The Trinity

[CG Didymus]

...it can be said the contradictions between Religions is due to different interpretations.

Or, the "mirrors" told people different, contradicting information about God and what is spiritual reality and what was our purpose. Is there a law of karma which determines who and what we will reincarnate into? Don't Zoroastrians have a good God that is battling the evil God? Didn't God tell Moses that his people must keep the Law, which included stoning those who broke the Law and also included animal sacrifices? Then Jesus comes along and claims to be the perfect sacrifice to save those who believe from the penalty of their sins? These are basic teachings from the different religions. They are not interpretations. They are what God or the prophet said, and they are all different and not at all "progressive."

What is progressive is what happens within a religion. They all have changed overtime. Like when you say the light of the religion goes dark and needs renewing, it does get renewed, by reformers from within. Which, often times, creates a new denomination or sect. But usually, it's still part of the original religion.

The only thing I see that can fit what you're saying is the liberal forms of the different religions. They don't care much for doctrines and dogma but want to be "one" with all people. Things like "original sin", "heaven and hell", the "resurrection" and the "trinity" mean very little to liberal Christians.

But we're not talking about them. We're talking about "Bible believing" Christians. Paul's epistles make it plain that without Jesus, they were dead in their sins. They believe paid the price and that salvation is a free gift. They can't do good works to earn it. All they can do, and all they have to do, is accept Jesus as Lord and Savior. Once "saved" then part of being a disciple of Jesus is to do the good works. Paul writes it in a way to get people to understand and believe in Jesus. None of those things are written in obscure, figurative language that no one will know what was meant until Baha'u'llah comes and tells them.

Now the end times things for sure, who knows what's going on there. Your interpretation of prophetic verses might be right on, but one important thing that I don't understand... In the NT, I think it was even attributed to Jesus, it says that there will be wars and rumors of wars, but that is not yet the end. There is still constant wars. So how can the "end", Jesus' return, have already happened?

 

[Shiranui117]

Thanks!. Speaking of all those writings Other than New Testament, which you call them 'Traditions', it seems to me it is your 'belief' that, those are really what apostles taught, rather than something that can be established with clear evidences and documents 'beyond reasonable doubt'. As I said, even if the apostles taught more than what is written in NT, it was still conditional upon understanding them correctly and transmit them accurately by those early generations until it was finally written. Because when something is not written directly by Apostles, then it is only a belief that this is what the apostles taught us and has reached us today. It is not like apostles wrote it down and signed it as a way to document that is what they taught. Now, the thing is that these documents you refer to as 'Traditions', are not even written as quotes that someone heard the apostles said so and so. But they are usually the understandings of the individual writer(s) of those traditions.

The point is, when doing debates, I don't think it is sound to refer to these traditions as an Authoritative source and consider them inspired by God, for the reasons that I noted above.

St. Paul told us to hold fast to the traditions we were taught, whether those traditions be written or oral. This supports their credibility and authority enough for me. If that isn't enough for you, then you can join the tens of thousands of other denominations as you create your own novel interpretation of the Bible that would have been completely alien to the Apostles.

But the New Testament itself is subject to interpretations. Again there is no evidence in New Testament that the apostles said everything we wrote in New Testament are to be taken literally at face value. On the contrary, in New Testament itself, there are so many verses that shows the Scriptures have certain hidden meanings written in parables and figurative language.

Is this a fair position above?

Yes, but this doesn't mean that every single word in the NT is figurative as you claim. There's also no verse in the NT that claims such.

For example, if Christ said in NT that the Orthodox Church shall be filled with infallible people forever and ever more', then I take that as an evidence and proof, otherwise it is only a claim. Anybody can claim such things, and in fact, there has been financial scandals in Orthodox Church.

Financial scandals in the Church have no bearing on whether our Faith is true or not. There are always wolves that arise among the sheep, but they're easy to spot and stop.

All you have shown is, writings of Paul referring to some people in those days as 'body of Christ'. Now, even if we take this verse to mean they were infallible (which to be fair, it doesn't necessarily mean that), then still, I haven't seen any scriptural proof that, such infallibility will continue forever.

Did you read the first verse I posted from St. Paul's Epistle to Timothy, which said that the Church is the pillar and ground of the Truth? That's pretty solid proof that the Church is infallible. And did you read Matthew 16:18, where the Lord said that the gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church? Or John 14, where the Lord promised that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church forever? I posted all of those, yet you seemed to miss them all.

 

[CG Didymus]

...when something is not written directly by Apostles, then it is only a belief that this is what the apostles taught us and has reached us today. It is not like apostles wrote it down and signed it as a way to document that is what they taught.
...But the New Testament itself is subject to interpretations. Again there is no evidence in New Testament that the apostles said everything we wrote in New Testament are to be taken literally at face value. On the contrary, in New Testament itself, there are so many verses that shows the Scriptures have certain hidden meanings written in parables and figurative language.

Luke chapter 1 NIV:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

That's the problem. It is all maybe what Jesus said and did. And maybe what the apostles and other eyewitnesses saw and heard, but did it really happen? Did Jesus walk on water? Did he heal the sick? Did a voice from heaven say that this is my beloved Son and for us to listen to him? Many Jews didn't because he did contradict Jewish teachings. One of the main ones was that he said things that made it sound like he was saying he was, essentially, God in the flesh. Luke says that the things he's writing is so you can know for a "certainty". Know what? Most Christians believe that includes knowing he is God and that he rose from the dead. Like Paul said, if he hasn't risen from the dead then his followers are still in their sins.

Do you as a Baha'i believe that Christ died for your sins? Do you believe he is the Savior of the world? No, not really. And I can understand that. The NT is written by people, can we trust what they said? Maybe yes, maybe no. Are the interpretations of what they said correct? Maybe, but for sure, some Christian interpretations of what the NT says have changed. But, in many cases, it has changed by going back to the basics, Jesus Christ and him crucified. By the Baha'i Faith teaching that the resurrection was only on a "spiritual" level, that he really didn't rise from the dead in a physical way. That goes against the number one, main point of all the gospels, that he died to save sinners and Paul, in his epistles, says that he was the "chief" of sinners. It says that we have a sin nature and only through Jesus can we get cleansed and right with God.

Does any of it make sense? Does it sound completely foolish? Yes, I'd agree. Is Jesus God? If the NT is true, then probably yes. Can we know if it's true? Not easily. It takes faith. More faith than most of us have.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

St. Paul told us to hold fast to the traditions we were taught, whether those traditions be written or oral. This supports their credibility and authority enough for me. If that isn't enough for you, then you can join the tens of thousands of other denominations as you create your own novel interpretation of the Bible that would have been completely alien to the Apostles.

Yes, but this doesn't mean that every single word in the NT is figurative as you claim. There's also no verse in the NT that claims such.

Financial scandals in the Church have no bearing on whether our Faith is true or not. There are always wolves that arise among the sheep, but they're easy to spot and stop.

Did you read the first verse I posted from St. Paul's Epistle to Timothy, which said that the Church is the pillar and ground of the Truth? That's pretty solid proof that the Church is infallible. And did you read Matthew 16:18, where the Lord said that the gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church? Or John 14, where the Lord promised that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church forever? I posted all of those, yet you seemed to miss them all.

Yes, I have read those. You are assuming that the term 'Church' in the Words of Christ is meant 'Christian denomination' or a group of Christians and particularly the Orthodox. Within the context of the Words of Christ, the term 'Church' is not that which today commonly known as Church or denomination. Church is Faith of God, that is what Christ built. As regards to your coment that not all verses are Figurative, I certainly agree. But my point still holds, the bible does not always say 'here is a Figurative verse'. You come from a prejudging position, assuming Orthodox denomination is the Church Christ meant. My suggestion is start from a neuteral position and with an unbiased and Fair judgement, with a logical reasoning demonstrate why would the Orthodox view be Truth. I don't think you can.
Also Paul never asks to keep traditions in the sense you interpret. There are many false traditions, should we keep it? No. We need to investigate Truth, and whatever by reasoning is true we keep it. 'Let us reason together', meaning religion must be logical. That alone refutes the Trinity Creed which even Christians admit, is not logical.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Luke chapter 1 NIV: That's the problem. It is all maybe what Jesus said and did. And maybe what the apostles and other eyewitnesses saw and heard, but did it really happen? Did Jesus walk on water? Did he heal the sick? Did a voice from heaven say that this is my beloved Son and for us to listen to him? Many Jews didn't because he did contradict Jewish teachings. One of the main ones was that he said things that made it sound like he was saying he was, essentially, God in the flesh. Luke says that the things he's writing is so you can know for a "certainty". Know what? Most Christians believe that includes knowing he is God and that he rose from the dead. Like Paul said, if he hasn't risen from the dead then his followers are still in their sins.

Do you as a Baha'i believe that Christ died for your sins? Do you believe he is the Savior of the world? No, not really. And I can understand that. The NT is written by people, can we trust what they said? Maybe yes, maybe no. Are the interpretations of what they said correct? Maybe, but for sure, some Christian interpretations of what the NT says have changed. But, in many cases, it has changed by going back to the basics, Jesus Christ and him crucified. By the Baha'i Faith teaching that the resurrection was only on a "spiritual" level, that he really didn't rise from the dead in a physical way. That goes against the number one, main point of all the gospels, that he died to save sinners and Paul, in his epistles, says that he was the "chief" of sinners. It says that we have a sin nature and only through Jesus can we get cleansed and right with God.

Does any of it make sense? Does it sound completely foolish? Yes, I'd agree. Is Jesus God? If the NT is true, then probably yes. Can we know if it's true? Not easily. It takes faith. More faith than most of us have.

Bahais accept Bible as inspired word of God. One of the main teachings of Bible is 'the interpretations belong to God'. Baha'u'llah who is a Manifestation of God in this Age, fulfilling the Prophecies of retun of Christ has unsealed the Bible and taught us the correct interpretations of it.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I read that, very nice writing, but do you believe the bible as Christians know today is Gods word?

In Love

I believe Bible as Bible says it is inspired by God. But Baha'I Faith has its own Scriptures and Laws, which is about 200 volumes. A small portion of it explains Bible and other previous Scriptures. For a Baha'I Christian Bible is like Old old testament, that was revealed for previous Ages.

 

[Shiranui117]

Yes, I have read those. You are assuming that the term 'Church' in the Words of Christ is meant 'Christian denomination' or a group of Christians and particularly the Orthodox. Within the context of the Words of Christ, the term 'Church' is not that which today commonly known as Church or denomination. Church is Faith of God, that is what Christ built.

Well, not really. The word "Church" evolved out of the Greek word "Ekklesia," which means "gathering"--the Church is a gathering of individuals. Does this one Church have one Faith? Yes--Ephesians 4:4-5. If you don't have this Faith, can you rightly be considered part of the Church? No--1 John 2:19. The Church is established and kept in unity by the same Faith and the same confession--Matthew 16:18. But the Church is not the Faith; the Church is a vehicle and safeguard for the Faith, the gathering of all those who hold to the Faith.

As regards to your coment that not all verses are Figurative, I certainly agree. But my point still holds, the bible does not always say 'here is a Figurative verse'. You come from a prejudging position, assuming Orthodox denomination is the Church Christ meant.

I came to this position after years of historical research, tracing the origins of Christianity and seeing how things progressed, seeing what Christians believed from one century to the next. My conclusion about all this historical data is that the Orthodox Church has preserved the mindset and belief of the Christians from the first century; indeed, the words of Christians from the first and second centuries are as important and relevant to us Orthodox as anything else. This is because we still hold to the same positions as Christians back in the first and second centuries; our Faith and teaching has not changed.

My suggestion is start from a neuteral position and with an unbiased and Fair judgement, with a logical reasoning demonstrate why would the Orthodox view be Truth. I don't think you can.

You're trying to use logic and reason alone to demonstrate the truth of something that is, by nature, beyond logical comprehension. We cannot use logic alone to see whether the Orthodox Church is correct; we must also look at the historical data and compare historical documents, and see whether the story is consistent and unchanging from age to age, from the Bible to the writings of later Christians, from the Apostles to the Fathers. History is not something that can be merely reasoned through. If you want to draw conclusions about history, then you must use history to make those conclusions.

Also Paul never asks to keep traditions in the sense you interpret. There are many false traditions, should we keep it?

"Tradition" there literally means "teaching." We are to hold to the teachings of the Apostles, whether those teachings were written down in the Bible or handed down through generations by word of mouth.

No. We need to investigate Truth, and whatever by reasoning is true we keep it.

You value reason above revelation. Whatever God reveals to us is true, regardless of whether or not it makes logical sense to us.

[/quote]'Let us reason together', meaning religion must be logical.[/quote]You're completely ignoring the context of that passage in Isaiah 1. God is giving the Israelites an offer, and trying to make a deal with them--if they repent, He will cleanse them of their sins.

That alone refutes the Trinity Creed which even Christians admit, is not logical.

The Trinity is beyond logic, yes--much like God. God cannot be grasped by reason or logic, regardless of whether He is Trinity.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Well, not really. The word "Church" evolved out of the Greek word "Ekklesia," which means "gathering"--the Church is a gathering of individuals. Does this one Church have one Faith? Yes--Ephesians 4:4-5. If you don't have this Faith, can you rightly be considered part of the Church? No--1 John 2:19. The Church is established and kept in unity by the same Faith and the same confession--Matthew 16:18. But the Church is not the Faith; the Church is a vehicle and safeguard for the Faith, the gathering of all those who hold to the Faith.

Within the context Chris is talking about Religion of God. The verse is lot literal. He did not literally build a church on a Rock (peter). That which the gates of Hades does not overcome, is the Religion of God. Not the people themselves. There has been many Christians within Orthodox Church, or Catholics, who did scandals.

I came to this position after years of historical research, tracing the origins of Christianity and seeing how things progressed, seeing what Christians believed from one century to the next. My conclusion about all this historical data is that the Orthodox Church has preserved the mindset and belief of the Christians from the first century; indeed, the words of Christians from the first and second centuries are as important and relevant to us Orthodox as anything else. This is because we still hold to the same positions as Christians back in the first and second centuries; our Faith and teaching has not changed.

You have not demonstrated your conclusions. You just say it. Anybody can claim I did research. It is the matter of proving it logically, which you haven't done so.

You're trying to use logic and reason alone to demonstrate the truth of something that is, by nature, beyond logical comprehension. We cannot use logic alone to see whether the Orthodox Church is correct; we must also look at the historical data and compare historical documents, and see whether the story is consistent and unchanging from age to age, from the Bible to the writings of later Christians, from the Apostles to the Fathers. History is not something that can be merely reasoned through. If you want to draw conclusions about history, then you must use history to make those conclusions.

Faith and Logic/Reasoning must go hand in hand. A Faith without reasoning is superstitious. It is mere imitation. It is wishful thinking.

"Tradition" there literally means "teaching." We are to hold to the teachings of the Apostles, whether those teachings were written down in the Bible or handed down through generations by word of mouth.

Written in Bible. Yes. But the point is 'understanding them, and interpreting them' correctly, so it is logically reconcilable.

You value reason above revelation. Whatever God reveals to us is true, regardless of whether or not it makes logical sense to us.

'Let us reason together', meaning religion must be logical....You're completely ignoring the context of that passage in Isaiah 1. God is giving the Israelites an offer, and trying to make a deal with them--if they repent, He will cleanse them of their sins.

It is always True, regardless of context, 'reasoning' is the way of God. Blind Faith is false and superstitious.

The Trinity is beyond logic, yes--much like God. God cannot be grasped by reason or logic, regardless of whether He is Trinity.

God revealed the scriptures according to the capacity of our understanding so, it can logically be reconcilable.

 

[Shiranui117]

Within the context Chris is talking about Religion of God. The verse is lot literal.

Define "literal." He literally did found the Church upon Peter's confession of faith, but you're right, the confession of faith is not a physical entity upon which a building was built. Rather, Peter's confession of faith became the foundational aspect uniting the gathering of Christians together.

He did not literally build a church on a Rock (peter). That which the gates of Hades does not overcome, is the Religion of God. Not the people themselves. There has been many Christians within Orthodox Church, or Catholics, who did scandals.

Yes, and that's what I was saying earlier. The gates of Hades will never prevail against the Faith nor the Church which holds to that faith, though individual members may fall away.

You have not demonstrated your conclusions. You just say it. Anybody can claim I did research. It is the matter of proving it logically, which you haven't done so.

How are you defining "logically" in this case? Through reasoning alone, or presenting historical data and showing the conclusions to be drawn from it?

Written in Bible. Yes. But the point is 'understanding them, and interpreting them' correctly, so it is logically reconcilable.

The point is not to make everything conform to reason, but to make it conform to how it was revealed.

Faith and Logic/Reasoning must go hand in hand. A Faith without reasoning is superstitious. It is mere imitation. It is wishful thinking.

It is always True, regardless of context, 'reasoning' is the way of God. Blind Faith is false and superstitious.

We shouldn't check in our brains at the door, no. But we need to keep in mind that we're dealing with things that we cannot fully comprehend, and we shouldn't expect everything to always make perfect sense. The true Religion of God is ultimately a mystery; we can have a limited grasp of that mystery, and even have logical explanations for what little of it we can grasp. But the reality of the mystery goes further than what our logical explanations can describe.

God revealed the scriptures according to the capacity of our understanding so, it can logically be reconcilable.

Yes, and even though we Christians acknowledge that the Trinity is ultimately beyond our comprehension, we nonetheless have logical arguments rooted in Greek philosophical language to explain it as best as human minds are able.

 

[CG Didymus]

Bahais accept Bible as inspired word of God. One of the main teachings of Bible is 'the interpretations belong to God'. Baha'u'llah who is a Manifestation of God in this Age, fulfilling the Prophecies of retun of Christ has unsealed the Bible and taught us the correct interpretations of it.

Mohammad defined/interpreted the NT also. Is his assessment correct?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Mohammad defined/interpreted the NT also. Is his assessment correct?

Muhammad did not unseal the Mysteries of Bible. That was left for Baha'u'llah to do.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Define "literal." He literally did found the Church upon Peter's confession of faith, but you're right, the confession of faith is not a physical entity upon which a building was built. Rather, Peter's confession of faith became the foundational aspect uniting the gathering of Christians together.

Yes, and that's what I was saying earlier. The gates of Hades will never prevail against the Faith nor the Church which holds to that faith, though individual members may fall away.

Fair enough.

How are you defining "logically" in this case? Through reasoning alone, or presenting historical data and showing the conclusions to be drawn from it?

The point is not to make everything conform to reason, but to make it conform to how it was revealed.

We shouldn't check in our brains at the door, no. But we need to keep in mind that we're dealing with things that we cannot fully comprehend, and we shouldn't expect everything to always make perfect sense. The true Religion of God is ultimately a mystery; we can have a limited grasp of that mystery, and even have logical explanations for what little of it we can grasp. But the reality of the mystery goes further than what our logical explanations can describe.

Yes, and even though we Christians acknowledge that the Trinity is ultimately beyond our comprehension, we nonetheless have logical arguments rooted in Greek philosophical language to explain it as best as human minds are able.

Well, I don't know how one can show logically, either through reasoning or historical data, any of the current Christian Faith is that original Faith that Christ meant. The reason is, One needs to show that a particular denomination represents truly the 'Correct interpretations, true understanding and properly application of Biblical teachings'. But correct interpretations is debated. Christ or the apostles did not write a detail verse by verse interpretations of NT, therefore within Christian Traditions there is no official and authoritative interpretations of Bible. The bishops, saints, and scholars developed these interpretations, but it is not possible to prove who was inspired by holy spirit or who wasn't. Who was a true teacher, and who was a false teacher. Even within Orthodox church there could have been true and false teachers. How can we tell?

 

[kjw47]

If Jesus is Not God, then why even have New Testament Writers quote OT passages of Jehovah and apply them to Jesus? Why even Call Jesus Mighty God, or First and Last, our Rock, and all the hundreds of things only said of God? Why even mention it?

1 Cor 10:1-4 tells us not to be ignorant. If i told a Jew this passage, he would know exactly what is being said. He wouldn't believe it, but he would know...



What does that mean that you Know God well?

In Love

Isaiah 9-- teaches Jesus' name will be called mighty God--it did not say Jesus was mighty God.
Jesus was first and last in many things--1) f-l being directly created by God-2) F-l being sent from heaven to live as mortal and die a sinless life--3) First and last to be given control of Gods kingdom for 1000 years.

Jesus was given all and taught all things--he couldn't do a thing of his own inititive
acts 2:22 Gods power goes through Jesus---this is why Jesus gives all credit and honor to his God and Father--the Father is actually doing it all--through Jesus.

Knowing the only true God( Father) and knowing Jesus is a requirement to get eternal life-John 17:1-6--verse 6 = YHWH(Jehovah)

 

[Shiranui117]

Well, I don't know how one can show logically, either through reasoning or historical data, any of the current Christian Faith is that original Faith that Christ meant.

It is possible if we look at the writings of the early Church--the earliest extra-Biblical writing we have is the Didache, which was written around 50 AD--this is before most of the New Testament was even written. This is mostly a manual for Christian practice, excluding the last chapter, but it does show us how the early Church lived. Whatever denominations don't have consonant teachings and practices are deviants of the Church founded by Christ,and therefore not the Church founded by Christ. We know that the Apostolic Tradition has continued unchanged and unaltered because of Christ's promises and because of what we know about the nature of the Church, so it is possible to look at early Christian history and subsequent history and find what Church hasn't changed its teachings and has kept to the Tradition of the Apostles.

The reason is, One needs to show that a particular denomination represents truly the 'Correct interpretations, true understanding and properly application of Biblical teachings'.

And this is possible if one realizes that we have the writings of those who were personally taught by the Apostles; we can see what they were taught, and use the oral teachings of the Apostles to their students as a tool to interpret the teachings of the Apostles as contained in the Bible.

But correct interpretations is debated. Christ or the apostles did not write a detail verse by verse interpretations of NT, therefore within Christian Traditions there is no official and authoritative interpretations of Bible.

And even in Orthodoxy, there are very few official interpretations--what I mean is, the meaning of the Bible is manifold, and it is possible to have multiple, complimentary and correct interpretations of a single verse or passage, and we do see this. There are very few places where the Church has said "This is the meaning of this verse, and this is the only meaning that it can possibly have." I might think of an interpretation not found in the Fathers, but it can still be correct if it is in line with the Apostolic Tradition and does not contradict the teaching of the Church. Over the centuries as people have thought up more interpretations, the Church has drawn a line in the sand against certain interpretations not in line with the Tradition and said, "These interpretations are incorrect; the passages don't mean that, and we know this based on what the Apostles taught and what their students taught and what their students taught--in other words, based on what is contained in the Tradition."

There definitely is an official measuring stick--that measuring stick is the Apostolic Tradition. If one's interpretation contradicts that Teaching of the Apostles, then it is a false interpretation.

The bishops, saints, and scholars developed these interpretations, but it is not possible to prove who was inspired by holy spirit or who wasn't. Who was a true teacher, and who was a false teacher. Even within Orthodox church there could have been true and false teachers. How can we tell?

We know there have been false teachers. We can tell who is right and who isn't by looking at the consensus of the Fathers in centuries past, and seeing whether what a teacher says lines up with the Tradition of the Apostles.

 

[Jensen]

All true, and all granted. But the fact is that no one who would attempt to call themselves Christian has any right to call the Cross of Christ "pagan" or a "table of demons". To do such a thing would be to insult what Christ did for us. I'm fine if unbelievers do that, but to see those who claim to believe insulting the means that Christ chose to redeem us, calling it pagan and demonic, now that is sad.

I don't remember anywhere in the bible where it says that Jesus chose the cross as a means of his dying. It is what the Romans chose. Regardless of what was used as the means for putting him to death, it was that he did die for our sins that was and is important and not the weapon.

 

[Jensen]

Yet Jesus is all of these. So we can either be like the Jews and deny Jesus as claiming equality with God, we can believe he is God, or we can make excuses for all of these passages...

..

If I remember correctly it was the Jews that claimed that Jesus was claiming to be equal to God, and Jesus that denied it.

 

[Shiranui117]

I don't remember anywhere in the bible where it says that Jesus chose the cross as a means of his dying. It is what the Romans chose. Regardless of what was used as the means for putting him to death, it was that he did die for our sins that was and is important and not the weapon.

He had prophesied His own crucifixion from practically the very start of His ministry. Yes, Jesus died for us, and that's the most important thing. But He did die on a cross, and as the Scriptures say, His dying on the Cross reconciled the entire world to God. That is why I cannot tolerate those who claim to be Christian calling the Cross of Christ a "table of demons" or "pagan".

 

[Jensen]

When you say, "Almighty God the Father" notice that this wont be found in the New Testament. Im not even sure its in the OT either... What Im trying to say is this is defined inside your head. What the Jews saw as "Almighty God" or "YHWH" of the OT we Christians see as "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" in the New Testament. For example, if a Jew read Psalms 102:25-27 they would without any question say this is Almighty God (YHWH). So why does the Father say that this is also of Jesus at Hebrews 1:10-12? Why even bring it up if Jesus isnt some how more than what you think? Why even quote passage of God Almighty (YHWH) of the OT and apply any passage directly to Jesus? Why.... If Jesus is not God then this would not be needed.

Why even write 1 Cor 10:1-4 and say that the One every Jew knew as God Almighty(YHWH) in the OT was also Jesus? Why....

I used Almighty God the Father to establish for you that I indeed meant only the Father ans not a trinity. It may have been better to have just said Yahweh.

I think that it was needed....as Jesus is the representation of God Yahweh, and not that he is Yahweh.

Dont forget that Jesus had to empty "Himself" before he could be humbled as you see above. That the Father and writers of the NT wanted us to see that this one, Jesus, who we see as humbled and a Servant is also YHWH of the Old Testament. That our God truely Saved us in the person Jesus Christ.

1Cor 13:12 says we cannot fully know everything...
1Co 2:7 says the Mystery of God was Hidden until Jesus

Yes, through the person of Jesus, the image, the presentation of God.

i understand your belief and hope and pray that we will see each other in the New Heavens and Earth. (as with Slo and many others) I believe those that worship Satan and say there is no God are in big Trouble and need saved more than anything... However, think and pray about it. If Jesus did Return and we both where in front of Jesus, What would you be doing? I would be exactly like Thomas, on my knees saying "MY Lord and My God"...

If thats what you mean by trying to get others to believe, well, we are on a page called "Trinity" dont forget. Many come here and bash what I hold as truth... (fine Lines we all have) I have never said you are anything but a good person that Loves Jesus. Im just trying to show you (on a Trinity Page) why i see what I see and with great passion...

i Understand. This isnt a battle of who wins or looses. Its a place to express our beliefs and why we believe them. I hope you have seen growth in my postings and more love... I feel as if God puts me in front of alot of JW and similar. Just yesterday I had a 2 hour talk with a LDS at work. They are lovely people, but we disagree on allot too. Many JW and LDS think the same thing, The Trinity is from the Devil...? Now I find that hard to believe. That the Devil would want people Worshiping and looking to the Image of God as God...

There use to be a time that we didnt believe anything... But to express the Trinity in a more acceptable way, I would say I believe in a God who is My Father, My Savior, and fellowships with me by the Holy Spirit.

Gods peace be with you too

 

[Jensen]

Who is Lord and Who is God? Dot forget that you and many with the same belief keep posting 1 Cor 8:6 that there is only One Lord... (It says One God the Father and One Lord Jesus)

Originally Posted by Jensen


I think I meant Rev 4:11 CJB

11 “You are worthy, Adonai Eloheinu,
to have glory, honor and power,
because you created all things —
yes, because of your will they were created
and came into being!”

I offered this as it shows that the one being spoken here is Adonai Eloheinu, and Adonai is only made in reference of God Yahweh in the bible, and never about Jesus. Research this for yourself.

 

[Jensen]

He is omnipotent, yes. But His creations are not. Creatures cannot perfectly reflect God, because God is so far above creatures.

It seems you limit God. God could have anyone reflect him perfectly if he desired to as he is able to do all things except die and lie. So if he wished a man to reflect him, as he did with Jesus, then he could do so, and he did so.