|
Post by fixit on Apr 2, 2017 15:57:32 GMT -5
Which means it still is being discussed and debated and not a completely done deal. Just because the majority believe doesn't mean it's still not an issue being debated. It's one of the most debated issues on here for example. Well, majority on TMB has spoken that God is Father, Christ and Holy... ONLY the few still hanging on to Jesus is NOT God, and the word God refers to the Father ONLY and NOT the Son... There will ALWAYS be the unbelievers of the Godhead is Father, Christ, and Holy Spirit until Jesus returns, not all will arrive the same understanding at the same time.Really? I've tried to keep the wording close to Nathan's wording. A vote is welcome from everyone who participates on TMB.
|
|
|
Post by boogabooga on Apr 2, 2017 21:55:19 GMT -5
This is a very near and dear subject to me. Sadly, it seems to be a very divisive belief. For most who have spoken to me about this, upon being questioned, say that this is not a Condition for Salvation. Yet they believe that unless one believes it, they are not really saved. I cannot recommend enough the book: The Trinity's Weak Link Revealed by Robert L. George This is eternal live: that they may know you, the only true God, AND the one you have SENT--Jesus Christ. John 17:1,3
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Apr 3, 2017 3:50:05 GMT -5
This is a very near and dear subject to me. Sadly, it seems to be a very divisive belief. For most who have spoken to me about this, upon being questioned, say that this is not a Condition for Salvation. Yet they believe that unless one believes it, they are not really saved. I cannot recommend enough the book: The Trinity's Weak Link Revealed by Robert L. George This is eternal live: that they may know you, the only true God, AND the one you have SENT--Jesus Christ. John 17:1,3 It's hard to know just how vital Jesus as God the SON IS in relation to salvation. As there are churches who have both the trinitarian and the non-trinitarian. And there's never any form of even hinting that either group are headed for a lost eternity. It seems to me that accepting the triune concept that it brings a person into a more intimate relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. At the least one becomes more acquainted with Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by learning on Apr 3, 2017 11:26:08 GMT -5
Fixit wrote that through the New Testament we read of people being baptised in the name of Jesus. ........................................ The current workers baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Are they doing it wrong? Well now.. that's kind of a good point. By baptizing in the "name" (singular) of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost (which I have heard said in recent years) aren't they confessing belief in a triune God? As opposed to baptizing in the "names" (plural) of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2017 12:18:41 GMT -5
This is a very near and dear subject to me. Sadly, it seems to be a very divisive belief. For most who have spoken to me about this, upon being questioned, say that this is not a Condition for Salvation. Yet they believe that unless one believes it, they are not really saved. I cannot recommend enough the book: The Trinity's Weak Link Revealed by Robert L. George This is eternal live: that they may know you, the only true God, AND the one you have SENT--Jesus Christ. John 17:1,3 It's hard to know just how vital Jesus as God the SON IS in relation to salvation. As there are churches who have both the trinitarian and the non-trinitarian. And there's never any form of even hinting that either group are headed for a lost eternity. It seems to me that accepting the triune concept that it brings a person into a more intimate relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. At the least one becomes more acquainted with Jesus. It is often stated that God speaks to us and through us. We are often reminded that God is not a God and author of confusion so thinking along these lines, one would have thought that God would intervene into the argument and the confusion and reveal the truth to shepherds as well as to the sheep. If that were to happen we would not be so taken up with this argument about the trinity time and time again. Just have a look at Mark 10:18. Jesus said: "why call me good? there is none good but one, that is God." THAT SEEMS TO SUGGEST TO ME THAT HE DOES NOT REGARD himself as "GOD.' He did not say God the father to make the distinction. So it is that the confusion continues unabated. See also JOHN 14:9-11, does that clarify the matter once and for all? Hardly so for many folks.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Apr 3, 2017 12:53:04 GMT -5
Well now.. that's kind of a good point. By baptizing in the "name" (singular) of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost (which I have heard said in recent years) aren't they confessing belief in a triune God? As opposed to baptizing in the "names" (plural) of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Yes, Holy Ghost it was. Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Since when are ghosts Holy? Guess no other place except the Bible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2017 13:10:11 GMT -5
Well now.. that's kind of a good point. By baptizing in the "name" (singular) of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost (which I have heard said in recent years) aren't they confessing belief in a triune God? As opposed to baptizing in the "names" (plural) of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Yes, Holy Ghost it was. Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Since when are ghosts Holy? Guess no other place except the Bible. John4:24 states that God is a spirit; and they that worship Him must worship him in spirit and in truth. One would be wise to look up the definition of "Ghost" in a dictionary any apply it accordingly. To do otherwise might cause some to get their knickers in a twist.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 3, 2017 15:13:53 GMT -5
Well now.. that's kind of a good point. By baptizing in the "name" (singular) of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost (which I have heard said in recent years) aren't they confessing belief in a triune God? As opposed to baptizing in the "names" (plural) of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Early workers used the KJV, and probably didn't have access to a non-trinitarian translation of the bible. I doubt that the words uttered during baptism make any difference - it's what's in the heart that counts.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Apr 3, 2017 16:01:30 GMT -5
So what the workers or anyone else says doesn't matter to you?
|
|
|
Post by pa on Apr 3, 2017 16:38:53 GMT -5
It's hard to know just how vital Jesus as God the SON IS in relation to salvation. As there are churches who have both the trinitarian and the non-trinitarian. And there's never any form of even hinting that either group are headed for a lost eternity. It seems to me that accepting the triune concept that it brings a person into a more intimate relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. At the least one becomes more acquainted with Jesus. It is often stated that God speaks to us and through us. We are often reminded that God is not a God and author of confusion so thinking along these lines, one would have thought that God would intervene into the argument and the confusion and reveal the truth to shepherds as well as to the sheep. If that were to happen we would not be so taken up with this argument about the trinity time and time again. Just have a look at Mark 10:18. Jesus said: "why call me good? there is none good but one, that is God." THAT SEEMS TO SUGGEST TO ME THAT HE DOES NOT REGARD himself as "GOD.' He did not say God the father to make the distinction. So it is that the confusion continues unabated. See also JOHN 14:9-11, does that clarify the matter once and for all? Hardly so for many folks.
"THAT SEEMS TO SUGGEST TO ME THAT HE DOES NOT REGARD himself as "GOD"...Jesus would never suggest that, He was doing what he always did, pointing them to God and not to be taken up with the human Jesus. He wanted them to see God the Word made flesh as the true identity of Himself. What do you suggest John 1 suggest when it states that the Word was God and came to dwell among man in flesh, this not Jesus?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2017 16:59:07 GMT -5
It is often stated that God speaks to us and through us. We are often reminded that God is not a God and author of confusion so thinking along these lines, one would have thought that God would intervene into the argument and the confusion and reveal the truth to shepherds as well as to the sheep. If that were to happen we would not be so taken up with this argument about the trinity time and time again. Just have a look at Mark 10:18. Jesus said: "why call me good? there is none good but one, that is God." THAT SEEMS TO SUGGEST TO ME THAT HE DOES NOT REGARD himself as "GOD.' He did not say God the father to make the distinction. So it is that the confusion continues unabated. See also JOHN 14:9-11, does that clarify the matter once and for all? Hardly so for many folks.
"THAT SEEMS TO SUGGEST TO ME THAT HE DOES NOT REGARD himself as "GOD"...Jesus would never suggest that, He was doing what he always did, pointing them to God and not to be taken up with the human Jesus. He wanted them to see God the Word made flesh as the true identity of Himself. What do you suggest John 1 suggest when it states that the Word was God and came to dwell among man in flesh, this not Jesus? That is the point I was trying to highlight, the scriptures boils down to internalized interpretations. That is a reason why religious organisations/denominations preach different versions and from different bibles, and they all believe that they have got it right.
|
|
|
Post by pa on Apr 3, 2017 17:03:40 GMT -5
any answer to my last question, what is your internalized interpretation?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 3, 2017 17:36:50 GMT -5
It is often stated that God speaks to us and through us. We are often reminded that God is not a God and author of confusion so thinking along these lines, one would have thought that God would intervene into the argument and the confusion and reveal the truth to shepherds as well as to the sheep. If that were to happen we would not be so taken up with this argument about the trinity time and time again. Just have a look at Mark 10:18. Jesus said: "why call me good? there is none good but one, that is God." THAT SEEMS TO SUGGEST TO ME THAT HE DOES NOT REGARD himself as "GOD.' He did not say God the father to make the distinction. So it is that the confusion continues unabated. See also JOHN 14:9-11, does that clarify the matter once and for all? Hardly so for many folks.
"THAT SEEMS TO SUGGEST TO ME THAT HE DOES NOT REGARD himself as "GOD"...Jesus would never suggest that, He was doing what he always did, pointing them to God and not to be taken up with the human Jesus. He wanted them to see God the Word made flesh as the true identity of Himself. What do you suggest John 1 suggest when it states that the Word was God and came to dwell among man in flesh, this not Jesus? Have you considered the earliest manuscripts and the language and culture at the time it was written and what was going through the mind of the writer? God=Word=Jesus therefore God=Jesus is a seriously flawed conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by learning on Apr 3, 2017 19:28:43 GMT -5
Well now.. that's kind of a good point. By baptizing in the "name" (singular) of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost (which I have heard said in recent years) aren't they confessing belief in a triune God? As opposed to baptizing in the "names" (plural) of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Early workers used the KJV, and probably didn't have access to a non-trinitarian translation of the bible. I doubt that the words uttered during baptism make any difference - it's what's in the heart that counts. Words matter a good deal. I'm pointing out that even though the ministry may not believe in a Triune Godhead, and even though they may say things that lead us to believe a Triune Godhead isn't real that they are still (kind of) uttering Triune language in the baptism line. It's a contradiction I am pointing out. I haven't spend much time studying the words uttered prior to baptism, but I have to imagine they are indeed meaningful. Are you suggesting they could verbally baptize in the name of KFC, McDonalds and Burger King and that'd be OK if "what's in the heart" is good?
|
|
|
Post by continuer on Apr 3, 2017 19:41:21 GMT -5
Jesus gave a very clear commandment regarding baptism (Matt 28 vs 19) - "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" so it is quite wrong to suggest that words don't matter.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Apr 3, 2017 19:55:21 GMT -5
Jesus gave a very clear commandment regarding baptism (Matt 28 vs 19) - "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" so it is quite wrong to suggest that words don't matter. Not sure of the grammar or linguistics, but it seems to me that statement could also be written like this: ... baptizing them in the name of the Father, in the name of the Son, and in the name of the Holy Ghost.
|
|
|
Post by alistairhenderson on Apr 3, 2017 19:59:10 GMT -5
Actually, what Jesus was doing was challenging them to think carefully about his identity.
Yes, He was pointing out that 'only God is good'.
However, He DID NOT say, nor did he even imply, that 'I am not good' (or 'God'), did he?
He wanted them to think carefully about their assumptions and follow them through to the end.
And as Christians we believe he was perfect, so he WAS in fact, GOOD. Perfectly so!
The whole point of Jesus' rhetorical question here was 'OK, so if you are calling me good, that is the same as saying I am God' (in the context). In other words "Do you believe that I am He?"
He was actually affirming that He WAS good, and perfectly so, as ONLY God is good!
Or does anyone think that he meant to imply that he was not 'good' (and therefore not 'God'?).
Is anyone SERIOUSLY suggesting that Jesus is LESS than 'good' in this or any other context? If so, then how can you claim to be a Christian believer?
THINK ABOUT IT.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2017 20:17:59 GMT -5
Actually, what Jesus was doing was challenging them to think carefully about his identity. Yes, He was pointing out that 'only God is good'. However, He DID NOT say, nor did he even imply, that 'I am not good' (or 'God'), did he? He wanted them to think carefully about their assumptions and follow them through to the end. And as Christians we believe he was perfect, so he WAS in fact, GOOD. Perfectly so! The whole point of Jesus' rhetorical question here was 'OK, so if you are calling me good, that is the same as saying I am God' (in the context). In other words "Do you believe that I am He?" He was actually affirming that He WAS good, and perfectly so, as ONLY God is good! Or does anyone think that he meant to imply that he was not 'good' (and therefore not 'God'?). Is anyone SERIOUSLY suggesting that Jesus is LESS than 'good' in this or any other context? If so, then how can you claim to be a Christian believer? THINK ABOUT IT. Mat_19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Mar_10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. Luk_18:19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God. a little confusing to say the least but here he implies that he wasn't "good"...
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Apr 3, 2017 20:21:11 GMT -5
The trinity is like sex. Youre never ever supposed to get your mind around it. Its supposed to stay interesting.
|
|
|
Post by pa on Apr 3, 2017 20:55:01 GMT -5
Mat_19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Mar_10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. Luk_18:19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God. a little confusing to say the least but here he implies that he wasn't "good"... Jesus was no liar, so he would never imply that he was not good. He tried to point them to God and for them to see him who he was God the son in flesh.
|
|
|
Post by pa on Apr 3, 2017 20:59:05 GMT -5
Have you considered the earliest manuscripts and the language and culture at the time it was written and what was going through the mind of the writer? God=Word=Jesus therefore God=Jesus is a seriously flawed conclusion. So you want to state that the 12 different bible translations on my phone have the translation into English wrong? OK...end of that discussion.
|
|
|
Post by alistairhenderson on Apr 3, 2017 21:23:25 GMT -5
Actually, what Jesus was doing was challenging them to think carefully about his identity. Yes, He was pointing out that 'only God is good'. However, He DID NOT say, nor did he even imply, that 'I am not good' (or 'God'), did he? He wanted them to think carefully about their assumptions and follow them through to the end. And as Christians we believe he was perfect, so he WAS in fact, GOOD. Perfectly so! The whole point of Jesus' rhetorical question here was 'OK, so if you are calling me good, that is the same as saying I am God' (in the context). In other words "Do you believe that I am He?" He was actually affirming that He WAS good, and perfectly so, as ONLY God is good! Or does anyone think that he meant to imply that he was not 'good' (and therefore not 'God'?). Is anyone SERIOUSLY suggesting that Jesus is LESS than 'good' in this or any other context? If so, then how can you claim to be a Christian believer? THINK ABOUT IT. Mat_19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Mar_10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. Luk_18:19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God. a little confusing to say the least but here he implies that he wasn't "good"... Wally, There is no confusion if you read the scripture correctly. Jesus was NOT saying he was 'not good'. If you can put your preconceptions aside, He was actually dropping a very BIG HINT about who He actually is! What he appears to actually have been implying, (given that we know Jesus WAS perfectly good, otherwise how could he be our Saviour?) is that he is both GOOD and GOD. As our Saviour he could be nothing LESS than 'good', even in this context. Therefore, he is God! (Because, 'only God is good'). He was and is 'good', ergo, He was and is God! The only 'confusion' has been caused by workers preaching the wrong thing for 120 years!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2017 22:05:57 GMT -5
Mat_19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Mar_10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. Luk_18:19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God. a little confusing to say the least but here he implies that he wasn't "good"... Wally, There is no confusion if you read the scripture correctly. Jesus was NOT saying he was 'not good'. If you can put your preconceptions aside, He was actually dropping a very BIG HINT about who He actually is! What he appears to actually have been implying, (given that we know Jesus WAS perfectly good, otherwise how could he be our Saviour?) is that he is both GOOD and GOD. As our Saviour he could be nothing LESS than 'good', even in this context. Therefore, he is God! (Because, 'only God is good'). He was and is 'good', ergo, He was and is God! The only 'confusion' has been caused by workers preaching the wrong thing for 120 years! don't blame the workers thats my personal interpretation...
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Apr 3, 2017 22:57:17 GMT -5
Not sure of the grammar or linguistics, but it seems to me that statement could also be written like this: ... baptizing them in the name of the Father, in the name of the Son, and in the name of the Holy Ghost. So, how many person/being in that verse? One, two, or Three?
Why, would Jesus mention his name, and the Holy Spirit with the Father if they were NOT part of the Godhead?Emy see ms to be asking if it could be said baptize in the name of the Father and the name of the Son and the name of the Holy Ghost. Stressing the fact of there being 3 persons. I don't believe so, because there is only one God, whose name covers the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.
|
|
|
Post by alistairhenderson on Apr 3, 2017 23:35:49 GMT -5
Wally,
Why would you want to suggest that Jesus was implying he wasn't good? Is that what you are saying?
Wow....
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 4, 2017 0:31:51 GMT -5
Have you considered the earliest manuscripts and the language and culture at the time it was written and what was going through the mind of the writer? God=Word=Jesus therefore God=Jesus is a seriously flawed conclusion. So you want to state that the 12 different bible translations on my phone have the translation into English wrong? OK...end of that discussion. Feel free to block your ears and end the discussion at any time. The English translation is only an issue if you're dogmatic and regimented about what it means.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Apr 4, 2017 0:34:04 GMT -5
Emy see ms to be asking if it could be said baptize in the name of the Father and the name of the Son and the name of the Holy Ghost. Stressing the fact of there being 3 persons. I don't believe so, because there is only one God, whose name covers the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. People get confused when we say there is ONE God... they think one God is the Father, Jesus and Holy Spirit are NOT. There is ONE Godhead= Three divine beings, Father, Christ and Holy Spirit, which make more sense. Each God/Spirit has his own personality and character and roles to fill in our Salvation.If each have their own personality and according to you and others here they are all God, then they are 3 Gods!
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 4, 2017 0:34:48 GMT -5
Emy see ms to be asking if it could be said baptize in the name of the Father and the name of the Son and the name of the Holy Ghost. Stressing the fact of there being 3 persons. I don't believe so, because there is only one God, whose name covers the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. People get confused when we say there is ONE God... they think one God is the Father, Jesus and Holy Spirit are NOT. There is ONE Godhead= Three divine beings, Father, Christ and Holy Spirit, which make more sense. Each God/Spirit has his own personality and character and roles to fill in our Salvation.It's polytheism if you apply logic.
|
|