D
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
No name? "Helper", "Comforter", "Guide"?? He/it teaches, comforts, guides, reminds, works through us. These all seem to me as personality functions.
Regards.
Being ONE does not indicate they are co-equal. It simply implies they are of the same mind/spirit, purpose, and how they accomplish things. It means THEY ARE IN AGREEMENT. Just like when a husband and wife become ONE.Is it not possibly to be co-equal in deity and yet Jesus be subordinate to the Father in hierarchy? As an essential part of His role and mission? Particularly while incarnate.
Here Christ's claim of equality seem straightforward...
"I and [my] Father are one." John 10:30
Not necessarily. God can choose to reserve a more harsh punishment for offending His more sensitive Self. This seems like a harsh policy for insulting a mere impersonal 'energy' or force.
No name? "Helper", "Comforter", "Guide"?? He/it teaches, comforts, guides, reminds, works through us. These all seem to me as personality functions.
Regards.
These are not names, they are titles.
You've shown no depth whatsoever. I've been on debates over Trinity before and this is nothing. You don't back up anything you say, and you don't answer any of my questions. It's not an opinion it's a FACT!Opinions?
“Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” Phil 2:5-8
This the common or authorized translation of the text is the most wretched, entirely perverting the sense of the passage and the context, as agreed by all competent authorities on the Holy Scriptures.
“Who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” This appears to say that Jesus was equal with God and did not consider it wrong to be so, that he did not consider such equality as robbing God of anything. Again we sense something is wrong and ask, “Is this scripture correctly translated?”
Going back to the original Greek, we find that the King James Version has added one small word and omitted one small word, completely reversing the meaning of the text.
Thus the expression “thought it (added word) not robbery to be equal with God,” should read, “Thought not by (omitted word) robbery, to be equal with God.” Accordingly, the Diaglott correctly renders the text: “Who, though being in God's form, yet did not meditate a usurpation to be like God.” Here Jesus, the humble and obedient Son of God, is contrasted with the arrogant and disobedient Satan, who is quoted as saying:
“I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation in the sides of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High.”--Isa 14:13, 14
The Revised Standard Version states it so, "Who, though he was in the form of God (a spirit being), did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped."
Can anyone try to be equal with himself?
Rather, Jesus did not strive by vainglory to grasp God’s preeminence. Phil 2:8 "And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death."
If Jesus were God, whom would God have to become obedient to? No one! Therefore, this must be another entity, namely, his only begotten Son, clearly distinguishable from the Heavenly Father.
The scriptures state that God has highly exalted our Lord. Had he been on equality with God before, how could he have been highly exalted after? Why should a third party exalt him when he could just as easily exalt himself?
This whole line of reasoning is unsound, and those who ascribe to it give evidence of a lack of the “spirit of a sound mind”.
Let's start by hearing your explanation of Jesus' baptism where the three persons of the Godhead are clearly present at once. How can you deny this and expect me to take anything you say seriously?You shown no depth whatsoever. I've been on debates over Trinity before and this is nothing. You don't back up anything you say, and you don't answer any of my questions. It's not an opinion it's a FACT!
It means THEY ARE IN AGREEMENT. Just like when a husband and wife become ONE.
Being ONE does not indicate they are co-equal. It simply implies they are of the same mind/spirit, purpose, and how they accomplish things. It means THEY ARE IN AGREEMENT. Just like when a husband and wife become ONE.
But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.
You've shown no depth whatsoever. I've been on debates over Trinity before and this is nothing. You don't back up anything you say, and you don't answer any of my questions. It's not an opinion it's a FACT!
I keep telling you that simply because the three are mentioned in no way implies a co-equal trinity! If you think it does then you need some serious assistance.Let's start by hearing your explanation of Jesus' baptism where the three persons of the Godhead are clearly present at once. How can you deny this and expect me to take anything you say seriously?
I suppose you don't understand the analogy in the verse. So much for discernment...The Father and the Son are in agreement like a husband and a wife? Oh dear!
Thanks.
But, we have three persons, as God, present at at the same time at Jesus' baptism.I keep telling you that simply because the three are mentioned in no way implies a co-equal trinity! If you think it does then you need some serious assistance.
I suppose you don't understand the analogy in the verse. So much for discernment...
But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.
I read both parts of your blog on the Holy Spirit. These functions seem personality based, no?? Not something that the wind would do.
yes the sda is just as rotten just read my post to @BreadOfLife should i post againAccording to your theory the Catholic and SDA’s teaching are both rotten.
What about people like you who are a church of one? What I mean by a “church of one” is you don’t attend a church, you sit typing on your computer telling everyone else when they are wrong about scripture and (miss)quote scripture to back up your beliefs.
Are there any people like you that are “rotten”? There are millions of you so there must be at least one or two.....maybe three????
Is it possible you and your ilk are the ones of which “scripture has interpreted itself”???
Curious Mary
Does that mean I have no self control?
We only delved into the root meaning of “spirit” to emphasize that like the “wind” it is an invisible and powerful influence. This spirit proceeds from the Father; it is his holy essence, his holy disposition, thus his spirit, even as the same spirit or disposition is found in Christ and all who abide in his spirit.
This spirit has no personality per say for it is, as stated, a power or influence, not a person.
Discernment, it can go a long way if people apply it....The Father and the Son are in agreement like a husband and a wife? Oh dear!
Thanks.
Either you don't understand the doctrine you are trying to support, or you refuse to understand it. Which is it?But, we have three persons, as God, present at at the same time at Jesus' baptism.
Greek: σωφρονισμόςThe possession of the spirit of a sound mind (2 Tim 1:7) has nothing to do with whether or not you lack self control, its about having sound judgement, being able to assess all the facts without bias or prejudiced, to be able to put aside all preconceived ideas and to rightly divide the word of truth.
The spirit of a sound mind leads one to accept God's instructions and reject his own faulty judgment.
I do understand the analogy. I just find that husbands and wives aren't always in agreement in the same way I believe Persons in the Godhead are. And I also read where you wrote where you said "Godhead" is a bad translation.
Thanks for the info/opinons. Not so much for the personal shot.
Good day.