his life and death. John's Gospel has little resemblance to the synoptic gospels and looks to be more written by somebody steeped in the 'logos' mysteries. Where does Jesus say he is God?
Where does Jesus say he is God? will this do
http://www.everystudent.com/wires/whodoyousay.html
~TW~
-
So far, it looks as if Sass has the better argument, unless Jesus was schizoid and given to praying to himself as Elohim.
The problem is that Sass's argument actually contradicts Jesus' own teaching and the teaching of the Old Testament. He wasn't schizoid or given to paying to himself; he was speaking to element of the Godhead that remained in heaven but whose nature he was 100% part of.
What's a Godhead? I don't recall any words of Jesus saying that he was speaking to it. He apparently said to somebody 'Why do you call me good ... only God is good' which seems to indicate that he did not think that his nature was identical to that of his God's. Even if it was identical, I can't see that this would mean that Jesus was God. I think more research is needed into the meaning of 'Elohim', it might give an indication why Joshua and Elohim are not identical.
On the contrary, what Jesus is saying in that past from the Gospel is that he is indeed God. Something like "You don't know who I am yet you call me good. Only God is good". In other words "I am God and you do not know it".
That sounds more like somebody's spin on what was said, to make it fit with a particular theology. It bears no resemblance to the Greek.
What you have to do is read it in light of the rest of the scriptures which, as I have shown, clearly demonstrate that Christ is God, such as the first chapter of St. John's gospel which is explicit.
When I looked at Christianity, I was more interested in the words attributed to Jesus rather than the journalists who allegedly recorded them and commentated upon his life and death. John's Gospel has little resemblance to the synoptic gospels and looks to be more written by somebody steeped in the 'logos' mysteries. Where does Jesus say he is God?
Either you accept all the scriptures or you accept none of them.
-
So far, it looks as if Sass has the better argument, unless Jesus was schizoid and given to praying to himself as Elohim.
The problem is that Sass's argument actually contradicts Jesus' own teaching and the teaching of the Old Testament. He wasn't schizoid or given to paying to himself; he was speaking to element of the Godhead that remained in heaven but whose nature he was 100% part of.
What's a Godhead? I don't recall any words of Jesus saying that he was speaking to it. He apparently said to somebody 'Why do you call me good ... only God is good' which seems to indicate that he did not think that his nature was identical to that of his God's. Even if it was identical, I can't see that this would mean that Jesus was God. I think more research is needed into the meaning of 'Elohim', it might give an indication why Joshua and Elohim are not identical.
On the contrary, what Jesus is saying in that past from the Gospel is that he is indeed God. Something like "You don't know who I am yet you call me good. Only God is good". In other words "I am God and you do not know it".
That sounds more like somebody's spin on what was said, to make it fit with a particular theology. It bears no resemblance to the Greek.
What you have to do is read it in light of the rest of the scriptures which, as I have shown, clearly demonstrate that Christ is God, such as the first chapter of St. John's gospel which is explicit.
When I looked at Christianity, I was more interested in the words attributed to Jesus rather than the journalists who allegedly recorded them and commentated upon his life and death. John's Gospel has little resemblance to the synoptic gospels and looks to be more written by somebody steeped in the 'logos' mysteries. Where does Jesus say he is God?
Either you accept all the scriptures or you accept none of them.
Blind acceptance is not my forte.
-
So far, it looks as if Sass has the better argument, unless Jesus was schizoid and given to praying to himself as Elohim.
The problem is that Sass's argument actually contradicts Jesus' own teaching and the teaching of the Old Testament. He wasn't schizoid or given to paying to himself; he was speaking to element of the Godhead that remained in heaven but whose nature he was 100% part of.
What's a Godhead? I don't recall any words of Jesus saying that he was speaking to it. He apparently said to somebody 'Why do you call me good ... only God is good' which seems to indicate that he did not think that his nature was identical to that of his God's. Even if it was identical, I can't see that this would mean that Jesus was God. I think more research is needed into the meaning of 'Elohim', it might give an indication why Joshua and Elohim are not identical.
On the contrary, what Jesus is saying in that past from the Gospel is that he is indeed God. Something like "You don't know who I am yet you call me good. Only God is good". In other words "I am God and you do not know it".
That sounds more like somebody's spin on what was said, to make it fit with a particular theology. It bears no resemblance to the Greek.
What you have to do is read it in light of the rest of the scriptures which, as I have shown, clearly demonstrate that Christ is God, such as the first chapter of St. John's gospel which is explicit.
When I looked at Christianity, I was more interested in the words attributed to Jesus rather than the journalists who allegedly recorded them and commentated upon his life and death. John's Gospel has little resemblance to the synoptic gospels and looks to be more written by somebody steeped in the 'logos' mysteries. Where does Jesus say he is God?
Either you accept all the scriptures or you accept none of them.
Blind acceptance is not my forte.
No one is asking you to accept anything,but if you read what has been posted you will see that it says Christ was God it may not be true but that is what it says.
So next time you are on a quiz show.If you get the question.What does the bible say as regards Jesus Christ you have the answer. God.
~TW~
-
So far, it looks as if Sass has the better argument, unless Jesus was schizoid and given to praying to himself as Elohim.
The problem is that Sass's argument actually contradicts Jesus' own teaching and the teaching of the Old Testament. He wasn't schizoid or given to paying to himself; he was speaking to element of the Godhead that remained in heaven but whose nature he was 100% part of.
What's a Godhead? I don't recall any words of Jesus saying that he was speaking to it. He apparently said to somebody 'Why do you call me good ... only God is good' which seems to indicate that he did not think that his nature was identical to that of his God's. Even if it was identical, I can't see that this would mean that Jesus was God. I think more research is needed into the meaning of 'Elohim', it might give an indication why Joshua and Elohim are not identical.
On the contrary, what Jesus is saying in that past from the Gospel is that he is indeed God. Something like "You don't know who I am yet you call me good. Only God is good". In other words "I am God and you do not know it".
That sounds more like somebody's spin on what was said, to make it fit with a particular theology. It bears no resemblance to the Greek.
What you have to do is read it in light of the rest of the scriptures which, as I have shown, clearly demonstrate that Christ is God, such as the first chapter of St. John's gospel which is explicit.
When I looked at Christianity, I was more interested in the words attributed to Jesus rather than the journalists who allegedly recorded them and commentated upon his life and death. John's Gospel has little resemblance to the synoptic gospels and looks to be more written by somebody steeped in the 'logos' mysteries. Where does Jesus say he is God?
Either you accept all the scriptures or you accept none of them.
Blind acceptance is not my forte.
No one is asking you to accept anything,but if you read what has been posted you will see that it says Christ was God it may not be true but that is what it says.
So next time you are on a quiz show.If you get the question.What does the bible say as regards Jesus Christ you have the answer. God.
~TW~
AO is suggesting that I need to accept all the scriptures. The link in your previous post just present a certain spin of the authors of it. There doesn't seem to be a quote where Jesus actually says he is God. Being one with God is not the same, just as a raindrop being one with the ocean doesn't mean it is the ocean.
-
So far, it looks as if Sass has the better argument, unless Jesus was schizoid and given to praying to himself as Elohim.
The problem is that Sass's argument actually contradicts Jesus' own teaching and the teaching of the Old Testament. He wasn't schizoid or given to paying to himself; he was speaking to element of the Godhead that remained in heaven but whose nature he was 100% part of.
What's a Godhead? I don't recall any words of Jesus saying that he was speaking to it. He apparently said to somebody 'Why do you call me good ... only God is good' which seems to indicate that he did not think that his nature was identical to that of his God's. Even if it was identical, I can't see that this would mean that Jesus was God. I think more research is needed into the meaning of 'Elohim', it might give an indication why Joshua and Elohim are not identical.
On the contrary, what Jesus is saying in that past from the Gospel is that he is indeed God. Something like "You don't know who I am yet you call me good. Only God is good". In other words "I am God and you do not know it".
That sounds more like somebody's spin on what was said, to make it fit with a particular theology. It bears no resemblance to the Greek.
What you have to do is read it in light of the rest of the scriptures which, as I have shown, clearly demonstrate that Christ is God, such as the first chapter of St. John's gospel which is explicit.
When I looked at Christianity, I was more interested in the words attributed to Jesus rather than the journalists who allegedly recorded them and commentated upon his life and death. John's Gospel has little resemblance to the synoptic gospels and looks to be more written by somebody steeped in the 'logos' mysteries. Where does Jesus say he is God?
Either you accept all the scriptures or you accept none of them.
Blind acceptance is not my forte.
No one is asking you to accept anything,but if you read what has been posted you will see that it says Christ was God it may not be true but that is what it says.
So next time you are on a quiz show.If you get the question.What does the bible say as regards Jesus Christ you have the answer. God.
~TW~
AO is suggesting that I need to accept all the scriptures. The link in your previous post just present a certain spin of the authors of it. There doesn't seem to be a quote where Jesus actually says he is God. Being one with God is not the same, just as a raindrop being one with the ocean doesn't mean it is the ocean.
The video you seem to have missed A_O is correct the word was God and I could show you scriptures where the one /god sends the one /God.
~TW~
-
You have to read it in the light of the rest of the scriptures, which have been shown to be explicit in showing Christ is God.
-
You have to read it in the light of the rest of the scriptures, which have been shown to be explicit in showing Christ is God.
Correct
~TW~
-
Just dismiss the scripture then. You're no better than a Marcionite. You shouldn't be on this board. You're not a Christian. Go away.
Sass is quoting scripture and you are failing to deal with it by the looks of it.
No, she is dismissing it. I have already given plenty of examples from the scriptures which show that Christ is God. It suits her to dismiss the NT because it proves her to be a follower of wicked doctrines. As for the OT, it must br read in the light of the NT, otherwise it is like looking through a veil.
No you have not. And you have not used anything from the OT to support anything you wrote. I have done both. Quoted NT supported by OT. You have ignored the replies to you even those which show even Christ saying the One true God and himself are two separate persons. Jakswan is right you have NOT given any scriptures which support your claim. NONE. ZERO. ZILCH... Clinging to straws because you have NOTHING to support your claim but a Church whose foundations were not in Christ and committed some of the worst evils since the world began.
Christs church is TRUTH and SPIRIT based in the true love of God the Father. Not mankind who tried to use the truth for their own evil twisted hunger for power of people. God does not give power over people or to control people. He empowers people to be his people full of truth, grace, love through the Spirit.
You may have left your original church but Christs Church does not have walls and has one teacher, the Holy Spirit. You cannot find anything in the WORDS of Christ or even the OT to support what you claim. That is fact.
The Word of God says:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.
NO... That is the NT the OT the THE WORD OF GOD...SAYS
Genesis 1:1-3King James Version (KJV)
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
God spoke everything into being... His words...
Checkmate, pal! Keep to your manmade doctrines and no doubt you will join Arius in the depths of hell.
Heep quoting NT and ignoring NT and you will die as ignorant as you were before your birth. Because even PAUL who did not have a NT told you NOT TO ACCEPT ANY TEACHING, NOT EVEN HIS, IF YOU CANNOT SUPPORT IT FROM THE SCRIPTURES.
The NT is NOT scripture and was never intended to be.
Because the words of God are now written in the heart of mankind.
Jeremiah 31;31-34
31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.[/b]
See.. no new scripture just the Spirit and truth about Jesus Christ.
22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.
26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.
You can accuse me falsely all you want but Christ agrees with me and you are ignorant and teaching falsely. Because the first believers accepted the truth which they HEARD and received the baptism of the Spirit when they accepted who Jesus was. You have yet again proved you cannot bear to hear the truth and you are fighting desperately to maintain an unfounded truth when the word of God is declared before you. The word of God from the OT.
God told the end from the beginning not the end at the end...
-
So far, it looks as if Sass has the better argument, unless Jesus was schizoid and given to praying to himself as Elohim.
The problem is that Sass's argument actually contradicts Jesus' own teaching and the teaching of the Old Testament. He wasn't schizoid or given to paying to himself; he was speaking to element of the Godhead that remained in heaven but whose nature he was 100% part of.
EVIDENCE...go on. Not words evidence. My posts show Christ agrees with the OT that I have shown. The truth is that Jesus Christ was FULLY HUMAN with the NATURE OF God in his person. He made GOD known to us.
17 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
The words of Christ himself says that eternal life is knnowing the ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus Christ whom the only true God sent.
You hold fast to a teaching which does not and cannot affect the eternal life.
Nor make anyone less of a true believer. As John teaches..
1 John 4King James Version (KJV)
4 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
Jesus Christ is come in the flesh...
-
There you go again, dismissing the scriptures. The same Holy Spirit that inspired the writers of the OT inspired the writers of the NT. So if you deny them again we will all see you for who you are, at best a promoter of false teachings and at worst leading souls astray. From now on you better not quote from the NT at all, you hypocrite!
But the OT, eh? The OT too is explicit.
The prophet Isaias says of Christ:
"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel"
"For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called, Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace. His empire shall be multiplied, and there shall be no end of peace: he shall sit upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom; to establish it and strengthen it with judgment and with justice, from henceforth and for ever"
"Take courage, and fear not: behold your God will bring the revenge of recompense: God himself will come and will save you"
Also the Psalmist says:
"Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a sceptre of uprightness. Thou hast loved justice, and hated iniquity: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows"
"The Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou at my right hand: Until I make thy enemies thy footstool. The Lord will send forth the sceptre of thy power out of Sion: rule thou in the midst of thy enemies"
-
Some here seem to revel in their own interpretations of quite simple scripture ?!?!!?
-
Some here seem to revel in their own interpretations of quite simple scripture ?!?!!?
Indeed!
-
good day A_O I see that Sass has answerd again and got it all wrong,she can be very trying also we have others putting in their mis-information which does not work.
One does not have to answer all these JW type bullet points to show she is wrong try one question at a time for example
Who is going to return one day------ answer Jesus =the 2nd coming then quote a scripture like this.
“‘Holy, holy, holy
is the Lord God Almighty,’ Rev 4:8
who was, and is, and is to come.”------------------- so who is coming--- God = Jesus.
She may choose not to accept that,BUT not our problem.
~TW~
-
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.[/b]
Jesus Christ is come in the flesh...
a) Show us that teaching in the OT ;)
b) Yes, Jesus Christ came in the flesh, "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" Hallelujah!
-
I was interested in why the writings of someone who had a hand in creating the concept of the Trinity ( which IMO is fairly divisive ) leads some Christians to want to explore universalist Christianity.
That's not misinformation, unless of course someone is too scared to look at the roots of their religion.
Saint Gregory of Nyssa no less. A church father.
He seems to have thought up the idea of the trinity in the first place.
Mind you I like universalist Christianity so was quite pleased to find a reference to that.
I can't abide all the exclusive stuff where people puff themselves up to look very clever and quote scripture and exclude others, while running away from any exploration of the early church.
If you actually look at it, there is room for a universalist form of Christianity, which IMO is much nicer 🌹 :)
No thanks why dont you join the JW's,they have done away with hell so you should be at home.And no one invented the Trinity.
~TW~
-
Rose, the thing is we can't pick and choose what we want to believe re Christianity, just because we think it sounds/feels 'nicer'. God gave us 'His Word' and He meant us to accept it and not try to twist it into something to suit ourselves.
-
good day A_O I see that Sass has answered again and got it all wrong,she can be very trying also we have others putting in their mis-information which does not work.
One does not have to answer all these JW type bullet points to show she is wrong try one question at a time for example
Who is going to return one day------ answer Jesus =the 2nd coming then quote a scripture like this.
“‘Holy, holy, holy
is the Lord God Almighty,’ Rev 4:8
who was, and is, and is to come.”------------------- so who is coming--- God = Jesus.
She may choose not to accept that,BUT not our problem.
~TW~
Modify message
-
People that stick to the word of God have never been popular, from the Biblical prophets, to the current day. Even the Lord Himself.
-
This something he wrote apparently
“My advice, as I said earlier, is: First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire...Second, that all their books-- their prayer books, their Talmudic writings, also the entire Bible-- be taken from them, not leaving them one leaf, and that these be preserved for those who may be converted...Third, that they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly among us and in our country...Fourth, that they be forbidden to utter the name of God within our hearing. For we cannot with a good conscience listen to this or tolerate it…The rulers must act like a good physician who, when gangrene has set in proceeds without mercy to cut, saw, and burn flesh, veins, bone, and marrow. Such a procedure must also be followed in this instance. Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them. If this does not help we must drive them out like mad dogs."
http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/martin-luther-hated-jews
Not a man I would trust to tell me about God.
Sounds like one of those nutty Imams that preach hatred.
🌹
Luther was a fanatic, who went from one error to another deeper error. A thoroughly unpleasant man and a glutton to boot.
-
Rose, the thing is we can't pick and choose what we want to believe re Christianity, just because we think it sounds/feels 'nicer'. God gave us 'His Word' and He meant us to accept it and not try to twist it into something to suit ourselves.
The trouble is SweetPea, Christianity seems to have done that for the last 2000 years.
If you look here in this link, it pretty much tells you why the trinity developed and became church creed in 325 AD.
It also accepts that the bible doesn't explicitly teach the doctrine of the trinity.
Before 325AD Christians were freer to see it their own way which is probably why they had such issues with different ideas being taught.
http://derby.anglican.org/education/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Ideas-booklet-for-Trinity.pdf
What you need to know is how dogma is defined. It is not usually defined when it is not in dispute. Dogma is nearly always defined in response to heresy. You also have to understand that any kind of general council would have been almost impossible to convene before the Edict of Milan.
-
People that stick to the word of God have never been popular, from the Biblical prophets, to the current day. Even the Lord Himself.
That is just one of those standard Christian glib answers that means not a lot, and is self fulfilling regardless of how you behave.
A lot of Christians have a persecution complex, it's sort of built in. The fact they are often the persecutors they don't see.
It can cover a multitude of sins and can be used as a justification for bad behaviour,
(Not that you have, apart from being a bit self righteous and exclusive on a message board.)
There are other reasons for being unpopular some because the person involved behaves badly, and they can also be someone who reckons they stick with the bible.
Other ways of being unpopular have nothing to do with the bible, but I reckon are probably closer to what Jesus may have been hinting at.
One is standing up for the weak and the vunerable and drawing attention to injustice.
Another is also not following the crowd ( the church is also " a crowd" and has committed atrocities in the past)
People who commit acts which are wrong don't like getting the attention on their wrongdoing, I'd suggest that exposing them is a more valid reason for being unpopular among people who would cover it up.
Some awful things have been committed by followers of the bible in positions of authority.
People who threaten and abuse others with a bible in their hand ought to look elsewhere for the reason for their unpopularity.
Just because someone reckons they live by the bible, doesn't mean they are nice people.
You only have to look at recent history, in cases involving abuse of children where the priest has abused his position of trust.
I have no doubt the person who blew the whistle on that one was very unpopular in some circles, some would have preferred it to be covered up.
IMO if you are always going to try and expose injustice, you are always going to be a bit of a loner.
People don't always like someone who is a bit of a grass who won't allow their integrity to be tarnished , even among religious people who stick with the bible.
Anyhow this is meant to be about the Trinity.
I'm sure one of the mods won't mind putting it on a separate thread if anyone wants to discuss Christian glib answers and their validity 🌹 :)
rose this thread is about the doctrine of the Trinity which one can see in scripture now disprove it.
~TW~
-
People that stick to the word of God have never been popular, from the Biblical prophets, to the current day. Even the Lord Himself.
That is just one of those standard Christian glib answers that means not a lot, and is self fulfilling regardless of how you behave.
https://barnabasfund.org/news/Syrian-Christian-captives-crucified-for-refusing-to-deny-Christ-but-another-Christian-leader-is-released
-
People that stick to the word of God have never been popular, from the Biblical prophets, to the current day. Even the Lord Himself.
That is just one of those standard Christian glib answers that means not a lot, and is self fulfilling regardless of how you behave.
https://barnabasfund.org/news/Syrian-Christian-captives-crucified-for-refusing-to-deny-Christ-but-another-Christian-leader-is-released
That's Isis.
They hate everyone.
They persecute everyone, not just Christians.
Most people have nothing in common with Isis.
You ignore how dogma is defined. The Trinity is not an idea that was made up, despite what some Anglicans on the edge of apostasy might say. Dogma is nearly always defined in response to heresy, in this case Arius' heresy, but the Trinity was there from the beginning, the "faith delivered once to the saints", the Apostolic faith. Of course, if you don't believe in the Holy Spirit then it's probably all the same.
-
People that stick to the word of God have never been popular, from the Biblical prophets, to the current day. Even the Lord Himself.
That is just one of those standard Christian glib answers that means not a lot, and is self fulfilling regardless of how you behave.
https://barnabasfund.org/news/Syrian-Christian-captives-crucified-for-refusing-to-deny-Christ-but-another-Christian-leader-is-released
That's Isis.
They hate everyone.
They persecute everyone, not just Christians.
Most people have nothing in common with Isis.
You ignore how dogma is defined. The Trinity is not an idea that was made up, despite what some Anglicans on the edge of apostasy might say. Dogma is nearly always defined in response to heresy, in this case Arius' heresy, but the Trinity was there from the beginning, the "faith delivered once to the saints", the Apostolic faith. Of course, if you don't believe in the Holy Spirit then it's probably all the same.
It is more likely that heresy is defined in response to dogmatism. 'The Trinity was there from the beginning' is likely to be a belief that is laid down by a religious authority as incontrovertibly true. A heretic's belief is contrary to orthodox religious doctrine. Heresy implies choice, orthodoxy denies choice and is dogmatic. It is quite possible that Jesus was seen as a heretic by the Pharisees and Sadducees.
-
Orthodoxy and dogmatic theology isn't the problem. They are necessary if you happen to believe that there is such a thing as truth and that it matters.
-
Orthodoxy and dogmatic theology isn't the problem. They are necessary if you happen to believe that there is such a thing as truth and that it matters.
What makes you think the truth could be understood and worked out by human beings?
What if we don't have the imagination or knowledge to come up with the right answer?
That might be true if it were not the case that we have the Holy Spirit to guide the Church in such matters, as our Lord promised.
"But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you"
"But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me"
"But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth"
-
Moderator:
Please note that number of posts have been removed from this thread as being contrary to the ethos of the Faith Sharing Area (as noted in the 'About this Board' thread.
Could those posting here please bear this point in mind: any points made in this thread (or others on FSA) can be raised elsewhere should members wish to look at aspects that aren't suited to the ethos of this Board.
-
Orthodoxy and dogmatic theology isn't the problem. They are necessary if you happen to believe that there is such a thing as truth and that it matters.
What makes you think the truth could be understood and worked out by human beings?
What if we don't have the imagination or knowledge to come up with the right answer?
Exactly so! And that is one of the reasons so many atheists struggle to come to terms with Christianity.
Einstein was once asked how he came to formulate his theories: his answer was, "I used my imagination."
-
People that stick to the word of God have never been popular, from the Biblical prophets, to the current day. Even the Lord Himself.
That is just one of those standard Christian glib answers that means not a lot, and is self fulfilling regardless of how you behave.
https://barnabasfund.org/news/Syrian-Christian-captives-crucified-for-refusing-to-deny-Christ-but-another-Christian-leader-is-released
That's Isis.
They hate everyone.
They persecute everyone, not just Christians.
No, they don't. The don't persecute Sunnis for being Sunnis.
Are you saying that the didn't horribly kill those Syrians because they were Christians?
Most people have nothing in common with Isis.
Indeed. Thankfully. What has that got to do with whether people that stick to the word of God not being popular? Would you say that biblical Christians are popular these days in this country?
-
People that stick to the word of God have never been popular, from the Biblical prophets, to the current day. Even the Lord Himself.
That is just one of those standard Christian glib answers that means not a lot, and is self fulfilling regardless of how you behave.
https://barnabasfund.org/news/Syrian-Christian-captives-crucified-for-refusing-to-deny-Christ-but-another-Christian-leader-is-released
That's Isis.
They hate everyone.
They persecute everyone, not just Christians.
No, they don't. The don't persecute Sunnis for being Sunnis.
Are you saying that the didn't horribly kill those Syrians because they were Christians?
Most people have nothing in common with Isis.
Indeed. Thankfully. What has that got to do with whether people that stick to the word of God not being popular? Would you say that biblical Christians are popular these days in this country?
It depends what you call a biblical Christian. :o
Is there a different sort? Are they in contrast to unbiblical ones?
Someone who gives themselves the title of " biblical " Christian as opposed to just a Christian is probably not popular because it probably means they are a pain in the neck and drive everyone in their vicinity nuts.
( other Christians included)
Perhaps I should have used 2Corrie's term of "people that stick to the word of God", but "biblical Christians" was easier to type quickly.
-
Zzzzzz!
-
Zzzzzz!
There's that annoying little insect again! ;)
-
People that stick to the word of God have never been popular, from the Biblical prophets, to the current day. Even the Lord Himself.
That is just one of those standard Christian glib answers that means not a lot, and is self fulfilling regardless of how you behave.
https://barnabasfund.org/news/Syrian-Christian-captives-crucified-for-refusing-to-deny-Christ-but-another-Christian-leader-is-released
That's Isis.
They hate everyone.
They persecute everyone, not just Christians.
No, they don't. The don't persecute Sunnis for being Sunnis.
Are you saying that the didn't horribly kill those Syrians because they were Christians?
Most people have nothing in common with Isis.
Indeed. Thankfully. What has that got to do with whether people that stick to the word of God not being popular? Would you say that biblical Christians are popular these days in this country?
It depends what you call a biblical Christian. :o
Is there a different sort? Are they in contrast to unbiblical ones?
Someone who gives themselves the title of " biblical " Christian as opposed to just a Christian is probably not popular because it probably means they are a pain in the neck and drive everyone in their vicinity nuts.
( other Christians included)
Perhaps I should have used 2Corrie's term of "people that stick to the word of God", but "biblical Christians" was easier to type quickly.
Except no one sticks to the word of God because it's all subjective, which is why you have so many different versions.
In different denominations you are basically told which subjective views to adhere to or not, one being considered orthodox and the other heresy.
It's like moving the sabbath from a Saturday to a Sunday. No where in the bible does it say God rested on a Sunday, Saturday was all ways the sabbath biblically speaking.
The trinity is the same, someone came up with an idea that appeared to solve the issue of worshipping more than one God, the church having lots of people with their own ideas thought " that's a good idea, we'll teach that then" , so they did.
Then they looked backwards in the bible and found little phases and bits and pieces and told the laity that's how it was meant to be read.
They used it to justify their claims.
The whole Old Testament is like that, Christians looked back on it and forced their new understanding on various passages which had never been intended to be interpreted like that.
Some saw the trinity in bits of it, others saw the songs of Solomon and parallels with Israel and the church and Christians made up their own mythology based on the ideas of random individuals and tried to insist it was fact.
It isn't.
The trinity is just one idea that explains the relationship between God and Jesus.
You only see it, if you have been taught to believe in it and you really want to.
Somewhere I have a 16th century book about the history of the church and it tells you all about where the different ideas came from.
The history of the church is actually quite interesting. It does make you realise how subjective it all is and driven by events and different POV's.
The trinity is just a way of explaining a difficult problem for the church, which was that they claimed they worshipped one God, but had to explain the deity of Jesus.
It's amazing how the beliefs of the various churches actually holds more importance that what it actually says in the bible.
They have all added so much to what it actually says.
It would be interesting to know what Rose is on she seems to be an x-spert on mis-information.
~TW~
-
Zzzzzz!
Is that you're asleep because you've heard all this before - in which case I'm surprised that you needed to hear it again.
Or is it you're asleep because you tune out when you hear things that you don't like?
To ignore the point just makes it look as though you don't have a rebuttal.
O.
-
Zzzzzz!
Is that you're asleep because you've heard all this before - in which case I'm surprised that you needed to hear it again.
Or is it you're asleep because you tune out when you hear things that you don't like?
To ignore the point just makes it look as though you don't have a rebuttal.
O.
I've heard it all before and it's bollocks.
-
Zzzzzz!
Is that you're asleep because you've heard all this before - in which case I'm surprised that you needed to hear it again.
Or is it you're asleep because you tune out when you hear things that you don't like?
To ignore the point just makes it look as though you don't have a rebuttal.
O.
I've heard it all before and it's bollocks.
There aren't many new arguments here - as my signature points out - so why avoid responding to this particular one?
O.
-
Zzzzzz!
Is that you're asleep because you've heard all this before - in which case I'm surprised that you needed to hear it again.
Or is it you're asleep because you tune out when you hear things that you don't like?
To ignore the point just makes it look as though you don't have a rebuttal.
O.
I've heard it all before and it's bollocks.
There aren't many new arguments here - as my signature points out - so why avoid responding to this particular one?
O.
I have repeatedly answered it in this thread. Rose seems to think that someone one day woke up and made up the Trinity because the Church didn't define it until Nicaea. I replied on numerous occasions that she obviously doesn't understand how the Church defines its dogmas, which is nearly always in response to heresy and even that would have been difficult before the Edict of Milan. So yes, I was just showing what I thought of the post.
-
I have repeatedly answered it in this thread. Rose seems to think that someone one day woke up and made up the Trinity because the Church didn't define it until Nicaea. I replied on numerous occasions that she obviously doesn't understand how the Church defines its dogmas, which is nearly always in response to heresy and even that would have been difficult before the Edict of Milan. So yes, I was just showing what I thought of the post.
Firstly, that's a reasonable response - certainly more respectful than what you put.
Secondly, that completely fails to recognise those sections of the Christian faith for whom the Trinity isn't orthodoxy - the Mormons Christian Scientists etc. Your orthodoxy is their heresy, and vice versa, so to depict it as 'declared heresy' is simply to pick a side, it's not to explain why.
O.
-
I have repeatedly answered it in this thread. Rose seems to think that someone one day woke up and made up the Trinity because the Church didn't define it until Nicaea. I replied on numerous occasions that she obviously doesn't understand how the Church defines its dogmas, which is nearly always in response to heresy and even that would have been difficult before the Edict of Milan. So yes, I was just showing what I thought of the post.
Firstly, that's a reasonable response - certainly more respectful than what you put.
Secondly, that completely fails to recognise those sections of the Christian faith for whom the Trinity isn't orthodoxy - the Mormons Christian Scientists etc. Your orthodoxy is their heresy, and vice versa, so to depict it as 'declared heresy' is simply to pick a side, it's not to explain why.
O.
Mormons? Christians Scientists? Where they there from the beginning? No. Nuff said! In fact I would say they're not even Christians. Not all claims are equal.
-
So when was Jesus' birthday, please?
I firmly believe that it is at or around the 25th of December. Both the scriptures and creation mystically point to midwinter. We know that St. John the Baptist was born six months before our Lord and in the Gospel he says of Christ "He must increase, but I must decrease". Creation also testifies to this, for the Church celebrates the Nativity of St. John the Baptist on midsummer after which the Sun decreases, and the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ on midwinter after which the Sun increases. Both the liturgical calendar and the cosmos are in harmony and of that we should not be surprised for creation speaks of him through whom all things were made.
-
So nothing to do with taking over a pagan festival or Winter Solstice celebrations, then ???
Nick
More coincidence, in my opinion, or alternatively pagans were merely worshiping something they were ignorant of.
-
Indeed I am, I might very well be inclined to view it much as the Apostle viewed the Athenian altar to the Unknown God.
"But Paul standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are too superstitious. For passing by, and seeing your idols, I found an altar also, on which was written: To the unknown God. What therefore you worship, without knowing it, that I preach to you"
-
Mormons? Christians Scientists? Where they there from the beginning? No. Nuff said! In fact I would say they're not even Christians. Not all claims are equal.
No they weren't there from the start, but there were non-Trinitarian sects and cults - that's why there was a need to adopt Trinitarianism as creed at Nicea, otherwise no-one would ever have needed to raise it at the council.
The fact that the majority opinion at one point in time was in favour of Trinitarianism doesn't mean that it's right.
You could say they're not Christian - given they believe that Christ is divine, I'd suggest that they are, but I can see how there'd be discussion.
Not all claims are equal in the grander scheme of things, perhaps, but on matters of religious doctrine, given the sparsity of the evidence, there's not a great deal to help choose between them.
O.
-
Mormons? Christians Scientists? Where they there from the beginning? No. Nuff said! In fact I would say they're not even Christians. Not all claims are equal.
No they weren't there from the start, but there were non-Trinitarian sects and cults - that's why there was a need to adopt Trinitarianism as creed at Nicea, otherwise no-one would ever have needed to raise it at the council.
The fact that the majority opinion at one point in time was in favour of Trinitarianism doesn't mean that it's right.
You could say they're not Christian - given they believe that Christ is divine, I'd suggest that they are, but I can see how there'd be discussion.
Not all claims are equal in the grander scheme of things, perhaps, but on matters of religious doctrine, given the sparsity of the evidence, there's not a great deal to help choose between them.
O.
Of course there were all kinds of weird sects but they died out, as all weird sects do. Only orthodox faith has survived from the Apostles to this day and until the last day.
-
Mormons? Christians Scientists? Where they there from the beginning? No. Nuff said! In fact I would say they're not even Christians. Not all claims are equal.
No they weren't there from the start, but there were non-Trinitarian sects and cults - that's why there was a need to adopt Trinitarianism as creed at Nicea, otherwise no-one would ever have needed to raise it at the council.
The fact that the majority opinion at one point in time was in favour of Trinitarianism doesn't mean that it's right.
You could say they're not Christian - given they believe that Christ is divine, I'd suggest that they are, but I can see how there'd be discussion.
Not all claims are equal in the grander scheme of things, perhaps, but on matters of religious doctrine, given the sparsity of the evidence, there's not a great deal to help choose between them.
O.
It does mean that the Trinity concept is correct because it is found in scripture.
~TW~
-
Mormons? Christians Scientists? Where they there from the beginning? No. Nuff said! In fact I would say they're not even Christians. Not all claims are equal.
No they weren't there from the start, but there were non-Trinitarian sects and cults - that's why there was a need to adopt Trinitarianism as creed at Nicea, otherwise no-one would ever have needed to raise it at the council.
The fact that the majority opinion at one point in time was in favour of Trinitarianism doesn't mean that it's right.
You could say they're not Christian - given they believe that Christ is divine, I'd suggest that they are, but I can see how there'd be discussion.
Not all claims are equal in the grander scheme of things, perhaps, but on matters of religious doctrine, given the sparsity of the evidence, there's not a great deal to help choose between them.
O.
Of course there were all kinds of weird sects but they died out, as all weird sects do. Only orthodox faith has survived from the Apostles to this day and until the last day.
To you they're weird sects - to us you're all weird sects. Weird is not a measure of right or wrong, it's a measure of popularity. This is - albeit probably not deliberately - just an argumentum ad populum dressed up. The fact that people support your interpretation isn't what will make it right, if it is right.
O.
-
Mormons? Christians Scientists? Where they there from the beginning? No. Nuff said! In fact I would say they're not even Christians. Not all claims are equal.
No they weren't there from the start, but there were non-Trinitarian sects and cults - that's why there was a need to adopt Trinitarianism as creed at Nicea, otherwise no-one would ever have needed to raise it at the council.
The fact that the majority opinion at one point in time was in favour of Trinitarianism doesn't mean that it's right.
You could say they're not Christian - given they believe that Christ is divine, I'd suggest that they are, but I can see how there'd be discussion.
Not all claims are equal in the grander scheme of things, perhaps, but on matters of religious doctrine, given the sparsity of the evidence, there's not a great deal to help choose between them.
O.
It does mean that the Trinity concept is correct because it is found in scripture.
~TW~
And the non-trinitarian concepts are to be found in scripture, as well. It's almost as though it's such a loosely scripted and translated book that you can find just about anything you want in it - anyone would think that's why it's survived as long as it has.
O.
-
Mormons? Christians Scientists? Where they there from the beginning? No. Nuff said! In fact I would say they're not even Christians. Not all claims are equal.
No they weren't there from the start, but there were non-Trinitarian sects and cults - that's why there was a need to adopt Trinitarianism as creed at Nicea, otherwise no-one would ever have needed to raise it at the council.
The fact that the majority opinion at one point in time was in favour of Trinitarianism doesn't mean that it's right.
You could say they're not Christian - given they believe that Christ is divine, I'd suggest that they are, but I can see how there'd be discussion.
Not all claims are equal in the grander scheme of things, perhaps, but on matters of religious doctrine, given the sparsity of the evidence, there's not a great deal to help choose between them.
O.
Of course there were all kinds of weird sects but they died out, as all weird sects do. Only orthodox faith has survived from the Apostles to this day and until the last day.
To you they're weird sects - to us you're all weird sects. Weird is not a measure of right or wrong, it's a measure of popularity. This is - albeit probably not deliberately - just an argumentum ad populum dressed up. The fact that people support your interpretation isn't what will make it right, if it is right.
O.
I would say that it's proof that orthodoxy is of the Holy Spirit. In the same way we recognise certain councils as being holy and ecumenical, having been received by the whole Church and thus of the Holy Spirit.
-
Mormons? Christians Scientists? Where they there from the beginning? No. Nuff said! In fact I would say they're not even Christians. Not all claims are equal.
No they weren't there from the start, but there were non-Trinitarian sects and cults - that's why there was a need to adopt Trinitarianism as creed at Nicea, otherwise no-one would ever have needed to raise it at the council.
The fact that the majority opinion at one point in time was in favour of Trinitarianism doesn't mean that it's right.
You could say they're not Christian - given they believe that Christ is divine, I'd suggest that they are, but I can see how there'd be discussion.
Not all claims are equal in the grander scheme of things, perhaps, but on matters of religious doctrine, given the sparsity of the evidence, there's not a great deal to help choose between them.
O.
Of course there were all kinds of weird sects but they died out, as all weird sects do. Only orthodox faith has survived from the Apostles to this day and until the last day.
To you they're weird sects - to us you're all weird sects. Weird is not a measure of right or wrong, it's a measure of popularity. This is - albeit probably not deliberately - just an argumentum ad populum dressed up. The fact that people support your interpretation isn't what will make it right, if it is right.
O.
I would say that it's proof that orthodoxy is of the Holy Spirit. In the same way we recognise certain councils as being holy and ecumenical, having been received by the whole Church and thus of the Holy Spirit.
Because they are popular they must be right?
-
I would say that it's proof that orthodoxy is of the Holy Spirit. In the same way we recognise certain councils as being holy and ecumenical, having been received by the whole Church and thus of the Holy Spirit.
I'd say it's proof that it's popular - X-Factor gets millions of viewers, does that make it 'inspired by the Holy Spirit'?
Equating popularity with right is the argumentum ad populum.
O.
-
I'm saying orthodoxy won the day precisely because it was, well, orthodox and thus of the Holy Spirit. That why all the heterodox sects died out. Of course, new heterodox sects appear all the time but only orthodoxy has been from the beginning with the Apostles.
-
I'm saying orthodoxy won the day precisely because it was, well, orthodox and thus of the Holy Spirit. That why all the heterodox sects died out. Of course, new heterodox sects appear all the time but only orthodoxy has been from the beginning with the Apostles.
I know that's what you're saying, I understand that it's a possibility, but how would you demonstrate that it's the right interpretation, and that 'heresy' hasn't won? The 'heretical' claims that were rejected were based on the same source material, they're supported, it's all just opinion anyway in the absence of anything to corroborate any of it.
O.
-
I'm saying orthodoxy won the day precisely because it was, well, orthodox and thus of the Holy Spirit. That why all the heterodox sects died out. Of course, new heterodox sects appear all the time but only orthodoxy has been from the beginning with the Apostles.
I know that's what you're saying, I understand that it's a possibility, but how would you demonstrate that it's the right interpretation, and that 'heresy' hasn't won? The 'heretical' claims that were rejected were based on the same source material, they're supported, it's all just opinion anyway in the absence of anything to corroborate any of it.
O.
:)
I know that's what you're saying, I understand that it's a possibility, but how would you demonstrate that it's the right interpretation, 8)
well I find reading the scriptures and studying them and then re-checking does the job,and applying honesty to what you read.
~TW~
-
baloney as usual with no examples.
~TWW~
Sorry, I didn't realise your memory didn't stretch back far enough to read further up the thread where I cited some Christian sects that don't accept the trinitarian account...
O.
-
:)
I know that's what you're saying, I understand that it's a possibility, but how would you demonstrate that it's the right interpretation, 8)
well I find reading the scriptures and studying them and then re-checking does the job,and applying honesty to what you read.
~TW~
Other people read the same scripture and come to a different conclusion. Some people read the same scripture and say 'Jesus was merely a prophet, he never said he was God, and Mohammed says he was just a prophet'...
For instance.
O.
-
baloney as usual with no examples.
~TWW~
Sorry, I didn't realise your memory didn't stretch back far enough to read further up the thread where I cited some Christian sects that don't accept the trinitarian account...
O.
NO I read what you said{ there's not a great deal to help choose between them.}
Hence baloney.
~TW~
So because two sects interpret the same poetically translated unevidenced claims in two different untestable ways, and I point that out, I'm talking baloney :)
You'll appreciate that I don't feel that's the most robust riposte of the day.
O.
-
baloney as usual with no examples.
~TWW~
Sorry, I didn't realise your memory didn't stretch back far enough to read further up the thread where I cited some Christian sects that don't accept the trinitarian account...
O.
NO I read what you said{ there's not a great deal to help choose between them.}
Hence baloney.
~TW~
So because two sects interpret the same poetically translated unevidenced claims in two different untestable ways, and I point that out, I'm talking baloney :)
You'll appreciate that I don't feel that's the most robust riposte of the day.
O.
I am not interested in your twist and turns,I am telling you that if you take time to read scripture you will find the trinitarian concept in scripture,but do you know what the trinitarian concept is.The evidence suggest you are clueless,so therefore in my book that equals reply's, I can call baloney.
~TW~
-
I am not interested in your twist and turns,I am telling you that if you take time to read scripture you will find the trinitarian concept in scripture,but do you know what the trinitarian concept is.The evidence suggest you are clueless,so therefore in my book that equals reply's, I can call baloney.
~TW~
What evidence would that be? I've cited the undeniable fact that there are Christian sects that have accepted, and do accept, the trinitarian concept, and claim that it's founded in scripture, and there are Christian sects that do not accept the trinitarian concept, and claim that it's not founded in the same scripture.
I don't actually need to grasp the trinitarian concept to state that, unless you're contesting either of those documented realities. I have some grasp of the Trinitarian concept, though I find that it's unintuitive - not impossible, given the possibility of an extra-universal deity not bound by such restrictions as not existing in multiple places at the same time, but unintuitive. Beyond grasping the basics of the concept, I don't see much need to know anything further, given that it's arguing about whether something I don't think exists fails to exist as three parts of a single whole, three independent parts of a linked greater being or three separate things entirely that people misclassify.
It's a bit like spending a long time deciding whether the doughnut I don't have is a ring doughnut or not - there is no doughnut.
O.
-
What evidence would that be? I've cited the undeniable fact that there are Christian sects that have accepted, and do accept, the trinitarian concept, and claim that it's founded in scripture, and there are Christian sects that do not accept the trinitarian concept, and claim that it's not founded in the same scripture.
That's why we have the Church guided by the Holy Spirit.
-
What evidence would that be? I've cited the undeniable fact that there are Christian sects that have accepted, and do accept, the trinitarian concept, and claim that it's founded in scripture, and there are Christian sects that do not accept the trinitarian concept, and claim that it's not founded in the same scripture.
That's why we have the Church guided by the Holy Spirit.
I'm sure the other churches make the same claim.
O.
-
What evidence would that be? I've cited the undeniable fact that there are Christian sects that have accepted, and do accept, the trinitarian concept, and claim that it's founded in scripture, and there are Christian sects that do not accept the trinitarian concept, and claim that it's not founded in the same scripture.
That's why we have the Church guided by the Holy Spirit.
I'm sure the other churches make the same claim.
O.
But they have no claim. They were not there from the beginning. There must be continuity, a golden thread going all the way back to the Apostles who were themselves taught by Christ.
-
What evidence would that be? I've cited the undeniable fact that there are Christian sects that have accepted, and do accept, the trinitarian concept, and claim that it's founded in scripture, and there are Christian sects that do not accept the trinitarian concept, and claim that it's not founded in the same scripture.
That's why we have the Church guided by the Holy Spirit.
I'm sure the other churches make the same claim.
O.
But they have no claim. They were not there from the beginning. There must be continuity, a golden thread going all the way back to the Apostles who were themselves taught by Christ.
Because being right now isn't as important as being the same wrong you were a thousand years ago?
O.
-
What evidence would that be? I've cited the undeniable fact that there are Christian sects that have accepted, and do accept, the trinitarian concept, and claim that it's founded in scripture, and there are Christian sects that do not accept the trinitarian concept, and claim that it's not founded in the same scripture.
That's why we have the Church guided by the Holy Spirit.
I'm sure the other churches make the same claim.
O.
But they have no claim. They were not there from the beginning. There must be continuity, a golden thread going all the way back to the Apostles who were themselves taught by Christ.
Because being right now isn't as important as being the same wrong you were a thousand years ago?
O.
How can they be right when they have no connection to Christ and his Apostles? For it was to them and to the Church Christ himself founded that the Holy Spirit was promised.
-
How can they be right when they have no connection to Christ and his Apostles? For it was to them and to the Church Christ himself founded that the Holy Spirit was promised.
Because right is dependent on how long you've been right for. You claim that the church is right not because they have the best point but because they've been socially acceptable for longer. There are non-trinitarian traditions, they've been around for a long time, they'll make the same claim - their church may have been smaller and less opulent or outspoken...
Or, in the case of the Mormons viewpoint, your clinging to the old way is just an indication that you've failed to accept the new 'new gospel' - your clinging to heritage is a symbol of your heresy, not that you're right.
O.
-
How can they be right when they have no connection to Christ and his Apostles? For it was to them and to the Church Christ himself founded that the Holy Spirit was promised.
Because right is dependent on how long you've been right for. You claim that the church is right not because they have the best point but because they've been socially acceptable for longer. There are non-trinitarian traditions, they've been around for a long time, they'll make the same claim - their church may have been smaller and less opulent or outspoken...
Or, in the case of the Mormons viewpoint, your clinging to the old way is just an indication that you've failed to accept the new 'new gospel' - your clinging to heritage is a symbol of your heresy, not that you're right.
O.
It's nothing to do with social acceptability but a firm connection to the source.
-
Moderator:
Can I remind members posting in the Faith Sharing Area of the ethos of this Board, as noted in the About this Board sticky.
A number of recent posts here seem to involve more sniping than discussions on faith issues: these posts will be removed, and members are asked to bear the ethos of this Board in mind when posting here.
Gordon
Update: I have removed the most obvious examples of posts in this thread that were clearly outwith the ethos of this Board.
Let me add, for clarification, that this Board is open to all members and not just theists. However, the aim here to to have a focus that isn't about there being no basis for theism and is about discussing different perspectives within theism. Exchanges here can be 'robust' - but, and please note, posts that consist of little more than sniping retorts (for want of a better term) will simply be removed.
Those wishing to take a different approach regarding matters raised in any of the threads in the Faith Sharing Area are free to do so on one of the other Boards.
-
Moderator:
Can I remind members posting in the Faith Sharing Area of the ethos of this Board, as noted in the About this Board sticky.
A number of recent posts here seem to involve more sniping than discussions on faith issues: these posts will be removed, and members are asked to bear the ethos of this Board mind when posting here.
Gordon
Thank you Gordon this thread is about the trinity doctrine,and it would be nice to keep it on that subject.
~TW~
-
Of course there were all kinds of weird sects but they died out, as all weird sects do. Only orthodox faith has survived from the Apostles to this day and until the last day.
Orthodox faith is just the weird sect that didn't die out.
-
Of course there were all kinds of weird sects but they died out, as all weird sects do. Only orthodox faith has survived from the Apostles to this day and until the last day.
Orthodox faith is just the weird sect that didn't die out.
.....er, that comment would be considered a snipe, Jeremy; especially as you know ad_o is orthodox in his faith.
-
How can they be right when they have no connection to Christ and his Apostles? For it was to them and to the Church Christ himself founded that the Holy Spirit was promised.
Because right is dependent on how long you've been right for. You claim that the church is right not because they have the best point but because they've been socially acceptable for longer. There are non-trinitarian traditions, they've been around for a long time, they'll make the same claim - their church may have been smaller and less opulent or outspoken...
Or, in the case of the Mormons viewpoint, your clinging to the old way is just an indication that you've failed to accept the new 'new gospel' - your clinging to heritage is a symbol of your heresy, not that you're right.
O.
It's nothing to do with social acceptability but a firm connection to the source.
From your point of view, yes, but tradition doesn't mean that it's right. If it was the wrong decision in the first place - which, of course, non-Trinitarians would maintain it was - then the fact that you have it as a tradition just means you're celebrating being wrong.
The fact that many people have done it before you doesn't lend it credence, that's just a variant of the argument from popular opinion.
O.
-
Calvin says that the name Immanuel, God with us, cannot apply to a man who is not God.
-
There you go again, dismissing the scriptures. The same Holy Spirit that inspired the writers of the OT inspired the writers of the NT. So if you deny them again we will all see you for who you are, at best a promoter of false teachings and at worst leading souls astray. From now on you better not quote from the NT at all, you hypocrite!
Again your manmade teachings show your ignorance of what the scriptures of God really are.
Claiming that God, Christ, the Prophets including Paul never spoke about any scriptures as being scriptures but the OT is a statement of TRUTH.
Nowhere do the disciples, Paul or anyone else claim their letters or accounts are Scripture.
So the name calling and the use of such words as hypocrit simply show your inability to support any claim that the NT is scripture. They are simply the accounts of those who knew Christ and accepted the truth in the OT. Paul warned you NOT to accept anything not taught in the OT.
But the OT, eh? The OT too is explicit.
The prophet Isaias says of Christ:
"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel"
Emanuel means God with us... And God was with them for HE WAS WITH CHRIST.
Acts 10
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
So you see God was speaking through Christ. And Christ clearly tells everyone his words were SPIRIT.
"For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called, Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace. His empire shall be multiplied, and there shall be no end of peace: he shall sit upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom; to establish it and strengthen it with judgment and with justice, from henceforth and for ever"
What it really says is this-
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.
As his title is the Son of God and we know God was with him how else could that be interpreted. Even the Jews confirm that the original writing does not claim Jesus will be God. His name shall be called... not that the Messiah would be God.
"Take courage, and fear not: behold your God will bring the revenge of recompense: God himself will come and will save you"
Nothing declaring Christ to be God.
Also the Psalmist says:
"Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a sceptre of uprightness. Thou hast loved justice, and hated iniquity: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows"
"The Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou at my right hand: Until I make thy enemies thy footstool. The Lord will send forth the sceptre of thy power out of Sion: rule thou in the midst of thy enemies"
Whom was God speaking to David about. More importantly whom was David Speaking about.
EPIC FAIL by yourself and manmade teachings again. The Jews will tell you that the Messiah was to bring the truth,He was the Son of God a Holy thing and God was with him.
-
good day A_O I see that Sass has answerd again and got it all wrong,she can be very trying also we have others putting in their mis-information which does not work.
Aaagh, but that is untrue. I give scripture and proof you chuck wild accusations and comments that actually does you no credit. You cannot even prove what I say to be incorrect. Because you know that you have taken manmade teachings and set them up above the truth of the One true God and Jesus Christ whom he sent.
Every day you feel less sure and have to attack. Alas God shows you the truth and you ignore it adding teachings NOT given by God.
One does not have to answer all these JW type bullet points to show she is wrong try one question at a time for example
Not A jw, Jewish descent actually and church of england but more importantly taught by God. That is why you fail every time you try to defend your position. You are on sinking sand and you cannot see it.
Who is going to return one day------ answer Jesus =the 2nd coming then quote a scripture like this.
“‘Holy, holy, holy
is the Lord God Almighty,’ Rev 4:8
who was, and is, and is to come.”------------------- so who is coming--- God = Jesus.
She may choose not to accept that,BUT not our problem.
~TW~
It actually teaches...
22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
Jesus Christ is the Son of God and he is to be known and called the Son of God.
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Whom does God say Jesus is to be called... Whatever the argument the truth is there. Jesus given the throne of David. Davids throne is a worldly throne/kingdom.
But in that it is Christ being King over the people as David was but a Kingdom without end. Because the Kingdom of God is within the People of God, Those born of Spirit and Truth. True worshippers.
-
Claiming that God, Christ, the Prophets including Paul never spoke about any scriptures as being scriptures but the OT is a statement of TRUTH.
Nowhere do the disciples, Paul or anyone else claim their letters or accounts are Scripture.
Sass, That statement of yours is incorrect. There are in fact two passages in the NT which specifically recognise other NT writings as having the authority of Scripture.
2 Peter 3:15-16 reads, ‘Our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures’. A clear indication that Paul’s writings (or at least those available at the time of the writing of 2 Peter, were accorded the same authority as the other (OT) Scriptures.
Then in 1 Timothy 5:17-18 we read the following. ‘Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honour, especially those who labour in preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The labourer deserves his wages.’
The command not to muzzle an ox is an OT quotation from Deut. 25:4. However, the labourer deserves his wages is a direct NT quotation from Luke 10:7 (also Matt. 10:10). Thus, it seems that Paul is already referring to the written records of the statements of Jesus (the Gospels) as Scripture.
-
good day A_O I see that Sass has answerd again and got it all wrong,she can be very trying also we have others putting in their mis-information which does not work.
Aaagh, but that is untrue. I give scripture and proof you chuck wild accusations and comments that actually does you no credit. You cannot even prove what I say to be incorrect. Because you know that you have taken manmade teachings and set them up above the truth of the One true God and Jesus Christ whom he sent.
Every day you feel less sure and have to attack. Alas God shows you the truth and you ignore it adding teachings NOT given by God.
One does not have to answer all these JW type bullet points to show she is wrong try one question at a time for example
Not A jw, Jewish descent actually and church of england but more importantly taught by God. That is why you fail every time you try to defend your position. You are on sinking sand and you cannot see it.
Who is going to return one day------ answer Jesus =the 2nd coming then quote a scripture like this.
“‘Holy, holy, holy
is the Lord God Almighty,’ Rev 4:8
who was, and is, and is to come.”------------------- so who is coming--- God = Jesus.
She may choose not to accept that,BUT not our problem.
~TW~
It actually teaches...
22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
Jesus Christ is the Son of God and he is to be known and called the Son of God.
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Whom does God say Jesus is to be called... Whatever the argument the truth is there. Jesus given the throne of David. Davids throne is a worldly throne/kingdom.
But in that it is Christ being King over the people as David was but a Kingdom without end. Because the Kingdom of God is within the People of God, Those born of Spirit and Truth. True worshippers.
Sass you are deceiving your self keep it simple see if you can work this out.
My wife bought all the shopping and carried all the shopping.
I carried all the other shopping. So the question is what did I carry.
Try to give an answer
~TW~
-
:) You obviously brought your own shopping and then met your wife to go shopping with her, again. :)
Nice try Rose,but wrong,you see this question is related to 3 scriptures in the NT.I would say Sass chooses to ignore them
So once again My wife bought all the shopping and carried all the shopping.
I had no money and carried all the other shopping.--So with that information what did I carry.
~TW~
-
:) You obviously brought your own shopping and then met your wife to go shopping with her, again. :)
Nice try Rose,but wrong,you see this question is related to 3 scriptures in the NT.I would say Sass chooses to ignore them
So once again My wife bought all the shopping and carried all the shopping.
I had no money and carried all the other shopping.--So with that information what did I carry.
~TW~
.........You carried all the other shopping.
It's right there in your post....
I had no money and carried all the other shopping
Do you have memory issues?
::)
-
:) You obviously brought your own shopping and then met your wife to go shopping with her, again. :)
Nice try Rose,but wrong,you see this question is related to 3 scriptures in the NT.I would say Sass chooses to ignore them
So once again My wife bought all the shopping and carried all the shopping.
I had no money and carried all the other shopping.--So with that information what did I carry.
~TW~
.........You carried all the other shopping.
It's right there in your post....
I had no money and carried all the other shopping
Do you have memory issues?
::)
Seb/Rose/ you are both wrong my wife carried ALL the shopping their is no other shopping, all means ALL so no room for other their is no other.
Now 3 scriptures confirm the tri unity in the same way.And Sass like you both cannot see it.
~TW~
-
I'd like to share my faith that one day TW might understand the use of their/there
-
I'd like to share my faith that one day TW might understand the use of their/there
thanks
-
I am not interested in your twist and turns,I am telling you that if you take time to read scripture you will find the trinitarian concept in scripture,but do you know what the trinitarian concept is.The evidence suggest you are clueless,so therefore in my book that equals reply's, I can call baloney.
~TW~
What evidence would that be? I've cited the undeniable fact that there are Christian sects that have accepted, and do accept, the trinitarian concept, and claim that it's founded in scripture, and there are Christian sects that do not accept the trinitarian concept, and claim that it's not founded in the same scripture.
I don't actually need to grasp the trinitarian concept to state that, unless you're contesting either of those documented realities. I have some grasp of the Trinitarian concept, though I find that it's unintuitive - not impossible, given the possibility of an extra-universal deity not bound by such restrictions as not existing in multiple places at the same time, but unintuitive. Beyond grasping the basics of the concept, I don't see much need to know anything further, given that it's arguing about whether something I don't think exists fails to exist as three parts of a single whole, three independent parts of a linked greater being or three separate things entirely that people misclassify.
It's a bit like spending a long time deciding whether the doughnut I don't have is a ring doughnut or not - there is no doughnut.
O.
Absolutely spiffing! And trenchantly expressed.
-
I am not interested in your twist and turns,I am telling you that if you take time to read scripture you will find the trinitarian concept in scripture,but do you know what the trinitarian concept is.The evidence suggest you are clueless,so therefore in my book that equals reply's, I can call baloney.
~TW~
What evidence would that be? I've cited the undeniable fact that there are Christian sects that have accepted, and do accept, the trinitarian concept, and claim that it's founded in scripture, and there are Christian sects that do not accept the trinitarian concept, and claim that it's not founded in the same scripture.
I don't actually need to grasp the trinitarian concept to state that, unless you're contesting either of those documented realities. I have some grasp of the Trinitarian concept, though I find that it's unintuitive - not impossible, given the possibility of an extra-universal deity not bound by such restrictions as not existing in multiple places at the same time, but unintuitive. Beyond grasping the basics of the concept, I don't see much need to know anything further, given that it's arguing about whether something I don't think exists fails to exist as three parts of a single whole, three independent parts of a linked greater being or three separate things entirely that people misclassify.
It's a bit like spending a long time deciding whether the doughnut I don't have is a ring doughnut or not - there is no doughnut.
O.
Absolutely spiffing! And trenchantly expressed.
22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us,
And sass who is the us?
~TW~
-
I am not interested in your twist and turns,I am telling you that if you take time to read scripture you will find the trinitarian concept in scripture,but do you know what the trinitarian concept is.The evidence suggest you are clueless,so therefore in my book that equals reply's, I can call baloney.
~TW~
What evidence would that be? I've cited the undeniable fact that there are Christian sects that have accepted, and do accept, the trinitarian concept, and claim that it's founded in scripture, and there are Christian sects that do not accept the trinitarian concept, and claim that it's not founded in the same scripture.
I don't actually need to grasp the trinitarian concept to state that, unless you're contesting either of those documented realities. I have some grasp of the Trinitarian concept, though I find that it's unintuitive - not impossible, given the possibility of an extra-universal deity not bound by such restrictions as not existing in multiple places at the same time, but unintuitive. Beyond grasping the basics of the concept, I don't see much need to know anything further, given that it's arguing about whether something I don't think exists fails to exist as three parts of a single whole, three independent parts of a linked greater being or three separate things entirely that people misclassify.
It's a bit like spending a long time deciding whether the doughnut I don't have is a ring doughnut or not - there is no doughnut.
O.
Absolutely spiffing! And trenchantly expressed.
22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us,
And sass who is the us?
~TW~
Well it comes to something when slipping sneaky ones in... Gd can answer this himself.
38 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
-
So when God said "we" he was also referring to the angels? You're getting more and more desparate.
-
I am not interested in your twist and turns,I am telling you that if you take time to read scripture you will find the trinitarian concept in scripture,but do you know what the trinitarian concept is.The evidence suggest you are clueless,so therefore in my book that equals reply's, I can call baloney.
~TW~
What evidence would that be? I've cited the undeniable fact that there are Christian sects that have accepted, and do accept, the trinitarian concept, and claim that it's founded in scripture, and there are Christian sects that do not accept the trinitarian concept, and claim that it's not founded in the same scripture.
I don't actually need to grasp the trinitarian concept to state that, unless you're contesting either of those documented realities. I have some grasp of the Trinitarian concept, though I find that it's unintuitive - not impossible, given the possibility of an extra-universal deity not bound by such restrictions as not existing in multiple places at the same time, but unintuitive. Beyond grasping the basics of the concept, I don't see much need to know anything further, given that it's arguing about whether something I don't think exists fails to exist as three parts of a single whole, three independent parts of a linked greater being or three separate things entirely that people misclassify.
It's a bit like spending a long time deciding whether the doughnut I don't have is a ring doughnut or not - there is no doughnut.
O.
Absolutely spiffing! And trenchantly expressed.
22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us,
And sass who is the us?
~TW~
Well it comes to something when slipping sneaky ones in... Gd can answer this himself.
38 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
So you are saying what the angels are God is, that Sass is blasphemy. Try again.
~TW~
-
So when God said "we" he was also referring to the angels? You're getting more and more desparate.
Nah you are the desperate one.
God promised to send them a prophet like Moses not come in flesh himself.
You are desperate as you have nothing to support anything you say. DO YOU....
-
22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us,
And sass who is the us?
~TW~
Well it comes to something when slipping sneaky ones in... Gd can answer this himself.
38 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
So you are saying what the angels are God is, that Sass is blasphemy. Try again.
~TW~
Nothing in the bible especially what I posted would suggest Angels are God.
The man has become like ONE of us. Not like US. So each individuals are beings referred to by God.
Guess each time you are beginning to see how wrong you are...
-
Nah you are the desperate one.
God promised to send them a prophet like Moses not come in flesh himself.
You are desperate as you have nothing to support anything you say. DO YOU....
We have given numerous examples from the scriptures proving Christ is God in the flesh. That you obstinately remain in error is also proof that you are too far gone and that like Arius, you have been caught in the snares of the devil. We have given examples both from the OT and the NT. That you reject the NT is not our problem but yours. It is yet more proof that you are in error, rejecting the Holy Spirit that inspired those texts.
-
Sass who is this God that appeared,
2 Then God spoke further to Moses and said to him, “I am the Lord. 3 I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob (Israel) as God Almighty [El Shaddai]
~TW~
-
Rose this is silly=No I don't think she is, because one interpretation of the "we" is that it is referring to beings that already had the ability to discern and be aware of the concept of good and evil ie Angels and God.
########################
Rose if you have a bible read it.And stop encouraging people who are wrong to not bother to check
~TW~
-
We have given numerous examples from the scriptures proving Christ is God in the flesh. That you obstinately remain in error is also proof that you are too far gone and that like Arius, you have been caught in the snares of the devil. We have given examples both from the OT and the NT. That you reject the NT is not our problem but yours. It is yet more proof that you are in error, rejecting the Holy Spirit that inspired those texts.
WRONG you have suggested but NONE prove Christ was God. In fact it was NOT taught by Christ or the Apostles.
Peter clearly stating...
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
It was never ever meant to be God made man but Jesus made flesh and revealing God to us.
You teach a different gospel from that of the Apostles and even Christ.
17 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Eternal life is knowing the only true God and Jesus Christ whom the ONLY true God sent. From Christs own mouth.
-
You haven't bothered to check.
That's the problem.
You can't answer other people's points because you have just accepted what you have been told to, by others.
You haven't thought it through for yourself.
Hence you have to resort to calling other people's points a silly, without engaging them.
It is encouraging to see that even those who are not of faith can see the truth. Yet he cannot see.
For me it is no victory for I am really sad they cannot see the truth God teaches. :(
If only they could see why they believe this...
-
WRONG you have suggested but NONE prove Christ was God. In fact it was NOT taught by Christ or the Apostles.
Peter clearly stating...
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
It was never ever meant to be God made man but Jesus made flesh and revealing God to us.
You teach a different gospel from that of the Apostles and even Christ.
17 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Eternal life is knowing the only true God and Jesus Christ whom the ONLY true God sent. From Christs own mouth.
You're following the doctrines of men. You reject the faith of the Apostles. Christ is clearly God.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.
The councils, guided by the Holy Spirit, confirm the faith of the Apostles:
And those who say "there once was when he was not", and "before he was begotten he was not", and that he came to be from things that were not, or from another hypostasis or substance, affirming that the Son of God is subject to change or alteration these the catholic and apostolic church anathematises.
-
As Harry Hill in a cassock would put it: Which is 'TruthierTM'? There's only one way to find out...
SCHISM!!!
O.
-
;D
-
As Harry Hill in a cassock would put it: Which is 'TruthierTM'? There's only one way to find out... SCHISM!!!
O.
All the schismatics faded and died.
-
You haven't bothered to check.
That's the problem.
You can't answer other people's points because you have just accepted what you have been told to, by others.
You haven't thought it through for yourself.
Hence you have to resort to calling other people's points a silly, without engaging them.
You really are ridiculous ,check you say the word was God,what cant you understand, The evangelist here lays down the great truth he is to prove, that Jesus Christ is God, one with the Father. And you find that in John 1:1 now you check.
~TW~
-
WRONG you have suggested but NONE prove Christ was God. In fact it was NOT taught by Christ or the Apostles.
Peter clearly stating...
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
Sassy, You are in error here. Peter says quite explicitly in his second epistle that Jesus is God. 2 Peter 1:1, 'To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing to ours by the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.' So Peter is quite clear that Jesus is both God and Saviour.
-
Further to my post #334. Just for the record four of the NT authors (three if you think Hebrews is Pauline) refer to Jesus as God. In total there are seven passages in the NT where Jesus is specifically referred to as God. These are listed below'
John 1:1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:18. No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.
John 20:28. Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”
Rom. 9:5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.
Titus 2:13. . . waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ . . .
Heb. 1:8. But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of your kingdom.”
2 Pet. 1:1. To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ
Seven - an interesting number from a Biblical perspective.
-
You're following the doctrines of men. You reject the faith of the Apostles. Christ is clearly God.
The disciples NEVER taught that Christ was God. T hey warn against it in John. In the book of acts peter states clearly God was with Christ NOT that God was Christ.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.
The councils, guided by the Holy Spirit, confirm the faith of the Apostles:[/quote]
And those who say "there once was when he was not", and "before he was begotten he was not", and that he came to be from things that were not, or from another hypostasis or substance, affirming that the Son of God is subject to change or alteration these the catholic and apostolic church anathematises.
[/quote]Nothing in that says Christ was God. It is simple with OT to understand everything God created he 'SPOKE' into being including Christ before it happened.Jesus had to be a second Adam to die for mankind. The teachings you have are not from the OT and came after Christ and the Apostles. Jesus Christ came in the flesh and G of was with him.
-
You really are ridiculous ,check you say the word was God,what cant you understand, The evangelist here lays down the great truth he is to prove, that Jesus Christ is God, one with the Father. And you find that in John 1:1 now you check.
~TW~
And if your words were repeated would they be yours or the person repeating them. You speak and what happens? God speaks and what he says happens. Didn.'t he speak the words saying he would send them a prophet like unto Moses? When Christ came the word became flesh. Didn't Christ come that way? Christ also said his WORDS were Spirit and they were life. Don't you need to believe the truth about Christ and the baptism of that spirit to be saved? God was with Christ.
-
And if your words were repeated would they be yours or the person repeating them. You speak and what happens? God speaks and what he says happens. Didn.'t he speak the words saying he would send them a prophet like unto Moses? When Christ came the word became flesh. Didn't Christ come that way? Christ also said his WORDS were Spirit and they were life. Don't you need to believe the truth about Christ and the baptism of that spirit to be saved? God was with Christ.
Sass John in 1:1 is saying the Word is a person, by describing him as being "with God". If he was merely talking about God the Father's thoughts and words he wouldn't have said "with God", it wouldn't make sense. He is talking about a person whom he calls the Word, who was both with God and equal with God. This fits better with the rest of John's gospel.