LittleNipper
Well-Known Member
Three personages ONE essence. That essence being the complete picture of GOD.TheIdealist said:
-
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!
The trinity of three scriptures destroys the myth of the Trinity:
- Thread starter iris89
- Start date
Gilbert1908
New Member
Iris 89
If Jesus is the son of God and not God is he then only human?
If Jesus is the son of God and not God is he then only human?
Christopher Krajewski
Member
God after-all is not any kind of human being in principle, after-all He is a supreme being beyond all imagination, and if He made us in his Image it is only anyone of countless images He can take. He will come back; to me I just wanted to say that was the future:woohoo: .
The past held proof that He was truly redeeming. That was his incarnation into the factual presence of a human Life
. This is not a logical proof but an overwhelmingly instinctive essence for something that we know how now act exactly for the Necessity (in the Aristotelian sense) of unexpectent temporality.
And at last the mystery. Our humane Life expectations:sarcastic , our mediochre ways for deceiving and being deceived, make for all that same God of Him, something unimaginable. We only expect our own lives as human indivduals. Stupid as it seems God is all of a sudden totally something quite Else. That's why the holy spirit.
We're all washed up. Should continue and correct each other over and over. Or just let It Be .
The past held proof that He was truly redeeming. That was his incarnation into the factual presence of a human Life
. This is not a logical proof but an overwhelmingly instinctive essence for something that we know how now act exactly for the Necessity (in the Aristotelian sense) of unexpectent temporality.And at last the mystery. Our humane Life expectations:sarcastic , our mediochre ways for deceiving and being deceived, make for all that same God of Him, something unimaginable. We only expect our own lives as human indivduals. Stupid as it seems God is all of a sudden totally something quite Else. That's why the holy spirit.
We're all washed up. Should continue and correct each other over and over. Or just let It Be
.TheIdealist
Member
i believe all the talk in the bible about being one meant one in purpose not one in being
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
Like the religious leaders of Jesus' day, most theologians tend to focus WAY too much on the physical, and on laws.
John 4:24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."
It has been suggested by some that we should "Have nothing to do with pagans"... which is what the Pharisees told Jesus:
Matthew 9:10 While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" came and ate with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and `sinners'?" 12 On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: `I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
and again...
Matthew 12:2. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, "Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath." 3 He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread--which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5 Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? 6 I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. 7 If you had known what these words mean, `I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent. 8. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."
Almost all teachings about "false doctrines" were directed towards those who wanted to take freedom away from the believer with rules, rules and more rules. Knowledge "puffs up", but the freedom that comes from having your heart changed so you don't NEED rules is amazing. We are simply to love people into the kingdom, becoming all things to all men as Paul put it. Don't let the legalists destroy your love or turn your freedom into another version of the "law".
John 4:24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."
It has been suggested by some that we should "Have nothing to do with pagans"... which is what the Pharisees told Jesus:
Matthew 9:10 While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" came and ate with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and `sinners'?" 12 On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: `I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
and again...
Matthew 12:2. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, "Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath." 3 He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread--which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5 Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? 6 I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. 7 If you had known what these words mean, `I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent. 8. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."
Almost all teachings about "false doctrines" were directed towards those who wanted to take freedom away from the believer with rules, rules and more rules. Knowledge "puffs up", but the freedom that comes from having your heart changed so you don't NEED rules is amazing. We are simply to love people into the kingdom, becoming all things to all men as Paul put it. Don't let the legalists destroy your love or turn your freedom into another version of the "law".
Hi LittleNipper
Your again are overlooking several facts as shown in the scriptures speaking of Jesus (Yeshuas) place when he returned to heaven and they all show him sitting at the right hand of his Father, Almighty God (YHWH) and not that he was God (YHWH) who is his Father (YHWH), you are confused, see some of the scriptures which show this as follows:
Matthew 22:44 [Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB]
The Lord said to my Lord: Sit on my right hand, until I make thy enemies thy footstool?
Matthew 26:64 - [DRCB]
Jesus saith to him: Thou hast said it. Nevertheless I say to you, hereafter you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God and coming in the clouds of heaven.
Mark 14:62 - [DRCB]
And Jesus said to him: I am. And you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God and coming with the clouds of heaven.
Mark 16:19 - [DRCB]
And the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sitteth on the right hand of God.
Luke 22:69 - [DRCB]
But hereafter the Son of man shall be sitting on the right hand of the power of God.
Acts 2:34 - [DRCB]
For David ascended not into heaven; but he himself said: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou on my right hand,
Acts 5:31 - [DRCB]
Him hath God exalted with his right hand, to be Prince and Saviour. to give repentance to Israel and remission of sins.
Acts 7:55 - [DRCB]
But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looking up steadfastly to heaven, saw the glory of God and Jesus standing on the right hand of God.
Romans 8:34 - [DRCB]
Who is he that shall condemn? Christ Jesus that died: yea that is risen also again, who is at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
Ephesians 1:20 - [DRCB]
Which he wrought in Christ, raising him up from the dead and setting him on his right hand in the heavenly plActses.
Hebrews 12:2 - [DRCB]
Looking on Jesus, the author and finisher of faith, who, having joy set before him, endured the cross, despising the shame, and now sitteth on the right hand of the throne of God.
I have made it simple for you to see the fact that in heaven after his resurrection he is NOT his Father, Almighty God (YHWH), but sits at the Right hand of God (YHWH) clearly showing he is not his Father, Almighty God (YHWH), but second only to his Father (YHWH), all in blue to make it easy for you to see/find.
Your Friend in Christ Iris89
Your again are overlooking several facts as shown in the scriptures speaking of Jesus (Yeshuas) place when he returned to heaven and they all show him sitting at the right hand of his Father, Almighty God (YHWH) and not that he was God (YHWH) who is his Father (YHWH), you are confused, see some of the scriptures which show this as follows:
Matthew 22:44 [Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB]
The Lord said to my Lord: Sit on my right hand, until I make thy enemies thy footstool?
Matthew 26:64 - [DRCB]
Jesus saith to him: Thou hast said it. Nevertheless I say to you, hereafter you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God and coming in the clouds of heaven.
Mark 14:62 - [DRCB]
And Jesus said to him: I am. And you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God and coming with the clouds of heaven.
Mark 16:19 - [DRCB]
And the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sitteth on the right hand of God.
Luke 22:69 - [DRCB]
But hereafter the Son of man shall be sitting on the right hand of the power of God.
Acts 2:34 - [DRCB]
For David ascended not into heaven; but he himself said: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou on my right hand,
Acts 5:31 - [DRCB]
Him hath God exalted with his right hand, to be Prince and Saviour. to give repentance to Israel and remission of sins.
Acts 7:55 - [DRCB]
But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looking up steadfastly to heaven, saw the glory of God and Jesus standing on the right hand of God.
Romans 8:34 - [DRCB]
Who is he that shall condemn? Christ Jesus that died: yea that is risen also again, who is at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
Ephesians 1:20 - [DRCB]
Which he wrought in Christ, raising him up from the dead and setting him on his right hand in the heavenly plActses.
Hebrews 12:2 - [DRCB]
Looking on Jesus, the author and finisher of faith, who, having joy set before him, endured the cross, despising the shame, and now sitteth on the right hand of the throne of God.
I have made it simple for you to see the fact that in heaven after his resurrection he is NOT his Father, Almighty God (YHWH), but sits at the Right hand of God (YHWH) clearly showing he is not his Father, Almighty God (YHWH), but second only to his Father (YHWH), all in blue to make it easy for you to see/find.
Your Friend in Christ Iris89
Hi TheIdealist
You are correct, the Father, Almighty God (YHWH) and Jesus (Yeshua) are NOT one in being, BUT ONE IN PURPOSE. Some however do not understand this simple fact.
Your Friend in Christ Iris89
You are correct, the Father, Almighty God (YHWH) and Jesus (Yeshua) are NOT one in being, BUT ONE IN PURPOSE. Some however do not understand this simple fact.
Your Friend in Christ Iris89
Hi Everyone
One poster said,
And obviously does not understand that we should extend love to all per Matthew 22:36-40, "Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and with thy whole soul and with thy whole mind. 38 This is the greatest and the first commandment. 39 And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets." (Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB). What we are NOT to have anything to do with is PAGAN BELIEFS, PRACTICES, AND DOCTRINES. Also, this poster overlooks the fact that the tax collectors, one of which was the Apostle Matthew, had become Jesus' (Yeshua's) followers. As Jesus (Yeshua) said he came to call sinners. Why? To get them to repent.
For more information, go to:
WHY REPENTANCE IS NECESSARY:
http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=72
Your Friend in Christ Iris89
One poster said,
And obviously does not understand that we should extend love to all per Matthew 22:36-40, "Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and with thy whole soul and with thy whole mind. 38 This is the greatest and the first commandment. 39 And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets." (Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB). What we are NOT to have anything to do with is PAGAN BELIEFS, PRACTICES, AND DOCTRINES. Also, this poster overlooks the fact that the tax collectors, one of which was the Apostle Matthew, had become Jesus' (Yeshua's) followers. As Jesus (Yeshua) said he came to call sinners. Why? To get them to repent.
For more information, go to:
WHY REPENTANCE IS NECESSARY:
http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=72
Your Friend in Christ Iris89
Hi Everyone
Some make nonsense statements of opinion and criticism not based on fact such as,
FIRST, It clearly shows the individuals lack of knowledge of the Bible. The Bible is composed of 66 booksthis includes both old and new testament. Approximately half are named after the principle scribe that God (YHWH) divinely inspired to put the thoughts of God (YHWH) into the words of men. So there is approximately 33 right there which would mean of course that at least ten would have been involved in writing the remainder, thus 40 is a very conservative number as anyone that even did superficial investigation would quickly realize and not be foolish enough to question.
SECOND, My list of principle Bible scribes was a synthesis of looking up each book of the Bible in a Bible dictionary to see who wrote it and where and then adding it to a synthesized list. To be very conservative, I randomly cross checked my findings with other Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias to be sure that credit was given to the same scribe. Yet individuals who have not taken the time to do the research throw out nonsense opinions which is patently ridicules.
THIRD, Here are some examples:
For example, the International Encyclopedia of the Bible under Amos gives the following:
Smiths Bible Dictionary under Hosea gives,
FOURTH, It is just foolishness to criticize someone who has done the research and dug out the facts with nonsense opinions by those unwilling to do the research who should be learning from those who have instead of being critics. Of course, this would be in keeping with the true Christian principle of love expressed by Christ at Matthew 22:36-40, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and with thy whole soul and with thy whole mind. 38 This is the greatest and the first commandment. 39 And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets. (Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB).
Your Friend in Christ Iris89
Some make nonsense statements of opinion and criticism not based on fact such as,
FIRST, It clearly shows the individuals lack of knowledge of the Bible. The Bible is composed of 66 booksthis includes both old and new testament. Approximately half are named after the principle scribe that God (YHWH) divinely inspired to put the thoughts of God (YHWH) into the words of men. So there is approximately 33 right there which would mean of course that at least ten would have been involved in writing the remainder, thus 40 is a very conservative number as anyone that even did superficial investigation would quickly realize and not be foolish enough to question.
SECOND, My list of principle Bible scribes was a synthesis of looking up each book of the Bible in a Bible dictionary to see who wrote it and where and then adding it to a synthesized list. To be very conservative, I randomly cross checked my findings with other Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias to be sure that credit was given to the same scribe. Yet individuals who have not taken the time to do the research throw out nonsense opinions which is patently ridicules.
THIRD, Here are some examples:
For example, the International Encyclopedia of the Bible under Amos gives the following:
Smiths Bible Dictionary under Hosea gives,
FOURTH, It is just foolishness to criticize someone who has done the research and dug out the facts with nonsense opinions by those unwilling to do the research who should be learning from those who have instead of being critics. Of course, this would be in keeping with the true Christian principle of love expressed by Christ at Matthew 22:36-40, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and with thy whole soul and with thy whole mind. 38 This is the greatest and the first commandment. 39 And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets. (Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB).
Your Friend in Christ Iris89
Someone who tells us that Genesis was written by Moses over a decade before the Exodus, someone so full of herself that she is blind to her own ignorance and fow foolish she looks.iris89 said:
LittleNipper
Well-Known Member
Never said THEY are one being. THEY are THREE beings of ONE ESSENCE we call GOD.TheIdealist said:
fromthe heart
Well-Known Member
I fully agree with you!LittleNipper said:
Hmm Iris, How would you know God's thoughts on the matter presented in HIS word when you use many different versions of the Bible, which contain different context, many ommit verses that are critical, and combine the translators' words with the original text so that no reader even really knows for sure what is the REAL word of God?
My point is is that Iris gives verses from several different versions and then says that she is defending the word of God. If they are so different from one another how can they ALL be the word of God? Quoting out of many different versions does not give one credibility when they are making a point through God's word.
Hi Everyone
FIRST, I am NOT defending any one translation as there is no PERFECT translation. All most all translations are defective to because of either translator bias, lack of idiomatic ancient language usage, lack of translator skills, lack of access to all ancient MSs, etc. Some more so than others. In English, I have found the following to be the most accurate - the New English Bible (NEB), The New World Translation (NWT), An American Translation (AAT), American Standard Version (ASV), and an interlingua lexicon of the New Testament by Dr. J.J. Griesbach [a word for word translation of the Koine Greek in the Vatican MS 1209 into English]. I am constantly comparing one translation with others, not only in English, but in my native language and others. I have found in the inspired 66 books that there is better than 95% agreement in substance between translations even if the wording may vary. Recently I have been quoting a lot from the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible as many readers are Catholic; before this I quoted mainly from the American Standard Version (ASV).
SECOND, Usually myself and SOGFPP do not see eye-to-eye on issues, but on Bible translations I believe he is in general agreement with what I said in part FIRST above.
THIRD, With respect keevelish comment,
He fails to consider the fact that in most cases I know exactly where most of the textual problems in various translations exist and I do NOT quote from these section. I have written on one area where translational bias enters in in many translations and my findings are in line with those of both Dr. Jason Beduhn and Dr. Rolf Frueli the two greatest living experst in this area. Dr. Jason Beduhan has written a book on this subject, "Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament published by University Press of America, isbn #0761825568. For my article on one passage that is translated with a bias slant in many Bibles, go to
Commentary on John 1:1, read and learn:
http://forum.uymail.com/scripts/mb/showpost.cgi?Board=B805&Number=2300&page=4&view=collapsed&sb=5&login=iris89&sid=44ofFmG3uiAfmCyH1tLw4&language=us
Your Friend in Christ Iris89
FIRST, I am NOT defending any one translation as there is no PERFECT translation. All most all translations are defective to because of either translator bias, lack of idiomatic ancient language usage, lack of translator skills, lack of access to all ancient MSs, etc. Some more so than others. In English, I have found the following to be the most accurate - the New English Bible (NEB), The New World Translation (NWT), An American Translation (AAT), American Standard Version (ASV), and an interlingua lexicon of the New Testament by Dr. J.J. Griesbach [a word for word translation of the Koine Greek in the Vatican MS 1209 into English]. I am constantly comparing one translation with others, not only in English, but in my native language and others. I have found in the inspired 66 books that there is better than 95% agreement in substance between translations even if the wording may vary. Recently I have been quoting a lot from the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible as many readers are Catholic; before this I quoted mainly from the American Standard Version (ASV).
SECOND, Usually myself and SOGFPP do not see eye-to-eye on issues, but on Bible translations I believe he is in general agreement with what I said in part FIRST above.
THIRD, With respect keevelish comment,
He fails to consider the fact that in most cases I know exactly where most of the textual problems in various translations exist and I do NOT quote from these section. I have written on one area where translational bias enters in in many translations and my findings are in line with those of both Dr. Jason Beduhn and Dr. Rolf Frueli the two greatest living experst in this area. Dr. Jason Beduhan has written a book on this subject, "Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament published by University Press of America, isbn #0761825568. For my article on one passage that is translated with a bias slant in many Bibles, go to
Commentary on John 1:1, read and learn:
http://forum.uymail.com/scripts/mb/showpost.cgi?Board=B805&Number=2300&page=4&view=collapsed&sb=5&login=iris89&sid=44ofFmG3uiAfmCyH1tLw4&language=us
Your Friend in Christ Iris89
LittleNipper
Well-Known Member
I can tell you just what is a very bad translation. The NEW WORLD Translation has to be about the worst. It actually slants the biblical understand by applying extreme interpretations in order to achieve JW doctrinal application.SOGFPP said:
"....was a god..." still makes me wince.:areyoucra