quietthinker
Well-Known Member
of course denial is all part of that package......it can't operate any other way for fear of self exposure.Salami, salami, baloney.
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!
of course denial is all part of that package......it can't operate any other way for fear of self exposure.Salami, salami, baloney.
If they do not all believe the same things then it can't be true. There are not several 'beliefs' about the nature of God that are all right....but they could all be wrong. What if the 2% are the "few" who got it right?Which version of the 'trinity' do that 98% accept?
That is a poor excuse for misunderstanding what Christ and his apostles taught about the Father and his relationship with his son. There is no such thing as a "godhead" in the Bible...its a made up word to imply a trinity...like the term "Holy Ghost" is meant to portray God's spirit as some kind of entity. God is not three. (Deuteronomy 6:4)From my observation on this board, a small microcosm it must be admitted, there are about 3 versions of the trinity, and as many versions of something else, all equally shared and divided among the members. In fact, I think if you asked each member privately, hardly one member would agree on any version, and no-one would be able to adequately explain why they believe what they do, and even less teach anytime else what they believe so that they could understand it. That's the thing about the Godhead. It's infinitely unfathomable.
On the contrary, I believe that God has explained himself very well in the scriptures.God hasn't explained Himself in scripture. But what we do know... What He has revealed... We can take to the bank.
What does it mean to "believe" (James 2:19) and what if the things you have been led to "believe" about God and his son are not true? What then?And the most important aspect about God is this...
KJV 1 John 5:5, 9-13
5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
No I am just going by what I read.Jesus said He and the father are one, and said He who has seen Him has seen the father.
Your trying to use your intellect to analyze what God can, or cannot be, is like a bacteria trying to understand and define a man.
What is, IS as they say. That Elohim is a plural name for god and not singular, is a fact, whether it fits your ideas about God, or not.
Cringing at the KJV's rendering here as I usually do. Who speaks like that these days?...and why are people so stuck in the past with their Bible translations? Ugggh.KJV Hebrews 1:1-9
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
Read that again and see that it does not say what you think it does....he is the "image" of his God..."the firstborn of every creature"...making his son a creation, not a deity. (Revelation 3:14)KJV Colossians 1:13-22
13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled
22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:
God sent his son to do what he trusted no other to carry out. The future of the entire human race depended on him fulfilling his mission. He did not let them or his Father down.The biggest mistake we can make is to reduce or rationalize what the Son means to His Father, Who the Son is, and the incredible eternal risk that they both took in redeeming man from the prison house of sin.
Yes, God made an illustration of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his own son just because his God asked him to. That is the kind of faith this man had....not to mention the son's willingness to be sacrificed without either knowing the reason or that a prophetic illustration was being made. But Abraham was not asked to sacrifice himself, he was willing to sacrifice his son, which was much more difficult.Hebrews 11:17-19 gives us his reasoning, since all of God's promises for his Messiah had to come through Isaac.Mount Moriah and what took place there with Abraham and Isaac... The very spot of the future temple... Was a type of what took place on Calvary. A sacrifice of both Father and Son. Not a make believe son, created it adopted, but a Son in the absolute highest sense. We believe anything less than that... We miss the entire point of the plan of redemption.
The self sacrificing love of God on behalf of man.
Well Said Aunty Jane, people will make their own interpretations instead of following what is actually written, it's like talking to a brick wall.Read that again and see that it does not say what you think it does....he is the "image" of his God..."the firstborn of every creature"...making his son a creation, not a deity. (Revelation 3:14)
God sent his son to do what he trusted no other to carry out. The future of the entire human race depended on him fulfilling his mission. He did not let them or his Father down.
Yes, God made an illustration of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his own son just because his God asked him to. That is the kind of faith this man had....not to mention the son's willingness to be sacrificed without either knowing the reason or that a prophetic illustration was being made. But Abraham was not asked to sacrifice himself, he was willing to sacrifice his son, which was much more difficult.Hebrews 11:17-19 gives us his reasoning, since all of God's promises for his Messiah had to come through Isaac.
If we make God into a trinity, we lose sight of exactly what redemption means. Redemption was a set price for the release of a slave or servant from his servitude. No more and no less was required. What Jesus came to pay for was the sin and death that Adam had brought upon his children. A perfect human brought sin into the world (Romans 5:12) and only the sacrifice of an equally perfect human could pay the redemption price. Jesus did not need to be God to do that.....he just needed to be sinless. If God became a man and died, not only was this impossible, (since God is immortal and cannot die...nor can mere mortals kill him) but it would have been a ridiculous overpayment. Something like 500 trillion cans of bug spray to kill one one mosquito.
Anyone who understands what redemption meant in Israel would never assume that God himself needed to become like his own creation.....and die. That is ridiculous, and is not what is taught in scripture at all. It came with the trinity, hundreds of years after Jesus' death.
The trinity in the apostles creed is right.If they do not all believe the same things then it can't be true. There are not several 'beliefs' about the nature of God that are all right....but they could all be wrong. What if the 2% are the "few" who got it right?![]()
That is a poor excuse for misunderstanding what Christ and his apostles taught about the Father and his relationship with his son. There is no such thing as a "godhead" in the Bible...its a made up word to imply a trinity...like the term "Holy Ghost" is meant to portray God's spirit as some kind of entity. God is not three. (Deuteronomy 6:4)
On the contrary, I believe that God has explained himself very well in the scriptures.
Jesus said....“He that has seen me has seen the Father also”, so this is not Jesus saying that he is God, but that he is so LIKE his Father that, whatever the Father does, the son does in like manner.....like Father like Son....they are separate entities. One is "the only true God" and the other was "sent" by him. (John 17:3)
All we need to do is to read the scriptures and see what “version” of the truth Jesus taught. Are there many versions of the truth...or just one?
When we read 1 Corinthians 1:10 and realise that all "must speak in agreement with no divisions"......where does that leave all the people that you described? Does God's spirit speak with a forked tongue?
Does it tell one truth to all, or does it dish out different beliefs to whomever it wishes? You tell me....![]()
What does it mean to "believe" (James 2:19) and what if the things you have been led to "believe" about God and his son are not true? What then?
The apostle's creed is not found in the Bible.The trinity in the apostles creed is right.
As I said, you are free to believe whatever you wish....this is addressed to the elect.Romans 8 confirms the spirit of Christ and spirit of God are one in nature.
Rom 8:9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.
Rom 8:10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
Rom 8:11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.
Fortunately the deeper knowledge of the fact of the triune Godhead is not a salvation requirement.
No sorry, we have already been through this.....Jesus did not rise in a body of flesh.....he was raised in a spirit body in order to return to the spirit realm.....that is where he came from. The scripture you provided does not mention a body of flesh.But belief Jesus rose bodily is.
A question Aunty Jane, I'm not trying to contradict what you are saying, but couldn't Jesus have risen in bodily form to see his disciples and then turn into spirit form to Ascend to Heaven?The apostle's creed is not found in the Bible.
As I said, you are free to believe whatever you wish....this is addressed to the elect.
No sorry, we have already been through this.....Jesus did not rise in a body of flesh.....he was raised in a spirit body in order to return to the spirit realm.....that is where he came from. The scripture you provided does not mention a body of flesh.
Luke 24:36-43...Now as they said these things, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and said to them, “Peace to you.” But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed they had seen a spirit. And He said to them, “Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts? Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.”The apostle's creed is not found in the Bible.
As I said, you are free to believe whatever you wish....this is addressed to the elect.
No sorry, we have already been through this.....Jesus did not rise in a body of flesh.....he was raised in a spirit body in order to return to the spirit realm.....that is where he came from. The scripture you provided does not mention a body of flesh.
But the apostles are found in the Bible, and they wrote a creed, a doctrinal creed to explain what they, the apostles of Jesus Christ, teach is in the Bible.The apostle's creed is not found in the Bible.
As I said, you are free to believe whatever you wish....this is addressed to the elect.
No sorry, we have already been through this.....Jesus did not rise in a body of flesh.....he was raised in a spirit body in order to return to the spirit realm.....that is where he came from. The scripture you provided does not mention a body of flesh.
Yes, Jesus was resurrected as a spirit according to the apostle Peter. (1 Peter 3:18) Flesh and blood cannot exist outside of the earth’s atmosphere because this is where God put us to live eternally. In order to take some to heaven to rule with him in his Kingdom, Jesus and his “elect” (anointed ones) must be resurrected with spirit bodies. But like spirit beings had done in the past, angels could materialise human form to deliver their messages to God’s earthly servants. When Gabriel appeared to Daniel he was said to be a man.....as when he also appeared to Mary some 500 years later. The three angels that visited Abraham at Mamre, were in human form and they ate and drank like any other human. Two of them went on to Sodom to rescue Lot and his family. (Genesis 18)A question Aunty Jane, I'm not trying to contradict what you are saying, but couldn't Jesus have risen in bodily form to see his disciples and then turn into spirit form to Ascend to Heaven?
You are making one huge presumption about what I believe. How do you perceive that I accept the trinity from what I wrote above?Read that again and see that it does not say what you think it does....he is the "image" of his God..."the firstborn of every creature"...making his son a creation, not a deity. (Revelation 3:14)
God sent his son to do what he trusted no other to carry out. The future of the entire human race depended on him fulfilling his mission. He did not let them or his Father down.
Yes, God made an illustration of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his own son just because his God asked him to. That is the kind of faith this man had....not to mention the son's willingness to be sacrificed without either knowing the reason or that a prophetic illustration was being made. But Abraham was not asked to sacrifice himself, he was willing to sacrifice his son, which was much more difficult.Hebrews 11:17-19 gives us his reasoning, since all of God's promises for his Messiah had to come through Isaac.
If we make God into a trinity, we lose sight of exactly what redemption means. Redemption was a set price for the release of a slave or servant from his servitude. No more and no less was required. What Jesus came to pay for was the sin and death that Adam had brought upon his children. A perfect human brought sin into the world (Romans 5:12) and only the sacrifice of an equally perfect human could pay the redemption price. Jesus did not need to be God to do that.....he just needed to be sinless. If God became a man and died, not only was this impossible, (since God is immortal and cannot die...nor can mere mortals kill him) but it would have been a ridiculous overpayment. Something like 500 trillion cans of bug spray to kill one one mosquito.
Anyone who understands what redemption meant in Israel would never assume that God himself needed to become like his own creation.....and die. That is ridiculous, and is not what is taught in scripture at all. It came with the trinity, hundreds of years after Jesus' death.
Believe what God says. That's belief. The Father sent His Son. Two distinct entities are described here. He didn't send a created being too become a son. Jesus was already God's Son in heaven before He became a man. Why do you presume that everyone who believes in Christ's divinity believes He and the Father are one being? Why can't you accept what scripture says? Why can't you accept the fact that angels worshipped the Son without rationalizing? Firstborn of every creature is obviously meant to be understood as Christ being the source and Creator of all creatures, as described elsewhere in scripture. He was begotten of the Father. Not created.What does it mean to "believe" (James 2:19) and what if the things you have been led to "believe" about God and his son are not true? What then?
Cognitive dissonance at work again.But the apostles are found in the Bible, and they wrote a creed, a doctrinal creed to explain what they, the apostles of Jesus Christ, teach is in the Bible.
None of the watchtower writings are in the Bible either, but you believe every word as if it’s the gospel, even though it’s clear they are in serious doctrinal error, to anyone that actually studies the Bible that is.
I assume that when someone believes in the trinity that they all accept the same ideas. The trinity does not come with "versions" because all versions are a distortion of everything Jesus taught. It makes no difference to me what version you accept. They are all in error according to my view because there is no teaching in the Bible that says Jesus is "ho theos" (Yahweh).You are making one huge presumption about what I believe. How do you perceive that I accept the trinity from what I wrote above?
Most of Christendom would say that, but their beliefs and practices can all be traced back to Babylon, not finding their origins in the word of God at all but in a corrupted church, hundreds of years after Christ's death.Believe what God says. That's belief.
Yes I know, that is what the Bible says.....but nowhere does it say that Jesus is in any way equal to his superior Father.The Father sent His Son. Two distinct entities are described here. He didn't send a created being too become a son. Jesus was already God's Son in heaven before He became a man.
Because believing Jesus to be God (with a capital "G") is the problem. Jesus can be "divine" without being "deity". In the definition of the Greek word "theos" Jesus can be "a god" but not "the God". (ho theos) He never once said he was a deity.Why do you presume that everyone who believes in Christ's divinity believes He and the Father are one being?
Because Jesus went to great lengths to answer the devil about whom we are to worship.Why can't you accept what scripture says? Why can't you accept the fact that angels worshipped the Son without rationalizing?
"Obviously"? Who said? The one whom the Father used to create all things is himself a creation as it states in Colossians 1:15 and Revelation 3:14...this son is the "firstborn" meaning that there are others who are of his ilk. God has many "sons" but all of them were created by his "firstborn". The term "begotten" is used in scripture to describe those who are ordinary humans. "Only begotten" (monogenes) is the term used for an "only child". (Luke 7:12) Monogenes does not mean uncreated.Firstborn of every creature is obviously meant to be understood as Christ being the source and Creator of all creatures, as described elsewhere in scripture. He was begotten of the Father. Not created.
ha just dont expect that to work out the way you have it in your mind imo, ok? I mean i dunno, but id keep an open mind thereCognitive dissonance at work again.
1. Jesus said He would rise bodily
2.Jesus said he’s not a spirit and showed His body to the apostles and 500 others for 40 days
3. Jesus bodily and visibly ascended to heaven, on a cloud, from mount Olive, and the angel prophesied He would return exactly the same way He left
4. Revelation 1:7 says He will come on a cloud and every eye will see Him
5.in Zechariah 14:4-5 Jesus returns bodily to Mount Olive with all the saints.
6.Elijah ascended bodily to heaven, proving Jesus’ could too.
7. Paul wrote that we will see Jesus as He is, and that our resurrection bodies will be like His.
8. Thus Jesus rose bodily and visibly , He is not an invisible ghost.
Well, some of us are aware that cognitive dissonance is difficult to detect in oneself....Cognitive dissonance at work again.
The problem with that scenario is it makes Jesus a liar, because He said He wasn’t a spirit - and said a spirit has no t flesh and bones as you see I have - and had the apostles touch Him, and then ate a meal to prove it.Yes, Jesus was resurrected as a spirit according to the apostle Peter. (1 Peter 3:18) Flesh and blood cannot exist outside of the earth’s atmosphere because this is where God put us to live eternally. In order to take some to heaven to rule with him in his Kingdom, Jesus and his “elect” (anointed ones) must be resurrected with spirit bodies. But like spirit beings had done in the past, angels could materialise human form to deliver their messages to God’s earthly servants. When Gabriel appeared to Daniel he was said to be a man.....as when he also appeared to Mary some 500 years later. The three angels that visited Abraham at Mamre, were in human form and they ate and drank like any other human. Two of them went on to Sodom to rescue Lot and his family. (Genesis 18)
Jesus was not always recognised when he “appeared” to his apostles and disciples after his resurrection. He even “disappeared” right before their eyes on one occasion. He appeared in a locked room as well.
That Jesus was not raised in the body he sacrificed, is clear. He would not take back what was sacrificed on the spiritual alter of God’s temple in heaven. That body, the scriptures said, would “never see corruption”, so God took Jesus’ body and disposed of it like he did with the body of Moses. Only on a couple of occasions when he wanted to convince his apostles, did he materialise a body with wounds.
Would God really raise his son with the dreadful wounds of his torture and execution? When Jesus raised the dead, they came to life fully cured of what caused their death. Jesus also healed those with physical deformities, so again why would God resurrect his precious son with the scars of his death still on him?
We also have to remember that God’s foreknowledge would see the remains of Jesus’ body treated as idols by the corrupted church to come. These relics are idolised by the church and God would have none of that. It was wide open for the devil’s corruption.
I hope that has answered your question....:)
Yes, Jesus was resurrected as a spirit according to the apostle Peter. (1 Peter 3:18) Flesh and blood cannot exist outside of the earth’s atmosphere because this is where God put us to live eternally. In order to take some to heaven to rule with him in his Kingdom, Jesus and his “elect” (anointed ones) must be resurrected with spirit bodies.