|
Post by DumSpiroSpero on Mar 23, 2012 8:11:38 GMT -5
In the following scripture God, the Word of God, and the Spirit of God are revealed. 1. "God" was there in the beginning. 2. God spoke, so we have "the Word of God" resulting in action. 3. The "Spirit of God" moved. One God, one "person". Genesis 1 1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And 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. 3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. That sounds dangerously easy to understand. Surely it can't be that simple...... A little further along in Genesis 1... 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. If this is God singular, who is us and our? Kinda ruins the theory...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2012 8:19:00 GMT -5
That sounds dangerously easy to understand. Surely it can't be that simple...... A little further along in Genesis 1... 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. If this is God singular, who is us and our? Kinda ruins the theory... I'm not so sure that little bit proves your polytheist theory either. It's always easy to jump to conclusions. There are a number of other possible theories. One of the more rational theories is that God as talking to satan. That lines up with the original sin theory doesn't it? If man were created in a polytheist image, then they would have to be born without sin. It gets complicated really quick.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Mar 23, 2012 8:36:24 GMT -5
That's a great question, Scott. Listing the items out makes one look like the Pharisee that was glad that he wasn't like other sinners. I have the Spirit of God in-dwelling. I don't smoke. I don't drink. I don't do drugs. I drive a Chevy. I don't drive a motorcycle. I meet in a home as the first churches did. I follow God's true servants. I don't cuss. I pray. I read my bible. I don't listen to worldly preachers. I help others. I follow the spirit. I don't beat my wife or kids. I wash my car. I'm a good neighbor. I change the oil in my car every 3,000 miles I don't gamble or buy lottery tickets I don't visit anti-truth sites like the TMB My list is much, much smaller. Is riding a motorcycle considered a sin like the coloring of the hair? Not that I know of, unless it is for women because they would need to wear pants. (Seriously- a sister worker used to preach that women shouldn't do anything that requires them to wear pants- she was especially appalled at the professing women that wore pants while riding a horse. In her opinion, they shouldn't ride the horse. Sigh). The motorcycle comment was directed at Scott in fun since I knew he rides a motorcycle. I also drive more than Chevrolets (thank goodness). But, if I ever start a religion, I'll be sure to come up with a list of rules but not actually publish the rules and make the rules OK for some and not for others. But coolest of all, the party line will always be, "Rules, what rules. We ain't got no stinkin' rules. "
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Mar 23, 2012 8:43:37 GMT -5
I personally believe most workers have got it right. If the 2x2 church fell for the trinity I'd be out of there in a heartbeat. Exactly. It seems to me that the Trinity is a Catholic invention that has no biblical basis. I haven't seen it. If it was so important, I would have thought that the scriptures would have referenced it as least once. But, nope. Not even once is the Trinity mentioned in scripture. (Although the Catholic Church tried and succeeded to dishonestly have it put into the scriptures with the infamous Comma Johanneum episode. Thankfully modern translations, such as the NIV, have since removed it. Unfortunately, it lives on in the KJV.) I believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And that is enough, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by kencoolidge on Mar 23, 2012 9:01:05 GMT -5
Ken, can you quote chapter and verse where Paul referred to "God the Son"? He was more inclined to refer to "God the Father and his son Jesus Christ" than your three-person God. Trinitarianism sure seems like a cult to me. Its like, "if you're not for us you're against us". Anyone who doesn't go along with this man-made doctrine is accused of treating Jesus as "just a man". Before trinitarians rush to accuse friends and workers of treating Jesus like a man, I suggest you go through Hymns Old & New and think about how Jesus is treated there, which is typically Lord and Saviour. JO I suggest to you if you want to discuss trinitarinism to get in touch with some biblical scholars. I like Paul know nothing except Jesus and Him crucified. I will say that perhaps with time your thoughts and opinions might change. It is sometimes difficult to see the Kingdom as God wants us to see it and find things in others that distract from giving God the glory . The body has many parts and views of the kingdom for the foot is different than the leg or arm or whatever. Don't get hung up on things that don't make sense to you. ken
|
|
|
Post by breakingfree on Mar 23, 2012 9:17:48 GMT -5
Pa1ag1 are you a polytheist as Clearday accuses?
The Trinity doctrine is not polytheist. That is a common accusation by antitrinitarians.
Copied from CARM.org:
Polytheism is the teaching that there are many gods. In the Ancient Near East the nation of Israel was faced with the problem of the gods of other nations creeping into the theology of Judaism and corrupting the true revelation of God. Baal was the Canaanite god of rain and exercised a powerful influence over the religion of many pagan cultures and even into the Jewish community. This is so because rain was essential to survival. Rain meant the crops would grow, the animals would have water, and the people would be able to eat. If there was no rain, death prevailed. Such visible realities as rain, drought, crops, and death often carried the spiritual character of the nation of Israel into spiritual adultery: worshiping other gods. The Bible does recognize the existence of other gods, but only as false gods who have no real existence (1 Cor. 8:5-6; Gal. 4:8-9) and clearly teaches that there is only one true God (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8; 45:5,14,18,21,22; 46:9; 47:8;).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2012 9:20:48 GMT -5
Ken, there are plenty of scholars who will present the opposite point of view too, so going to scholars may not be what you want to promote.
“A search of the Hebrew Scriptures for any sign of a duality or Trinity of divine persons active in the creation will provide fruitless. To propose a Godhead of more than one person would require us to cast aside the rules of language and grammar. Responsible historians, both secular and religious, agree that the Jews of Jesus’ time held firmly to faith in a unipersonal God. It is one of the great ironies of history that Christian theologians have denied the Jews the right to explain the meaning of God in their own Scriptures.”
--Sir Anthony F. Buzzard and Charles F. Hunting, The Doctrine of the Trinity:Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound (Oxford: International Scholars Publications, 1998)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2012 9:23:38 GMT -5
Why is polytheism an "accusation"?
Polytheism is an ancient and respected belief system.
If you have two Gods talking to each other in Genesis, then what do you call that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2012 9:27:06 GMT -5
“The doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament.”
--New Catholic Encyclopedia Pub. Guild., 1967
“The Old Testament is strictly monotheistic. God is a single personal being. The idea that a Trinity is to be found there or even in any way shadowed forth, is an assumption that has long held sway in theology, but is utterly without foundation. The Jews, as a people, under its teachings became stern opponents of all polytheistic tendencies, and they have remained unflinching monotheists to this day. On this point there is no break between the Old Testament Scriptures and the New. The monotheistic tradition is continued. Jesus was a Jew, trained by Jewish parents in the Old Testament Scriptures. His teaching was Jewish to the core; a new gospel indeed, but not a new theology.”
--L.L. Paine, A Critical History of the Evolution of Trinitarianism (Boston and New York:Houghton Mifflin and Co., 1902),
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2012 9:33:59 GMT -5
Scholars on Paul and the trinity:
“Paul never equates Jesus with God.” --Professor W.R. Matthews
“Apparently Paul did not call Jesus God.” --Sydney Cave, The Doctrine of the Person of Christ (Duckworth, 1925),
.“Paul habitually differentiates Christ from God.” --C.J. Cadoux, A Pilgrim’s Further Progress: Dialogues on Christian Teaching (Blackwell, 1943), 40-42
.“Paul neither calls [Jesus] God, nor identifies him anywhere with God. It is true he does God’s work; he is certainly God’s supernatural agent, who acts because of God’sinitiative.” --Frances Young, “A Cloud of Witnesses,” The Myth of God Incarnate
“St. Paul never gives to Christ the name or description of God…Reviewing the whole of Paul’s utterances regarding Christ, the total impression is that of a monotheistic conviction consistently resisting the impulse to do this very thing – to call Jesus God.” --Anderson Scott, “Christology,” Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
|
|
|
Post by breakingfree on Mar 23, 2012 10:08:57 GMT -5
Because you said to Pa1ag1 "I'm not so sure that little bit proves your polytheist theory either" When I read this I understood you were calling Pa1ag1 a polytheist. Am I mistaken? I am making the assumption that Pa1ag1 is not a polytheist. But I am not sure which is why I asked him/her.
Why does this matter?
There are not two Gods talking together in Genesis. It does not say, "And the Gods said among themselves"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2012 10:32:57 GMT -5
Because you said to Pa1ag1 "I'm not so sure that little bit proves your polytheist theory either" When I read this I understood you were calling Pa1ag1 a polytheist. Am I mistaken? I am making the assumption that Pa1ag1 is not a polytheist. But I am not sure which is why I asked him/her. Why does this matter? There are not two Gods talking together in Genesis. It does not say, "And the Gods said among themselves" The reason I asked why it was an "accusation" is because it suggests that I think pa1ag1 is guilty of something. I don't see anything accusatory about it at all. It's a bit like "accusing" someone of being gay. There is no such accusation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2012 10:37:43 GMT -5
There are not two Gods talking together in Genesis. It does not say, "And the Gods said among themselves" Jesus seems to support the word of the law about multiple gods: Jhn 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?Jhn 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
|
|
|
Post by breakingfree on Mar 23, 2012 11:17:05 GMT -5
Because you said to Pa1ag1 "I'm not so sure that little bit proves your polytheist theory either" When I read this I understood you were calling Pa1ag1 a polytheist. Am I mistaken? I am making the assumption that Pa1ag1 is not a polytheist. But I am not sure which is why I asked him/her. Why does this matter? There are not two Gods talking together in Genesis. It does not say, "And the Gods said among themselves" The reason I asked why it was an "accusation" is because it suggests that I think pa1ag1 is guilty of something. I don't see anything accusatory about it at all. It's a bit like "accusing" someone of being gay. There is no such accusation. Ok...bad word choice. I should have used "implies".
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Mar 23, 2012 11:54:16 GMT -5
Ken, can you quote chapter and verse where Paul referred to "God the Son"? He was more inclined to refer to "God the Father and his son Jesus Christ" than your three-person God. Trinitarianism sure seems like a cult to me. Its like, "if you're not for us you're against us". Anyone who doesn't go along with this man-made doctrine is accused of treating Jesus as "just a man". Before trinitarians rush to accuse friends and workers of treating Jesus like a man, I suggest you go through Hymns Old & New and think about how Jesus is treated there, which is typically Lord and Saviour. BTW, JO, who is the composer/songwriter of most of those said hymns that speak about Jesus as Lord? Also IF you believe Jesus is "Lord" as you speak to the hymns, then how in the world does He line up in heaven with God the Father and the Holy Ghost? Do you also believe that the Word that was in the beginning and was WITH God and who WAS God, how can you just call Him "Lord" and not have some standing comprehension that John 1(who is the disciple who Jesus loved) speaks to who Jesus is. Do you not also read in Revelations that Jesus told John the Apostle that Jesus Himself was "Alpha and Omega"....how do you line that up in heaven with God the Father and the Holy Spirit. IF you do not believe in the Trinity concept, how can you be putting Jesus up in heaven as "Lord"? There is ONLY ONE God, how can there be any other "lord" in Heaven IF He is not of God?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2012 12:07:40 GMT -5
The "lord" argument is disingenuous. In any feudal system, the next one up in your hierarchy is your "lord", and that "lord" has another "lord" over him, and so on.
To assume that all lords have equal power and authority is an error.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2012 12:15:41 GMT -5
Do you also believe that the Word that was in the beginning and was WITH God and who WAS God, how can you just call Him "Lord" and not have some standing comprehension that John 1(who is the disciple who Jesus loved) speaks to who Jesus is. “Many have recognized an obvious connection between the ‘word’ and what is said of Wisdom in the Hebrew Bible. In Proverbs ‘Wisdom’ is personified and is said to be‘with’ God (Prov. 8:30). John says that the ‘word’ was ‘with [pros] God.’ In the OldTestament a vision, word or purpose is said to be ‘with’ the person who receives it or possesses it. The word has a quaso-existence of its own: ‘The word of the Lord is with him’; ‘the prophet…has a dream with him.’ It was in the heart of David (literally, ‘with his heart’) to build a temple. Wisdom is ‘with God’ [2 Kings 3:12, Jer. 23:28 (Heb.); 1Kings 8:17; 2 Chron. 6:7; Job 12:13, 16; Job 10:13: ‘with you’ is parallel to ‘concealed inyour heart,’ i.e., ‘fixed in your decree.’ See also Job 23:10, 14.]. The latter is a striking parallel to John’s opening sentence. In the New Testament something impersonal can be‘with’ a person, as, for example, where Paul hopes that ‘the truth of the Gospel might remain with [pros] you,’ present to the mind (Gal. 2:5). At the opening of John’s first epistle, which may provide just the commentary we need on John 1:1, he writes that‘eternal life was with [pros] the Father’ (1 John 1:2). On the basis of these parallels it is impossible to say with certainty that the ‘word’ in John 1:1-2 must mean a second member of the Trinity, that is, the Son of God preexisting.” --Sir Anthony F. Buzzard and Charles F. Hunting, The Doctrine of the Trinity:Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound (Oxford: International Scholars Publications, 1998), “The risen Jesus actually receives a revelation from the father (Rev. 1:1), demonstrating once again that the son is not the omniscient God! In Revelation 22:12, 13 it may well be that the angel (the ‘he’ of verse 10) speaks, as in the Old Testament, as God, representing Him. The Alpha and the Omega of verse 13 probably refers, as does Revelation 1:8 and 21:6, to the Father for whom the angel is speaking. The Almighty God is the one ‘who comes’ in Revelation 1:8, and His coming may be described also in Revelation 22:12,followed by the divine title in verse 13. Jesus is the speaker again from verse 16.” --Sir Anthony F. Buzzard and Charles F. Hunting, The Doctrine of the Trinity:Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound (Oxford: International Scholars Publications, 1998) “The word Trinity is never found in the Divine Records, but is only of human invention,and therefore sounds altogether cold.” -- Martin Luther, cited by Wilson, Concessions of Trinitarians (Boston: Munroe & Co.,1845), 40 “The bulk of [early] Christians, had they been left alone, would have been satisfied with the old belief in one God, the Father, and would have distrusted the ‘dispensation,’ as it has been called, by which the sole Deity of the Father expanded into the Deity of the Father and the Son…’All simple people,’ Tertullian wrote, ‘not to call them ignorant and uneducated…take fright at the ‘dispensation’…They will have it that we are proclaiming two or three gods.” -- Roman Catholic scholar W.E. Addis., Christianity and the Roman Empire (New York:W.W. Norton, 1967), 174.“
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Mar 23, 2012 12:17:17 GMT -5
I thought we were talking about when man begin to understand the 3 persons in "God"? The Holy Spirit was with God in Gen. 1 and so was the Word...Now I said "Jesus" hadn't happened and few people understand that from the "beginning" of time that the Word taking on flesh IS Jesus in the NT...but the Word was with God the Father and the Holy Spirit in Gen. 1 Now is that more confusing...let's go back to talking ab out when MANKIND became aware of the 3 persons in God...okay...you already know what Gen. says but are not able to relate it to the 3 persons in God as you don't understand that Jesus was actually "God" BEFORE He was incarnated as a babe in Mary's virginal womb. Ok, so the three person God existed before Jesus the man, but nobody about knew about them until after Jesus? Actually, CD, it takes all of the bible to come to the understanding of who God was, is and always will be.... Let's jump to Revelations now where Jesus is speaking to John the Apostle. Jesus says this about Himself now.... Rev 1:8 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. Jesus is declaring Himself the Alpha and Omega..."the beginning and the ending"....and He was, He is, and is which to come "the Almighty". Now back to Isaiah's prophecy... 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, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Okay? Do we not read that Jesus Himself called Himself the Alpha and Omega....this brings us to Gen 1 where God the Father "speaks" and is not His speaking the "Word"....this is the Father's ONLY BEGOTTEN Son, the Word or as Jesus said the ALPHA. Then again visit John 1...seeing that the Word was in the beginning, was with God and was God. Move down a few verses and it says that the Word took on flesh and dwelt amongst us. NOW the Word has come in the incarnated Jesus, the son of Mary and Joseph....as Jesus called himself while walking the earth the "son of man". But we surely can adjust our thinking to come to a reasonable deduction that the "Word" that is in Gen. 1 and is the Father's only begotten Son has now come to the earth and has been incarnated as the son of Mary. Isaiah prophecies that this child who is born as a "son" inferring a human son is born(Jesus as the Word or the Alpha) and his name would be called "Wonderful, Counsellor, "the MIGHTY GOD", 'The EVERLASTING FATHER' and the Prince of Peace. After Jesus crucifiction and resurrection, this is when Jesus becomes the "firstborn of the dead." This is when He indicates that He is glad to call His Apostles His brethren. This is the beginning of the Omega....which we will all share in that resurrection...because of His sacrifice for us...His redemption will bring us into that Omega part of Jesus. But as Isaiah declared that this child born unto us is "Mighty God" and the Everlasting Father". How can He be that if He is not God?
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Mar 23, 2012 12:29:01 GMT -5
Ken, can you quote chapter and verse where Paul referred to "God the Son"? He was more inclined to refer to "God the Father and his son Jesus Christ" than your three-person God. Trinitarianism sure seems like a cult to me. Its like, "if you're not for us you're against us". Anyone who doesn't go along with this man-made doctrine is accused of treating Jesus as "just a man". Before trinitarians rush to accuse friends and workers of treating Jesus like a man, I suggest you go through Hymns Old & New and think about how Jesus is treated there, which is typically Lord and Saviour. JO, please believe me that none of us feel that you HAVE to BELIEVE the Trinity concept. I found out for myself just how important that concept is in learning just who my Saviour was, is and will be throughout all eternity. I, like you, would argue until my fingers cramped with Nathan and Stanne...I never once felt like either one was telling me that I was headed to a bad place because I didn't readily grasp it. But I can tell you from my own experience that when God gave me that understanding, I was so overjoyed to begin to know my Saviour beyond what normal human mind would reason. I really feel the reason it has become something so very precious to me is because I do know my Saviour more intimately...He is far more precious because of that understanding and my joy in Him is inexplicable. We want to share that joy, JO....we do not mean to belittle anyone nor do we seek to demean anyone's soul either. It is just something that we are rejoicing in and want to share it. I actually have been very embarrassed for arguing with Nathan and Stanne about it....and I feel very stupid for having done so....but I'd been studying Jesus and Jesus only for over 3 years and I think that I had to find this Trinity concept BEFORE I would really know the Alpha and the Omega that is Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Mar 23, 2012 12:32:50 GMT -5
A little further along in Genesis 1... 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. If this is God singular, who is us and our? Kinda ruins the theory... I'm not so sure that little bit proves your polytheist theory either. It's always easy to jump to conclusions. There are a number of other possible theories. One of the more rational theories is that God as talking to satan. That lines up with the original sin theory doesn't it? If man were created in a polytheist image, then they would have to be born without sin. It gets complicated really quick. It is only complicated to those who are limited in faith. As I've said many times, it takes a whale lot of faith to accept that the sacrifice that Jesus did on the cross, for us to accept that it is "enough" for ALL mankind to know of the salvation by grace. So it seems also, that it is going to take a whale lot of faith to get past that which we as humans see as the bible becoming "complicated." Didn't Jesus say to His own Apostles and disciples, "O ye of little faith!"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2012 12:35:15 GMT -5
I'm not so sure that little bit proves your polytheist theory either. It's always easy to jump to conclusions. There are a number of other possible theories. One of the more rational theories is that God as talking to satan. That lines up with the original sin theory doesn't it? If man were created in a polytheist image, then they would have to be born without sin. It gets complicated really quick. It is only complicated to those who are limited in faith. Exactly. "Don't think, don't read, don't discern.....just believe the party line theories".
|
|
|
Post by breakingfree on Mar 23, 2012 12:58:17 GMT -5
There are not two Gods talking together in Genesis. It does not say, "And the Gods said among themselves" Jesus seems to support the word of the law about multiple gods: Jhn 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?Jhn 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Are you saying that by Jesus' words in this scripture He is condoning/supporting polytheism?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2012 13:14:58 GMT -5
Jesus seems to support the word of the law about multiple gods: Jhn 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?Jhn 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Are you saying that by Jesus' words in this scripture He is condoning/supporting polytheism? I'm not actually saying anything conclusive, just putting it forward for consideration. Personally, my opinion is that Jesus was Unitarian, as was all his Jewish predecessors believing in a unipersonal God......but that's just my reading of it. “Unitarianism as a theological movement began much earlier in history; indeed it antedated Trinitarianism by many decades. Christianity derived from Judaism, and Judaism was strictly Unitarian. The road which led from Jerusalem to [the Council of] Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth-century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was on the contrary a deviation from this teaching. It therefore developed against constant Unitarian, or at least anti-Trinitarian opposition.” --Encyclopedia Americana (1956), 27:294
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Mar 23, 2012 14:35:31 GMT -5
....to the Jews there was only one meaning for Lord. God ... the Lord our God is one. By far the most common use of the word "lord" meant "Lord, Sir, Master". The same Hebrew and Greek words (adon, kurios) were used for both God and man. The "lord" argument is disingenuous. In any feudal system, the next one up in your hierarchy is your "lord", and that "lord" has another "lord" over him, and so on. To assume that all lords have equal power and authority is an error. No one is assuming that all lords have equal power and authority. One needs to use their God-given faith AND reason and apply it to the verses that tell us Jesus will be worshipped as Lord, Lord of lords; and all of the other verses and passages of Scripture that tell us who he really is. The Gospel of John was written about 70 years after the Resurrection - 30 or so years after the other gospels. John and his community had more time to come to a more developed understanding of what Jesus was telling them as he began to teach about who he is. Jn 5 - what does Jesus do and say in John 5? He begins to teach and do miracles where people are gathering to observe the major feasts. Why? It is there that large crowds are and where they are gathered in observance of God's laws - with things of God on their minds. So next? Not only does he perform another miracle, he does it on the Sabbath. Why? In order to teach that ' God' is always at work, even on the Sabbath. The result ... 16So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him. 17Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working.” 18For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. Why on the Sabbath? Because ' God' is always at work, even on the Sabbath. If the Jews could figure out that Jesus is saying he, himself, can work on the Sabbath because he is 'God' surely with all of the information we have in the Scriptures we can see even more clearly that Jesus is also God. How do we know they knew he was saying he is God? 18For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him ...
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Mar 23, 2012 14:48:02 GMT -5
Ken, can you quote chapter and verse where Paul referred to "God the Son"? He was more inclined to refer to "God the Father and his son Jesus Christ" than your three-person God. Trinitarianism sure seems like a cult to me. Its like, "if you're not for us you're against us". Anyone who doesn't go along with this man-made doctrine is accused of treating Jesus as "just a man". Before trinitarians rush to accuse friends and workers of treating Jesus like a man, I suggest you go through Hymns Old & New and think about how Jesus is treated there, which is typically Lord and Saviour. It is clearly there that God = the father and his Son Jesus Christ. meaning God is the father and his Son Jesus Christ. Nothing in the first 3 verses that say God is the Father. If you keep reading the chapter you will clearly see that God is 'us'. JO, show me where man has complicated the first 3 verses? Where does it say that God is only the father in these 3 verses?
|
|
|
Post by JO on Mar 23, 2012 14:54:34 GMT -5
Two accusations were made on this thread:
1. That Paul referred to "God the Son".
2. That a worker referred to "God the Son".
I don't believe they did.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 23, 2012 14:59:02 GMT -5
The evidence of that is that while Jesus' body lay in the tomb, his spirit descended to Hades to preach to the spirits there. So we know his spirit did not die. To exactly where was the decent made? Is hades the same as hell?
|
|
|
Post by JO on Mar 23, 2012 15:00:38 GMT -5
HappyFeet, I quoted the first three verses of Genesis which recorded God working. You came along and introduced your three-person-god. To me, that seemed like man complicating something simple. In the following scripture God, the Word of God, and the Spirit of God are revealed. 1. "God" was there in the beginning. 2. God spoke, so we have "the Word of God" resulting in action. 3. The "Spirit of God" moved. One God, one "person". Genesis 1 1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And 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. 3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 1. Jesus was also there in the beginning. 2. Jesus was also The Word. The spirit of God moved. The spirit - the 3rd person of the trinity. God also said, let us make me in our image. Who is the 'us' and 'our' if it is not God. They were all there in the beginning. Jesus helped make the world. Did Jesus just become the Son when he came to earth or was he always there? My Bible says he was there from the beginning.
|
|