Can someone explain the Trinity please...

[moorea944]

So we leave out the children of newly converted believers. They remain unclaimed baggage?

Unclaimed baggage? Why would you say it like that? What does scripture tell us? First of all, no one in the bible baptised a baby. That does not do anything. Through the ages man has decided to baptise an infant. That has nothing to do with the bible. And this is something that you should already know.

And this is another reason why I've always said that Christianity has gone astray from the bible. Infant baptism. It is knowledge first, THEN baptism.

 

[Kolibri]

Isn't it kind of elitist to make/assume yourself to be one of the anointed? They get the first class accommodations for doing the same things you do, while you go second class or steerage

Common misconception. Those I met are some of the humblest people I know. And they are not priests yet any more than they are kings yet. Those assignments do not start till after they are no longer human. Meanwhile we follow Zechariah 8:23. They are the spiritual Jew and we are the 10 men going along with them.

 

[Muffled]

We shouldnt worship Jesus as God, that would be wrong. It is always to the Glory of the Father. And that is what Jesus did too. He gave God all Glory.

I believe there is no problem worshipping God in Jesus.

 

[Muffled]

1. Watchtower has inserted "spiritual" into Matthew 24:45 going beyond what is written. You accuse trinitarians of saying God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, which is not in the Bible, yet turn around and insert "spiritual" into Matthew 24:45. This is a blatant double standard.

2. There is not one Scripture in the Bible that says Jesus came in 1914 visibly or invisibly.

3. There is not one Scripture in the Bible, which says God inspected the Jehovah's Witness organization and found them to be the only ones doing God's will. That is pure HOGWASH, and has no Biblical basis, only pure opinion and speculation.

God does not communicate directly with any human being. His will is made known to man through His word.

No man has a direct line to God where God gives them private interpretation. Many have claimed such a thing, and all were found to be liars. Joseph Smith, Harold Camping and Ellen White are good examples. Watchtower is no different. All are false prophets

Where is the hard evidence that Jesus came and inspected the JW organization in 1914??

There is no evidence. The Watchtower has thrown together a loosely organized group of prophetic Scriptures, and has used them to claim Jesus came in 1914. In the end, there is no Scriptural evidence, only speculation and grandiose claims.

I believe this concept is totally antithetical to Christian belief.

I believe you are referring to II Peter 1:20 but the interpreation is incorrect. It doesn't say that people don't hear from God but in effect says that people who hear from God are not making it up in their own mind. It then goes on to qualify that by saying that there are false prophets who do make things up in their mind and Paul says it takes a gift of the Spirit to figure out which is which.

 

[Muffled]

In the case of Watchtower, their understanding is false and has been time and time again. If I tell you something is going to happen six times in a row, and it never happens, then I am not truthful. I am a liar. If I say worship Jesus today, and tomorrow I say it is a sin to worship Jesus, that is not truth. However progressive truth is defined by Watchtower, it ends up a lie. If not today, then tomorrow.

With Watchtower, yesterdays truths are tomorrow's lie.

The 144,000 were the anointed until recently. It just goes on and on.

I like to think they have made progress in their understanding. One still wonders how they can so consistently misinterpet scripture. Is it a leadership problem? I believe certainly the common member is not going to do anything but parrot the teachings given to them.

 

[moorea944]

I believe there is no problem worshipping God in Jesus.

You know something... I kinda agree with that... God IS in Jesus and in us. We read about God manifesting Himself in Jesus. The bible is all about God manifestation and not about human salvation.

 

[Kolibri]

I like to think they have made progress in their understanding. One still wonders how they can so consistently misinterpet scripture. Is it a leadership problem? I believe certainly the common member is not going to do anything but parrot the teachings given to them.

The issue is some of the prophesies regarding the end times are in relation to God's people. Without identifying that people then any understanding of those passages will remain murky. If a Mormon looks at the passages they will interpret them around Mormonism. Any other denomination would do the same, if they don't just consider it a big mystery or the Apostle John being on a mad mushroom hallucination.

We do know from Amos 3:7 that "the Sovereign Lord Jehovah will not do a thing unless he has revealed his confidential matter (or "his secret.") to his servants the prophets." Someone is going to eventually understand these verses. Seeing how the pieces fall together surrounding a particular identification of God's people does supply confidence to those that even consider the possibility. Obviously it will be nothing but hogwash to anyone else.

 

[sojourner]

Unclaimed baggage? Why would you say it like that? What does scripture tell us? First of all, no one in the bible baptised a baby. That does not do anything. Through the ages man has decided to baptise an infant. That has nothing to do with the bible. And this is something that you should already know.

And this is another reason why I've always said that Christianity has gone astray from the bible. Infant baptism. It is knowledge first, THEN baptism.

That's not entirely true. There is biblical evidence of children being baptized.

 

[Kolibri]

That's not entirely true. There is biblical evidence of children being baptized.

I'd like to see it.

 

[moorea944]

That's not entirely true. There is biblical evidence of children being baptized.

Children wouldnt be baptised in the bible. And there would be no verses on it too. Sorry. Infant baptism probably started in the middle ages when infants and children died young from disease. So the church started to do that, they thought that would do something for them. But like I said before, a person has to understand God's Word before baptism. They have to be taught first. Paul even says to examine someone "before" baptism. (I'll find that verse for you too).

 

[moorea944]

I think when we start thinking something is ok to do, even though it's not biblical, then we go down a different path from God's Truth. That path now leads to new different beliefs. That's why I say that christianity has gone astray from the orginal teachings from Christ and the apostles. So many doctrines and thoughts have creeped in. It's really to bad.

 

[sojourner]

Children wouldnt be baptised in the bible. And there would be no verses on it too. Sorry. Infant baptism probably started in the middle ages when infants and children died young from disease. So the church started to do that, they thought that would do something for them. But like I said before, a person has to understand God's Word before baptism. They have to be taught first. Paul even says to examine someone "before" baptism. (I'll find that verse for you too).

From Acts 16:
"At the same hour of the night he took them and washed their wounds; then he and his entire family were baptized without delay."

 

[sojourner]

I'd like to see it.

See above.

 

[Kolibri]

From Acts 16:
"At the same hour of the night he took them and washed their wounds; then he and his entire family were baptized without delay."

And where in this passage about Lydia's family does it say anything about there being infants? All we know about her is that she had others living in her household. I've seen children as young as 8 get baptized, I waited till I was 15 myself. But no where does it say anything about their ages in this account.

 

[sojourner]

And where in this passage about Lydia's family does it say anything about there being infants? All we know about her is that she had others living in her household. I've seen children as young as 8 get baptized, I waited till I was 15 myself. But no where does it say anything about their ages in this account.

We can't assume that there weren't infants. In that day and age, people had lots of kids -- lack of birth control, you know.

 

[Kolibri]

We can't assume that there weren't infants. In that day and age, people had lots of kids -- lack of birth control, you know.

Actually it is harder to assume there were infants than to assume there were not. The Bible is clear that baptism is for taught ones. (Mt 28:19,20) Infants are not taught ones yet.

The Greek word for disciple is ma-the-tes'. It primarily denotes one who directs his mind to something. The things an infant directs his mind to is his full diaper, his mama's breasts, and that funny face that keeps trying to teach him the word Dada.

'Hearing the word,' 'embracing the word heartily,' and 'repenting' precedes baptism. (Acts 2:14, 22,38,41) Babies can not do that in regards to Jesus' teachings.

 

[katiemygirl]

We can't assume that there weren't infants. In that day and age, people had lots of kids -- lack of birth control, you know.

Jesus made it pretty clear. He said, "He who BLIEVES and is baptized shall be saved." (Mark 16:16). Babies are not capable of believing.

Children have no need to be cleansed from sin. They have no sin. Ez. 18:20 tells us we do not inherit sin. We do inherit a fleshly nature, which leads us to sin. When we understand right from wrong, it is then we are held accountable for our wrongdoings.

All children are innocent.

 

[sojourner]

Actually it is harder to assume there were infants than to assume there were not. The Bible is clear that baptism is for taught ones. (Mt 28:19,20) Infants are not taught ones yet.

The Greek word for disciple is ma-the-tes'. It primarily denotes one who directs his mind to something. The things an infant directs his mind to is his full diaper, his mama's breasts, and that funny face that keeps trying to teach him the word Dada.

'Hearing the word,' 'embracing the word heartily,' and 'repenting' precedes baptism. (Acts 2:14, 22,38,41) Babies can not do that in regards to Jesus' teachings.

It would become clearer to you if you understood the cultural anthropology of the times. This isn't about doctrine. It's about culture.

 

[sojourner]

Jesus made it pretty clear. He said, "He who BLIEVES and is baptized shall be saved." (Mark 16:16). Babies are not capable of believing.

Children have no need to be cleansed from sin. They have no sin. Ez. 18:20 tells us we do not inherit sin. We do inherit a fleshly nature, which leads us to sin. When we understand right from wrong, it is then we are held accountable for our wrongdoings.

All children are innocent.

If you understood the cultural anthropology of the story, It would be clearer to you that Mark and Ezekiel simply do not come into play here.

 

[katiemygirl]

If you understood the cultural anthropology of the story, It would be clearer to you that Mark and Ezekiel simply do not come into play here.

Culture doesn't dictate doctrine. God does. We don't need to go outside the word of God to know His will for us.