|
Post by fixit on Apr 29, 2015 4:44:10 GMT -5
There are only hundreds of them because you are looking for them to validate the theory you've been taught. I'll stick with the terminology used in the Bible. Nowhere does it use "God the Son", "God the Holy Spirit", "Triune God", "Trinity", etc. The early workers were absolutely right to drop all that confusion and stick with what the Bible actually says. hmmmmmm... The word gospel meetings, Wed. night Bible studies, conventions, special meetings, Sunday morning meetings are NOT mention in the Bible so should we drop all of it from our fellowship? We don't read these terminologies in the Bible either.
How would you explain to people when they ask you, "Hey! many of your lingo, terminologies are NOT found in the Bible too!" So, your church must be a false church just like the RCC who came up their own words, Triune God, Trinity, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
None of these terminologies are used to describe God: gospel meetings, Wed. night Bible studies, conventions, special meetings, Sunday morning meetings
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2015 10:50:16 GMT -5
"The Son of God" is biblical. "God the Son" is a deliberate twisting of the scripture. The term "God the Son" was created by man to make Jesus into something he isn't.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 29, 2015 14:52:30 GMT -5
Nathan, they would have written God the Son if they had wished to or meant to! Their language allowed it! But they didn't they used The Son of God. I find what you quote as the contrived reasoning of a man... a trinitarian man. Anyway that is just one! The Bible writers never wrote God the Holy Spirit. God yes, The Father yes but never God the Father. Why not? Because they could express perfectly all that needed to be told about our Heavenly Father, his Son and the Holy Spirit without such. If you need to use such terms, that is ok. I find that I don't need anything other than the terminology the Bible writers used. They did use the term "God the Father" but NEVER "God the Son" or "God the Holy Spirit".
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 29, 2015 15:03:50 GMT -5
God is a spirit, so his presence and working is referred to as the Holy Spirit.
There is no need to separate into two "persons" God the Father and his Spirit.
The spirit of God the Father is comprehendible.
The spirit of God's Son is comprehendible.
The spirit of God the Holy Spirit?
|
|
|
Post by emy on Apr 29, 2015 15:43:35 GMT -5
Wondering why these verses did not clear up this relationship by using God, the Son:
John 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
1 Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
Galatians 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, andGod the Father, who raised him from the dead;)
Galatians 1:3 Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,
Ephesians 6:23 Peace be to the brethren, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Philippians 2:11
1 Thessalonians 1:1 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
2 Timothy 1:2 To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.
Titus 1:4 To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.
1 Peter 1:2 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.
2 John 1:3 Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 29, 2015 15:47:10 GMT -5
"The Son of God" is biblical. "God the Son" is a deliberate twisting of the scripture. The term "God the Son" was created by man to make Jesus into something he isn't. Can you explain to us what is the different between believing in " The Son of God Vs. God the Son? "Easy: The son of Nathan is ____________. You know his name. (Know you have a son) Nathan the son is Nathan, not ___________. According to the English language. Of course, for someone who doesn't speak the language well, who knows what they think it means.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Apr 29, 2015 15:47:39 GMT -5
God is a spirit, so his presence and working is referred to as the Holy Spirit. There is no need to separate into two "persons" God the Father and his Spirit. The spirit of God the Father is comprehendible. The spirit of God's Son is comprehendible. The spirit of God the Holy Spirit? It just makes sense that since both Father and Son have the Holy Spirit, that is what binds them as one. Jesus even said we can be united with them.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 29, 2015 15:48:32 GMT -5
Can you explain to us what is the different between believing in " The Son of God Vs. God the Son? "Easy: The son of Nathan is ____________. You know his name. (Know you have a son) Nathan the son is Nathan, not ___________. According to the English language. Of course, for someone who doesn't speak the language well, who knows what they think it means. In English "God the son" means God had a father, otherwise he'd not be a son. In fact, some Christians actually believe that.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 29, 2015 15:50:25 GMT -5
I have been around trinity teachings and in churches that believe in the trinity for a while now and have never heard the expression God the Son until I came on this board. I must ask around. You missed that one, didn't you?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 29, 2015 15:53:16 GMT -5
Wondering why these verses did not clear up this relationship by using God, the Son: John 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. 1 Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. Galatians 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, andGod the Father, who raised him from the dead;) Galatians 1:3 Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, Ephesians 6:23 Peace be to the brethren, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.Philippians 2:11 1 Thessalonians 1:1 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.2 Timothy 1:2 To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.Titus 1:4 To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.1 Peter 1:2 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. 2 John 1:3 Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love. They undoubtedly were composed before the adoption of the Trinity in the third century.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 29, 2015 15:54:26 GMT -5
God is a spirit, so his presence and working is referred to as the Holy Spirit. There is no need to separate into two "persons" God the Father and his Spirit. The spirit of God the Father is comprehendible. The spirit of God's Son is comprehendible. The spirit of God the Holy Spirit? It just makes sense that since both Father and Son have the Holy Spirit, that is what binds them as one. Jesus even said we can be united with them. As I am united in marriage with my wife. However, I rarely ever mention that I am Bob the wife.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Apr 29, 2015 16:02:34 GMT -5
It just makes sense that since both Father and Son have the Holy Spirit, that is what binds them as one. Jesus even said we can be united with them. As I am united in marriage with my wife. However, I rarely ever mention that I am Bob the wife. (rofl) It could happen, Bob! I believe the first legally married same sex couple in NY State was an already married couple in which the man legally transitioned to a woman. Their marriage was "grandmothered" in.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 29, 2015 16:04:59 GMT -5
As I am united in marriage with my wife. However, I rarely ever mention that I am Bob the wife. It could happen, Bob! I believe the first legally married same sex couple in NY State was an already married couple in which the man legally transitioned to a woman. Their marriage was "grandmothered" in. Love it love it. And there's the case in Oregon where the "husband" has the baby.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 29, 2015 16:52:39 GMT -5
How do you decide when to pray to the Triune God, God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, or Jesus?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2015 20:38:58 GMT -5
"The Son of God" is biblical. "God the Son" is a deliberate twisting of the scripture. The term "God the Son" was created by man to make Jesus into something he isn't. Can you explain to us what is the different between believing in " The Son of God Vs. God the Son? "I think it best that you explain the difference first, Nathan. If there is a difference between the two terms, then tell us the difference. If there is no difference, then why use the non-biblical term "God the Son?" Can you explain the difference? Is there a difference?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2015 21:31:36 GMT -5
Nathan, they would have written God the Son if they had wished to or meant to! Their language allowed it! But they didn't they used The Son of God. I find what you quote as the contrived reasoning of a man... a trinitarian man. Anyway that is just one! The Bible writers never wrote God the Holy Spirit. God yes, The Father yes but never God the Father. Why not? Because they could express perfectly all that needed to be told about our Heavenly Father, his Son and the Holy Spirit without such. If you need to use such terms, that is ok. I find that I don't need anything other than the terminology the Bible writers used. They did use the term "God the Father" but NEVER "God the Son" or "God the Holy Spirit". Very good point, Fixit! I've been reading your approach to the relationship between the Father and the Son. It's logical, consistant and scriptural. It's not chaotic. No need for creeds. I'm coming to the conclusion that creeds (such as the Nicene Creed) were created to explain away scripture, not to explain scripture.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 29, 2015 22:03:37 GMT -5
God is a spirit, so his presence and working is referred to as the Holy Spirit. There is no need to separate into two "persons" God the Father and his Spirit. The spirit of God the Father is comprehendible. The spirit of God's Son is comprehendible. The spirit of God the Holy Spirit? Also a number of mentions in Scripture to the Spirit of Christ - which I assume is also the Holy Spirit. It's clear that the Holy Spirit is a separate "person" to the Father and the Son. How is it clear that the Holy Spirit is a separate "person" to the Father and the Son?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 29, 2015 23:19:43 GMT -5
If "God the Father" is a "person" and "the Spirit of God" is another person... ...then "Mary" is a "person" and "The Spirit of Mary" is another person?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 29, 2015 23:54:39 GMT -5
They did use the term "God the Father" but NEVER "God the Son" or "God the Holy Spirit". Very good point, Fixit! I've been reading your approach to the relationship between the Father and the Son. It's logical, consistant and scriptural. It's not chaotic. No need for creeds. I'm coming to the conclusion that creeds (such as the Nicene Creed) were created to explain away scripture, not to explain scripture.
And don't forget that it was for political reasons as well -- Emperor Constantine had made it clear what kind of outcome the Nicene Council was to come to. It's interesting, but the Roman church (and all it's subsequent breakaways that accept the trinity doctrine) have had problems explaining it ever since. Augustine concluded that the only possible way to settle the matter was to just to believe it.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 29, 2015 23:56:33 GMT -5
God is a spirit, so his presence and working is referred to as the Holy Spirit. There is no need to separate into two "persons" God the Father and his Spirit. The spirit of God the Father is comprehendible. The spirit of God's Son is comprehendible. The spirit of God the Holy Spirit? Also a number of mentions in Scripture to the Spirit of Christ - which I assume is also the Holy Spirit. It's clear that the Holy Spirit is a separate "person" to the Father and the Son. So do you consider yourself a Trinitarian??
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 29, 2015 23:57:44 GMT -5
Also a number of mentions in Scripture to the Spirit of Christ - which I assume is also the Holy Spirit. It's clear that the Holy Spirit is a separate "person" to the Father and the Son. How is it clear that the Holy Spirit is a separate "person" to the Father and the Son? You hold up a mirror beside one, and then you can see the other one.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 30, 2015 0:00:24 GMT -5
If "God the Father" is a "person" and "the Spirit of God" is another person... ...then "Mary" is a "person" and "The Spirit of Mary" is another person? Maybe they should move on now to the "Quadrinity" -- Mary will get jealous.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 30, 2015 0:03:24 GMT -5
I have been around trinity teachings and in churches that believe in the trinity for a while now and have never heard the expression God the Son until I came on this board. I must ask around. Likewise - God the Son is a not a term used in Christian churches. The Son of God is used. Occasionally, you will hear (particularly when it is obvious from the Scripture being talked about ie that Jesus is part of the Godhead) that Jesus is our great God and Saviour. I think in 15 years of church services that we have done two three week series on the Trinity. It's really not an issue as it so well understood/accepted and not debated at all. I can hardly imagine people never hearing the expression "God the Son". It must not be used down under, but I've heard it a lot over the years.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Apr 30, 2015 0:36:26 GMT -5
Didn't fixit mean our fellow poster 'Mary'?
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Apr 30, 2015 0:45:10 GMT -5
Didn't fixit mean our fellow poster 'Mary'? Oh yeah, I thought he meant the Mary in the bible too, I was wondering what fixit was trying to say! Us Marys' cause confusion at times!
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Apr 30, 2015 4:33:19 GMT -5
There are only hundreds of them because you are looking for them to validate the theory you've been taught. I'll stick with the terminology used in the Bible. Nowhere does it use "God the Son", "God the Holy Spirit", "Triune God", "Trinity", etc. The early workers were absolutely right to drop all that confusion and stick with what the Bible actually says. hmmmmmm... The word gospel meetings, Wed. night Bible studies, conventions, special meetings, Sunday morning meetings are NOT mention in the Bible so should we drop all of it from our fellowship? We don't read these terminologies in the Bible either.
How would you explain to people when they ask you, "Hey! many of your lingo, terminologies are NOT found in the Bible too!" So, your church must be a false church just like the RCC who came up their own words, Triune God, Trinity, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The friends and workers use your 2x2 terminology, too!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2015 4:43:09 GMT -5
hmmmmmm... The word gospel meetings, Wed. night Bible studies, conventions, special meetings, Sunday morning meetings are NOT mention in the Bible so should we drop all of it from our fellowship? We don't read these terminologies in the Bible either.
How would you explain to people when they ask you, "Hey! many of your lingo, terminologies are NOT found in the Bible too!" So, your church must be a false church just like the RCC who came up their own words, Triune God, Trinity, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The friends and workers use your 2x2 terminology, too! And so lies the futility of this whole argument, which leads to nowhere. Just a points scoring contentious exercise that hardly benefits anyone spiritually.IMO
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Apr 30, 2015 5:04:58 GMT -5
In Acts it says the believers went everywhere preaching word. Ephesians as quoted; there are many different roles and ministries in the church for different people. The Old Testament where just the priest took the sole role etc was replaced with everyone having a place in ministering the word or serving the Church.
In the early days of the workers everyone was required to go out preaching.
|
|