Coder
Active Member
When do you believe that God created you? Your conception? Your birth?
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Jesus adherents only: How is a ''separate' trinity concept, not polytheism?
- Thread starter Desert Snake
- Start date
-
- Tags
- trinity
Since the word ' father ' means ' life giver ' (Not life taker), then at conception we are pro-created by God by our parents - Genesis 1:28
Coder
Active Member
Yes, but the Bible says that God knew us before we were formed in the womb. Jeremiah 1:5 How could God know us if we were not yet created?
Isn't Jeremiah 1:5 in connection to 'Jeremiah' being ordained as a prophet to the nations ?
In the case of 'Jeremiah' then God used his foreknowledge to have Jeremiah as His special servant.
God does know our DNA ' blueprint' so to speak, at conception - Psalms 139:13-14; Psalms 139:15-16
Besides naming Jeremiah, there was Jesus, John the Baptizer, Isaac, Samuel but Not mankind in general.
Coder
Active Member
Do you believe that God did not know you before He created you?
And in the Greek understanding of "theos", he was. Calling Jesus a 'lesser god' in no way demeans his status as "the son of God" because that is what he called himself. He was divine, (a god) but not "the God". Show me where he ever said he was God or even equal with his Father? Show me where Jesus ever asked to be worshipped?
"Son" and "begotten" are much more filial in nuance than "only direct creation". So, the Bible says "only begotten Son", and you speak of Jesus as "only direct creation"? I would see this as a possible example of someone putting their own spin on the Scriptures. Not to mention "only direct creation" sounds so cold - is that how people who subscribe to your theology refer to their children? - "Honey, are our 'only direct creations' in the car? - we're leaving now."
Do you see what you did here? You twisted my words and gave them your own application whilst accusing others of doing the same. You used faulty emotional appeal rather than scriptural truth to establish your point.
Jesus admitted that he was "the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's creation" in Revelation 3:14. So, how does anyone balk at Jesus being "created" when he readily admits it himself?
Even after his return to heaven, he calls his Father "my God" four times in Revelation 3:12. Can one part of God worship an equal part of himself?
The apostle Paul also says.....at Colossians 1:15-16:
"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him." (ESV)
The last part of that verse makes no sense if Jesus is God, because God did not create all things "through" and "for" himself. He created them "through" and "for" his son....a completely separate entity.
Paul also established who was worshipped by Christ's disciples.....at 1 Corinthians 8:5-6:
"For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist." (ESV)
Their "one God" was "the Father"....not the son and not the holy spirit, (who doesn't even rate a mention here.)
He says that all things are "from God" "through" Jesus Christ, which fits exactly with what the Bible as a whole teaches.
These are direct statements...no tap dancing is required unless you are trying to push a false doctrine.
Where can you see Jesus as the 'uncreated equal of his Father' in any of those verses?
The "deep theological nuances" were created by the church. If Luke can call Adam a "son of God" (Luke 3:38) then it doesn't mean what the churches assume that it does. Even angels are called "sons of God". (Job 38:7)
All spirit beings were created in heaven and are classified as belonging to Jehovah's spiritual "family"....all of whom serve the interests of their God and Father.
When the angel delivered the Revelation to John......Revelation 19:10:
"At that I fell down before his feet to worship him. But he tells me: “Be careful! Do not do that! I am only a fellow slave of you and of your brothers who have the work of witnessing concerning Jesus. Worship God! For the witness concerning Jesus is what inspires prophecy.”
He didn't say "worship Jesus".
Yes, it is a belief of ours, but not a doctrine because there is no direct statement. What we have is allusion just as Christendom does for her trinity. The main difference is that our whole belief system doesn't fall apart if it isn't true. Since we do not believe that Jesus is God, he can be an angelic "creation", ( as Jesus said) second in command to his God and Father...which is what it means to be at someone's "right hand". (Psalm 110:1-2)
1 Thessalonians 4:13-17:
" But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. 14 For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. 15 For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord."
So those who were "asleep" in their graves, awaiting the return of Christ to be resurrected to their heavenly reward, are called from their graves by the commanding call of an "archangel". Since Jesus is the one who resurrects the dead, it stands to reason that Jesus is "the archangel Michael"...one of his many roles and his many names. It is interesting to note that YHWH has only one name that was to be his "memorial" "forever". (Exodus 3:14-15 ASV)
Then that argues with what Jesus said about being in the "heart of the earth", likening his time in the grave to Jonah's time in the "belly of the fish". (Matthew 12:38-40) Jesus was dead for three days.....he did not go anywhere until God raised him as a spirit on the third day. (1 Peter 3:18) In that state he was able to materialize human form and comfort and encourage his disciples for the hard days ahead.
You are welcome to your viewpoint but I believe that you are way off base in your assessments and somewhat alone in your conclusions. If you were correct, then the holy spirit would lead you to others who believe exactly what you do.....that is what happened in the first century and it is also what happens in these last days. There are only two camps....sheep and goats...wheat and weeds....and two roads.....we choose which camp we belong in, and which road we will travel.
Last edited:
Don't we receive 50% of our genes from one parent and 50% of our genes from the other parent ?
God does Not choose our marriage mates. God is Not some sort of celestial matchmaker.
Since we have free-will choices, then who we freely choose to marry contributes to who we are.
We do know God's purpose is that we all be descendants from father Adam and mother Eve.
- Genesis 1:28
Coder
Active Member
I believe that God knows all of His creation before it takes physical form. I believe that He is not limited by time and space and knows all including what we call the past, present, and future from a human perspective. Therefore, I believe that from all eternity: He knew us all and even our thoughts. Therefore, I believe that in a sense all creation is "eternal" in that all creation has been in God's "mind" for all eternity.
Last edited:
Coder
Active Member
I think there is a difference between begotten vs. created.
At any rate, I will repeat that I propose that: a.) Both Christians and JWs are interpreting these Scriptures too seriously/literally due to the pagan influences and b.) This Greek/Roman/pagan (including Roman government) influence calls seekers of truth to question the extent of these pagan influences and what it may really mean about the Scriptures and Christian and JW theology.
Sounds as if you are saying God is so very cruel as to destine people to destruction - Psalms 92:7
If so, why are people given choices according to 2 Peter 3:9 to repent so as Not to perish (be destroyed)
Coder
Active Member
Yes, we have free will, God simply already knows what our decisions will be.
Last edited:
At John 3:16, (a very well known scripture in Christian circles,) the word "only begotten" is monogenes and it means....
"single of its kind, only
- used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)"
Since Jesus is not the only "son of God", his begetting is what makes him different to God's other sons. Since the Father was alone until the "beginning" of his creation, his first and only direct creation was his son. The Father then used his son to bring forth all other creation. (John 1:2-3)
"Begotten" simply means that the person had a begetter.....one who caused them to come into existence. With Jesus, his begetter was his Father.....his lifegiver...the one who caused his existence.
Is there a point in reposting this?...except to maybe reinforce the fact that you are not open to anything that may cause you to change your position, even when your arguments are exposed as being without foundation?
Coder
Active Member
The existence of "a god" in addition to God, seems even more polytheistic than the Trinity explanation.
In regards to your interpretation of "a god" in John 1:1, the New World Translation (the Bible used by JWs) translates the same word, "theos", without the definite article, as Jehovah (God) in multiple places.
Jesus is referred to as "ho theos". Hebrews 1:8. I'm also well aware of JW statements that Hebrews 1:8 does not refer to Jesus as God. However, this is not accepted for many reasons by Christian scholars. The New World Translation translates Hebrews 1:8 as "But about the Son, he says: "God is your throne forever and ever.". Most scholars don't agree with that translation and to call God, "a throne", is nonsensical/inconsistent with God being spoken of as being "on His throne".
Titus 2:13 calls Jesus "great God and Savior". Another passage translated differently by the New World Translation.
Isaiah 44:24 says that God created by Himself.
So, I have read your propositions and also Christian scholarship, and I find theirs to be more reasonable/consistent in the context.
The New World Translation has many passages that are translated differently and/or mistranslated compared to most other Bible translations. Hebrews 1:8 and Titus 2:13 are two examples. There are many others:
Genesis 1:1-2 - "active force"
Zechariah 12:10 - changed "me" to "the one"
John 1:1 - adding 'a'
Colossians 1:15-17 - adding the word "other"
Hebrews 1:6 - translate Greek "worship" as "obeisance"
Last edited:
Then, why would God pass sentence ( Genesis 2:17 ) if God already knows our decisions ?
Satan and Adam were self-made sinners.
Why give instructions to endure if No endurance would be needed - Revelation 2:10; Matthew 24:13
Coder
Active Member
Hi, that's your concern/profession, not mine. I don't interpret the Bible as you do. God created time and space and He is infinite and Almighty. I believe that there is nothing that He does not know and sees past/present/future all at once. As a help to you, consider that if prophets can know the future, then certainly God does.
Sure the future of the Earth is known, but as to who will be part of that future is unknown
Appreciate your demeanor. Trust me when I say that people can trash the NT and it wouldn't affect me a bit.
It's covered by the blood.I'm well aware of the pressures. If you think about it, it still happens today. Politicians want to please those of faith and so many people of faith want the "blessing" of the government. And then you have those who simply adjust their faith to please their ears and have the stamp of approval of what they do.
I'm not talking about people of those persuasion. And we must look at history.
In the first 300 years, Christians were the persecuted ones. Am I wrong? It really wasn't till Constantine. I always wonder if Constantine simply wanted the "votes" or if there was a true conversion. Certainly the infiltration of politics entered into Christianity at that moment IMO to the hindrance of the Body of Christ. Again, IMO, that was the beginning of the "Catholic Church".
Not that there weren't theological skirmishes in the first three hundred years but it was more internal than government infiltration and thus the persecuted Church was evident. They would not yield.
You bring a good point about other faiths "gods impregnating human women". (Can't deny that fact).
I've come to the point that it is one of two possibilities...
1) For every truth there is a counterfeit, a twisting of truth. I don't find it out of place that the truth of Gen 3 (a seed that will crush the head of the serpent) was understood by the beginning of the human race. From that point on, we had truth and those who created their own truth in its similitude but still false.
2) You have Satan, the Father of Lies, who immediately began twisting the truth knowing what was going to happen...
Maybe I can add a third and it be the combination of the two.
Certainly we can all look at the same information (not different from scientists) and come to two completely different conclusions.
John is known to be the disciple that lived the longest and, in reality, had the most impacting of all revelation dictated by the Book of the same name.
I simply believe that as the one who lived the longest, had time to digest the most, had the most impacting revelation simply had the wisdom. Each book, IMV, was addressing a different aspect.
In that all of what He said is found in the Synoptic Gospel and/or the OT, I don't see anything that violates the scriptures and thus accept it as truth. (LOL - and it still creates the most contention as did Jesus during His time on this blessed Earth)
I think that there have been MANY efforts to unite government with religion and religion with all other religions. Basically history shows that it hasn't and cannot be incorporated into one.Perhaps to save lives they may have tolerated some Roman/pagan influence. Some even may say that Christian theology is a fabrication of the Roman government to some extent, to make Judaism more palatable or vice-versa. It's almost like a compromise in a major conflict, each side trying to be true to themselves: Messianic Jews trying to be true to the one true God (Amen), and Romans trying to be "true" to their egos, power, and blessings from Jupiter, Mars and many other pagan gods. I'm sure you've heard of "In hoc signo vinces." See, blessings/victory from pagans "gods" now transitioning to blessings from "God". This saying may have been propaganda either by Constantine and other Roman leaders - or for them to get them to be more accepting of Christianity. After all, if you're a Roman Emperor who believes that your power/victories are blessings from pagan "gods" and someone presents a new "god" to you who in this case is the one true God, and they say the true God can really help you with your victories/blessing, you might get their attention.
What I view as the difference between Christianity and all other religions is that every other faith it is a message of how man can update to version 10.4 and become God, a god, or part of the ethereal something out there. Christianity basically says man cannot and therefore God reached down to man.
Do you see it differently?
Coder
Active Member
I think Jews were persecuted and they resisted (admirably) the Romans forcing statues of their gods in their temples and synagogues.
I think many religions in Roman Republic/Empire were persecuted, perhaps mainly because the Roman leaders wanted the blessings of their gods for power etc. and also because Roman leaders were also considered gods (divi filius). Once Christianity became the new "politically correct" religion then pagans and Jews were often persecuted/forbidden.
So what happens, is perhaps a band/sect, among many, all of a sudden has the "stage" and has such an impact in people's minds. If a brutal empire such as Roman suddenly declared some other religion "the one", then all the others may fade away also. Maybe that doesn't happen today because we understand the concept of freedom of religion. The statements that the Bible records as being said by Jesus are profound and I do seek God and truth.
So many people go with any beliefs, so easily. Clever people know this (even today) and can take advantage of people. As Jesus pointed out there is such a comfort (wrongly) in the "approval of men". I think that one must discern what is of God and to what extent the Roman empire may have been involved including influencing Christianity for their own purposes even much earlier in the movement than people may realize.
It isn't polytheistic for Jesus to be described as "a divine mighty one" because he is described that way in a polytheistic language.
There are many languages that do not have terms that we English speakers use routinely, but the concepts are unknown to those from other cultures. Greek culture was not Christian. They had no notion of a singular God above all others, so this is reflected in their language.
It was not deemed necessary when there was no question about to whom it was referring.
Can you give me examples and I will show you? Making accusations without back-up is poor form.
First of all, "most scholars" are supporters of the trinity, so they will translate any passage with that bias, and secondly, the notion of shared rulership is defined in Revelation.
Revelation 3:21:
"He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne."
Yahweh is the one seated on the throne and he has appointed his son as the primary ruler or chief administrator of his Kingdom. Daniel saw a vision of his coronation, which was not to take place until "the time of the end". (Daniel 7:13-14; Daniel 12:4, 9-10)
In the Greek phrasing it is easy to mistranslate this verse. Remember that there is no punctuation in Greek so in order to support the rest of scripture, this verse is speaking about "our great god, and our savior Jesus Christ"...it is not joining them as a twosome. Both are spoken about as saviors, which is in keeping with the meaning of the word as Jews understood it.
Yet other parts of the Bible say that God created by means of his son.....are they contradictory? (Colossians 1:15-16; John 1:2-3)
Working as a team is supported by Proverbs 8:30-31 as well as Genesis 1:26-27.
And if you made a study of the whole Bible without the 'benefit' of the suggested meanings put forward by Christendom's scholars, what would you find? I have studied extensively and I can assure you that the way the NWT translates those passages is in keeping with a Jewish understanding of God, his Messiah and the workings of his holy spirit. It is Christendom who has put their own spin on those things and it has been around so long no one questions them. I am glad I did.
Coder
Active Member
In the created universe, there is no way to measure or speak of time without referring to events. E.g. one second is a tick of a clock and we have a general concept of how long one second is relative to other events. What do you believe about the existence of time before God created any being or anything? Do you believe that time existed as we know it, or it existed in a different form, or did not exist at all, or some other view?
Last edited: