Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!

[Soapy]

Hi @Soapy

Regarding your response in post #1450


1) There are no extra points awarded for uncivility in a debate

I don’t think your responses to individuals on the form will be awarded extra points for mean-heartedness or uncivility.
You could simply point out that someone is confused or did not seem to understand your point.



2) I believe you are correct that the spirit of man is connected to the consciousness of the body

Having said that, I must admit that your claim that my comments were irrelevant to your point is correct. I misread your claim.

While my point that the spirit of God is not the same as our minds, (this was a claim made by another poster and NOT you) is correct, it was not relevant to your claim that the spirit in man is connected to their consciousness (i.e. their "mind").

I apologize to have misread and misunderstood your point.

Ironically, I actually agree with your claim that the spirit placed within each individual is inseparably connected with our consciousness (our “mind” as you described it) and our personality and our will.

For example, those individuals who are mean-hearted or uncivil in their minds and hearts and actions, simply reflect a spirit that is mean-hearted and uncivil.

If the early Christians were correct when they proclaimed that the goal of the creative work of God was to ultimately have a rational, living creature who was prepared to be a citizen of heaven and live in harmony and joy and civility with others, then individuals whose spirits continue to be mean and uncivil cannot be allowed into heaven with those who have learned Christian principles of kindness and patience and civility else the mean and uncivil spirits would ruin the joy and harmony which was to characterize heaven.


Clear
φυφυφυσιειω

Insults wrapped in warm words are insults nonetheless.

‘I don’t accept praise from man!’, Jesus said.

I see that you set yourself up as judge and jury as to who does if does not get to go to heaven…. Listen, Jesus-Clear, … ‘judge not lest ye be judged likewise!’

Jesus called certain one of the Jews ‘Snakes’ and ‘Devils’… He aggressively overthrew the tables of the moneylenders and whipped them out if the temple in Jerusalem…. Yes, righteous anger is justified anger!

But back to the debate….

There are only two parts to man: The body and the spirit. There isn’t a separate ‘mind’ or ‘consciousness’.

Trinitarians will try to crowbar a third element just so they can say that man is three just as God is three but if the elements are examined they do not correspond to anything like what Trinitarians desperately try to claim.

How, for instance, does the Father is represented by the mind, but the Son is represented by the body … but the two are equal? For certainly, the mind is vastly greater than the body… the body is completely restrained by the physics of the created world, no less!! The spirit, the mind, is completely unrestricted. But since, in man, the spirit is controlling and caring for the body it is in, the spirit limits its performance to that of the limitation of the body.

Man can destroy the body of a man… but cannot destroy the spirit a man. Two… only two.

Only God can destroy the Spirit because God is the creator (Father) of the invisible immortal spirit.

Oh, by the way, NO ONE GOES TO HEAVEN except the ELECT, those ALREADY CHISEN BY GOD FROM BEFORE the FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD.

 

[Soapy]

Dogknox20 said : “The Watch Tower ADDED the letter "A" to the verse John 1 so it will say Jesus is "A" god!”

Whether Dogknox20 or anyone else says it… There is no verse in any Bible anywhere that says that Jesus is God or A God.

The whole argument (oops, debate!) is moot. JWs will eternally say ‘Jesus WAS a God’ and Trinitarians will eternally say ‘Jesus WAS God’.

The truth? Neither is true…. Eternal pointless debate ensues!

The Bible says ‘The WORD [OF GOD] was GOD’.

It must be understood - can ONLY be understood - by the definition of ‘GOD’, which is both a TITLE of a worshipped Deity, a greater Being or entity by context in any group of likes, and, a superlative adjective:

• ‘The judge in his courtroom WAS GOD of that courtroom’

This example states that the RULING ENTITY (the God: Title) was ALL POWERFUL: was GOD (superlative adjective).

• “Let there be light’

That was a most glorious, a monumental, an all powerful WORD (statement / command) spoken by the RULING ENTITY of Heaven, the God of heaven!

• The all powerful word of God was spoken by the all powerful ruling deity

All attempts at trying to get posters to define the meaning of ‘God’ have failed because the posters realise that by defining the word ‘God’, they DESTROY ALL CLAIMS OF A TRINITY.

 

[JerryMyers]

John 10:17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”
Matthew 16:21 From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.
Matt 17:22-23 As they were gathering in Galilee, Jesus said to them, “The Son of Man is about to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him, and he will be raised on the third day.” And they were greatly distressed.
Matt 20:17-19And as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside, and on the way he said to them, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem. And the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death and deliver him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified, and he will be raised on the third day.”

You overlook the most important fact – Jesus said/implied he was NOT killed nor was he dead but was very much alive (Luke 24:39) AFTER the supposed crucifixion! All the verses you quoted above are BEFORE the supposed crucifixion!

Likewise, BEFORE the last US Presidential Election, Trump ‘predicted’ he will win the President seat for his second term, BUT it’s AFTER the Presidential Election, that the truth became known!!

Even before his supposed crucifixion, Jesus was already in a toxic relationship with the Jews, and based on that situation, he expected to be arrested, mistrial, and condemn to death by crucifixion – anyone in his position will have the same expectations. It’s always the ‘AFTER’, NOT the ‘BEFORE’ that the truth be known!!

They are about Jesus being our saviour.
Luke 19:10
For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.”
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
Isa 49:6 “It is too small a thing for you to be my servant
to restore the tribes of Jacob
and bring back those of Israel I have kept.
I will also make you a light for the Gentiles,
that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.”

Let me repeat what I have said - All prophets are saviors in their respective times but they cannot save anyone they wish but ONLY those who listen and believe in their preaching. God is the ONLY True Savior as ONLY He can save anyone He wishes.

If Jesus is the only true savior who can save anyone he wishes, irrespective of whether they listen to him or not, then, why do you think he will say, “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes Him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life” – John 5:24…. and who was Jesus referring to when he said, “and believes Him who sent me” ?? Was he referring to himself who sent himself???

This is what I said, below. It is easily misread and I had to read it a few times to realise what it said. I think it is the bracketed bit that messes up the flow. It actually says "I don't see anyone taking glory from anyone else. I don't see that because everything was created through the Son, that it is saying God could not do it by Himself"
""I don't see anyone taking glory from anyone else.
I don't see that because everything was created through the Son (Heb 1:2--and notice it does say SON in that verse) that it is saying God could not do it by Himself.""

Putting aside the fact that you cannot or just refuse to understand John 1:3, let me ask you plainly – do you believe God can ONLY create everything through Jesus and without Jesus, God will NOT be able to create anything??

Just so we remember what it is we are talking about here I have shown below what I was commenting on.
“”So, really, it’s NOT me but rather it’s Christians like you who took ‘the Bible, and start cutting bits out till you have what you want’ !!””
So why do you deny doing that and accuse me of doing it when you have told me you reject Paul and any other parts of the scriptures that you think contradict what Jesus said or what are the words of God.
I’m the one who says the whole Bible should be accepted and your the one who denies even that Jesus was killed on the cross and raised from the dead. I don’t know why you do that when Jesus said that He would be killed and raised to life again on the third day.

Just so we remember what it is we are talking about here, here’s the chronicle of our exchanges on this matter –

1. In post #1425 you wrote, ‘You sound like the Sadducees who only accepted the Pentateuch. You take God's word, the Bible, and start cutting bits out till you have what you want’.

2. In post #1430, I responded with, ‘So, really, it's NOT me but rather it’s Christians like you who took ‘the Bible, and start cutting bits out till you have what you want’ !!

3. In post #1445, you responded with, ‘Did I? I don't remember doing that. But I do remember you telling me that you do that.’ - Here, you are saying you remembered that I told you that I do that, that is, I told you I took the Bible and start cutting bits out till I have what I want, which is an outright lie!

I never denied that I said, ‘it's NOT me but rather it’s Christians like you who took ‘the Bible, and start cutting bits out till you have what you want’, but what I deny is the lie you made up that I told you I took the Bible and start cutting bits out till I have what I want !!

 

[Clear]

Hi @Soapy


Clear said : “1) There are no extra points awarded for uncivility in a debate
I don’t think your responses to individuals on the forum will be awarded extra points for mean-heartedness or uncivility.
You could simply point out that someone is confused or did not seem to understand your point….

Ironically, I actually agree with your claim that the spirit placed within each individual is inseparably connected with our consciousness (our “mind” as you described it) and our personality and our will.
For example, those individuals who are mean-hearted or uncivil in their minds and hearts and actions, simply reflect a spirit that is mean-hearted and uncivil.

If the early Christians were correct when they proclaimed that the goal of the creative work of God was to ultimately have a rational, living creature who was prepared to be a citizen of heaven and live in harmony and joy and civility with others, then individuals whose spirits continue to be mean and uncivil cannot be allowed into heaven with those who have learned Christian principles of kindness and patience and civility else the mean and uncivil spirits would ruin the joy and harmony which was to characterize heaven.”

Soapy replied : “I see that you set yourself up as judge and jury as to who does if does not get to go to heaven…. “

I am merely pointing out the logic that IF heaven is to be a place inhabited by individuals who are kind and loving and unified in a life of joy and harmony, THEN it cannot be inhabited by individuals who are mean and spiteful and oppressive and uncivil to each other.


Regarding the principle of a Christian seeking to become a kind and civil person versus a mean and uncivil person.

Soapy said : “Jesus called certain one of the Jews ‘Snakes’ and ‘Devils’… He aggressively overthrew the tables of the moneylenders and whipped them out if the temple in Jerusalem…. Yes, righteous anger is justified anger!”

The disconnect here is that
1) you are not Jesus
2) Your anger is not "righteous anger"
3) There is no reason for anger and meanness and uncivility to characterize interactions with one another simply because we are debating Christian religion.

Your response seems as though you are simply trying to justify the type of uncivility in your interactions.
Your response does not justify a Christianity characterized by meanness or uncivility.

The fact that others notice our individual imperfections or the errors in our data is not a bad thing or something that should anger us, but instead it is an opportunity for introspection and improvement, an opportunity to re-examine our data and to re-examine who we want to be as people.

Clear
φυφυσιδρνεω

 

[Brian2]

The sign given would be the sign of Noah, 3 days and 3 nights in "the heart of the earth" (Matthew 12:40). Your on the "third day", comes from Hosea 6:2, which happens after Israel and Judah "acknowledge their guilt" (Hosea 5:15), which corresponds to Hosea 3:5. And it comes "after two days"/2 thousand years (Hosea 6:2). That hasn't happened as of this moment. Yeshua spoke in parables so that the wicked/lawless, would not understand. (Matthew 13:13 & Isaiah 6:9).

I

Do you also say that Jesus did not die and rise again on the third day? The story that He did that surely should show us what Jesus was really talking about when He said that He would be killed and rise again on the third day.
How about Paul was he speaking in parables when he said that Jesus rose on the third day as the scriptures tell us. (1Cor 15:4) or do you reject Paul.
In this day and age when sceptics have trashed the Bible and said that the New Testament was written by people who did not know what they were talking about and that Paul was opposed to the true gospel, and that other forms of "Christianity"/gnosticism existed and were as valid as the one that has been passed down to us, there seems to be a whole new breed of "Christians" who make up their own version of Christianity at odds with the New Testament and the witness of what the early Christians believed in the writings of the early church fathers.

 

[2ndpillar]

Do you also say that Jesus did not die and rise again on the third day? The story that He did that surely should show us what Jesus was really talking about when He said that He would be killed and rise again on the third day.
How about Paul was he speaking in parables when he said that Jesus rose on the third day as the scriptures tell us. (1Cor 15:4) or do you reject Paul.
In this day and age when sceptics have trashed the Bible and said that the New Testament was written by people who did not know what they were talking about and that Paul was opposed to the true gospel, and that other forms of "Christianity"/gnosticism existed and were as valid as the one that has been passed down to us, there seems to be a whole new breed of "Christians" who make up their own version of Christianity at odds with the New Testament and the witness of what the early Christians believed in the writings of the early church fathers.

The early church of Jerusalem kept the Law, and followed James, the brother of Yeshua. Paul, as the man of lawlessness, who taught the Law was nailed to the cross, is nothing but a false prophet who died, while saying "we shall not all sleep/die", whereas he died and everyone he was talking too died. Paul's message was the same as the serpent, in that you "surely shall not die" (Genesis 3:4). As for Yeshua, per Hosea 5:14, he would "go away", and will rise up Judah and Ephraim/Israel, in the third day, after two days, which is after two thousand years (Hosea 6:2). This will be carried out according to Ezekiel 36-37. The "breed" of "Christianity", which you apparently hold onto is of the daughter of Babylon, which only incurs plagues and death (Revelation 18:4). As for those walking in darkness, who have not seen the light, they will not be held as strictly accountable as those who have been shown the "Way", and have rejected it. IMHO

 

[Soapy]

Hi @Soapy


Clear said : “1) There are no extra points awarded for uncivility in a debate
I don’t think your responses to individuals on the forum will be awarded extra points for mean-heartedness or uncivility.
You could simply point out that someone is confused or did not seem to understand your point….

Ironically, I actually agree with your claim that the spirit placed within each individual is inseparably connected with our consciousness (our “mind” as you described it) and our personality and our will.
For example, those individuals who are mean-hearted or uncivil in their minds and hearts and actions, simply reflect a spirit that is mean-hearted and uncivil.

If the early Christians were correct when they proclaimed that the goal of the creative work of God was to ultimately have a rational, living creature who was prepared to be a citizen of heaven and live in harmony and joy and civility with others, then individuals whose spirits continue to be mean and uncivil cannot be allowed into heaven with those who have learned Christian principles of kindness and patience and civility else the mean and uncivil spirits would ruin the joy and harmony which was to characterize heaven.”

Soapy replied : “I see that you set yourself up as judge and jury as to who does if does not get to go to heaven…. “

I am merely pointing out the logic that IF heaven is to be a place inhabited by individuals who are kind and loving and unified in a life of joy and harmony, THEN it cannot be inhabited by individuals who are mean and spiteful and oppressive and uncivil to each other.


Regarding the principle of a Christian seeking to become a kind and civil person versus a mean and uncivil person.

Soapy said : “Jesus called certain one of the Jews ‘Snakes’ and ‘Devils’… He aggressively overthrew the tables of the moneylenders and whipped them out if the temple in Jerusalem…. Yes, righteous anger is justified anger!”

The disconnect here is that
1) you are not Jesus
2) Your anger is not "righteous anger"
3) There is no reason for anger and meanness and uncivility to characterize interactions with one another simply because we are debating Christian religion.

Your response seems as though you are simply trying to justify the type of uncivility in your interactions.
Your response does not justify a Christianity characterized by meanness or uncivility.

The fact that others notice our individual imperfections or the errors in our data is not a bad thing or something that should anger us, but instead it is an opportunity for introspection and improvement, an opportunity to re-examine our data and to re-examine who we want to be as people.

Clear
φυφυσιδρνεω

@Clear, is the only thing you can do is find fault where there is no fault?

HEAVEN is for the ELECT… the elect will certainly not be anyone like you describe so what’s your point?

What it shows is that once again you made a booboo and cannot stand to apologise YET AGAIN…. Or better, STOP RESPONDING WHEN YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Other posters respond from a point of complete and utter ignorance and inability to understand plain language… but you are educated and should not be posting the pure and utter nonsense that you do post.

There is a clear solution: Before you press the ‘Post Reply’ button, REREAD WHAT YOU WRITE TO ME AND THEN DELETE IT!!!!!

YOU CAN THEN HAVE THE SATISFACTION OF WRITING WHAT YOU THINK BUT KNOWING THAT ONLY YOU AND GOD WILL EVER SEE THE FOOLISH ERRORS YOU ARE MAKING!

 

[Brian2]

The early church of Jerusalem kept the Law, and followed James, the brother of Yeshua. Paul, as the man of lawlessness, who taught the Law was nailed to the cross, is nothing but a false prophet who died, while saying "we shall not all sleep/die", whereas he died and everyone he was talking too died. Paul's message was the same as the serpent, in that you "surely shall not die" (Genesis 3:4). As for Yeshua, per Hosea 5:14, he would "go away", and will rise up Judah and Ephraim/Israel, in the third day, after two days, which is after two thousand years (Hosea 6:2). This will be carried out according to Ezekiel 36-37. The "breed" of "Christianity", which you apparently hold onto is of the daughter of Babylon, which only incurs plagues and death (Revelation 18:4). As for those walking in darkness, who have not seen the light, they will not be held as strictly accountable as those who have been shown the "Way", and have rejected it. IMHO

There is nothing wrong with keeping the law but have you read Acts 15?
If you want to go back to keeping the law as a means of salvation that is up to you.

 

[2ndpillar]

There is nothing wrong with keeping the law but have you read Acts 15?
If you want to go back to keeping the law as a means of salvation that is up to you.

And who wrote Acts 15? If it was Luke, Luke said in Luke 1:1-3, that he witnessed nothing and was just passing on stories by unspecified people. If Luke was a friend of the false prophet Paul, Paul only has credibility with the followers of the daughters of Babylon. And what is "salvation". You are going to die (Jeremiah 31:30), despite what Paul and the serpent (Genesis 3:4), might have told you. Being among the walking dead does not make a person "saved". The original apostles were all Jews, and kept the Law. That would be the original church, which was taught to not go to the Gentiles, but go to the lost sheep of house of Israel (Matthew 10:5-6). As for Acts 15, do you abstain from fornication, from idols, and from blood. Has the "tabernacle of David been restored (Acts 15;16), then or now? I think the nations/Gentiles will first have to be all crushed, at the same time (Daniel 2:44) before the "kingdom" of God is set up, which includes the reunification of Ephraim/Israel with Judah (Ezekiel 36 & 37), with the king ruling from Jerusalem (Zechariah 14:16). IMHO, you are on the road to "destruction" per Matthew 7:13).

 

[Brian2]

And who wrote Acts 15? If it was Luke, Luke said in Luke 1:1-3, that he witnessed nothing and was just passing on stories by unspecified people. If Luke was a friend of the false prophet Paul, Paul only has credibility with the followers of the daughters of Babylon. And what is "salvation". You are going to die (Jeremiah 31:30), despite what Paul and the serpent (Genesis 3:4), might have told you. Being among the walking dead does not make a person "saved". The original apostles were all Jews, and kept the Law. That would be the original church, which was taught to not go to the Gentiles, but go to the lost sheep of house of Israel (Matthew 10:5-6). As for Acts 15, do you abstain from fornication, from idols, and from blood. Has the "tabernacle of David been restored (Acts 15;16), then or now? I think the nations/Gentiles will first have to be all crushed, at the same time (Daniel 2:44) before the "kingdom" of God is set up, which includes the reunification of Ephraim/Israel with Judah (Ezekiel 36 & 37), with the king ruling from Jerusalem (Zechariah 14:16). IMHO, you are on the road to "destruction" per Matthew 7:13).

Luke said that he passed on stories from witnesses and people who were there from the beginning.
Luke has been shown to be a trustworthy historian.
But if you want to not throw out Luke along with Paul that's up to you.
That's over 50% of the New Testament you seem to want to toss out.
Do you really think that Jesus did not want the gospel to be preached to the gentiles and the world? Don't you think that Matt 10:5-6 is about what Jesus said to the disciples He sent out just at that particular time while He was on earth. Or do you think that gentiles have no right to call themselves Christians and that the gospel should never have been preached to the gentiles?
Sorry I'm being silly now,,,,,,,,,,,,,or am I.
You are just saying some silly things and I find it hard to not get a bit sarcastic.
Do you think that abstaining from fornication and idols and blood was an alternative law that the gentiles were to keep instead of keeping the law of Moses or do you think that was put in place so that the Jewish Chrisians would have less problems associating with the Gentile Christians? I'm pretty sure it is what Gentile converts to Judaism had to obey in order to be deemed clean enough to associate with.
Do you think that the instruction given were just for the Christians in Antioch, Syria and Celicia as verse 23 suggests?
Why do you want to judge me as if you know me and how I live?
What is the gospel in your opinion?

 

[Brian2]

You overlook the most important fact – Jesus said/implied he was NOT killed nor was he dead but was very much alive (Luke 24:39) AFTER the supposed crucifixion! All the verses you quoted above are BEFORE the supposed crucifixion!

Jesus showed His disciples that He had risen from the dead. What do you think the whole story of the crucifixion and death of Jesus is about? It tells us Jesus died, Jesus even said that He would be put to death. What's your problem?
Are you really serious when you say these things?
Are you a Muslim who wants to have some fun with Christians and promote the Muslim view that Jesus did not die on the cross?

Putting aside the fact that you cannot or just refuse to understand John 1:3, let me ask you plainly – do you believe God can ONLY create everything through Jesus and without Jesus, God will NOT be able to create anything??

That's a trick question really because the Father can create anything by Himself but God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit and so if God creates then all 3 are involved.

Just so we remember what it is we are talking about here, here’s the chronicle of our exchanges on this matter –

1. In post #1425 you wrote, ‘You sound like the Sadducees who only accepted the Pentateuch. You take God's word, the Bible, and start cutting bits out till you have what you want’.

2. In post #1430, I responded with, ‘So, really, it's NOT me but rather it’s Christians like you who took ‘the Bible, and start cutting bits out till you have what you want’ !!

3. In post #1445, you responded with, ‘Did I? I don't remember doing that. But I do remember you telling me that you do that.’ - Here, you are saying you remembered that I told you that I do that, that is, I told you I took the Bible and start cutting bits out till I have what I want, which is an outright lie!

I never denied that I said, ‘it's NOT me but rather it’s Christians like you who took ‘the Bible, and start cutting bits out till you have what you want’, but what I deny is the lie you made up that I told you I took the Bible and start cutting bits out till I have what I want !!

I have told you how you told me that you cut bits out of the Bible. You have told me you reject Paul, that's about 25% of the New Testament.
What else do you reject? It sounds as if you reject anything in the gospels that did not come from Jesus mouth, and even then you only accept what Jesus said if it agrees with your ideas----------This can be seen in what Jesus said about being killed and you think He may have been just guessing what might happen as if He did not know and was not a prophet.
How about the story of Jesus death and resurrection, you reject all that in favor of your idea that Jesus did not die.
Do you even realise that without the death of Jesus there is no gospel?
Let me be clear. You did not say, "I take the Bible and cut bits out till I have what I want".
You have however shown me that is what you do, and then you call me a liar because I tell you what you have told me that you do.

 

[Soapy]

That's a trick question really because the Father can create anything by Himself but God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit and so if God creates then all 3 are involved.

Not so!

IF and IF and IF there are three that are the one God then creation or anything pertaining to that one God cannot be differentiated between the three since they are THE SAME.

Therefore it cannot be said that the Father created or the son created or the Father created through the son ( and notice that the Holy Spirit is EXCLUDED in the claim of a three person one God creation…. A bit strange….)

Thus, trinity has to errs tragically in its ideology, at one moment claiming a three person God created, the next claiming the son created BY HIMSELF, and yet another moment claiming the son created through the son… it does not compute!!

This false ideology requires confused definitions so that in any debate or discussion the different false ideologies can be employed to offsway a truth spoken against it….!!

Point of fact: when asked to define what they claim is ‘GOD’ they refuse or obfuscate their response. This is clear evidence that to define whom they call ‘God’ would destroy their ideology (it cannot even be called a Theology for obvious reasons!)

If, for instance, I asked:

• Did God create the world for himself?

His would you answer?

If I asked:

• What does ‘Father’ mean?

How would you respond?

If I asked you:

• What is the role of a Son?

What would you answer?

And, if I asked you:

• How is an image equal to the source of that image?

What would you say?

((hint: The Father who created me is greater than I because I can only do what I see the Father do and say what the Father taught me to say… and I can do and say these things because the Father who created me is with me and in me by HIS Holy Spirit with which HE anointed me (set me aside: consecrated me: adopted me for the completion of his works… wherein I said: ‘Father, I have finished the works you gave me to do in your name…! Now glorify me in your presence so that that same glory is returned to you… to you who gave it in the first place because, for sure, only the greater can bless the lesser - even saying ‘God be blessed’ is not from he who is not God but rather it is ‘God bless yourself!’… ‘Father, YOU GAVE ME the word to give to them - and those you destined to receive it have done so…’ still, there are those who heard your word but did not receive it but labelled it is hocus … Father, for those who are seriously in ignorance rather than blatant hypocrites, may you send YOUR HOLY SPIRIT into their hearts and give them a new spirit- a spirit of belief in you, Father, the ONLY TRUE GOD!’))

 

[Brian2]

Not so!

IF and IF and IF there are three that are the one God then creation or anything pertaining to that one God cannot be differentiated between the three since they are THE SAME.

With the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father and with the Son and Father both in the Spirit and with the Spirit in both the Father and Son, the 3 can be seen as being the same. The difference imo is that the origin of the Son and Spirit is the Father and so the Father is called the one true God.

Therefore it cannot be said that the Father created or the son created or the Father created through the son ( and notice that the Holy Spirit is EXCLUDED in the claim of a three person one God creation…. A bit strange….)

It can be said that the Father created through the Son but the Father was creating at the same time the Son was because the Father is in the Son. Just as the Father was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.(2Cor 5:19)
Where the Holy Spirit comes into it seems to be that the Spirit is the body and power of God extending into all things and so the Son does things through the body and with the power.

Thus, trinity has to errs tragically in its ideology, at one moment claiming a three person God created, the next claiming the son created BY HIMSELF, and yet another moment claiming the son created through the son… it does not compute!!

It is because it does not compute that the language can become confusing and all those things you suggest can be said truthfully.
Not computing however is not a good reason to say it is wrong.

If, for instance, I asked:

• Did God create the world for himself?

His would you answer?

If I asked:

• What does ‘Father’ mean?

How would you respond?

If I asked you:

• What is the role of a Son?

What would you answer?

And, if I asked you:

• How is an image equal to the source of that image?

What would you say?

God created all things for His glory and purposes and for His Son who is the heir and for all those who are co-heirs with Him.
Father is the source of life.
The Father also is the creator.
Jesus is the Son of the Father and we are the children of God through the life of His Son who is also our Father,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,making the Father our grandfather I guess, but that is part of the language problem no doubt.
The Son's role is to be obedient and subject to the will of His Father.
The image of God does not mean that God existed and then made a living copy of Himself which He called His Son. The Son has always been with and in God and image means that He is just the same as His Father in all respects, except that He is the Son and submits to His Father.
He has the same uncreated nature as His Father.

((hint: The Father who created me is greater than I because I can only do what I see the Father do and say what the Father taught me to say… and I can do and say these things because the Father who created me is with me and in me by HIS Holy Spirit with which HE anointed me (set me aside: consecrated me: adopted me for the completion of his works… wherein I said: ‘Father, I have finished the works you gave me to do in your name…! Now glorify me in your presence so that that same glory is returned to you… to you who gave it in the first place because, for sure, only the greater can bless the lesser - even saying ‘God be blessed’ is not from he who is not God but rather it is ‘God bless yourself!’… ‘Father, YOU GAVE ME the word to give to them - and those you destined to receive it have done so…’ still, there are those who heard your word but did not receive it but labelled it is hocus … Father, for those who are seriously in ignorance rather than blatant hypocrites, may you send YOUR HOLY SPIRIT into their hearts and give them a new spirit- a spirit of belief in you, Father, the ONLY TRUE GOD!’))

The Son had the choice of coming to earth as a man or not and decided to come to earth. He humbled Himself before His Father who is His equal in nature and all other ways. He did not have the nature of a servant before He took that nature when He became a man. (Phil 2) He can do all that the Father does but waits for the go ahead from the Father, the authority. (John 5) While on earth He longed to be back in heaven with His Father, sharing His glory. (John 17:5)

 

[JerryMyers]

Jesus showed His disciples that He had risen from the dead. What do you think the whole story of the crucifixion and death of Jesus is about? It tells us Jesus died, Jesus even said that He would be put to death. What's your problem?
Are you really serious when you say these things?
Are you a Muslim who wants to have some fun with Christians and promote the Muslim view that Jesus did not die on the cross?

Again, that’s your assumption that Jesus showed his disciples he has risen from the dead when in Luke 24:39, Jesus showed his hands to prove what he has stated, that is, he’s NOT a ghost which any rational and logical man knows that by saying he’s NOT a ghost, Jesus was telling his disciples he was NOT dead as believed by many.
If he was not dead (according to Jesus himself, NOT according to any other people which your false belief is based on), how can he have risen from the dead when he was never dead (according to Jesus himself) in the first place??

…And who said you must believe Jesus died and rose again, else, your faith is in vain??? Certainly NOT Jesus!! PROVE ME WRONG!

Fact is – you can’t even show me from your own scripture where God Himself said He will send or had sent Jesus to die for all mankind sin neither can you show me Jesus himself said he came to die for your sin. All you have shown me is that you have put the words and beliefs of other people above the words of Jesus and the Words of God!!

That's a trick question really because the Father can create anything by Himself but God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit and so if God creates then all 3 are involved.

That’s NOT a trick question, that’s a question which you DARE NOT answer because no matter how you answer it, your answer will NOT MAKE ANY SENSE just as your belief that ‘God (the Father) is the son (Jesus) and God is the Holy Spirit, but, the son is NOT the Father NOR is he the Holy Spirit AND the Holy Spirit is NOT the Father nor is he the son (Jesus), BUT they are three distinct persons and they can coexist at the same time and space’ – that’s like saying my grandfather is my father and my grandfather is my mother, but, my father is NOT my grandfather NOR is he my mother AND my mother is NOT my grandfather NOR is she my father, they are three distinct persons and they can coexist at the same time and space. WHAT NONSENSE is that???!!! Or is the trinity a trick doctrine???

I have told you how you told me that you cut bits out of the Bible. You have told me you reject Paul, that's about 25% of the New Testament.

Fact is, you have only told me lies!! In which post did I tell you I cut bits out of the Bible??? You are only exposing yourself as one who will say anything to support your own lies!

What else do you reject? It sounds as if you reject anything in the gospels that did not come from Jesus mouth, and even then you only accept what Jesus said if it agrees with your ideas----------

Wrong! I told you I only accept the Words of God and His prophet, Jesus, as recorded in the scripture. I accept the words of others IF and ONLY IF their words are aligned to the Words of God and His prophet Jesus – which part of that you cannot understand??

This can be seen in what Jesus said about being killed and you think He may have been just guessing what might happen as if He did not know and was not a prophet.
How about the story of Jesus death and resurrection, you reject all that in favor of your idea that Jesus did not die.

If I said Jesus died, then, I, like you, would be contradicting Jesus' own words that he was NOT dead in Luke 24:39.

Do you even realise that without the death of Jesus there is no gospel?

Do you even realize that Jesus came WITH the gospel/good news and can you prove Jesus preached the good news is his death?? So, what NONSENSE (again) are you talking about??!

Let me be clear. You did not say, "I take the Bible and cut bits out till I have what I want".

Let me be clear… YOU must be a confused and delusional natural-born liar!! Just 5 comments earlier you wrote “I have told you how you told me that you cut bits out of the Bible……..”, now you are saying I DID NOT say I take the Bible and cut bits out till I have what I want??? Are you on drugs??

You have however shown me that is what you do, and then you call me a liar because I tell you what you have told me that you do, and then you call me a liar because I tell you what you have told me that you do.

After saying I DID say that, then, saying I DID NOT say that, now you are saying I have shown you that is what I do??? And you ask me why I call you a liar?? YOU ARE CONFUSED and DELUSIONAL!!

Here’s the fact – telling you what Jesus was really saying in your Bible is NOT taking the Bible and cut bits out till I have what I want, BUT trying to tailor-fit your FALSE belief (which is NOT even the belief of Jesus) into the words of Jesus IS taking the Bible and cut bits out till you have what you want!!

You want to prove me wrong??? Then prove to me that Jesus preached the trinity in his lifetime on earth!!

 

[2ndpillar]

Luke said that he passed on stories from witnesses and people who were there from the beginning.
Luke has been shown to be a trustworthy historian.
But if you want to not throw out Luke along with Paul that's up to you.
That's over 50% of the New Testament you seem to want to toss out.
Do you really think that Jesus did not want the gospel to be preached to the gentiles and the world? Don't you think that Matt 10:5-6 is about what Jesus said to the disciples He sent out just at that particular time while He was on earth. Or do you think that gentiles have no right to call themselves Christians and that the gospel should never have been preached to the gentiles?
Sorry I'm being silly now,,,,,,,,,,,,,or am I.
You are just saying some silly things and I find it hard to not get a bit sarcastic.
Do you think that abstaining from fornication and idols and blood was an alternative law that the gentiles were to keep instead of keeping the law of Moses or do you think that was put in place so that the Jewish Chrisians would have less problems associating with the Gentile Christians? I'm pretty sure it is what Gentile converts to Judaism had to obey in order to be deemed clean enough to associate with.
Do you think that the instruction given were just for the Christians in Antioch, Syria and Celicia as verse 23 suggests?
Why do you want to judge me as if you know me and how I live?
What is the gospel in your opinion?

Actually, Paul and his cohorts entail about 2/3 of the NT. As for Luke 15, it is apparently the opinion of some unspecified persons, except for the quote from Jeremiah 12:15, which refers to Judah, and when the Jews are returned to their land Ezekiel 37:24-25, which is the present, when the Jews have returned to their home land, and Amos 9:11 is with respect to the time when "My people Israel, will rebuild the ruined cities, and they will no longer be rooted out from their land which I have given them. Amos 9:11 is about "My people", who will possess the remnant of Edom, and "all the nations who are called by my name". This when the "strangers"/Gentiles, will be made as servants to Jacob (Isaiah 14:1-2). This is a time after the nations/Gentiles have been "crushed" per Daniel 2:44-45, the time that the God of heaven will set up the "kingdom'. That prophesy has not been completed. The Christians, have the right to call themselves any Greek name they choose. It doesn't make them right or holy. It only drags the messiahs Greek name in the mud, for the actions of his so called followers, who apparently revel in eating blood, fornicating, and worshipping idols (Acts 15:29). According to Paul, the Jews weren't worth associating with after they rejected him. As for some supposed letter sent to Antioch, supposedly from the elders, that is again, a supposed second hand statement from followers of the false prophet Paul. Not much credence can be given. It is like the story of the wilderness. Were the people blinded or were they stuck deaf? Two different stories from Acts. When the fire comes, the chaff will be burned. Until then, we live with it, or don't. Acts 15:7 says Peter went to the Gentiles, Galatians says Peter went to Jews/Circumcised. Which do you choose? Your viewpoints seem to have a time line and consistency problem.

 

[Brian2]

Again, that’s your assumption that Jesus showed his disciples he has risen from the dead when in Luke 24:39, Jesus showed his hands to prove what he has stated, that is, he’s NOT a ghost which any rational and logical man knows that by saying he’s NOT a ghost, Jesus was telling his disciples he was NOT dead as believed by many.
If he was not dead (according to Jesus himself, NOT according to any other people which your false belief is based on), how can he have risen from the dead when he was never dead (according to Jesus himself) in the first place??

…And who said you must believe Jesus died and rose again, else, your faith is in vain??? Certainly NOT Jesus!! PROVE ME WRONG!

Fact is – you can’t even show me from your own scripture where God Himself said He will send or had sent Jesus to die for all mankind sin neither can you show me Jesus himself said he came to die for your sin. All you have shown me is that you have put the words and beliefs of other people above the words of Jesus and the Words of God!!


That’s NOT a trick question, that’s a question which you DARE NOT answer because no matter how you answer it, your answer will NOT MAKE ANY SENSE just as your belief that ‘God (the Father) is the son (Jesus) and God is the Holy Spirit, but, the son is NOT the Father NOR is he the Holy Spirit AND the Holy Spirit is NOT the Father nor is he the son (Jesus), BUT they are three distinct persons and they can coexist at the same time and space’ – that’s like saying my grandfather is my father and my grandfather is my mother, but, my father is NOT my grandfather NOR is he my mother AND my mother is NOT my grandfather NOR is she my father, they are three distinct persons and they can coexist at the same time and space. WHAT NONSENSE is that???!!! Or is the trinity a trick doctrine???


Fact is, you have only told me lies!! In which post did I tell you I cut bits out of the Bible??? You are only exposing yourself as one who will say anything to support your own lies!


Wrong! I told you I only accept the Words of God and His prophet, Jesus, as recorded in the scripture. I accept the words of others IF and ONLY IF their words are aligned to the Words of God and His prophet Jesus – which part of that you cannot understand??


If I said Jesus died, then, I, like you, would be contradicting Jesus' own words that he was NOT dead in Luke 24:39.


Do you even realize that Jesus came WITH the gospel/good news and can you prove Jesus preached the good news is his death?? So, what NONSENSE (again) are you talking about??!


Let me be clear… YOU must be a confused and delusional natural-born liar!! Just 5 comments earlier you wrote “I have told you how you told me that you cut bits out of the Bible……..”, now you are saying I DID NOT say I take the Bible and cut bits out till I have what I want??? Are you on drugs??


After saying I DID say that, then, saying I DID NOT say that, now you are saying I have shown you that is what I do??? And you ask me why I call you a liar?? YOU ARE CONFUSED and DELUSIONAL!!

Here’s the fact – telling you what Jesus was really saying in your Bible is NOT taking the Bible and cut bits out till I have what I want, BUT trying to tailor-fit your FALSE belief (which is NOT even the belief of Jesus) into the words of Jesus IS taking the Bible and cut bits out till you have what you want!!

You want to prove me wrong??? Then prove to me that Jesus preached the trinity in his lifetime on earth!!

You reject what Jesus said about His own death and resurrection because it does not agree with your own ideas of what might have happened. You reject Paul also and anything else in the Bible that you think disagrees with what you think God or Jesus said.
Then you tell me that you are not cutting bits out of the Bible to suite your own ideas.
Why do you even think that the writers of the Gospels were actually telling us what Jesus said?

 

[Brian2]

Actually, Paul and his cohorts entail about 2/3 of the NT. As for Luke 15, it is apparently the opinion of some unspecified persons, except for the quote from Jeremiah 12:15, which refers to Judah, and when the Jews are returned to their land Ezekiel 37:24-25, which is the present, when the Jews have returned to their home land, and Amos 9:11 is with respect to the time when "My people Israel, will rebuild the ruined cities, and they will no longer be rooted out from their land which I have given them. Amos 9:11 is about "My people", who will possess the remnant of Edom, and "all the nations who are called by my name". This when the "strangers"/Gentiles, will be made as servants to Jacob (Isaiah 14:1-2). This is a time after the nations/Gentiles have been "crushed" per Daniel 2:44-45, the time that the God of heaven will set up the "kingdom'. That prophesy has not been completed. The Christians, have the right to call themselves any Greek name they choose. It doesn't make them right or holy. It only drags the messiahs Greek name in the mud, for the actions of his so called followers, who apparently revel in eating blood, fornicating, and worshipping idols (Acts 15:29). According to Paul, the Jews weren't worth associating with after they rejected him. As for some supposed letter sent to Antioch, supposedly from the elders, that is again, a supposed second hand statement from followers of the false prophet Paul. Not much credence can be given. It is like the story of the wilderness. Were the people blinded or were they stuck deaf? Two different stories from Acts. When the fire comes, the chaff will be burned. Until then, we live with it, or don't. Acts 15:7 says Peter went to the Gentiles, Galatians says Peter went to Jews/Circumcised. Which do you choose? Your viewpoints seem to have a time line and consistency problem.

Yes Peter seems to have led the way to preach to the gentiles (Acts 10) even though Philip had done so with the Ethiopian, who may have been a Jew or Jewish convert. Jesus did say to preach the gospel to the ends of the earth (Matt 24:14) but the fist Jewish Christians had to be shown that was the will of God.
It is said of Paul that when he went to a city he preached to the Jews first before the Gentiles, but He did do what the Lord wanted and preach to everyone and the Church became eventually a predominantly Gentile one, the sheep of Jesus in other fold had been joined to the Jewish sheep and the 2 had become one fold. (John 10:16) and the requirement of the Mosaic Law was taken away in the New Covenant even though the basis of the Law is still in force, love for God and neighbour.

 

[2ndpillar]

Yes Peter seems to have led the way to preach to the gentiles (Acts 10) even though Philip had done so with the Ethiopian, who may have been a Jew or Jewish convert. Jesus did say to preach the gospel to the ends of the earth (Matt 24:14) but the fist Jewish Christians had to be shown that was the will of God.
It is said of Paul that when he went to a city he preached to the Jews first before the Gentiles, but He did do what the Lord wanted and preach to everyone and the Church became eventually a predominantly Gentile one, the sheep of Jesus in other fold had been joined to the Jewish sheep and the 2 had become one fold. (John 10:16) and the requirement of the Mosaic Law was taken away in the New Covenant even though the basis of the Law is still in force, love for God and neighbour.

The summation of the Law is to love your neighbor as yourself. You do that by not killing, lying too, and stealing from your neighbor. The "New covenant" of Jeremiah 31:31 is with respect to the "house of Judah", and the "house of Israel/Ephraim", and refers to when that law will be written on the hearts of Judah and Ephraim/Israel (Ezekiel 36:26). The "other" sheep, the "house of Israel" remains scattered among the nations, and hasn't been given a new heart of flesh, where you will "observe my ordinances" (Ezekiel 36:27). Matthew 24:14 is about preaching the gospel of the "kingdom", not of the false gospel of grace. That "kingdom", is the destruction of the nations/Gentiles (Daniel 2:45), and the reunification of Judah with Ephraim/Israel (Ezekiel 36 & 37), whereas they will live in the land given to Jacob under the leadership of David (Ezekiel 37:24-25). None of that has happened, because this gospel of the kingdom hasn't apparently been disseminated "in the whole world". Good thing we have the internet, whereas that can be done at the speed of light. The "old"/covenant, made obsolete by means of some unknown writer of Hebrews, is the fabrication of man, at the behest of the serpent and the devil, who was in Eden, and with Yeshua in the wilderness, in the beginning. Paul's tare seed (message of the devil) is found right along side the good seed, the message of the son of man (Matthew 13:25).

 

[JerryMyers]

You reject what Jesus said about His own death and resurrection because it does not agree with your own ideas of what might have happened. You reject Paul also and anything else in the Bible that you think disagrees with what you think God or Jesus said.
Then you tell me that you are not cutting bits out of the Bible to suite your own ideas.
Why do you even think that the writers of the Gospels were actually telling us what Jesus said?

I never said what might happen. What MIGHT HAVE happened is NOT the same as what HAD REALLY happened!

Seems to me, you rejected Jesus’ words in Luke 24:39 which was AFTER his supposed crucifixion where he said he’s NOT DEAD because it does not agree with your own ideas of what had REALLY happened!! What had REALLY HAPPENED to Jesus was what Jesus said AFTER the supposed crucifixion, NOT BEFORE his supposed crucifixion!!

And you assume (as always) I rejected ALL the words of Paul. I have told you before, the words of other people (like Paul) matter ONLY and ONLY IF their words are aligned with the Words of God and/or the words of His prophet, Jesus. For example, I don’t reject Paul’s words in Ephesians 1:17 where he said “I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know Him better”. Clearly here Paul was praying to God, NOT to Jesus, and he was praying to God, who Paul also CLEARLY referred to as the God of Jesus!! Why would Paul refer to God as the God of Jesus IF Jesus is God??!

Seems to me, not only you rejected Jesus’ words in Luke 24:39, you also rejected Paul’s words in Ephesians 1:17 because it does not agree with your own FALSE belief that Jesus is God!! …… And you are telling me it’s me when it’s obviously clear it’s YOU who’s cutting bits out of the Bible to suit your own ideas and FALSE belief!! Are you on drugs??! Boy, you ARE confused and delusional!!

So, who really preached to you Jesus is God?? Your preachers?? The writers/translators of your Bible or was it the Jews who despised Jesus and was trying to kill Jesus?? Certainly NOT Jesus!

 

[Soapy]

I never said what might happen. What MIGHT HAVE happened is NOT the same as what HAD REALLY happened!

Seems to me, you rejected Jesus’ words in Luke 24:39 which was AFTER his supposed crucifixion where he said he’s NOT DEAD because it does not agree with your own ideas of what had REALLY happened!! What had REALLY HAPPENED to Jesus was what Jesus said AFTER the supposed crucifixion, NOT BEFORE his supposed crucifixion!!

And you assume (as always) I rejected ALL the words of Paul. I have told you before, the words of other people (like Paul) matter ONLY and ONLY IF their words are aligned with the Words of God and/or the words of His prophet, Jesus. For example, I don’t reject Paul’s words in Ephesians 1:17 where he said “I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know Him better”. Clearly here Paul was praying to God, NOT to Jesus, and he was praying to God, who Paul also CLEARLY referred to as the God of Jesus!! Why would Paul refer to God as the God of Jesus IF Jesus is God??!

Seems to me, not only you rejected Jesus’ words in Luke 24:39, you also rejected Paul’s words in Ephesians 1:17 because it does not agree with your own FALSE belief that Jesus is God!! …… And you are telling me it’s me when it’s obviously clear it’s YOU who’s cutting bits out of the Bible to suit your own ideas and FALSE belief!! Are you on drugs??! Boy, you ARE confused and delusional!!

So, who really preached to you Jesus is God?? Your preachers?? The writers/translators of your Bible or was it the Jews who despised Jesus and was trying to kill Jesus?? Certainly NOT Jesus!

Praying to God…

Yes, Jerry. We are to pray TO GOD; To the Father, through Jesus Christ.

We are not called to pray TO JESUS.

I would ask Brian2 if he can produce a verse or command to pray to Jesus: There is none!

Jesus is the gatekeeper of our prayers TO GOD.. therefore Jesus - you rightly said - cannot BE GOD that we are to pray to…. Otherwise why is there a gatekeeper, a filterer of our prayers to THE ALMIGHTY.

Or does the doorkeeper to the kings chambers believe that he too is the king whose door he guards?