cataway
Well-Known Member
lets see if you know when she has to wear a head covering . tell us pleaseBeing a female, you are condescended upon by your own religion wearing a covering and all. .
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
lets see if you know when she has to wear a head covering . tell us pleaseBeing a female, you are condescended upon by your own religion wearing a covering and all. .
lets see if you know when she has to wear a head covering . tell us please
Same here.God is three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God is divine. When I use the title "God," it is in reference to the Godhead.
And here I thought we were making some progress. What a lot of unnecessary effort I seem to have put into this conversation.Three Gods would be blasphemy because the Bible repeatedly states there is one God.
Yes, they do appear to have done so once again.I agree that nuances in the way words are understood causes more confusion.
I could argue my position using the Bible only, but it does seem pointless. And it would give you one more thing to cry, "Blasphemy!" over. I'm afraid I just don't feel up to that. I was honestly so encouraged by how things were going between us. I should have known better.I would like any Bible reference that causes you to believe the Father has a physical body. You already know how I feel about going outside the Bible. That's a topic for another thread, and I seriously doubt either of us would change how we view it. But if you have Bible verses, please share.
They are three distinct persons. But are they divine persons? And what is a divine person anyway? See it's this kind of going around in circles that gets to me. It's like there are certain words trinitarians are forbidden from saying, even when they are the most logical, rational words in the world. To say that the Father, Son and Holy ghosts are distinct "persons" is one thing. To omit the word "divine" from the phrase is misleading. To include the word divine (i.e. "divine persons") but sidestep the question of whether "divine person" is a synonym for "god" strikes me as totally disingenuous. And at that point, the conversation comes to a grinding halt because the forbidden verbiage comes into play. It just doesn't make sense to me.The Godhead is three distinct persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I say persons because each speaks, has a will, loves, grieves, etc. The Father is not the same person as the Son. The Son is not the same person as the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not the same person as the Father. They are not three Gods. They are three distinct persons, yet all are the one true God.
I believe He is incomprehensible, too, but not quite to the degree you do. I believe God was a whole lot more comprehensible back in the days of the Apostles than He was when the creeds first described Him as incomprehensible and did their best to make Him so.I really believe God is incomprehensible. He is greater than my mind can conceive.
She sounds a lot like my mom who died at 96 1/2.My Mom, bless her heart, had such great faith in God. She passed away at 94 1/2 years old, and all but the last week of her life, she read her Bible daily, and prayed. She was in a nursing home the last four years of her life, and the staff would always comment about her faithfulness. She was a wonderful christian witness and role model for everyone who came in contact with her.
no, I don't feel you do . I all ready know she feels no discomfort . tell us please when does she have to have a head covering ?And I grieve for her
The LDS full-time missionary force is now at 88,000 in 400 missions worldwide. They have not pulled back anywhere. They have come to realize, though, that (at least in certain areas) there are more effective ways of proselytizing than going door-to-door. They are absolutely still there, even though you may be less aware of their presence. (Oh, and by the way, they're not all American Mormons. It would not be at all unusual, for instance, to see a Mormon missionary from Guatemala serving his mission in Taiwan.)somebody or other said:American Mormons used to call quite regularly here, but they don't come anymore. I don't know why. I did hear that they have pulled back their overseas missionaries somewhat in favor of the Internet.
I'm not sure where you got this idea from, but it's inaccurate, too. At this point in time, there are many areas in which the missionaries don't need to work all that hard in looking for potential converts. Members of the Church are encouraged to look for missionary opportunities in all areas of their lives. Much of the work of Mormon missionaries today comes from referrals. Members of the Church have friends, family and co-workers ask them to send the missionaries their way so there is less blind tracting.But I am amazed that they don't seem to preach locally. They don't call on their own non-Mormon neighbors, which I find rather strange. Jesus preached to his own people even though they thought that they were already "God's people".
That's very doubtful. "Companions" (you always see missionaries traveling 2 by 2, right?) get split up and reassigned to new areas of the city they're working in or even to another town entirely every six weeks. I suspect that's what happened.I used to enjoy speaking with these young people because many of them were questioning and a couple of them came to our meeting. We did not see them again even though they said they enjoyed it very much. They stayed behind afterward for ages asking questions and said they would like to come again. Maybe they got into trouble.
no, I don't feel you do . I all ready know she feels no discomfort . tell us please when does she have to have a head covering ?
The LDS full-time missionary force is now at 88,000 in 400 missions worldwide. They have not pulled back anywhere. They have come to realize, though, that (at least in certain areas) there are more effective ways of proselytizing than going door-to-door. They are absolutely still there, even though you may be less aware of their presence.
I'm not sure where you got this idea from, but it's inaccurate, too. At this point in time, there are many areas in which the missionaries don't need to work all that hard in looking for potential converts. Members of the Church are encouraged to look for missionary opportunities in all areas of their lives. Much of the work of Mormon missionaries today comes from referrals. Members of the Church have friends, family and co-workers ask them to send the missionaries their way so there is less blind tracting.
That's very doubtful. "Companions" (you always see missionaries traveling 2 by 2, right?) get split up and reassigned to new areas of the city they're working in or even to another town entirely every six weeks. I suspect that's what happened.
Sorry. I don't who said it then because that's how it came up when I clicked on "Reply." I'll go in and take out your name so there won't be any misunderstanding. Thanks for letting me know.Unification never said any of that! Peace and blessings to you, Katzpur.
See Katie, we do agree on something else, something pretty significant.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.
Systematically manipulating people by strategical and planned brain wash is not serving God. Fear and Armageddon, and control and Jesus coming to destroy humans' is not of God. You have no idea what it means to "watch." I now see where your conditioned mind comes. They really got a hold of you......
And you are still brainwashed into trying to reason and justify it being correct. That makes Jehovah a respector or persons, which Christiandom created.
This is nothing against you, the Spirit within me truly is sorrowed for the Lord's children being brainwashed and under doctrine of mankind.
And may I ask who has a hold on you? You appear to be as conditioned and manipulated as those you denigrate. Or are you not aware of this?
Does it not seem strange that you have no brotherhood and that you seem to be a lone prophet in the world? You disrespect and contradict the scriptures which were inspired by the very same spirit you claim inspires you....how does that work?
If God is not telling us that you are his prophet by some supernatural means, then you are just the lone unconvincing voice of nobody.
Well, the spirit in me is just as sorrowful for you and other deluded souls who think God "speaks" to them personally. Like I said, unless you can prove that you alone have the guidance of the holy spirit with some kind of proof, then what are your words worth? Jesus himself as the son of God would not have convinced anyone without the power of the holy spirit.....even God knew that.....have you healed or resurrected anyone lately? Any booming voices from heaven saying "this is my prophet...listen to him"?
C'mon man, you are more brainwashed that we would ever know how to be. Did you ever think that it might be the wrong spirit trying to direct you?
Would you even know if the "angel of light" was leading you down the wrong track, masquerading as the spirit of God? Would it even occur to you? It should. To the deceived, it is truth until its too late.
Just as you are trying to save me...I am trying to save you.....no bad fruit on my part unless you calling me brainwashed is bad fruit on your part.I forgive you for that bad fruit.
Sorry Kat, it's not intentional. I'm not trying to insult you. I thought we'd agreed that there is only one God and not three. Wouldn't it be blasphemy to say there are three? Is blasphemy too strong a word? If God says there are no gods besides me, shouldn't we believe that? Once again, it has to be a terms barrier, because when I wrote what I did, I honestly thought you would agree.="Katzpur, post: 4169576, member: 2540"]
And here I thought we were making some progress. What a lot of unnecessary effort I seem to have put into this conversation.
All I was looking for were the Bible verses you would use. No explanation would be necessary. I wasn't asking you to explain how you arrived at your conclusion. Bible verses would have sufficed. The Bible speaks for itself.I could argue my position using the Bible only, but it does seem pointless. And it would give you one more thing to cry, "Blasphemy!" over. I'm afraid I just don't feel up to that. I was honestly so encouraged by how things were going between us. I should have known better.
You never asked me the question of whether divine person was a synonym for god. You told me it bothered you that people sidestep that question, but you never asked the question to me directly. So let's see if I can answer your question.They are three distinct persons. But are theydivine persons? And what is a divine person anyway? See it's this kind of going around in circles that gets to me. It's like there are certain words trinitarians are forbidden from saying, even when they are the most logical, rational words in the world. To say that the Father, Son and Holy ghosts are distinct "persons" is one thing. To omit the word "divine" from the phrase is misleading. To include the word divine (i.e. "divine persons") but sidestep the question of whether "divine person" is a synonym for"god" strikes me as totally disingenuous. And at that point, the conversation comes to a grinding halt because the forbidden verbiage comes into play. It just doesn't make sense to me.
Yes, we sure do! And I believe we put up a pretty good argument against those who said otherwise.See Katie, we do agree on something else, something pretty significant.
Just as you are trying to save me...I am trying to save you.....no bad fruit on my part unless you calling me brainwashed is bad fruit on your part.
Seriously, you cannot answer the most simple questions. You denigrate God's word and tell us that the Bible doesn't mean what it clearly says......because you say it means something entirely different. Why should we believe you?
If the son of God needed miracles to prove he was God's son....what has God given you to show us your own credentials? Why would we listen to someone like you, who is preaching a completely different Jesus to what the scriptures teach, without some proof that what you say is true?
You do understand that the world is full of very sick people who claim what you claim....give us some evidence other than your words, otherwise they are meaningless. Do you comprehend what I am saying?
Do you find yourself without a spiritual home, not belonging with any group of Christians anywhere? If you do, what is that telling you? Christians do not exist in isolation. They never have.
Please consider.....
Just as you are trying to save me...I am trying to save you.....no bad fruit on my part unless you calling me brainwashed is bad fruit on your part.
Seriously, you cannot answer the most simple questions. You denigrate God's word and tell us that the Bible doesn't mean what it clearly says......because you say it means something entirely different. Why should we believe you?
If the son of God needed miracles to prove he was God's son....what has God given you to show us your own credentials? Why would we listen to someone like you, who is preaching a completely different Jesus to what the scriptures teach, without some proof that what you say is true?
You do understand that the world is full of very sick people who claim what you claim....give us some evidence other than your words, otherwise they are meaningless. Do you comprehend what I am saying?
Do you find yourself without a spiritual home, not belonging with any group of Christians anywhere? If you do, what is that telling you? Christians do not exist in isolation. They never have.
Please consider.....
Just as you are trying to save me...I am trying to save you.....no bad fruit on my part unless you calling me brainwashed is bad fruit on your part.
Seriously, you cannot answer the most simple questions. You denigrate God's word and tell us that the Bible doesn't mean what it clearly says......because you say it means something entirely different. Why should we believe you?
If the son of God needed miracles to prove he was God's son....what has God given you to show us your own credentials? Why would we listen to someone like you, who is preaching a completely different Jesus to what the scriptures teach, without some proof that what you say is true?
You do understand that the world is full of very sick people who claim what you claim....give us some evidence other than your words, otherwise they are meaningless. Do you comprehend what I am saying?
Do you find yourself without a spiritual home, not belonging with any group of Christians anywhere? If you do, what is that telling you? Christians do not exist in isolation. They never have.
Please consider.....
I guess you did not understand my question from post #1288. Let me repeat it again for the 2nd time. Who is the subject of John 1:14 and John 1:1 and Colossians 2:9 or the entire New Testament? In this case who is the subject of John 1:1?As regards John 1:14, the definition is dependant on John 1:1. I am sure you are familiar that some translations do not translate the last theos as God but as "divine", or "a god"
Make up your mind which one is it, divine or a god? If the right translation is “divine” then John could have used theios instead of theos, but he did not, did he? So, on that translation alone it proves that you are in error already.I am sure you are familiar that some translations do not translate the last theos as God but as "divine", or "a god"
I guess you did not understand my question from post #1288. Let me repeat it again for the 2nd time. Who is the subject of John 1:14 and John 1:1 and Colossians 2:9 or the entire New Testament? In this case who is the subject of John 1:1?
Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Jn 1:1 En archë ën ho logos, kai ho logos ën pros ton theon, kai theos ën ho logos.
If we divide this verse into three clauses it would look like this:
1) In the beginning was the Word – En arche en ho logos
2) And the Word was with God – kai ho logos en pros ton theon
3) And the Word was God – kai theos en ho logos
In the first clause the word “was” or “en” in Greek is in the past tense. In Biblehub interliner the word “en/was” is in the imperfect tense. What is imperfect tense?
The imperfect expresses imperfective aspect and is normally found in statements about the past. The primary function of the imperfect tense is to convey imperfective (progressive) verbal aspect in narrative past-time contexts. "We were eating" would be expressed using the imperfect in Hellenistic Greek. IOW, “The imperfect tense describes a continuous action usually occurring in the past –William Mounce”
In the beginning was the Word. IOW, before the beginning in Genesis 1:1 the Word was in existence already with God [pros ton theon –clause 2] continuously as the imperfect tense “was/en” was suggesting.
In the 2nd clause, “and the Word was with God” “kai ho logos en pros ton theon”. The 2nd clause is self-explanatory. “And the Word was with the God –word for word in Greek to English”. IOW, before the beginning there was a distinction between “the Word” and “the God” [REMEMBER THIS WHEN YOU READ THE 3RD CLAUSE] or we read two personal beings in existence already before the beginning as God, side by side, as John 1:18 was suggesting.
The 3rd clause is the critical part of John 1:1. Make up your mind which one is it, divine or a god? If the right translation is “divine” then John could have used theios instead of theos, but he did not, did he? So, on that translation alone it proves that you are in error already.
Remember I asked you who the subject is in John 1:1 -read post #1288.
The one with the definite article, i.e., “the Word/ho logos” is the subject.
The word order in Greek should read “And God was the Word”. In English translation it should read “And the Word was God”
You asked why there is no definite article in front of the word “God” to prove that the Word is really God and not an “a god” or “divine”.
Let’s for example place a DA in God, then it should read like this in the 3d clause, “And the Word was the God”, meaning the Word is the God or the Father is the same as the Son and not two personal beings as stated in the 2nd clause. That’s Sabellianism.
If that is the case then we would have a problem with clause #2 where it explicitly says “And the Word was with the God” meaning “the Word” and “the God” are two personal beings existing already before the beginning.
So, by not inserting a definite article before God, in the 3rd clause, does not literally means the Lord Jesus was an “a god”.
On the hand, inserting an “a” before God literally means you people are adulterating the very Word of God.
“No issues with clause 1 and 2.”? Are you kidding me?No issues with clause 1 and 2. As I mentioned before, there will be no concord regarding clause 3. Either "the Word is God" or "the Word is divine/a god" is the accurate translation of John 1:1c.
A difference in how that clause is written changes our understanding of John 1:14.
We both expressed/quoted supporting arguments as to why one translation or the other is "accurate." There really is nothing more to say regarding the matter besides slinging mud.