Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2006 7:33:11 GMT -5
Hi To Bert You wrote "do you believe in the validity of the transcribers interpetations."
Not wholly. Even the most honest interpretations can be wrong. This is the limitations of language. We don't strive over words and definitions too much - the basic story of the gospel is clear enough.
"The Doctrine of Trinity is required to understand the scriptures related to the Doctrine of Trinity."
I think this is a circular argument
|
|
|
Post by Perhaps not on Jul 31, 2006 8:48:23 GMT -5
Hi To BertYou wrote "do you believe in the validity of the transcribers interpetations." Not wholly. Even the most honest interpretations can be wrong. This is the limitations of language. We don't strive over words and definitions too much - the basic story of the gospel is clear enough. "The Doctrine of Trinity is required to understand the scriptures related to the Doctrine of Trinity."I think this is a circular argument I think it means that in order to make sense of the seemingly contradictory statements found in the Bible it is necessary to have something like the Doctrine of Trinity. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is certainly not taught in the Old Testament. In fact there are several passages that speak directly against it. The doctrine is not explicitly taught in the New Testament and the support does not come from Jesus himself but rather from those who followed him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2006 9:08:21 GMT -5
So who is going to stand up and support : Transubstantiation? Mary as co-regent, Queen of Heaven? Purgatory?
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Jul 31, 2006 9:31:56 GMT -5
So who is going to stand up and support : Transubstantiation? Mary as co-regent, Queen of Heaven? Purgatory? I think you know the answer to that...
|
|
|
Post by HUCK on Jul 31, 2006 9:47:36 GMT -5
Transubstantiation? Mary as co-regent? Queen of Heaven? Purgatory? More unbiblical guessing game terms..........
|
|
|
Post by NewBie on Aug 1, 2006 5:35:45 GMT -5
The God and Father, indeed, of all cannot be contained, and is not found in a place, for there is no place of His rest; but His Word, through whom He made all things, being His power and His wisdom, assuming the person of the Father and Lord of all, went to the garden in the person of God, and conversed with Adam. For the divine writing itself teaches us that Adam said that he had heard the voice. But what else is this voice but the Word of God, who is also His Son? . . . The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place (Theophilus, To Autolycus 2.22).
It is the Son, therefore, who has been from the beginning administering judgment, throwing down the haughty tower, and dividing the tongues, punishing the whole world by the violence of waters, raining upon Sodom and Gomorrah fire and brimstone, as the Lord from the Lord. For He it was at all times who came down to hold converse with men, from Adam on to the patriarchs and the prophets, in vision, in dream, in mirror, in dark saying (Against Praxeas 16)[/b].[/i]
Hence, We have:
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 with the Holy Spirit which acted independent. “The Holy Spirit moved upon the fact of the Waters”
The Father God, God the Son Who is the Word of God, and God the Holy Spirit
|
|
|
Post by NameThem on Aug 1, 2006 13:45:40 GMT -5
Hi To BertYou wrote "do you believe in the validity of the transcribers interpetations." Not wholly. Even the most honest interpretations can be wrong. This is the limitations of language. We don't strive over words and definitions too much - the basic story of the gospel is clear enough. "The Doctrine of Trinity is required to understand the scriptures related to the Doctrine of Trinity."I think this is a circular argument I think it means that in order to make sense of the seemingly contradictory statements found in the Bible it is necessary to have something like the Doctrine of Trinity. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is certainly not taught in the Old Testament. In fact there are several passages that speak directly against it. The doctrine is not explicitly taught in the New Testament and the support does not come from Jesus himself but rather from those who followed him. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is certainly not taught in the Old Testament. In fact there are several passages that speak directly against it.Name them please, those scriptures which speak directly against the Trinity.
|
|
|
Post by Hilda Borthwick on Aug 1, 2006 16:10:53 GMT -5
There is only "one" Holy spirit, AND that is God. God the spirit is both the Father and the Son as "one" entity. God the Father and Jesus the Son of God are separate identities, but are only "one" spirit.
God "only" created his only begotten son Jesus. Remember, God created "all" things. There is nothing in scripture to tell us that God created an "only begotten "daughter/wife/Holy Ghost" etc. The Holy Ghost is the spiritual form of both the Father and the Son.
Therefore, there is "no" Trinity. There is God (spiritually the Father and the Son), and there are the separate identities of the Father and Son. These identities though separate are at the same time part of the same spiritual God. They have only been separated in the spirit once, when God the Father temporarily withdrew the spirit as he could not look upon his Son bearing the sins of the world on Calvary.
In the spiritual God, Jesus the son of God is always subservient and obedient to God the Father or Godhead.
At no time is Jesus referred to as "God the Son" in scripture. We are clearly told, time and again to believe in "Jesus the Son of God !." It is true that Jesus is God (within the above understanding), but it can be very misleading and very wrong to say that Jesus is "God the Son." This puts him on equal footing with the Father which is erroneous and against the very example of Jesus who sought to do the Father's will "as the Son of God."
|
|
|
Post by Hilda on Aug 1, 2006 16:33:38 GMT -5
Perhaps it would help address confusion if we kept in mind that Jesus is the Son of God (The Father) as we consider their separate identities. As God (the spirit) is both the Father and Son, Jesus is "fully" God.
|
|
|
Post by Jam on Aug 1, 2006 16:58:31 GMT -5
Ok, simple I am,
but who sits on the right hand of God?
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Aug 1, 2006 21:21:37 GMT -5
God as omnipresent Spirit does not literally have a right hand. To "sit at the right hand of X" is a designation of sitting in the place of power and authority. Father, Son and Spirit are the Godhead. The Son took on a human nature and body (as we might put on a coat) and the Son in that glorified body sits in the place of power in Heaven.
|
|
|
Post by studylearning on Aug 2, 2006 2:11:38 GMT -5
I am curious. Just who's blood flowed in Jesus vains?
Mans? The Holy Ghosts? Gods?
|
|
|
Post by how on Aug 2, 2006 3:47:39 GMT -5
I am curious. Just who's blood flowed in Jesus vains? Mans? The Holy Ghosts? Gods? how is it that you are curious? when it is obvious what blood was in His veins.
|
|
|
Post by Jam on Aug 2, 2006 4:57:05 GMT -5
I like simple things.
When I read posts that are complicated and addressing issues that are very, very difficult to comprehend and understand, I get more and more confused.
I thought that we were in the image of GOD and when we passed on we continued in that image, but Rob, you give me the impression that we will be nothing. If Jesus took on a body "as we might put on a coat", what is underneath?
The concept of GOD and JESUS is very difficult for my poor mind to comprehend and I am afraid the Deity issue just complicates things for me.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Aug 2, 2006 5:13:31 GMT -5
It's just an illustration. Don't make more of it than it is. And rejecting or denying something because it is not easily understandable is not a good road.
|
|
|
Post by Jam on Aug 2, 2006 5:28:58 GMT -5
Rob,
It may not appear a good road to you, but how many times have you heard people say "I understand" when you know very well they do NOT understand.
I had always considered that JESUS had a "simple" message, but the understanding and the ability of many here to use words and language that is not "simple", confuses me greatly.
I would like to understand what you speak of, but I just do not.
|
|
|
Post by prue on Aug 2, 2006 6:12:06 GMT -5
hi jam - how many times do we hear that loving simple things doesnt mean you are a simpleton - jesus spoke about the simplest things and used simple stories about common everyday things like bread - poor people - rich people - precious pearls - etc i listen sometimes to the great swelling speeches of some religious leaders and to me they appear as simpletons Prue
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Aug 2, 2006 6:41:00 GMT -5
Jam,
I did not mean you should accept it anyway. It's equally not wise to accept something you don't understand. What I meant was just because it is not easy to understand, it does not automatically mean its untrue.
|
|
|
Post by Here you go on Aug 2, 2006 6:49:10 GMT -5
Name them please, those scriptures which speak directly against the Trinity. Deuteronomy 6:4 - Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD Deuteronomy 5:7 - Thou shalt have no other gods before me There is no mention of three Gods. Or that God is composed of three Gods.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Aug 2, 2006 6:55:07 GMT -5
Sorry to burst your bubble. The Hebrew word for "one" in Dt.6:4 means one as in "united", not one as in "singular".
And the Trinity is not three Gods and it does not claim that God is composed of three Gods.
|
|
studylearning notlogged
Guest
|
Post by studylearning notlogged on Aug 2, 2006 7:34:26 GMT -5
I am curious. Just who's blood flowed in Jesus vains? Mans? The Holy Ghosts? Gods? how is it that you are curious? when it is obvious what blood was in His veins. Yes to me it is obvious but to others it may not be. I suppose I should have asked, Whos blood do you thin flows in Jesus vains?
|
|
|
Post by prue on Aug 2, 2006 7:51:48 GMT -5
hi studylearning - other questions you should consider are - who did jesus learn about - who did jesus pray to - who did jesus have faith in - who turned their face from jesus on the cross - who spoke to jesus from heaven - why didnt jesus know when he would come again - why was jesus surprised by some things that happened - was God a baby - why didnt jesus grant james and john the right to sit beside him - who raised the dead jesus i think this is only a catholic doctrine and such believe that jesus becomes our bread and wine when we take it
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Aug 2, 2006 8:14:14 GMT -5
Think Prue,
Why did the disciples worship Jesus when they knew only God is to be worshiped? Why did John call Jesus God? Why didn't Jesus correct Thomas when he called Jesus God? Why did the writer of Hebrews call Jesus God? Why did Paul call Jesus God?
Calling the Trinity a Catholic doctrine and hoping that makes the scriptural teaching go away just doesn't work. And so what anyway even if it was a Catholic doctrine first? That's called the genetic fallacy - discounting the truth of something because of its origin.
|
|
|
Post by studylearning on Aug 2, 2006 8:38:15 GMT -5
hi studylearning - other questions you should consider are - who did jesus learn about - who did jesus pray to - who did jesus have faith in - who turned their face from jesus on the cross - who spoke to jesus from heaven - why didnt jesus know when he would come again - why was jesus surprised by some things that happened - was God a baby - why didnt jesus grant james and john the right to sit beside him - who raised the dead jesus i think this is only a catholic doctrine and such believe that jesus becomes our bread and wine when we take it I have asked all these questions. In my study for the answers I found the true nature of Jesus as being full man and God as part of the Godhead. What is the meaning of Godhead used in the NT? Do you not believe the prophets either? Even the pharisees believed Jesus to be God because of the prophets of God and the teaching in the Old Testament. Isa:9:6: 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, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
You do not have to believe anything nor do I want to convince you of anything. I asked whose blood flows in Jesus vains? So then let me ask you again a few questions straight foward. Whose blood flows in Jesus vains? Do you believe the prophets of God, like Isaiah? What is the meaning of "Godhead" used in the NT?
|
|
|
Post by studylearning on Aug 2, 2006 9:01:06 GMT -5
Question: What is the Godhead?
Answer: All Biblical studies relative to God are profitable. A study of the Godhead is a study concerning the essence of being God.
The meaning of Godhead. The term "Godhead" is found three times in the King James version: Acts 17: 29, Rom 1: 20, Col. 2: 9. Three "different" Greek words are used. Vine comments that "in Acts 17: 29, theios is used with the definite article (the, dm), to denote...the Deity". In Romans 1: 20 (theiotes) Paul is declaring how much of God (deity) may be known through nature, and in Colossians 2: 9 (theotes) "Paul is teaching that in the Son there dwells all the fullness of absolute Godhead..." (Vines Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, under "divine"). Hence, Godhead pertains to the state or reality of God (Rom. 1: 7, Heb. 1: 8, Acts 5: 3-4, all three are deity).
There are three separate beings comprising the Godhead. There are a number of single verses in which three separate beings are mentioned, all in the context of being God or deity. Paul mentioned the grace of Jesus, the love of God (Father), and the communion of the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 13: 14). When Jesus was baptized to fulfill all righteousness, a voice cried "this is my beloved Son..." (Father), and the Spirit of God (Holy Spirit) descended "like" a drove (Matt. 3: 15-17). While the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are three separate beings, they are one in purpose and will. Thus, to see Jesus was to see the Father, Jesus explained when Philip asked to see the Father (Jn. 14: 8-11).
There are aspects relative to the Godhead or state of being God which have not been revealed (cp. Deut. 29: 29). We know there is a Creator in view of the fact of creation, but we only know the will of the Creator through his revelation, the Bible (Acts 17: 22-31). Still, not a few ignorantly worship God (cf. Acts 17: 23
BLB
the fulness-- ( Col 1:19 Jhn 14:10 ). of the Godhead--The Greek (theotes) means the ESSENCE and NATURE of the Godhead, not merely the divine perfections and attributes of Divinity (Greek, "theiotes"). He, as man, was not merely God-like, but in the fullest sense, God. bodily--not merely as before His incarnation, but now "bodily in Him" as the incarnate word ( Jhn 1:14, 18 ). Believers, by union with Him, partake of His fulness of the divine nature ( Jhn 1:16 2Pe 1:4 ; see on JF & B for Eph 3:19).
|
|
|
Post by Greg Lee unplugged on Aug 2, 2006 18:39:59 GMT -5
Whos blood do you thin flows in Jesus vains? I have heard that the blood of the human comes from the male parent. Thus for Jesus God would have given him new pure blood without spot or belmish (so to speak). How could it be otherwise, the Word made flesh?
|
|
studylearning notlogged
Guest
|
Post by studylearning notlogged on Aug 3, 2006 4:45:29 GMT -5
Whos blood do you thin flows in Jesus vains? I have heard that the blood of the human comes from the male parent. Thus for Jesus God would have given him new pure blood without spot or belmish (so to speak). How could it be otherwise, the Word made flesh? Yes Greg you are very close. The blood of a fetus is isolated from the mother in that it is not that of the mother. Genetically the blood can be different from both the father and mother. In the case of Jesus the Blood is Purely Divine and of the Father through the Holy Ghost which is of God. Since there was conception with no inception except that of God, The Blood which flows through Jesus is Gods.
|
|
|
Post by jxr on Aug 3, 2006 6:28:33 GMT -5
I have heard that the blood of the human comes from the male parent. Thus for Jesus God would have given him new pure blood without spot or belmish (so to speak). How could it be otherwise, the Word made flesh? Yes Greg you are very close. The blood of a fetus is isolated from the mother in that it is not that of the mother. Genetically the blood can be different from both the father and mother. In the case of Jesus the Blood is Purely Divine and of the Father through the Holy Ghost which is of God. Since there was conception with no inception except that of God, The Blood which flows through Jesus is Gods. I can't believe that analogies are being taken to this level of detail, for a religion which believes affections are controled by, of all organs, the heart.
|
|