Is a person a Christian if...

[Daisies4me]

Allow me to use what you said and apply it to those I've spoken to about God and the many definitions as to what they mean. Would you say then a true definition of God does not exist because of all the other definitions? This is not good reasoning.

But let's look at how the WT take the definition of the Trinity as stated in the Athanasian Creed (they refer to), and how they deny it by applying a heresy called Modalism:

"IS GOD JESUS OR A TRINITY?

14 Who is this wonderful God? Some persons say his name is Jesus. Others say he is a Trinity, although the word “trinity” does not appear in the Bible. According to the teaching of the Trinity, there are three persons in one God, that is, there is “one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”

Many religious organizations teach this, even though they admit it is “a mystery.” Are such views of God correct?

15 Well, did Jesus ever say that he was God? No, he never did. Rather, in the Bible he is called “God’s Son.” And he said: “The Father is greater than I am.” (John 10:34-36; 14:28) Also, Jesus explained that there were some things that neither he nor the angels knew but that only God knew. (Mark 13:32) Further, on one occasion Jesus prayed to God, saying: “Let, not my will, but yours take place.” (Luke 22:42) If Jesus were the Almighty God, he would not have prayed to himself, would he? In fact, following Jesus’ death, the Scripture says: “This Jesus God resurrected.” (Acts2:32) Thus the Almighty God and Jesus are clearly two separate persons. Even after his death and resurrection and ascension to heaven, Jesus was still not equal to his Father.—1 Corinthians 11:3; 15:28. [Emphasis added] You Can Live Forever in Paradise On Earth, Chapter 4, p.39"​

Notice the WT quote in the first paragraph? "According to the teaching of the Trinity,." It goes on, "..there are three persons in one God, that is, there is “one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” They did not say, 'According to one teaching of the Trinity,.' but "According to the teaching of the Trinity,." So, the WT picks a specific definition of the Trinity to take issue with.
------------
D: Hello, Hughwatt--Perhaps you may not have spoken with quite as many persons as some of us have in our lifetimes, and may not realize that these are definitions that actual persons who believe the 'trinity doctrine' have espoused as their beliefs in the matter.
So don't try to shoot the messenger-- it works both ways, doesn't it?
your opinion is that of your own. Others may agree or disagree, but to say that because you don't believe such and such does not mean that many others DO believe it.
---------------

Now watch what they do to debunk this: "If Jesus were the Almighty God, he would not have prayed to himself, would he?" The WT quoted the definition of the Trinity as "..three persons in one God,." then on the same page just a few words down misrepresents and denies the Trinity based upon a fallacious argument.
-------
D: If Jesus and God were supposedly the 'same person', would Jesus logically pray to Himself? That is a very valid question. Perhaps you should try to keep the context of the article, rather than self editing and splicing in order to attempt to make points that you think you can show by doing that?
''''''''''''''''''''''''

By using simple logic any fair-minded person would answer; Jesus would not have prayed to Himself, that is correct, but to the Father, Who is another of the Three Persons in the Trinity.

To make matters even more confusing for its followers it added, "Thus the Almighty God and Jesus are clearly two separate persons."

Yes, they "..are clearly two separate persons." That's how the Trinity is defined and that's why Jesus would not have been "praying to Himself."
--------
D: Really?? LOL This is exactly why so many say that the Trinity is a 'mystery'--- because even those who claim to believe in it, cannot seem to explain it without getting themselves confused.
The Christian religion “in its three classic forms of Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism acknowledges one God in three Persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. According to Christian theology, this acknowledgment is not a recognition of three gods but that these three persons are essentially one.”—The New Encyclopædia Britannica.

Do you agree with or deny this definition?

​

 

[Daisies4me]

Do not try to change the topic when you cannot accept a point.

Islam can explain Christianity very clearly.

Now how can you disprove the other religions?

(quote)

Hi Cp-- did you not introduce this topic?

you said in previous post: According to Islam, Yeshua (called Isa) was a prophet that was killed by the Romans and Jews.

D: objection overruled...

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

(quote)

Hi Cp-- did you not introduce this topic?

you said in previous post: According to Islam, Yeshua (called Isa) was a prophet that was killed by the Romans and Jews.

D: objection overruled...

And what you asked had nothing to do with that. It was a diversion strategy.

Now answer the initial question. What makes Islam or Hinduism any more or less true than Christianity?

 

[Daisies4me]

And what you asked had nothing to do with that. It was a diversion strategy.

Now answer the initial question. What makes Islam or Hinduism any more or less true than Christi(quote)

Hey there, CP--
first rule of conversation with me. You do not ignore what you start, and answer your allegations when asked questions about your comments, as is a normal courtesy in any conversation---and stop with the diversionary tactics , and then try to accuse others of what you yourself are doing...and never , ever, demand anything of me as if I owe you even a dime... I owe you nothing. And good manners goes a long way with me, Rude, arrogant, juvenile tactics get stopped in their tracks.
Kabiche?

If you don't like being respectful and conversant, then we can just stop this right now. Makes me no never mind. The ball is in your court, papi.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

First rule of conversation with me.

Format your posts correctly or I will not respond in full.

 

[Daisies4me]

First rule of conversation with me.

Format your posts correctly or I will not respond in full.

(quote)

Hey, big guy-- threaten someone who cares, ok? LOLOL Don't fall off of your ego, now, you might hurt something you need... ha

Is that Correct enough for ya?
And here I thought we were friends.... sigh....

When you get over your little tantrum, MAYBE we can talk...

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

(quote)

Hey, big guy-- threaten someone who cares, ok? LOLOL Don't fall off of your ego, now, you might hurt something you need... ha

Is that Correct enough for ya?
And here I thought we were friends.... sigh....

When you get over your little tantrum, MAYBE we can talk...

Please look back at your behavior in your post and in mine and then can we talk like civilized people?

 

[Daisies4me]

Please look back at your behavior in your post and in mine and then can we talk like civilized people?

Please look back at your behavior in your post and in mine and then can we talk like civilized people?

(quote)

awww.. and I thought you were breaking up with me,,,

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

(quote)

awww.. and I thought you were breaking up with me,,,

Can you please stop?

I would rather like to have a civil debate with you please.

 

[Ricktheheretic]

Would a person be considered a Christian if they wanted to follow Christ's teachings, but didn't exactly view him as God, but rather a prophet or messenger of God? Because technically they would be following Christ's path, just not believing that he himself was God or part of a trinity.

Ever heard of Jehovah's Witnesses, The Christadelphians, or The Way International? What about modern Quakers (Society of Friends), Unitarian Christians or Christian Scientists?
If you go back to the second and third century you can find out about the early Platonist, or Gnostic Christians. They wrote several "gospels" in which Jesus was the earthly embodiment of Christ or the Logos that emanated from "The Eternal Father" like one of the Platonic powers. There was a Manichean sect (named after a prophet called Mani) who regarded Zoroaster and The Buddha as prophets along with Jesus Christ.
I'll post a couple links, happy hunting! Christian Faith Groups The Gnosis Archive: Resources on Gnosticism and Gnostic Tradition

 

[RESOLUTION]

[QUOTE="Daisies4me, post: 5173371, member: 61226"Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

(quote)

D: How can an infant "believe" anything? none of those scriptures mention baptising infants, do they? A person has to be old enough to mentally grasp what they are choosing in order to be baptised. All water baptism is, in reality, is a public declaration of the hope within. The person first has to make the dedication to do the will of God prior to being immersed in water. simply sprinkling water on a baby does nothing for the eternal 'salvation' of the infant. But it makes money for the Priest who does the sprinkling, doesn't it?
The minor children are 'saved' through the demonstration of faith and obedience to God of the parents. That is what those Scriptures are saying. We all have to be able to reason in order to make a determination as to whom we choose to obey, or follow, as it were. ][/QUOTE]

How can an infant go to heaven if they do not believe? Whatever you believe or think an infant has no sin but the original sin of Adam.
All who were born of Adam were condemned for they were born of a fallen flesh and they also knew the knowledge of good and evil.
Just as those belong to Christ, their children are part of the promise too.

A water baptism is a washing away of the old. John baptised with water and Jesus baptised with the Spirit.
It was the sin of one man Adam which brought death to all mankind. The sinlessness and death of one man had brought life to all who believe and their descendants too.
Water baptism is an outward sign it has no power in itself. But the baptism of the Holy Spirit is the real power in a believers life.



In Acts we see that believers receive the Spirit before being baptised with water.

44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
Christ warned that when he returns this would happen.
Matthew 7:21-23
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

The will of God in Christ is to love one another and God. An infant cannot break the law of love for it cannot knowingly not love God or man in their infant form.

If your reasoning was correct then all who infants and children who are not able to reason would go to hell.

Eternal life, is a free gift of God, you cannot earn it because all have sinned and through Adam fall short.


It is clear in Johns teachings that if we do not love our brother whom we do see, we cannot love God whom we do not see.

King James Bible
But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Children are the most trusting and loving by nature. I have no doubt they go to be with the LORD.

 

[hughwatt]

That was an odd way to reply to my post. It looked as though you only quoted me and nothing more. I only saw your comment when I expanded.

D: Hello, Hughwatt--Perhaps you may not have spoken with quite as many persons as some of us have in our lifetimes, and may not realize that these are definitions that actual persons who believe the 'trinity doctrine' have espoused as their beliefs in the matt

er.
So don't try to shoot the messenger-- it works both ways, doesn't it?
your opinion is that of your own. Others may agree or disagree, but to say that because you don't believe such and such does not mean that many others DO believe it.

What the WT quoted I simply responded to.

As I said, they take a specific teaching on the Trinity and deny it by using a flawed argument, something which if read properly would show they use false logic in trying to refute what they quoted.

D: If Jesus and God were supposedly the 'same person', would Jesus logically pray to Himself? That is a very valid question. Perhaps you should try to keep the context of the article, rather than self editing and splicing in order to attempt to make points that you think you can show by doing that?

You're not reading correctly what even the WT said, neither I.

Where did I say "Jesus and God were..the 'same person?'" Read again the WT Trinity quote: "According to the teaching of the Trinity, there are three persons in one God, that is, there is “one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”"

This very quote says there are three not one Person yet “..one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”

It is disingenuous to say there's no Trinity because Jesus would have "prayed to Himself" after stating there are three Persons, two others, whom He could have been praying to.
If there are three then logically one of the three (Jesus), would have prayed to one of the other two.

D: Really?? LOL This is exactly why so many say that the Trinity is a 'mystery'--- because even those who claim to believe in it, cannot seem to explain it without getting themselves confused.

Such a 'mystery' the WT could not use a specific definition to deny? Why were they not confused about which one to highlight? It appears the 'mystery' is not in being able to define the Trinity but to grasp it on a human level.

The Christian religion “in its three classic forms of Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism acknowledges one God in three Persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. According to Christian theology, this acknowledgment is not a recognition of three gods but that these three persons are essentially one.”—The New Encyclopædia Britannica.

Do you agree with or deny this definition?

Why move from the WT quote to something else?

​

 

[Daisies4me]

Can you please stop?

I would rather like to have a civil debate with you please.

(quote)

Hi CP

~smile~ don't get my humor, 'eh?

No worries. A civil discussion is preferable.
a discussion. a friendly discussion. Not a debate.
Debates lead to arguments, you see. In a discussion ideas are exchanged and opinions given. There need not be a "winner" in a conversation. No need to be competitive or an adversary.
Would you agree?

 

[metis]

Yes, Jesus was known to his followers as "the Way". Only through him is it possible to approach Jehovah God in prayer. Also, Jesus is the way for us to be reconciled to God. (John 16:23; Romans 5:8)
Hence, only through Jesus can we have an approved relationship with God.

Even though it is written as such, I do not believe in this.

Anyone can say whatever they like. It is up to the individual to decide for themselves who/what they want to believe.

Agreed.

I simply present my own beliefs and the reasons why I have come to believe as such.

And I'm glad you did.

Peace

Shalom to you and yours.

 

[metis]

According to the Bible, The Jewish religious leaders and the Roman rulers conspired to murder Jesus

Actually, highly unlikely because that would be a terribly breach of Jewish Law. However, this would not be a problem with the Romans.

Why do you think they did that? What was his 'crime'?

Acts and statements against the state, such as his using a whip at the Temple whereas tax money to help the Romans was scammed off the top, plus Jesus' comments about his "kingdom" (monarchs don't like competition).

Crucifixion was a Roman method of execution, not Jewish, and Pilate was very brutal, thus having to be called back to Rome to justify why he had so many executed.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

(quote)

Hi CP

~smile~ don't get my humor, 'eh?

No worries. A civil discussion is preferable.
a discussion. a friendly discussion. Not a debate.
Debates lead to arguments, you see. In a discussion ideas are exchanged and opinions given. There need not be a "winner" in a conversation. No need to be competitive or an adversary.
Would you agree?

I don't think there is a "winner" in a debate. A good debate is where we cooperatively test our ideas to try to arrive at truth.

Frankly I am more concerned with the validity of your statements then your feelings about them so a debate is preferable for me.

 

[crowfeather]

Would a person be considered a Christian if they wanted to follow Christ's teachings, but didn't exactly view him as God, but rather a prophet or messenger of God? Because technically they would be following Christ's path, just not believing that he himself was God or part of a trinity.

Christians might not consider such a person a Christian, but such a person is probably more Christian than Christians.
Those who drone on about Jesus fall into the trap of focusing on the identity, rather than the embodiment.
And anyone who has made the giant leap down the path of true spirituality, knows that to make that leap, identity must be discarded.
Thus: the way of Christ is far more important than the being who happened to be Jesus.

Christians, naturally, would disagree.

 

[Daisies4me]

[QUOTE="Daisies4me, post: 5173371, member: 61226"Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

(quote)

D: How can an infant "believe" anything? none of those scriptures mention baptising infants, do they? A person has to be old enough to mentally grasp what they are choosing in order to be baptised. All water baptism is, in reality, is a public declaration of the hope within. The person first has to make the dedication to do the will of God prior to being immersed in water. simply sprinkling water on a baby does nothing for the eternal 'salvation' of the infant. But it makes money for the Priest who does the sprinkling, doesn't it?
The minor children are 'saved' through the demonstration of faith and obedience to God of the parents. That is what those Scriptures are saying. We all have to be able to reason in order to make a determination as to whom we choose to obey, or follow, as it were. ]

(quote)

Hello Revolution
You asked this question-----

R:How can an infant go to heaven if they do not believe?
----

Why do you think that when an infant dies, it 'goes to heaven'?

Everyone living, (as all humans are born in sin) when they die, go to the common grave of mankind, or "hell". Sheol, or Hades, in other languages. All mean the same thing. Where the dead go. The place on nonexistence, no pain, no thinking ability, the opposite of being alive.
"the Memorial Tombs".

Please note Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10.
Act 2:24-27 also. Even Jesus 'went to hell' and God resurrected him back to life right here on earth.
Everyone who dies, goes to the grave to await the promised resurrection in the last day.
John 5:28-29.
something to think about...

 

[Daisies4me]

Even though it is written as such, I do not believe in this.

(quote)

Hi Metis---We can agree to disagree. No worries. It is interesting to find other's opinions on matters.

 

[Daisies4me]

Actually, highly unlikely because that would be a terribly breach of Jewish Law. However, this would not be a problem with the Romans.

Acts and statements against the state, such as his using a whip at the Temple whereas tax money to help the Romans was scammed off the top, plus Jesus' comments about his "kingdom" (monarchs don't like competition).

Crucifixion was a Roman method of execution, not Jewish, and Pilate was very brutal, thus having to be called back to Rome to justify why he had so many executed.

(quote)

Hi Metis

There are many points in your post that I agree with. The Romans indeed carried out the execution, and the method of so doing was reserved for the lowest of criminals.

At the time, according to the Scriptures that I have read and come to believe, the Jews were looking for 'the Messiah' to come at that time, and they expected him to rescue them from the oppression of the Romans, who ruled over them. They tried to make Jesus a King, but he would escape them each time, telling them that his kingdom was 'no part of the world' , as his followers were also to be. (not literally getting out of the world, but not aligning themselves with the current system of rulership). When they saw that he was not going to deliver them at that time, they schemed to have him put to death. Many scriptural accounts show this, and that the High Priest Caiphas and the other priests of the Sanhedrin were "looking for false witness against Jesus in order to put him to death", as Matthew 26:59 tells us. But the Priests did, as you suggested, claim that Jesus was guilty of sedition, which is the charge that would get the Romans to execute him. The Romans didn't care about their disagreements as long as it didn't threaten their power. But when they claimed that he was attempting to overthrow the Roman government, (which they wanted, but he refused to do) then that was a threat to the Roman rulers.

As you said also, the Priests could not carry it out themselves; which is why they needed to find a charge that the Romans would be interested in, so that they could instigate the death of Jesus, without actually carrying it out themselves.

Again, there are things that I agree with you about. But I feel that the rest of the teachings may in fact be very foreign to you, and not a thing that you would accept. Some of your understandings may be foreign to me as well. This may be an explanation that you have not thought about previously. Accept it or reject it, is an individual choice we all get to make. We don't agree on everything,, but there are some things we can agree on. Thanks for allowing me to share my thoughts on the matter.

take good care