Should You Believe In The Trinity?

[Warrior4God]

I can get plenty more if you need it. I felt from the time i was young that Jesus was the actual son of God. I never heard the word trinity. So i was in a conversation and the trinity came up so i asked the person that mentioned the word trinity what is the trinity. And he explained it to me, But when it was over i was totally confused. So it was stuck in my mind and i had to find out if i was wrong in believing that Jesus was the actual son of God or not.

So i went to my pastor and asked him about the trinity and he said yes thats what we believe . I said we do, At that point i told him i don't believe that. And He couldn't show me from the scriptures why we believe that. So I spent a lot of the next 30 years reading all i could on the subject. I have read and looked at the arguments on both sides, because i wanted the truth i didn't care if i have been wrong all that time. It's more important for me to see God in the proper light.

But bottom line when i saw the history of the trinity, and how the pagans worshipped their gods in sets of three. I knew in all the scriptures where Jesus stated things like the father is greater then i, and nobody knows the hour but the father, and it is the Almighty that you should worship and him alone ,and where God said that no man has ever seen God at any time, and no man can see God and live. That is enough proof to me that Jesus wasn't God. that he was the actual son and came here to do his fathers will like the scriptures say.

Clearly bible scholars disagree with each other over certain verses that can only get close to proving the trinity . With that being said Jesus and God are clear in other areas of the bible that they are not the same being. If you want to believe in a mystery that the pagans used in worship go ahead but i would look in to it further though.

http://www.webspawner.com/users/newsimplifiedbible/nsbnotestrinity.html

What denomination or church do you attend or do you?
very few realize the truth of who Jesus Christ is

[Warrior4God]

Why are we rehashing a fight that Arius lost 1700+ years ago?

He lost nothing he believed and stood his ground as far as I can tell

[Warrior4God]

1 John 5:7 is a pretty clear verse.

1 John 5:7-8
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (KJV)



1. Some English versions have a shorter rendition of 1 John 5:7 and 8 than the KJV quoted above. The King James Version has words that support the Trinity that most modern versions do not have. How can this be? The reason that there are different translations of this verse is that some Greek texts contain an addition that was not original, and that addition was placed into some English versions, such as the KJV (the words added to some Greek texts are underlined in the quotation above). The note in the NIV Study Bible, which is well known for its ardent belief in the Trinity, says, “The addition is not found in any Greek manuscript or NT translation prior to the 16th century.”

Most modern versions are translated from Greek texts without the addition. We will quote the NIV: “For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.” We agree with the textual scholars and conclude from the evidence of the Greek texts that the statement that the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit are “one” was added to the Word of God by men, and thus has no weight of truth.

[HisServant]

Non-Trinitarian Bible Translations

COMPARE John 1:1: Approximately four hundred English translations of the Christian Greek Holy Scriptures have been written over the past five hundred years. Of this total, only eight have rendered John 1:1 with wording that is different then the usual Trinitarian statement: “the Word was God”. They are as follows:

1867 Inspired Version also called Joseph Smith Translation: “the Son was of God.”
1922 Moffatt New Translation: “the Word was divine.”
1931 American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed): “the Word was divine.”
1942 Emphatic Diaglott: “a god was the Word.”
1958 Authentic New Testament: “the Word was divine.”
1961 New World Translation: “the Word was a god.”
1885 Original New Testament: “so the Word was divine.”
2003 New Simplified Bible: “the Word was like God.”

One might conclude that Jesus Christ, the Word, was part of a trinity while reading that “the Word was divine”. So we could eliminate these translations. And the Joseph Smith Translation is highly questionable at best. So let’s eliminate it too! The Emphatic Diaglott is an Interlinear Greek-to-English publication with very awkward English.

COMPARE John 14:10: Now let’s compare how John 14:10 is translated in several modern translations. The phrase in question is “I am in the Father” and “the Father is in me.” One would think that Jesus and the Father were one and the same being from this wording. However, they translated the Greek word “en” to the English word “in.” It can also be translated “with.” Notice the comparison:

1769 Authorized Version of KJV: “I am in the Father.”
1902 Rotherham Bible: “I am in the Father.”
1933 George M Lamsa Translation: “I am with the Father.”
1961 New World Translation: “I am in union with the Father.”
1989 New Revised Standard Version: “I am in the Father.”
1995 New American Standard Bible: “I am in the Father.”
2000 New International Version: “I am in the Father.”
2003 New Simplified Bible: “I am with the Father.”

Nearly all English Bible translations use the phrase “I am in the Father” at John 14:10. This time we find three translations that do not emphasize the false and mysterious Trinity. They are the New World Translation, George M Lamsa Translation, and the New Simplified Bible.

COMPARE John 8:58: Take a closer look at John 8:58. Most Bible translations use the deliberate Trinitarian phrase, “Before Abraham was, I am.” This is Jesus Christ the Son of God speaking. They want you to think that phrase “I am” means God. But does it? Or does it simply mean “I exist (existed).” The word they translated “am” is from the Greek “eimi.” It has several meanings including: am, exist, and was. Notice how the the translations compare:

1611 King James Version: “I am”
1901 American Standard Version: “I am”
1933 George M Lamsa Translation: “I was”
1961 New World Translation: “I have been”
1989 New Revised Standard Version: “I am”
1995 New American Standard Bible: “I am”
2ooo New International Version: “I am”
2003 New Simplified Bible: “I existed before Abraham was born”

Again we find the same three translations that champion the true God of the Bible, a Monotheistic Deity. They are the New World Translation, George M Lamsa Translation, and the New Simplified Bible.

COMPARE Exodus 3:14: This is where the devious conspiracy begins! The Trinitarian translators mislead the unsuspecting Bible student at the very begininng of the the Holy Scriptures. The Hebrew word that they translate “I AM WHO I AM” is “hayah.” It can be translated “am”, “have been”, “will become”, “exist”, remain”, “will be”. Look at these translation comparisons:

1611 King James Version: “I AM THAT I AM”
1901 American Standard Version: “I AM THAT I AM”
1933 George M Lamsa Translation: “I am AHIAH ASHAR HIGH, (that is, THE LIVING GOD)
1961 New World Translation: “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE”
2003 New Simplified Bible: “[I exist and] I WILL BE WHO I WILL BE.”

So eight out of about what 100 or more translations and you side with the eight OK.

Just curious. Do you know everything there is to know about God?

[Warrior4God]

I am non denominational for now. But i have studied many different religions and
there is one i'm am interested in learning more about that is the JW'S. Not just because of the trinity but they share some of my other views as well.

I have been having fellowship in my home the way the first century church did welcoming anyone who wishes to come.
have you ever considered doing that.
heres a few sites that have been helpful to me

http://www.truthortradition.com/index.php

http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/index.php

http://www.kingdomready.org/topics/god.php?gclid=CJyz55afjosCFQ5RUAodv3AMSg

[Warrior4God]

So eight out of about what 100 or more translations and you side with the eight OK.

Just curious. Do you know everything there is to know about God?

If I may chime in I dont know everything about God as the Word says now we through a glass darkly then face to face. One day we will know all of Gods glory,but,until then we rely on Gods Word what it says and what our Lord Jesus Christ spoke.
Never did he claim to be anything other then Gods Son and was subject to his Father.
Now do you know everything there is to know about God?
You dont even know who Jesus Christ is to God and to us as he declares who he is many many times.
The beauty of Christ walking perfectly is lost when you make him God,how easy it would be for God,hes God.
He died God does not die, God raised him he didnt raise himself,
He walked the earth with a new body ascended to heaven and sat down at the right hand of God showing the right being the hand of blessing and showing he did not assume Gods seat.
Thats why Romans sets the doctrine for us explaining God, his Son and our role in the body
and in the first chapter of romans lays out the truth that in verse 23 it declares making God into an image of man and worshipping it is Idolatry
read that verse any translation you want still means the same.
When I stand before him on that glorious day I know in my heart he will know me because I knew him and I knew he was sent by his Father to save my worthless life when I didnt deserve it. We owe God all the glory for giving us his Son
We owe our life to his Son and what he did for us when he died on that tree for us when he did nothing wrong to warrant them taking his life but they didnt take HE GAVE his life for you.
You make Jesus God you slap Almighty God in the face. thats just the truth people.
May you believe Gods Word and know he is Gods Son sent to redeem you and I and know that the God of Abraham the God of Moses and the God of Jesus Christ is no man he is The one true God

[Angryamerican]

So eight out of about what 100 or more translations and you side with the eight OK.

Just curious. Do you know everything there is to know about God?

I guess you didn't understand that 92% of the translations were trinitarians that translated it?

I think not even Jesus knows everything about God since he doesn't know when the end will come.

Sounds like you need more time in the scriptures.

You still have not answered what do you do with all the scriptures that say,

1. That Jesus is not equal to God

2.That Jesus don't know the day nor the hour of the end

3. That it is the Father you are to worship alone

4.That no man has ever seen God at any time

5.That no man can see God and live

6.In the book of revelation why do we get a vision of Jesus and GOD with different visions of them

7.How come no vision of the holy spirit

8. Is there any scriptures in the old testament that prove that God is a trinity

9. Did Israel believe God was a trinity

10. How come these key words do not appear anywhere in the bible. Trinity= essence

11. Who started the trinity

12. Who else use to worship their gods in groups of three

Some of these questions i have already answered in the thread. But these are legitimate questions, that need to be answered, if you are gonna believe in the trinity.

And you side with the 92%?

[Angryamerican]

So eight out of about what 100 or more translations and you side with the eight OK.

Just curious. Do you know everything there is to know about God?

One other question i have for you.

Why did the writer of john 1:1 later refer to God being greater then Christ if the writer meant God was a trinity?

John 14:28 You heard me say to you, 'I am going away, and I will come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

[Constantine the Great]

You honestly think they are the only ones that translate John 1:1 that way.
Of course. You don't think that these denominations are not biased by their desire to support a doctrine of their own creation?


You do not know what you are saying Christ himself said he is not equal to God . Are you calling him a liar ?
Christ is God the Son. It is not my fault or problem that you have decided to ignore the truth. Thomas knew exactly who he was acknowledging as his God when He saw the resurrected Christ, and Christ knew exactly what He was doing when He did not rebuke Thomas. If Christ was not God, why would He allow His disceiple to live a lie? Are you calling God a liar when He said we are to worship no other God, then Thomas is allowed to call Christ God?


Are people afraid of the truth here?
Who's "truth" would that be that we are supposedly afraid of?
It's funny how so many can totally ignore other scriptures to believe what they want. That is what i mean by people making Gods word Invalid.
Like you do on a regular basis?

[Constantine the Great]

How bout the people that have translated the Greek scriptures.
What about the Greeks, who need no translation and believe in the Trinity? I am Greek Orthodox. Orthodoxy is Trinity based.

that do not follow our God or Christ. that agree that 92% of the trinitarian translations are wrong on that verse and others as well?
I really could care less what other translations others agree with. Like I said, Greek Orthodox don't need a translation, we read it as it was written and believe in the Trinity. Believe in what you want, but let's not try and elevate certain translations to the status of infallibility simply because they agree with your positions.

You are right john new exactly who Christ was apparently you do not.
John 14:28 You heard me say to you, 'I am going away, and I will come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. By the trinity teaching Jesus is equal to God, it Don't sound that way to me.
And you are...?

Your problem is you don't understand that Christ is of the same nature as God. He is a god
So you are a polytheist? I guess the 10 Commandments mean nothing to you, or is there a different translation on those as well.

,but not God Almighty.It is critical to read from the correct translation of the scriptures.
Like I said, being a Greek and Greek Orthodox I need no translation. Neither did St. John of Damascus, St. John Chrysostom, St. Gregory of Nyssa, et al. The Greek of the Bible was their language. It is the language of the Orthodox Church. This argument of "translations" may work on others, but it's a problem when you're actually dealing with Greeks who don'tdeal in "translations". I suppose the only thing left to you would be for YOU to tell ME how I should believe.

The abundance of scriptures must agree with each other and not contradict each other. So it is fine for Thomas to refer Christ as god. When Jesus asked the deciples who they think he was what did peter say? He said you are the messiah and the son of the living GOD.The deciples did know who he was. And why didn't peter refer to Christ as God if he was GOD.?
So the Almighty GOD, needed a lessor god to save mankind?

Who's truth , Well i would say God and Jesus, since you claim to believe and read their words.
So why would you claim I am afraid of it?

[Constantine the Great]

Apparently you can answer all these questions in post 768?
Sure, I'll take a stab at it as soon as I get back from a meeting I have to attend.

[Angryamerican]

Of course. You don't think that these denominations are not biased by their desire to support a doctrine of their own creation?



Christ is God the Son. It is not my fault or problem that you have decided to ignore the truth. Thomas knew exactly who he was acknowledging as his God when He saw the resurrected Christ, and Christ knew exactly what He was doing when He did not rebuke Thomas. If Christ was not God, why would He allow His disceiple to live a lie? Are you calling God a liar when He said we are to worship no other God, then Thomas is allowed to call Christ God?



Who's "truth" would that be that we are supposedly afraid of?

Like you do on a regular basis?

Romans worshipped pagan gods, how come you can't see that when the romans accepted Christianity, that they added some of the pagan beliefs and teachings to Christianity? Yes they worshipped triads before Christ came. But you can also see that trinity's were worshipped by assyrians and in babylon as well.I guess you think these people's worship was acceptable by God?

[Constantine the Great]

Romans worshipped pagan gods, how come you can't see that when the romans accepted Christianity, that they added some of the pagan beliefs and teachings to Christianity? Yes they worshipped triads before Christ came. But you can also see that trinity's were worshipped by assyrians and in babylon as well.I guess you think these people's worship was acceptable by God?
The ancient Greeks believed in lessor gods to do their bidding. You believe in lessor gods being needed to do God's bidding. Funny how that works pagan wise.


Your problem is you don't understand that Christ is of the same nature as God. He is a god

I believe the ancient greeks would agree with you on the above. Their lessor gods were of the same nature as the 12 Olympian gods.

[Angryamerican]

What about the Greeks, who need no translation and believe in the Trinity? I am Greek Orthodox. Orthodoxy is Trinity based.


I really could care less what other translations others agree with. Like I said, Greek Orthodox don't need a translation, we read it as it was written and believe in the Trinity. Believe in what you want, but let's not try and elevate certain translations to the status of infallibility simply because they agree with your positions.


And you are...?


So you are a polytheist? I guess the 10 Commandments mean nothing to you, or is there a different translation on those as well.


Like I said, being a Greek and Greek Orthodox I need no translation. Neither did St. John of Damascus, St. John Chrysostom, St. Gregory of Nyssa, et al. The Greek of the Bible was their language. It is the language of the Orthodox Church. This argument of "translations" may work on others, but it's a problem when you're actually dealing with Greeks who don'tdeal in "translations". I suppose the only thing left to you would be for YOU to tell ME how I should believe.


So the Almighty GOD, needed a lessor god to save mankind?


So why would you claim I am afraid of it?

No he needed a perfect man to undo what a perfect man got us in to.

Because you have bought in to a lie. and instead of admit it to yourself and change your view you continue to hold on to that lie. I don't mean to offend i am just giving my opinion.

[Constantine the Great]

No he needed a perfect man to undo what a perfect man got us in to.
God NEEDED someone else? What's the point of being Almighty if you NEED someone else to do something?

Because you have bought in to a lie. and instead of admit it to yourself and change your view you continue to hold on to that lie. I don't mean to offend i am just giving my opinion.
You're the polytheist. What happened, you can't adress any of my points so we result to insults? How very studious and scholarly of you. Perhaps, in the interest of not looking even more foolish than you already do, you'll want to make a more eloquent rebuttal.

[Constantine the Great]

I'm off for my meeting. Hopefully AngryAmerican, you will learn to drop some of your unchristian anger, hatred, and invective and engage in a more congenial discussion. With a name like yours I doubt it (autognosia is a wonderful thing I guess) but one can only hope.

[Angryamerican]

The ancient Greeks believed in lessor gods to do their bidding. You believe in lessor gods being needed to do God's bidding. Funny how that works pagan wise.




I believe the ancient greeks would agree with you on the above. Their lessor gods were of the same nature as the 12 Olympian gods.


This is a great read ,about how we must reject paganism in Christianity. May i make a suggestion to all that are reading this thread to check this out.

http://www.tomorrowsworld.org/cgi-bin/tw/booklets/tw-bk.cgi?category=Booklets1&item=1140203084

[Constantine the Great]

Were you not trying to say we don't need the insults,Or did i just misunderstand you?
No, I do not wish to resort to insults, that was posted right after you posted that I my faith was a lie. My response was actually quite tame for me. I'm usually a bit more vociferous.

[Constantine the Great]

If you are fluent in Greek then you should know that John 1:1 has been mistranslated by most versions, Funny that it was done by trinitarians.
Except it was not mistranslated by those who leave off the article "a" (as in "a God". We think it is fine the way it is.
As far as trinitarian or not, sure they were translated by trinitarians, but again, for us the article "a" is improper. So while sure, MOST Bibles were done by trinitarians, the fact still remains that the Orthodox Church, in which Koine Greek is the Liturgical language, and the Bibles we use are in Koine Greek, and the Fathers of the Church lived Koine Greek as it was their language, all espouse the same doctrine; Trinity.
Even Arius, who espoused a similar faith in Christ that you do, had to resort to the use of philosophical thought to come to his conclusions as to the nature of Christ. Simply saying John 1:1 was imstranslated does not solve the problem that those who have no translation, but contain the original from which other translations stem, still believe in the Trinity.
From a trinitarian perspective, it is difficult to accept that Jesus Christ was merely a perfected man; An Almighty God would not need a man, no matter how perfect, to accomplish something He (the Almighty God) could not. From the opposite spectrum, we cannot accept that Christ was a (lessor) god. This is because, as I mentioned earlier, wreaks of paganism and polytheistic belief systems. Heracles (Hercules) was a lessor god. King Midas was a lessor god. Eros (cupid) was a lessor god. Phobos and Tromos were lessor gods. All these lessor gods did the bidding of the higher (Olympian) gods. Do you not consider this at least a little bit blasphemous to equate Christ with such? If one wishes to discuss a pagan influence on Christianity, there would be none such better example than this.
God also tells us that we are to have no other Gods before Him. Yet Christianity is based upon the teachings, life, and salvific work of Christ.
If we accept Christ was able to do this as a lessor god, are we as Christians not placing other gods before God? Worse, if Christ was a perfect man, then we are placing man (as perfect as he might be) on par with God. Is this not blasphemous as well?

[scipio337]

Except it was not mistranslated by those who leave off the article "a" (as in "a God". We think it is fine the way it is.
As far as trinitarian or not, sure they were translated by trinitarians, but again, for us the article "a" is improper. So while sure, MOST Bibles were done by trinitarians, the fact still remains that the Orthodox Church, in which Koine Greek is the Liturgical language, and the Bibles we use are in Koine Greek, and the Fathers of the Church lived Koine Greek as it was their language, all espouse the same doctrine; Trinity.
Even Arius, who espoused a similar faith in Christ that you do, had to resort to the use of philosophical thought to come to his conclusions as to the nature of Christ. Simply saying John 1:1 was imstranslated does not solve the problem that those who have no translation, but contain the original from which other translations stem, still believe in the Trinity.
From a trinitarian perspective, it is difficult to accept that Jesus Christ was merely a perfected man; An Almighty God would not need a man, no matter how perfect, to accomplish something He (the Almighty God) could not. From the opposite spectrum, we cannot accept that Christ was a (lessor) god. This is because, as I mentioned earlier, wreaks of paganism and polytheistic belief systems. Heracles (Hercules) was a lessor god. King Midas was a lessor god. Eros (cupid) was a lessor god. Phobos and Tromos were lessor gods. All these lessor gods did the bidding of the higher (Olympian) gods. Do you not consider this at least a little bit blasphemous to equate Christ with such? If one wishes to discuss a pagan influence on Christianity, there would be none such better example than this.
God also tells us that we are to have no other Gods before Him. Yet Christianity is based upon the teachings, life, and salvific work of Christ.
If we accept Christ was able to do this as a lessor god, are we as Christians not placing other gods before God? Worse, if Christ was a perfect man, then we are placing man (as perfect as he might be) on par with God. Is this not blasphemous as well?:clap:

[Constantine the Great]

:clap:
Thank you!

[Fire Watch]

An Almighty God would not need a man, no matter how perfect, to accomplish something He (the Almighty God) could not. From the opposite spectrum, we cannot accept that Christ was a (lessor) god. This is because, as I mentioned earlier, wreaks of paganism and polytheistic belief systems. Heracles (Hercules) was a lessor god. King Midas was a lessor god. Eros (cupid) was a lessor god. Phobos and Tromos were lessor gods. All these lessor gods did the bidding of the higher (Olympian) gods. Do you not consider this at least a little bit blasphemous to equate Christ with such? If one wishes to discuss a pagan influence on Christianity, there would be none such better example than this.
God also tells us that we are to have no other Gods before Him. Yet Christianity is based upon the teachings, life, and salvific work of Christ.
If we accept Christ was able to do this as a lessor god, are we as Christians not placing other gods before God? Worse, if Christ was a perfect man, then we are placing man (as perfect as he might be) on par with God. Is this not blasphemous as well?
An outstanding Oneness message!!!:dance:

[Constantine the Great]

An outstanding Oneness message!!!:dance:

:)) :)) :)) Hey this is my windmill, go find your own!

[Fire Watch]

Hey, what can I say..when someone espouses truth, you gotta say AMEN!

[Constantine the Great]

Hey, what can I say..when someone espouses truth, you gotta say AMEN!
AMEN! And thanks.

[Fire Watch]

heheh...even if it was unintentional....lol..sorry had to qualify it so people wouldnt confuse you with us heretical Oneness Pentecostal types

[Angryamerican]

Except it was not mistranslated by those who leave off the article "a" (as in "a God". We think it is fine the way it is.
As far as trinitarian or not, sure they were translated by trinitarians, but again, for us the article "a" is improper. So while sure, MOST Bibles were done by trinitarians, the fact still remains that the Orthodox Church, in which Koine Greek is the Liturgical language, and the Bibles we use are in Koine Greek, and the Fathers of the Church lived Koine Greek as it was their language, all espouse the same doctrine; Trinity.
Even Arius, who espoused a similar faith in Christ that you do, had to resort to the use of philosophical thought to come to his conclusions as to the nature of Christ. Simply saying John 1:1 was imstranslated does not solve the problem that those who have no translation, but contain the original from which other translations stem, still believe in the Trinity.
From a trinitarian perspective, it is difficult to accept that Jesus Christ was merely a perfected man; An Almighty God would not need a man, no matter how perfect, to accomplish something He (the Almighty God) could not. From the opposite spectrum, we cannot accept that Christ was a (lessor) god. This is because, as I mentioned earlier, wreaks of paganism and polytheistic belief systems. Heracles (Hercules) was a lessor god. King Midas was a lessor god. Eros (cupid) was a lessor god. Phobos and Tromos were lessor gods. All these lessor gods did the bidding of the higher (Olympian) gods. Do you not consider this at least a little bit blasphemous to equate Christ with such? If one wishes to discuss a pagan influence on Christianity, there would be none such better example than this.
God also tells us that we are to have no other Gods before Him. Yet Christianity is based upon the teachings, life, and salvific work of Christ.
If we accept Christ was able to do this as a lessor god, are we as Christians not placing other gods before God? Worse, if Christ was a perfect man, then we are placing man (as perfect as he might be) on par with God. Is this not blasphemous as well?

To me that thinking is flawed, He has angels all around that serve him. Jesus himself was here to serve him and do the fathers will not his own.

No we are not to worship Christ but his Father and God the Almighty.

[Jíbaro]

John 3:16 ... whosoever believeth in Him shall...

It doesn't say whosoever believeth and can recite a precise definition of the Trinity shall...
That was clever, CAL.
You are not far from the Kingdom of God.

[Constantine the Great]

To me that thinking is flawed, He has angels all around that serve him.
Angels are not lessor gods. Angels are angles. They have titles (seraphim, cherubim, thrones, dominions, powers, etc) but they are not gods.

Jesus himself was here to serve him
Yes, as a Son serves the Father, but the question is the nature of Christ. Lessor god doesn't cut it for me. I cannot worship any other god but God.

and do the fathers will not his own.

No we are not to worship Christ but his Father and God the Almighty.
So why do you then exhalt Christ? Why are you a ...CHRISTian?

[DRS]

Of course. You don't think that these denominations are not biased by their desire to support a doctrine of their own creation?

Their own creation, God not being a triune being is the original thought, since before Abraham.


Christ is God the Son. It is not my fault or problem that you have decided to ignore the truth. Thomas knew exactly who he was acknowledging as his God when He saw the resurrected Christ, and Christ knew exactly what He was doing when He did not rebuke Thomas. If Christ was not God, why would He allow His disceiple to live a lie? Are you calling God a liar when He said we are to worship no other God, then Thomas is allowed to call Christ God?

Of course Thomas and Jesus being Jews they probably spoke Hebrew to each other and using Elohim to address him would not have been improper since Jesus himself used scriptures showing this term which is rendered God is proper for him as one representing The Almighty.

[Constantine the Great]

Their own creation, God not being a triune being is the original thought, since before Abraham.
Man's knowledge of God expands with His revelation. Abraham had the Old Covenant. That is what was known about God because that is what God revealed to man. With Christ, God further revealed Himself, His plan, and man's role in His Kingdom. Knowledge is not stagnant. If it becomse so, it dies just like everything else that becomes stagnant.
Surely you don't use an abacus to do your math and ride a mule to work do you?


Of course Thomas and Jesus being Jews they probably spoke Hebrew to each other and using Elohim to address him would not have been improper since Jesus himself used scriptures showing this term which is rendered God is proper for him as one representing The Almighty.
Probably, but we don't know. We have what is written, and what is written is Thomas recognizing and acknowledging his God.
As to your other argument about God's representatives being referred to as god, I still don't understand it nor do I see an indication of it.

[DRS]

Man's knowledge of God expands with His revelation. Abraham had the Old Covenant. That is what was known about God because that is what God revealed to man. With Christ, God further revealed Himself, His plan, and man's role in His Kingdom. Knowledge is not stagnant. If it becomse so, it dies just like everything else that becomes stagnant.
Surely you don't use an abacus to do your math and ride a mule to work do you?


Jesus could say they (the Jews) worshipped what they knew The Almighty. the nature of God and man was revealed in the OT. The OT also showed what was going to happen on a small scale nothing major changed except the fact that now some would be going to heaven, their inheritence was with God just like the Levites.

Probably, but we don't know. We have what is written, and what is written is Thomas recognizing and acknowledging his God.
As to your other argument about God's representatives being referred to as god, I still don't understand it nor do I see an indication of it.


There are lots of example of this throughout the OT, Jesus even quoted one

33*The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy, even because you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” 34*Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “YOU are gods”’? 35*If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified,

(Psalm 82:6) “I myself have said, ‘YOU are gods, And all of YOU are sons of the Most High.

[Constantine the Great]

Jesus could say they (the Jews) worshipped what they knew The Almighty.
But He didn't. In fact, Christ often rebuked the Jews for not following and believing Him (Christ). So the opposite is true.

the nature of God and man was revealed in the OT. The OT also showed what was going to happen on a small scale nothing major changed except the fact that now some would be going to heaven, their inheritence was with God just like the Levites.
That however is only your interpretation of the OT and NT. Christ teaches extensively on what man's role is, who He is, how one should have faith, salvation, proper living and many other things. As Christians we cannot disregard what is said in the NT since it is about Christ Himself.




There are lots of example of this throughout the OT, Jesus even quoted one

33*The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy, even because you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” 34*Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “YOU are gods”’? 35*If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified,

(Psalm 82:6) “I myself have said, ‘YOU are gods, And all of YOU are sons of the Most High.I'll look this one up and get back to you.

[DRS]

He rebukes them not for their failure to believe in him as The Almighty, because their failure to listen to Him as a prophet the one foretold by Moses who God would raise up.

A Christian can not understand the whole of God's arrangement without studying the Jewish system since salvation originated with the Jews.

[Angryamerican]

Angels are not lessor gods. Angels are angles. They have titles (seraphim, cherubim, thrones, dominions, powers, etc) but they are not gods.


Yes, as a Son serves the Father, but the question is the nature of Christ. Lessor god doesn't cut it for me. I cannot worship any other god but God.


So why do you then exhalt Christ? Why are you a ...CHRISTian?

Everything we do goes through Christ. He is the mediator between God and man.

1Ti 2:5
Heb 9:15
Heb 12:24

[Constantine the Great]

The worship of triune gods came from who?
I don't know, you tell me. I just know of one God, in three hypostasis; Father, Son Holy Spirit.
Now the belief in multiple gods came from who?

It's paganistic to believe that God created a son that is god like?
Yes, within the context that it is polytheistic, as were the ancient Greek pantheon, the Roman pantheon, the Babylonian belief systems.
Furthermore, you state that the Trinity is pagan because other belief systems had triune gods.
On the basis of that argument, we can also then say that Christianity (any flavor, pick one) is pagan.
Zeus had god-like children.
Ares had god-like children.
Thetis had a god-like child. (Achilleas).
Poseidon had god-like children.

Are you seeing a pattern? So if we say that a triune god is pagan, simply because you think it was borrowed from paganism, so then are all forms of Christianity for they share the most simplest and basic thing in common. Gods had children.

And were you gonna address the scriptures that contradict your belief?
In due time. Although I must say they don't contradict my belief. Your interpretation does. My interpretation will support it.

Do you view Angels as being god like? since they are spirit creatures that have powers to do Gods will.
I don't know, what does the bible say about angels. Does God say they are god like?

You are speaking from mans perspective, now let's here what God has to say on the issue.
As are you speaking from man's perspective. You are using the works of men to justify your doctrine.

From History and from a biblical stand point there is good reason not to believe the trinity Doctrine.
From history and from a biblical stand point there is good reason not to believe Jesus was merely a man, or a lessor god.

[CALady]

He rebukes them not for their failure to believe in him as The Almighty, because their failure to listen to Him as a prophet the one foretold by Moses who God would raise up.

A Christian can not understand the whole of God's arrangement without studying the Jewish system since salvation originated with the Jews.

Were Adam and Eve Jewish?

Or were the Jews set apart later from Abraham's descendents?

[Constantine the Great]

Everything we do goes through Christ. He is the mediator between God and man.

1Ti 2:5
Heb 9:15
Heb 12:24

Why, is the Almighty God too busy to deal with us Himself? He loves us enough to sacrifice His Son for us, but can't deal with us personally? Contradictory in nature.

[DRS]

Why, is the Almighty God too busy to deal with us Himself?

He is not He is the hearer of prayers but gave Jesus this special poisition as a reward for faithfulness.

[Constantine the Great]

Prometheus was a lessor god. He saved mankind.
Sounds familiar.

[Constantine the Great]

He is not He is the hearer of prayers but gave Jesus this special poisition as a reward for faithfulness.
Why? The OT tells us He does hear prayers. Since when did He switch? Awfully rude don't you think? Also, contradictory to the OT don't you think?

[DRS]

Were Adam and Eve Jewish?

Or were the Jews set apart later from Abraham's descendents?

Adam and Eve were not Jewish but salvation did not originate with them the need for salvation did though.

They were descendants of Abraham.

Just quoting Jesus.21*Jesus said to her: “Believe me, woman, The hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will YOU people worship the Father. 22*YOU worship what YOU do not know; we worship what we know, because salvation originates with the Jews.

[CALady]

He is not He is the hearer of prayers but gave Jesus this special poisition as a reward for faithfulness.

Jesus taught us to pray to our Heavenly Father, in Jesus' name or with Jesus' authority. It is Heavenly Father that acts and answers through the Holy Ghost. According to the NT.

[DRS]

Why? The OT tells us He does hear prayers. Since when did He switch? Awfully rude don't you think? Also, contradictory to the OT don't you think?

I said The Almighty is hearer of prayers.

But Jesus like Moses is the mediatore of the covenant.-This is the special postion I refer too.

[CALady]

Adam and Eve were not Jewish but salvation did not originate with them the need for salvation did though.

So the sacrifices that they performed and were pleasing to God were just a waste of effort?

They were descendants of Abraham.

Just quoting Jesus.21*Jesus said to her: “Believe me, woman, The hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will YOU people worship the Father. 22*YOU worship what YOU do not know; we worship what we know, because salvation originates with the Jews.

I have to read that in context since Jesus was speaking to a Samaritan woman and explaining this to her.

[Constantine the Great]

I said The Almighty is hearer of prayers.

But Jesus like Moses is the mediatore of the covenant.-This is the special postion I refer too.
My bad. Nevertheless, the OT says He hears and He answers. Who, what, when, where, why, how did that change?

[DRS]

My bad. Nevertheless, the OT says He hears and He answers. Who, what, when, where, why, how did that change?

That never changed God hears prayers and answers them.

That is why Jesus prayed because he was not God.

[DRS]

So the sacrifices that they performed and were pleasing to God were just a waste of effort?



I have to read that in context since Jesus was speaking to a Samaritan woman and explaining this to her.

We never read of Adam and Eve doing sacrifices just their offspring.

[Constantine the Great]

That never changed God hears prayers and answers them.

That is why Jesus prayed because he was not God.
Then why a need for a mediator?

[DRS]

Then why a need for a mediator?

Because just like the Jews of old who could not stand before God we can not stand before God.

Moses trnasmitted God's requirements to the people and judged them.

We too have had God's commands transmitted to us by Jesus. And Jesus will judge just as he hears.

[Constantine the Great]

Because just like the Jews of old who could not stand before God we can not stand before God.
Why not? God freed the Jews from Egypt, defeated their enemies, brought them to the promised land, all this done without a man needed as a go-between.

[Angryamerican]

Angels are not lessor gods. Angels are angles. They have titles (seraphim, cherubim, thrones, dominions, powers, etc) but they are not gods.


Yes, as a Son serves the Father, but the question is the nature of Christ. Lessor god doesn't cut it for me. I cannot worship any other god but God.


So why do you then exhalt Christ? Why are you a ...CHRISTian?


Was not satan called a god and he was an angel?

2 co 4:4
Job 1:6
Mat 4:10
Rev 12:9

[Constantine the Great]

Was not satan called a god and he was an angel?

2 co 4:4
Job 1:6
Mat 4:10
Rev 12:9
Was he? So now we are going to expand the Christian pantheon to encompass Satan as well? Oh well, the ancient greeks had Hades, I supposed the Christian pantheon will have satan.

ETA, you realize the bible uses metaphor from time to time as well right?

[DRS]

Why not? God freed the Jews from Egypt, defeated their enemies, brought them to the promised land, all this done without a man needed as a go-between.

Yes it was Moses led them out of Egypt, just as Jesus leads out of sin and death.

Moses led them to the promised land also.

[Fire Watch]

Zechariah 11:4, "the LORD my God" said, "So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver." In Zechariah 12:10 Jehovah stated, "They shall look upon me whom they have pierced." Who was pierced DRS, AngryAmerican?? It was Jesus who was sold for thirty pieces of silver and who was pierced (Matthew 26:14-16; John 19:34). Zechariah 12:8 says with reference to the Messiah, "the house of David shall be as God." Zechariah also wrote, "The LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee" and describes Him battling against many nations and stepping foot on the Mount of Olives (Zechariah 14:3-5). Of course, we know Jesus is the One coming back to the Mount of Olives as King of kings and Lord of lords to war against the nations (Acts 1:9-12; I Timothy 6:14-16; Revelation 19:11-16).

[Constantine the Great]

If you wish to take the literal approach to the Bible, and disregard the metaphors, then you and every non Jew and non-Greek are in trouble.
Afterall, Christ came first for the Jew, then for the Greek. I don't see the word "American" in there.

[Constantine the Great]

Yes it was Moses led them out of Egypt, just as Jesus leads out of sin and death.

Moses led them to the promised land also.
So God needed Moses? He needed Jesus? He needed mere men and couldn't do it on His own?

[CALady]

Was he? So now we are going to expand the Christian pantheon to encompass Satan as well? Oh well, the ancient greeks had Hades, I supposed the Christian pantheon will have satan.

ETA, you realize the bible uses metaphor from time to time as well right?

I think what he's saying is that the word "god" is just another being in the heavens that doesn't threaten God. For some reason, the word "god" brings out the Monotheists as if it's some kind of threat, but it isn't. These beings never threaten nor replace God. So why not acknowledge it when the Bible tells us they exist?

[Constantine the Great]

If i had an answer i would say so.

But it could have something to do with our sin.
Again, if you love someone, enough to sacrifice your Son, obviously sin is not the issue and would not keep Him from interacting with us.

[CALady]

We never read of Adam and Eve doing sacrifices just their offspring.

So you assume that Cain and Able did something their parents didn't do simply because in the brief passages in Genesis it's not written there?

But, fine. Why did Cain and Able offer sacrifices to God?

And now, I'm forgetting my point for mentioning this in the first place... ;)

Oh yeah, I guess because I believe that God interacted with man on earth prior to Abraham and there might be some indication of that interaction outside the Hebrew Bible if we looked for it. Although I believe the Hebrews were set apart to keep it true.

Which is why I find odd similarities in Ancient Egypt although the names are different and the Egyptians lost their way, which is why the Hebrews were set apart to get it right.

Am I babbling now? :))

[DRS]

So God needed Moses? He needed Jesus? He needed mere men and couldn't do it on His own?

No God has used and blessed His servants with special privilages.

Jesus though proved a point, that was raised by Satan that given the choice to be submissive or try and be equal God's creation would always tried to be equal.

Adam and Eve ate the fruit with a view to being equal with God and doing things their own way, yet Jesus would not subscumb to temptation.

God also set the rules, sin equal death and perfect man sins sentencing all to death a perfect man would have to die perfect to have that sin removed.

[CALady]

Again, if you love someone, enough to sacrifice your Son, obviously sin is not the issue and would not keep Him from interacting with us.

He interacts with us through the Holy Ghost.

[Angryamerican]

Was he? So now we are going to expand the Christian pantheon to encompass Satan as well? Oh well, the ancient greeks had Hades, I supposed the Christian pantheon will have satan.

ETA, you realize the bible uses metaphor from time to time as well right?

Look it up you read Greek.

[Constantine the Great]

I think what he's saying is that the word "god" is just another being in the heavens that doesn't threaten God.
It's not so much about threatening God, but it lies at the heart of the argument.
If the triune God, is pagan in origin because perhaps other belief systems had triune gods, then having satan as a god, Christ as a god, God as a god, just not on equal footing places you again within the same sphere of logic.
Zeus was a god.
Athena was a god.
Hera was a god.
They didn't get equal billing, and neither of the other 2 could threaten Zeus, but if you are going to set forth a set of standards for one, then if applied equally presents the same dilemma for the other.

[Constantine the Great]

Look it up you read Greek.
I already did. Like I said, metaphor. Otherwise we are going further down the polytheistic hole, regardless of what version of Christianity you follow.

[DRS]

Zechariah 11:4, "the LORD my God" said, "So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver." In Zechariah 12:10 Jehovah stated, "They shall look upon me whom they have pierced." Who was pierced DRS, AngryAmerican?? It was Jesus who was sold for thirty pieces of silver and who was pierced (Matthew 26:14-16; John 19:34). Zechariah 12:8 says with reference to the Messiah, "the house of David shall be as God." Zechariah also wrote, "The LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee" and describes Him battling against many nations and stepping foot on the Mount of Olives (Zechariah 14:3-5). Of course, we know Jesus is the One coming back to the Mount of Olives as King of kings and Lord of lords to war against the nations (Acts 1:9-12; I Timothy 6:14-16; Revelation 19:11-16).

He does me in Zecheriah 12.10*“And I will pour out upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of favor and entreaties, and they will certainly look to the One whom they pierced through, and they will certainly wail over Him as in the wailing over an only [son]; and there will be a bitter lamentation over him as when there is bitter lamentation over the firstborn [son].

[DRS]

So you assume that Cain and Able did something their parents didn't do simply because in the brief passages in Genesis it's not written there?

But, fine. Why did Cain and Able offer sacrifices to God?

And now, I'm forgetting my point for mentioning this in the first place... ;)

Oh yeah, I guess because I believe that God interacted with man on earth prior to Abraham and there might be some indication of that interaction outside the Hebrew Bible if we looked for it. Although I believe the Hebrews were set apart to keep it true.

Which is why I find odd similarities in Ancient Egypt although the names are different and the Egyptians lost their way, which is why the Hebrews were set apart to get it right.

Am I babbling now? :))

You will have similarities why, because all men came from Noah after the flood.

[Angryamerican]

If you wish to take the literal approach to the Bible, and disregard the metaphors, then you and every non Jew and non-Greek are in trouble.
Afterall, Christ came first for the Jew, then for the Greek. I don't see the word "American" in there.


Do you mean gentile?

Take your loss like a man. You offend me with your tone.

[Constantine the Great]

He interacts with us through the Holy Ghost.
SO then, is the Holy Spirit a new invention of God? Or is He (Holy Spirit) the spirit of God and has always been interacting with mankind?

[CALady]

It's not so much about threatening God, but it lies at the heart of the argument.
If the triune God, is pagan in origin because perhaps other belief systems had triune gods, then having satan as a god, Christ as a god, God as a god, just not on equal footing places you again within the same sphere of logic.
Zeus was a god.
Athena was a god.
Hera was a god.
They didn't get equal billing, and neither of the other 2 could threaten Zeus, but if you are going to set forth a set of standards for one, then if applied equally presents the same dilemma for the other.

I'm not takling about man-made gods like Zeus. I'm talking about God-made gods. Some lessor being. And they exist because the Bible mentions them. Not because Man invented them.

And is someone saying that God is pagan in origin? I missed that.

[Constantine the Great]

Do you mean gentile?

Take your loss like a man. You offend me with your tone.
No, I mean Greek. Read your bible.
Take my loss like a man? You're becoming prideful, angry and arrogant again. :naughty:

Oh and personally, as long as I am not hurling insults at you and debating in a civil manner, I care little that you are offended simply because you cannot hold your own in a conversation.

[CALady]

SO then, is the Holy Spirit a new invention of God? Or is He (Holy Spirit) the spirit of God and has always been interacting with mankind?

Umm... ok. I admit that I'm jumping in the middle of something because I have no idea where that comes from. Sorry. ;)

[Fire Watch]

He does me in Zecheriah 12.10*“And I will pour out upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of favor and entreaties, and they will certainly look to the One whom they pierced through, and they will certainly wail over Him as in the wailing over an only [son]; and there will be a bitter lamentation over him as when there is bitter lamentation over the firstborn [son].
pure eisigesis on your part

[Constantine the Great]

I'm not takling about man-made gods like Zeus. I'm talking about God-made gods. Some lessor being. And they exist because the Bible mentions them. Not because Man invented them.
That's only because we believe the bible to be true and all else false. However, when setting certain standards to make a point, those standards need to be applied equally, do they not?
If so, then if we take the word god literally in the bible, using the same set of standards then we are off into polytheism simply by comparing it to the same religions the Trinity is being compared to.

And is someone saying that God is pagan in origin? I missed that.
They are saying the Trinity is pagan in origin.

[Angryamerican]

No, I mean Greek. Read your bible.
Take my loss like a man? You're becoming prideful, angry and arrogant again. :naughty:

Because you won't be honest, you are arguing like you argue politics.

[CALady]

Do you mean gentile?

Take your loss like a man. You offend me with your tone.


Angryamerican, do you post in the Religion forum much?

Can I ask you, what religion would you align yourself with if any?

I like to understand the context of people's posts.

Thanks.

[Fire Watch]

Revelation 22:6 says, "the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel" to John, but verse 16 says, "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you."

Who's angels were they?

[DRS]

pure eisigesis on your part

No it not, it is just further evidence of you changing scriptures like you did with the one in Genesis that has Abraham offering up Issac.

[Constantine the Great]

Do you mean gentile?

Take your loss like a man. You offend me with your tone.

Acts 20:21 for starters

21διαμαρτυρομενος ιουδαιοις τε και ελλησιν την εις τον θεον μετανοιαν και πιστιν την εις τον κυριον ημων ιησουν χριστον

That bolded word says GREEK, not AMERICAN.


Taken literally, that verse means you are in a heap of trouble somewhere in the future.

[CALady]

...

They are saying the Trinity is pagan in origin.

Oohhh... well. I would disagree with that. I think the men who wrote the creeds were trying to establish a definition as best they could and were influenced by the philosophies of the time which perhaps they didn't realize.

I just think they got it wrong, but those men were hardly pagans.

[Fire Watch]

No it not, it is just further evidence of you changing scriptures like you did with the one in Genesis that has Abraham offering up Issac.
I quoted the scriputes in context, what translation did you use in your rebuttal?

[DRS]

Revelation 22:6 says, "the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel" to John, but verse 16 says, "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you."

Who's angels were they?

Jehovah has angels

Jesus has angels

Who else has angels

7*And war broke out in heaven: Mi′cha·el and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled

[Constantine the Great]

Because you won't be honest, you are arguing like you argue politics.
I am very honest. I have not lied about anything I have posted.

[Constantine the Great]

Because you won't be honest, you are arguing like you argue politics.
NOw of course, I could ask you what you are talking about as far as politics, but that would change the subject and I think at this juncture, you would love nothing more than to change the subject away from your failure.

[Fire Watch]

Jesus prophesied that He would resurrect His own body from the dead in three days (John 2:19-21), yet Peter preached that God raised up Jesus from the dead (Acts 2:24).

Even more confusicating..either Jesus was wrong, or Peter was..:think:

[Angryamerican]

That's only because we believe the bible to be true and all else false. However, when setting certain standards to make a point, those standards need to be applied equally, do they not?
If so, then if we take the word god literally in the bible, using the same set of standards then we are off into polytheism simply by comparing it to the same religions the Trinity is being compared to.


They are saying the Trinity is pagan in origin.

It is , The concept came about during the time of Babylon and it went on to Egypt ,Greece, Rome.

How come the concept didn't get intrduced in to Christianity until 325 years after Christ?

[DRS]

I quoted the scriputes in context, what translation did you use in your rebuttal?

NWT

Oh by the way what do the verision you use say at John 19:37?

[Constantine the Great]

1 Corinthians 1:24

αυτοις δε τοις κλητοις ιουδαιοις τε και ελλησιν χριστον θεου δυναμιν και θεου σοφιαν

Again, taken literally, this verse also means you are in trouble AA.
So then, what is it you wanted to argue about the verse stating satan is literally a god?

[Constantine the Great]

It is , The concept came about during the time of Babylon and it went on to Egypt ,Greece, Rome.

How come the concept didn't get intrduced in to Christianity until 325 years after Christ?

We've been through this. If we apply your standard, your religion is polytheistic hence pagan in origin.

It was introduced prior to 325 AD. Read Tertullian.

You protestants are hilarious. You've learned one date, stuck it into your head, and now it is the canard for everything you disagree with.

ETA: Also look into St. Ignatius while you're at it. Around 110AD.

[Fire Watch]

It must have been Jesus who was wrong..he was probably lying, because I keep finding more places where he puts himself in God's place..

Jesus promised to answer the believer's prayer (John 14:14), yet He said the Father would answer prayer (John 16:23).

Jesus said He would send the Comforter to us (John 16:7), but He also said the Father would send the Comforter (John 14:26).

The Father alone can draw men to God (John 6:44), yet Jesus said He would draw all men (John 12:32).

[DRS]

Jesus prophesied that He would resurrect His own body from the dead in three days (John 2:19-21), yet Peter preached that God raised up Jesus from the dead (Acts 2:24).

Even more confusicating..either Jesus was wrong, or Peter was..:think:

Nope this is similar to Jesus telling the woman her faith made her well,

Did she heal or self or was it because of her faith God through Christ healed her?

[Constantine the Great]

Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church at Ephesus in Asia, which is worthy of all felicitation, blessed as it is with greatness by the fullness of GOD THE FATHER, predestined FROM ETERNITY for a glory that is lasting and unchanging, UNITED and chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father IN JESUS CHRIST OUR GOD...."

"There is ONE Physician, who is both flesh and spirit, born AND NOT BORN, WHO IS GOD IN MAN, true life in death, both from Mary AND FROM GOD, first able to suffer and then unable to suffer, JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD."

"You are like stones for a temple of the Father, prepared for the edifice of GOD THE FATHER, hoisted to the heights by the crane of JESUS CHRIST, which is the cross, using for a rope THE HOLY SPIRIT. Your faith is what pulls you up, and love is the road which leads you TO GOD."

"For OUR GOD, JESUS CHRIST, was conceived by Mary in accord with GOD'S plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but ALSO OF THE HOLY SPIRIT."

ETA: Written around 110 AD, only about 80 after the Crucifixion. So much for 325AD eh?

[DRS]

Jesus said He would send the Comforter to us (John 16:7), but He also said the Father would send the Comforter (John 14:26).



John 14:16 says he will ask the Father to send the comforter.

[Fire Watch]

Nope this is similar to Jesus telling the woman her faith made her well,

Did she heal or self or was it because of her faith God through Christ healed her?
Nope, this is similar to the place where you used your churches agenda driven translation and eisigesis you support your position.

[Fire Watch]

John 14:16 says he will ask the Father to send the comforter.

John 16:7:
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I (WHO??? JESUS)will send him unto you.

[DRS]

The Father alone can draw men to God (John 6:44), yet Jesus said He would draw all men (John 12:32).

Actually John 12 Jesus is talking about how he was about to lifted up to die. Just like the copper serpant was thus looking to him to get salvation just like the copper serpant.

[Constantine the Great]

John 16:7:
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I (WHO??? JESUS)will send him unto you.
People stumble over the simplest things.

[DRS]

Nope, this is similar to the place where you used your churches agenda driven translation and eisigesis you support your position.

Oh so Jesus never said to the woman your faith has made you well?

[DRS]

John 16:7:
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I (WHO??? JESUS)will send him unto you.

Yes by asking the Father to send him.

[Fire Watch]

Actually John 12 Jesus is talking about how he was about to lifted up to die. Just like the copper serpant was thus looking to him to get salvation just like the copper serpant.
John 12:32:
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

[Angryamerican]

John 14:16 says he will ask the Father to send the comforter.

Joh 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever,

[DRS]

John 12:32:
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

That does not change my post, what does verse 33 say?

[Constantine the Great]

John 16:7:
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I (WHO??? JESUS)will send him unto you.
BUMP for the Angry one.

[Fire Watch]

Acts 20:28:
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Whose blood purchased the church?

[Angryamerican]

BUMP for the Angry one.


One other question i have for you.

Why did the writer of john 1:1 later refer to God being greater then Christ if the writer meant God was a trinity?

John 14:28 You heard me say to you, 'I am going away, and I will come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

[Fire Watch]

This is a great read ,about how we must reject paganism in Christianity. May i make a suggestion to all that are reading this thread to check this out.

http://www.tomorrowsworld.org/cgi-bi...tem=1140203084
You're barking up the wrong tree. I'm not a trinitarian.

[DRS]

Acts 20:28:
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Whose blood purchased the church?

Actually the greek says the blood of his own

[Angryamerican]

You're barking up the wrong tree. I'm not a trinitarian.

So you don't believe in the trinity?

[Angryamerican]

BUMP for the Angry one.

Hey are you ready to answer these questions?

I guess you didn't understand that 92% of the translations were trinitarians that translated it?

I think not even Jesus knows everything about God since he doesn't know when the end will come.

Sounds like you need more time in the scriptures.

You still have not answered what do you do with all the scriptures that say,

1. That Jesus is not equal to God

2.That Jesus don't know the day nor the hour of the end

3. That it is the Father you are to worship alone

4.That no man has ever seen God at any time

5.That no man can see God and live

6.In the book of revelation why do we get a vision of Jesus and GOD with different visions of them

7.How come no vision of the holy spirit

8. Is there any scriptures in the old testament that prove that God is a trinity

9. Did Israel believe God was a trinity

10. How come these key words do not appear anywhere in the bible. Trinity= essence

11. Who started the trinity

12. Who else use to worship their gods in groups of three

Some of these questions i have already answered in the thread. But these are legitimate questions, that need to be answered, if you are gonna believe in the trinity.

And you side with the 92%?

[Fire Watch]

So you don't believe in the trinity?
You got it.

[CALady]

Non denominational but i am looking, they just have to many views i don't agree with.

I am considering the living church of God and or Jw's. I have similar beliefs to them two.

I'm not familiar with the Living Church of God.

I'm barely familiar with the JW view, but DRS here can represent that well.

What brought you to this point where you are questioning the Trinity? Do you have a Trinitarian background or are you new to all this?

Are you calling the early Church fathers pagans? Or are you just saying that Greek phlosophy influenced them without their realizing it? Because I would agree with the second but not the first.

[Angryamerican]

You got it.


OOPS sorry i thought you did.

[Fire Watch]

OOPS sorry i thought you did.
But I do believe Jesus is God.:dance:

[Fire Watch]

The Almighty?

That is the trinity.
Not at all. I dont believe there to be a trinity, bi-unity, or any number of beings making up a corporate being that is God. There is 1 God, 1 personage..that God IS Jesus.

For an indepth view of my beliefs, read, The Oneness of God, by David K. Bernard. (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pentecostal/One-Top.htm)<--link

[Angryamerican]

Not at all. I dont believe there to be a trinity, bi-unity, or any number of beings making up a corporate being that is God. There is 1 God, 1 personage..that God IS Jesus.

For an indepth view of my beliefs, read, The Oneness of God, by David K. Bernard. (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pentecostal/One-Top.htm)<--link

What do you do with this scripture?

Joh 14:28 You heard me say to you, 'I am going away, and I will come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

[Fire Watch]

What do you do with this scripture?

Joh 14:28 You heard me say to you, 'I am going away, and I will come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
There's nothing to "do" with it, other than believe it. Jesus was/is fully God, and fully man.

Paul, who wrote the most concerning Christ's person, said that Jesus "is the image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15; II Corinthians 4:4). What did Paul mean when He declared Jesus to be God's image? We know that a physical likeness is not in view here because God is a Spirit and therefore cannot have a physical body. The Greek word translated "image" in the King James Version is eikon. Its root is eiko, meaning likeness, resemblance, or representation. Eikon denotes both the representation and manifestation of a substance. Notice that Paul contrasted Jesus' image to that of the invisible God. The point Paul was trying to get across to his readers was that Jesus is the visible representation of God to man. That is why Jesus could say, "he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father" (John 14:9; also 12:45).

For it to be said that Jesus is like God is to say that He is God. God is unique. What likeness could Jesus have had with God other than that of His divine essence? It cannot be speaking of the likeness in which all human beings bear of God (Genesis 2:7), because this would not have distinguished Jesus' likeness with God from ours. The likeness, then, must be that of divine essence. Because the divine essence of God cannot be changed, Jesus' deity could not have been any different than that of the Father's. To have the Father's deity is to be the Father, because His divine essence cannot be fragmented.

Paul could have used other Greek words if all he meant to say was that Jesus was similar to God. If Paul believed Jesus to possess a likeness to God, but not His very essence and being, being some sort of a different substance from Him, he could have used homoioma. This word indicates a "likeness," but stresses "the resemblance to an archetype, though the resemblance may not be derived...." Or Paul could have use eidos, meaning "a shape, or form." This word, however, is only an appearance, "not necessarily based on reality." Paul used eikon instead, to express that Jesus was the exact representation of the Father in His essence and being.

The author of Hebrews said that Jesus is the "express image of his [God's] person" (1:3). The English phrase translated "express image" is from the Greek word charakter. It is this word from which we get our English word "character." This is the only occurrence of the word in the New Testament. It means "to impress upon, or stamp." It denotes an engravement from a tool, which impresses an image into that which is being engraved. This impression, then, is a characteristic of the instrument used to do produce it. What is produced corresponds precisely with the instrument.

The Greek word translated "person" is hupostasis. It is from this word that we get the term "hypostatic union," describing the unification of deity and humanity in the man Christ Jesus. Hupostasis, although rendered as "person," is more properly understood as "essence of being, or the substance of a thing." The etymology of this word has to do with "the sediment or foundation under a building." It is that which underlies, makes up, or supports a thing. In this context, we are talking about what underlies, or makes up God; namely God's essence, or substance.

Hupostasis is translated as "confidence" in II Corinthians 9:4, 11:17, and Hebrews 3:14. In these contexts it is either boasting, or faith in God that is in view. The idea in these verses is that there is a foundation and fullness of essence of the boasting, or in the faith. The only other time the word appears in Scripture is in Hebrews 11:1 where faith is said to be the "substance" of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Here the true meaning of the word can be clearly seen. Faith is the essence, substance, underlying support, or foundation of things that are hoped for.

Jesus, therefore, is not just a representation of God, but is the very visible impression of God's invisible substance and essence. He is God's very nature expressed in humanity as the Son of God. Or to say it another way: He is the corresponding engravement of God's essence of being, in human form. Liddon(as found in Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words on PC Study Bible) summed it up best when he said this verse implies that Jesus "is both personally distinct from, and yet literally equal to, Him of whose essence He is the adequate imprint."

[Angryamerican]

There's nothing to "do" with it, other than believe it. Jesus was/is fully God, and fully man.

Paul, who wrote the most concerning Christ's person, said that Jesus "is the image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15; II Corinthians 4:4). What did Paul mean when He declared Jesus to be God's image? We know that a physical likeness is not in view here because God is a Spirit and therefore cannot have a physical body. The Greek word translated "image" in the King James Version is eikon. Its root is eiko, meaning likeness, resemblance, or representation. Eikon denotes both the representation and manifestation of a substance. Notice that Paul contrasted Jesus' image to that of the invisible God. The point Paul was trying to get across to his readers was that Jesus is the visible representation of God to man. That is why Jesus could say, "he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father" (John 14:9; also 12:45).

For it to be said that Jesus is like God is to say that He is God. God is unique. What likeness could Jesus have had with God other than that of His divine essence? It cannot be speaking of the likeness in which all human beings bear of God (Genesis 2:7), because this would not have distinguished Jesus' likeness with God from ours. The likeness, then, must be that of divine essence. Because the divine essence of God cannot be changed, Jesus' deity could not have been any different than that of the Father's. To have the Father's deity is to be the Father, because His divine essence cannot be fragmented.

Paul could have used other Greek words if all he meant to say was that Jesus was similar to God. If Paul believed Jesus to possess a likeness to God, but not His very essence and being, being some sort of a different substance from Him, he could have used homoioma. This word indicates a "likeness," but stresses "the resemblance to an archetype, though the resemblance may not be derived...." Or Paul could have use eidos, meaning "a shape, or form." This word, however, is only an appearance, "not necessarily based on reality." Paul used eikon instead, to express that Jesus was the exact representation of the Father in His essence and being.

The author of Hebrews said that Jesus is the "express image of his [God's] person" (1:3). The English phrase translated "express image" is from the Greek word charakter. It is this word from which we get our English word "character." This is the only occurrence of the word in the New Testament. It means "to impress upon, or stamp." It denotes an engravement from a tool, which impresses an image into that which is being engraved. This impression, then, is a characteristic of the instrument used to do produce it. What is produced corresponds precisely with the instrument.

The Greek word translated "person" is hupostasis. It is from this word that we get the term "hypostatic union," describing the unification of deity and humanity in the man Christ Jesus. Hupostasis, although rendered as "person," is more properly understood as "essence of being, or the substance of a thing." The etymology of this word has to do with "the sediment or foundation under a building." It is that which underlies, makes up, or supports a thing. In this context, we are talking about what underlies, or makes up God; namely God's essence, or substance.

Hupostasis is translated as "confidence" in II Corinthians 9:4, 11:17, and Hebrews 3:14. In these contexts it is either boasting, or faith in God that is in view. The idea in these verses is that there is a foundation and fullness of essence of the boasting, or in the faith. The only other time the word appears in Scripture is in Hebrews 11:1 where faith is said to be the "substance" of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Here the true meaning of the word can be clearly seen. Faith is the essence, substance, underlying support, or foundation of things that are hoped for.

Jesus, therefore, is not just a representation of God, but is the very visible impression of God's invisible substance and essence. He is God's very nature expressed in humanity as the Son of God. Or to say it another way: He is the corresponding engravement of God's essence of being, in human form. Liddon(as found in Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words on PC Study Bible) summed it up best when he said this verse implies that Jesus "is both personally distinct from, and yet literally equal to, Him of whose essence He is the adequate imprint."

Sounds confusing to me.

[Fire Watch]

Sounds confusing to me.
It's called hermeneutics and exegesis...line upon line, precept upon precept..allowing scripture to interpret scripture.

Perhaps this short study will make it easier to understand. Mighty God in Christ, by Lee Stoneking (http://leestoneking.com/mighty_god_in_christ.htm)<--link

[DRS]

Sounds confusing to me.

It also make null and void many of those examples and prefigurements in the OT.

[Fire Watch]

It also make null and void many of those examples and prefigurements in the OT.
Only according to your eisigesis.

[DRS]

Only according to your eisigesis.

Nope even according to bible.

Jesus-Moses, the prophet Moses foretold God would raise up.

(Deuteronomy 18:15) A prophet from your own midst, from your brothers, like me, is what Jehovah your God will raise up for you—to him YOU people should listen

Acts 3:22 say?

The copper serpent.

John 3:14*And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so the Son of man must be lifted up, 15*that everyone believing in him may have everlasting life.

[Renegade56]

What does that prove?

[DRS]

What does that prove?

What does what prove?

[HisServant]

If I may chime in I dont know everything about God as the Word says now we through a glass darkly then face to face. One day we will know all of Gods glory,but,until then we rely on Gods Word what it says and what our Lord Jesus Christ spoke.
Never did he claim to be anything other then Gods Son and was subject to his Father.
Now do you know everything there is to know about God?
You dont even know who Jesus Christ is to God and to us as he declares who he is many many times.
The beauty of Christ walking perfectly is lost when you make him God,how easy it would be for God,hes God.
He died God does not die, God raised him he didnt raise himself,
He walked the earth with a new body ascended to heaven and sat down at the right hand of God showing the right being the hand of blessing and showing he did not assume Gods seat.
Thats why Romans sets the doctrine for us explaining God, his Son and our role in the body
and in the first chapter of romans lays out the truth that in verse 23 it declares making God into an image of man and worshipping it is Idolatry
read that verse any translation you want still means the same.
When I stand before him on that glorious day I know in my heart he will know me because I knew him and I knew he was sent by his Father to save my worthless life when I didnt deserve it. We owe God all the glory for giving us his Son
We owe our life to his Son and what he did for us when he died on that tree for us when he did nothing wrong to warrant them taking his life but they didnt take HE GAVE his life for you.
You make Jesus God you slap Almighty God in the face. thats just the truth people.
May you believe Gods Word and know he is Gods Son sent to redeem you and I and know that the God of Abraham the God of Moses and the God of Jesus Christ is no man he is The one true God

Just curious because no matter what scripture says it sounds like you and angryamerican knew better. There is no way for anyone to comprehend God. So to understand the relationship between He and Jesus and the Holy Spirit IMO is also incomprehensible.

Now I do know who Jesus is. He lives in me. I have seen Him do great and mighty things. I don't need convincing.

You can continue to believe that Jesus was just a glorified man. I will believe Him to be God the Son, The Logos who was from the Beginning. He is Immanuel God with Us. He is the Alfa and Omega. He is the one all will bow the knee to and Worship. And they will do so to the Glory of the Father.

[HisServant]

I guess you didn't understand that 92% of the translations were trinitarians that translated it?

I think not even Jesus knows everything about God since he doesn't know when the end will come.

Sounds like you need more time in the scriptures.

You still have not answered what do you do with all the scriptures that say,

1. That Jesus is not equal to God

2.That Jesus don't know the day nor the hour of the end

3. That it is the Father you are to worship alone

4.That no man has ever seen God at any time

5.That no man can see God and live

6.In the book of revelation why do we get a vision of Jesus and GOD with different visions of them

7.How come no vision of the holy spirit

8. Is there any scriptures in the old testament that prove that God is a trinity

9. Did Israel believe God was a trinity

10. How come these key words do not appear anywhere in the bible. Trinity= essence

11. Who started the trinity

12. Who else use to worship their gods in groups of three

Some of these questions i have already answered in the thread. But these are legitimate questions, that need to be answered, if you are gonna believe in the trinity.

And you side with the 92%?


the answer to your questions are very simple once you understand that John 1:1 gives us a picture of the Logos God becoming flesh. So Jesus as a man subjected Himself willingly to the will of The Father. Not because He was lesser but because we needed a Savior. We can go at it all day. You are free to believe as you wish. I will believe in the Word of God.

[Angryamerican]

Just curious because no matter what scripture says it sounds like you and angryamerican knew better. There is no way for anyone to comprehend God. So to understand the relationship between He and Jesus and the Holy Spirit IMO is also incomprehensible.

Now I do know who Jesus is. He lives in me. I have seen Him do great and mighty things. I don't need convincing.

You can continue to believe that Jesus was just a glorified man. I will believe Him to be God the Son, The Logos who was from the Beginning. He is Immanuel God with Us. He is the Alfa and Omega. He is the one all will bow the knee to and Worship. And they will do so to the Glory of the Father.

What was the purpose of the word of God?

We will never know everything about God ,but i think we can learn the basics don't you?

[Angryamerican]

the answer to your questions are very simple once you understand that John 1:1 gives us a picture of the Logos God becoming flesh. So Jesus as a man subjected Himself willingly to the will of The Father. Not because He was lesser but because we needed a Savior. We can go at it all day. You are free to believe as you wish. I will believe in the Word of God.

I was right when i said that you are stuck on one verse.

But have a nice evening.

[Constantine the Great]

One other question i have for you.

Why did the writer of john 1:1 later refer to God being greater then Christ if the writer meant God was a trinity?

John 14:28 You heard me say to you, 'I am going away, and I will come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
I see you asking alot of questions but never answering any of mine. Do you plan on addressing anything I've brought up or are you just going to beat the same old tired drum? You only do a disservice to yourself, not me.

[Constantine the Great]

Hey are you ready to answer these questions?
Hey, you going to address any of my points without beating the same tired drum?

I guess you didn't understand that 92% of the translations were trinitarians that translated it?
You must mean someone else because my Church does not need translations thank you very much.

I think not even Jesus knows everything about God since he doesn't know when the end will come.
From this post it sounds like you don't know much about God. I will school you though as I have been in my previous posts up until now which you can't really address.

1. That Jesus is not equal to God
Where? Post verse please.

2.That Jesus don't know the day nor the hour of the end
Only the Father does. Yeah we know. This shows your ignorance regarding the Trinity along with your capacity to properly understand the Bible you are reading. There are verses that show us that Christ has traits that are in common with God. There are verses in the OT that describe/refer to God yet it is Christ that fulfills them (Jews disagree with this but this is a Christian discussion). On the opposite side, we have Christ being separate from the Father (NOT SEPARATE OF GOD). So now either the bible contradicts itself where Jesus is God, but not God, or there is something else at work. Now, if Jesus is a god, just not God, then we are venturing into the realm of polytheism, which again the OT says we are to have only 1 God. SO how can Christ fulfill that from the OT that is ordained to God? Simple Christ is GOD. He is of one essence, as is the Father, as is the Holy Spirit. Yet they are different, separate, equal. United in God. These verses are giving us the separation between the Father and the Son. NOT THE SEPARATION BETWEEN CHRIST AND GOD! Otherwise, the Bible is nothing but a bunch of lies.

3. That it is the Father you are to worship alone
Verse please.

4.That no man has ever seen God at any time
Not the Godhead in its completeness and totality no. We have seen Christ, as He was both perfect God, and perfect man. It is the man that was revealed to us in a form we can see and witness.

5.That no man can see God and live
Correct, which is why Christ had to be both perfect God, and perfect man. Otherwise, how would we have been able to witness Him? Although Moses did see God's backside. So is the Bible lying again?

6.In the book of revelation why do we get a vision of Jesus and GOD with different visions of them
Verse please.

7.How come no vision of the holy spirit
Holy SPIRIT

8. Is there any scriptures in the old testament that prove that God is a trinity
Is there anything in the OT that God has a Son?

9. Did Israel believe God was a trinity
Did Israel believe God had a Son?

10. How come these key words do not appear anywhere in the bible. Trinity= essence
Remember what we said about the Jews and the Greeks? "American" is not in the Bible either. I guess you're screwed.

Acts 20:21
21I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus.

1 Corinthians 1:24
but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

Ooohhh, God has called Jews and Greeks. Americans, Brits, Hispanics, French, Germans, et al are not named in the Bible. I feel pity for you. You are in so much trouble. Perhaps you should apply for Greek citizenship. Not sure if it will have the same effect as to what the Apostle Paul was saying, but it's worth a try.


11. Who started the trinity
God is the Creator of all things.

12. Who else use to worship their gods in groups of three
I don't worship 3 gods, I worship one. This is how confused, blind, and conceited you are. Still beating that tired drum you pagan polytheist you?

[Angryamerican]

I see you asking alot of questions but never answering any of mine. Do you plan on addressing anything I've brought up or are you just going to beat the same old tired drum? You only do a disservice to yourself, not me.

Like what?

And did you ever answer mine?

[Ron Jon]

If you don't believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, why do you care if others do?

[trettep]

If you don't believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, why do you care if others do?

I don't accept the doctrine of the Trinity and believe it is in error. So why should I care if others accept error? - because I'm my brothers keeper.

Paul

[Angryamerican]

If you don't believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, why do you care if others do?

Why don't you ask the same question to the other side.

[Angryamerican]

I don't accept the doctrine of the Trinity and believe it is in error. So why should I care if others accept error? - because I'm my brothers keeper.

Paul

Your answer was better.

[Constantine the Great]

Either you have one messed up bible or you don't read it?
So you mean you have no meaningful response. Got it. I'm done discussing things with you. You are a neophyte. A lightweight. Have a nice day.


If you are gonna continue to mock Americans, Oh never mind you are not worth the time, You do religion just like you do politics yeah spin.
I'm not mocking Americans. I'm mocking your stupid notion that the word trinity needs to be in the Bible in order for it to be a valid doctrine. By that standard, since Americans aren't mentioned in the Bible you're screwed. Go back and read my posts about 10 more times. Maybe have some coffee first to wake up.

[HisServant]

I was right when i said that you are stuck on one verse.

But have a nice evening.

Yeah sorry. Do pray for me. I tend to believe that God's Word is true.
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God and the Word is God.
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld His glory as the glory of the only begotten of the Father.

And since He is the light of men I use this to shed light on everything else.

Hmm come to think of it no wonder people want to change this verse. If you dim the light you can dim the message. :think:

[Angryamerican]

Yeah sorry. Do pray for me. I tend to believe that God's Word is true.
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God and the Word is God.
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld His glory as the glory of the only begotten of the Father.

And since He is the light of men I use this to shed light on everything else.

Hmm come to think of it no wonder people want to change this verse. If you dim the light you can dim the message. :think:

You stick to one verse to prove a doctrine?

I ask you to show me the trinity in the old testament?

I ask you to prove to me why Jesus would say the father is greater if he also is GOD?

Why do you have a problem with Jesus being referred to as a god but not the GOD? When satan was called a god by Jesus himself.

[Angryamerican]

So you mean you have no meaningful response. Got it. I'm done discussing things with you. You are a neophyte. A lightweight. Have a nice day.



I'm not mocking Americans. I'm mocking your stupid notion that the word trinity needs to be in the Bible in order for it to be a valid doctrine. By that standard, since Americans aren't mentioned in the Bible you're screwed. Go back and read my posts about 10 more times. Maybe have some coffee first to wake up.

That was just one of my many reasons not to believe the trinity.When Jesus asked the deciples who they thought he was , Why did peter say he was the messiah and the son of God if he was God?

I suggest you read the whole 14 chapter of John to find out the relationship between God and Jesus and Jesus and man.

And if you still believe the trinity, You are hopeless and it will take the second coming to straighten you out.

[HisServant]

You stick to one verse to prove a doctrine?

I ask you to show me the trinity in the old testament?

I ask you to prove to me why Jesus would say the father is greater if he also is GOD?

Why do you have a problem with Jesus being referred to as a god but not the GOD? When satan was called a god by Jesus himself.

I don't stick with this one verse to prove a doctrine. I stick with this verse becasue it is the beginning of a revelation of who Jesus is. I then use other verses to shed more light on who He is based on what I just found out about Him in John 1:1.

So the argument you present is I don't see it in the OT so it doesn't exist? Not a good argument. By that argument North and South America did not exist. That is why the NT is a revelation of God and Jesus. It shows us things we did not know prior.

God is greater than Jesus did I ever say it isn't so? Jesus is human. God is the almighty. But the Logos and God are one. And thus somehow although the Logos became flesh He is still God. Just one of those things you read and accept instead of trying to wrap our puny little brains around. Unless of course you are one of those who don't think God is incomprehensible.

Calling Jesus "a god" presents this problem. We now have 2 gods. God the Father and a god. That is 2. Bible says there is only one God. So that can't be correct. God says there are no other God beside Him and I believe it.
As for satan please reference the verse where Jesus calls him a god. I know he is referred to as the prince of power of this world but I don't recall him ever being referred to as a god. Unless of course it was by man who makes gods out of whatever he can find to worship. But that does not mean it is true. Don't forget what we call a god means nothing.

[trettep]

Adam's Rib (flesh) was brought forth by God and was formed into Eve.

God's (later revealed as the Father) Word (Spirit) was brought forth by Himself and formed into Jesus.

So thus. In the beginning was the Rib, and the Rib was with Adam, and the Rib was Adam.

Corresponds to:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

See the Word of God contains God's own Spirit = Divine nature - personality, traits, etc.. For example, God can't lie so the Spirit contains not lies. The Word of God therefore contains no lie thus it is TRUTH.

So Adam and Eve are ONE FLESH. The Father and the Son are ONE SPIRIT.

Did you know that Jesus says that the words He speaks are SPIRIT? Indeed they are. I used the term BEING because I think it fits the best to describe it. It is the Father's BEING. And human reproduction (created by God) fits unerstanding how it is imparted. For the WORD is the Seed of God by the Spirit where as man has his semen imparted by the flesh.

That is my perspective and haven't found any scripture that contradicts that.

Paul

[Warrior4God]

Yeah sorry. Do pray for me. I tend to believe that God's Word is true.
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God and the Word is God.
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld His glory as the glory of the only begotten of the Father.

And since He is the light of men I use this to shed light on everything else.

Hmm come to think of it no wonder people want to change this verse. If you dim the light you can dim the message. :think:

Your argument always comes back to this and never respond about other verses which are posted
honestly you really should try and move to other verses as I do believe IMHO I have explained but other verses need to be adressed because the whole Bible is still there to discuss
You believe your right about John 1:1
ok
then the Bible becomes full of contradictions lets adress those

erses that show a difference between the nature of God and the nature of Christ

(5) God is spirit (John 4:24), yet even after his resurrection Jesus said of himself that he was not a spirit, but flesh and bone (Luke 24:39).

(6) Jesus is very plainly called a man many times in Scripture: John 8:40; Acts 2:22; 17:31; 1 Tim. 2:5, etc. In contrast to this, the Bible says, “God is not a man…” (Numbers 23:19), and “...For I am God, and not man...” (Hosea 11:9).

(7) Numbers 23:19 also specifically says that God is not “a son of man.” In the Gospels, Jesus is often called “a son of man” or “the son of man.” If God became a human being who was called “the son of man” this creates a contradiction. Some occurrences of the phrase "son of man” in the New Testament are Matthew 12:40; 16:27 and 28; Mark 2:10; 8:31; John 5:27. In the Hebrew Scriptures, the “son of man” is also used many times speaking of people (Job 25:6; Psalm 80:17; 144:3; Ezekiel 2:1; 2:3; 2:6; 2:8; 3:1; 3:3; 3:4; 3:10; 3:17; 3:25). Human beings, including Jesus Christ, are called “son of man,” and are thus carefully distinguished from God, who is not a “son of man.”

(8) God was not born, but is eternal. In contrast to the eternal God, Christ was “begotten,” that is, he had a beginning. Matthew 1:18 reads ‘Now the birth of Jesus Christ….” The word translated “birth” in the original text was genesis, or “beginning.” Some scribes changed this to gennesis [with a double “n” and the second “e” long] because they were uncomfortable saying Jesus had a “beginning.” Although it is true that a legitimate meaning of genesis is “birth,” that is because the birth of something is understood as its beginning. If Jesus pre-existed his birth, as Trinitarians teach, the use of “beginning” in Matthew is misleading. Scripture teaches that the beginning of Jesus was his conception and birth. Thankfully, even modern Trinitarian scholars recognize that the original reading was genesis, although it is translated as “birth” in almost all translations.

(9) Jesus is called the “Son of God” more than 50 times in the Bible. Not once is he called “God the Son.”

(10) Man (Adam) caused mankind’s problems, and Romans 5:19 says that a man will have to undo those problems: “For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.” Some theologians teach that only God could pay for the sins of mankind, but the Bible clearly teaches that only a man could do it. [For further study read "How can a man atone for the sins of mankind?"]

(11) Jesus, the man, is the mediator between God and men. 1 Timothy 2:5 says: “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” Christ is clearly called a “man,” even after his resurrection. Also, if Christ were himself God, he could not be the mediator “between God and man.”

[HisServant]

Your argument always comes back to this and never respond about other verses which are posted
honestly you really should try and move to other verses as I do believe IMHO I have explained but other verses need to be adressed because the whole Bible is still there to discuss
You believe your right about John 1:1
ok
then the Bible becomes full of contradictions lets adress those

erses that show a difference between the nature of God and the nature of Christ

(5) God is spirit (John 4:24), yet even after his resurrection Jesus said of himself that he was not a spirit, but flesh and bone (Luke 24:39).

(6) Jesus is very plainly called a man many times in Scripture: John 8:40; Acts 2:22; 17:31; 1 Tim. 2:5, etc. In contrast to this, the Bible says, “God is not a man…” (Numbers 23:19), and “...For I am God, and not man...” (Hosea 11:9).

(7) Numbers 23:19 also specifically says that God is not “a son of man.” In the Gospels, Jesus is often called “a son of man” or “the son of man.” If God became a human being who was called “the son of man” this creates a contradiction. Some occurrences of the phrase "son of man” in the New Testament are Matthew 12:40; 16:27 and 28; Mark 2:10; 8:31; John 5:27. In the Hebrew Scriptures, the “son of man” is also used many times speaking of people (Job 25:6; Psalm 80:17; 144:3; Ezekiel 2:1; 2:3; 2:6; 2:8; 3:1; 3:3; 3:4; 3:10; 3:17; 3:25). Human beings, including Jesus Christ, are called “son of man,” and are thus carefully distinguished from God, who is not a “son of man.”

(8) God was not born, but is eternal. In contrast to the eternal God, Christ was “begotten,” that is, he had a beginning. Matthew 1:18 reads ‘Now the birth of Jesus Christ….” The word translated “birth” in the original text was genesis, or “beginning.” Some scribes changed this to gennesis [with a double “n” and the second “e” long] because they were uncomfortable saying Jesus had a “beginning.” Although it is true that a legitimate meaning of genesis is “birth,” that is because the birth of something is understood as its beginning. If Jesus pre-existed his birth, as Trinitarians teach, the use of “beginning” in Matthew is misleading. Scripture teaches that the beginning of Jesus was his conception and birth. Thankfully, even modern Trinitarian scholars recognize that the original reading was genesis, although it is translated as “birth” in almost all translations.

(9) Jesus is called the “Son of God” more than 50 times in the Bible. Not once is he called “God the Son.”

(10) Man (Adam) caused mankind’s problems, and Romans 5:19 says that a man will have to undo those problems: “For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.” Some theologians teach that only God could pay for the sins of mankind, but the Bible clearly teaches that only a man could do it. [For further study read "How can a man atone for the sins of mankind?"]

(11) Jesus, the man, is the mediator between God and men. 1 Timothy 2:5 says: “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” Christ is clearly called a “man,” even after his resurrection. Also, if Christ were himself God, he could not be the mediator “between God and man.”

My friend the is a difference between the Logos before becoming Jesus. The Logos was with God and is God. This needs to be understood before moving on IMO. Otherwise all the other reference don't make sense. For John the revelator begins to reveal who Jesus truly is. Hence the NT is a revelation of Jesus Christ.

second who Jesus is now is different than who He was before becoming man. so therefore He subjected Himself willingly and took on flesh. He willingly laided down His life, no one took it. He did it all for us. None of the verses you cite means that Jesus is not God the Son. It merely points out the difference between the Father and the Son. Revelations gives us a good picture of who Jesus is.

I understand it is not an easy concept and many don't like it. Sorry. We don't always have to understand something to agree with it. Which is why I asked if you knew all there was to know about God. Because perhaps this is something beyond all mens comprehension and we think we can figure it out with our puny little minds.

[DRS]

The Logos was with the God who is the God.

John got the Revelation from an angel who got it from Jesus who got it from God.

[sola_fide]

You've broached a question--a narrow, but crucial one--that I have grappled with for some time now: How wrong can we be about God and still be reconciled to him?

Do we have to believe in the Trinity?

Understanding of the Son has to be within the context of the Triunity of God. The very term, "Son of God" looses it's meaning outside of that context. The early church understood it, which is why the earliest of apologists, Athenagorus and Justin Martyr wrote apologies concerning the Triune nature of God to both Jew and Greek alike. Anything else leads to a distorted view of God.

[sola_fide]

Your argument always comes back to this and never respond about other verses which are posted
honestly you really should try and move to other verses as I do believe IMHO I have explained but other verses need to be adressed because the whole Bible is still there to discuss
You believe your right about John 1:1
ok
then the Bible becomes full of contradictions lets adress those

erses that show a difference between the nature of God and the nature of Christ

(5) God is spirit (John 4:24), yet even after his resurrection Jesus said of himself that he was not a spirit, but flesh and bone (Luke 24:39).

To avoid the distinct teaching of Scripture of Jesus being a unique Person, who as the Logos is eternally divine in essence or nature, also took on the additional nature of human flesh in the incarnation. From thence on, Christ is One Person, with two distinct natures, divine and human.

[Warrior4God]

Understanding of the Son has to be within the context of the Triunity of God. The very term, "Son of God" looses it's meaning outside of that context. The early church understood it, which is why the earliest of apologists, Athenagorus and Justin Martyr wrote apologies concerning the Triune nature of God to both Jew and Greek alike. Anything else leads to a distorted view of God.

that is absurd
and they should write apologies for the trinity

[Warrior4God]

Sounds confusing to me.

Ya think?

Romans 1:22,23

22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
I believe this is describing Idolatry
Who do you say Jesus is?

[Fire Watch]

Ya think?

Romans 1:22,23

22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,


Something you apparently did a long time ago.

[Angryamerican]

I don't stick with this one verse to prove a doctrine. I stick with this verse becasue it is the beginning of a revelation of who Jesus is. I then use other verses to shed more light on who He is based on what I just found out about Him in John 1:1.

So the argument you present is I don't see it in the OT so it doesn't exist? Not a good argument. By that argument North and South America did not exist. That is why the NT is a revelation of God and Jesus. It shows us things we did not know prior.

God is greater than Jesus did I ever say it isn't so? Jesus is human. God is the almighty. But the Logos and God are one. And thus somehow although the Logos became flesh He is still God. Just one of those things you read and accept instead of trying to wrap our puny little brains around. Unless of course you are one of those who don't think God is incomprehensible.

Calling Jesus "a god" presents this problem. We now have 2 gods. God the Father and a god. That is 2. Bible says there is only one God. So that can't be correct. God says there are no other God beside Him and I believe it.
As for satan please reference the verse where Jesus calls him a god. I know he is referred to as the prince of power of this world but I don't recall him ever being referred to as a god. Unless of course it was by man who makes gods out of whatever he can find to worship. But that does not mean it is true. Don't forget what we call a god means nothing.

Well we are just gonna disagree on John 1:1, You don't believe it is mistranslated, and i do. But we can discuss other scripture. I feel that there is more biblical evidence, to prove God is not a trinity then there is to prove he is a trinity.

If you are saying God is indeed Greater then Jesus. then there goes the trinity theory. Because the true teaching of the trinity is that Jesus and God and the Holy Spirit are co-Eternal and co-Equal. Now i don't think i have explain that any further right?

Did not moses ask to see all of God's glory? There was no mention at all anywhere in the old testament, to insinuate that he was a trinity ,and there was no mention of Jesus but we knew he exitsted before he came to the earth.

Do you not agree that the scriptures say ,that no man has ever seen God or no man can see God and live?So you asked for the scripture about Jesus calling satan a god 2Co 4:4. Now if Christ can call satan a god i can call Jesus a god right atleast? You havn't even looked at the verse and you are spinning.

[Angryamerican]

I don't stick with this one verse to prove a doctrine. I stick with this verse becasue it is the beginning of a revelation of who Jesus is. I then use other verses to shed more light on who He is based on what I just found out about Him in John 1:1.

So the argument you present is I don't see it in the OT so it doesn't exist? Not a good argument. By that argument North and South America did not exist. That is why the NT is a revelation of God and Jesus. It shows us things we did not know prior.

God is greater than Jesus did I ever say it isn't so? Jesus is human. God is the almighty. But the Logos and God are one. And thus somehow although the Logos became flesh He is still God. Just one of those things you read and accept instead of trying to wrap our puny little brains around. Unless of course you are one of those who don't think God is incomprehensible.

Calling Jesus "a god" presents this problem. We now have 2 gods. God the Father and a god. That is 2. Bible says there is only one God. So that can't be correct. God says there are no other God beside Him and I believe it.
As for satan please reference the verse where Jesus calls him a god. I know he is referred to as the prince of power of this world but I don't recall him ever being referred to as a god. Unless of course it was by man who makes gods out of whatever he can find to worship. But that does not mean it is true. Don't forget what we call a god means nothing.

Going a step further i think you are ready to see this. You said that God is greater then Christ because Christ is a man. But the word says no man has ever seen God.Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

No man can see God and live. Exo 33:20 And He said, You cannot see My face. For there no man can see Me and live.

So you have just read also that Christ has declared God, he has made the Father known. So do you still hold that view that we are not to know who God is?

Now if you still believe that God is greater then Christ because he was a man.

Well we know Christ is coming back but not as a mortal man. He is coming back in godly form. And we know every eye will see him. Rev 1:7 Behold, He comes with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, and those who pierced Him will see Him, and all the kindreds of the earth will wail because of Him. Even so, Amen

This is just one more reason why Jesus can't be god. because when he returns in godly form he will be seen by all and remember the scriptures saying that no man can see God and live and no man has ever seen God.

[Cerberus^AzW]

Matthew Chapter 1vs18 (NIV)This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. 19Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

This is where I believe in one part of the trinty Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirt.
Basicaly the Spirt became Human. Just like all of us having a Spirt (sole)
Jesus's Spirt was that of the Spirt Of GOD.

Heres the rest

20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[c] because he will save his people from their sins."

[Angryamerican]

My friend the is a difference between the Logos before becoming Jesus. The Logos was with God and is God. This needs to be understood before moving on IMO. Otherwise all the other reference don't make sense. For John the revelator begins to reveal who Jesus truly is. Hence the NT is a revelation of Jesus Christ.

second who Jesus is now is different than who He was before becoming man. so therefore He subjected Himself willingly and took on flesh. He willingly laided down His life, no one took it. He did it all for us. None of the verses you cite means that Jesus is not God the Son. It merely points out the difference between the Father and the Son. Revelations gives us a good picture of who Jesus is.

I understand it is not an easy concept and many don't like it. Sorry. We don't always have to understand something to agree with it. Which is why I asked if you knew all there was to know about God. Because perhaps this is something beyond all mens comprehension and we think we can figure it out with our puny little minds.

God is not the author of confusion.

Jer 3:25 We lie down in our shame, and our confusion covers us; for we have sinned against Jehovah our God, we and our fathers, from our youth even to this day, and have not obeyed the voice of Jehovah our God.

1Co 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

[Angryamerican]

Ya think?

Romans 1:22,23

22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
I believe this is describing Idolatry
Who do you say Jesus is?

He is the actual son of God. And like a good son he wants to please his father. Thats why he does his fathers will.

[DRS]

Understanding of the Son has to be within the context of the Triunity of God. The very term, "Son of God" looses it's meaning outside of that context. The early church understood it, which is why the earliest of apologists, Athenagorus and Justin Martyr wrote apologies concerning the Triune nature of God to both Jew and Greek alike. Anything else leads to a distorted view of God.

Martyr was a student of greek philosophy, before learning of Christ and then tried to apply greek philosophy to teachings about Christ.

Writing to the Jews and telling their God who was one is now three would go over real well and contradict the scripture.

[Angryamerican]

Mat 12:36 But I say to you that every idle word, whatever men may speak, they shall give account of it in the day of judgment.

Joh 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, He who hears My Word and believes on Him who sent Me has everlasting life and shall not come into condemnation, but has passed from death to life.

Joh 8:37 I know that you are Abraham's seed, but you seek to kill Me because My Word has no place in you.

Joh 8:37 I know that you are Abraham's seed, but you seek to kill Me because My Word has no place in you.

Joh 8:45 And because I tell you the truth, you do not believe Me

Rom 1:25 For they changed the truth of God into a lie, and they worshiped and served the created thing more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen

[Angryamerican]

Mat 15:9 But in vain they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

Mar 7:7 However, they worship Me in vain, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Col 2:22 which things are all for corruption in the using, according to the commands and doctrines of men?

[HisServant]

To avoid the distinct teaching of Scripture of Jesus being a unique Person, who as the Logos is eternally divine in essence or nature, also took on the additional nature of human flesh in the incarnation. From thence on, Christ is One Person, with two distinct natures, divine and human.

Thank you I did not know how to adequately explain it. You cannot look at Jesus without realizing that He is all human and yet He is God. How I don't know I don't need to know. I just believe what the Bible says. We get so caught up on not knowing how something works that we forget that there very nature of God is incomprehensible to our little minds.

[HisServant]

Ya think?

Romans 1:22,23

22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
I believe this is describing Idolatry
Who do you say Jesus is?

You keep using this verse ever consider the fact that it could be describing you? No one is changing the image of God the Father. Name one way in which the Trinity doctrine changes who God The Father is?

[HisServant]

Well we are just gonna disagree on John 1:1, You don't believe it is mistranslated, and i do. But we can discuss other scripture. I feel that there is more biblical evidence, to prove God is not a trinity then there is to prove he is a trinity.

If you are saying God is indeed Greater then Jesus. then there goes the trinity theory. Because the true teaching of the trinity is that Jesus and God and the Holy Spirit are co-Eternal and co-Equal. Now i don't think i have explain that any further right?

Did not moses ask to see all of God's glory? There was no mention at all anywhere in the old testament, to insinuate that he was a trinity ,and there was no mention of Jesus but we knew he exitsted before he came to the earth.

Do you not agree that the scriptures say ,that no man has ever seen God or no man can see God and live?So you asked for the scripture about Jesus calling satan a god 2Co 4:4. Now if Christ can call satan a god i can call Jesus a god right atleast? You havn't even looked at the verse and you are spinning.

Perhaps the problem lies in how your view of the Trinity works. For some reason you can't seperate who the Logos was before becoming flesh. From who He is (Jesus) when He became flesh. To who He is now as the Risen Savior who now is back in His rightful place as part of the Godhead.
God is not a Trinity. This is a bad term. Jesus is not a Trinity. Not a good term. The Trinity is what we call the doctrine of the 3 in 1. We don't call God, Jesus or the Holy Spirit a Trinity. Doing so shows a lack of understanding IMO of what it means.

God the Father is indeed Greater than Jesus the human person. But as the Logos as John 1:1 points out they are one. Hence again if you fail to understand John 1:1 you fail to understand any of it. The Logos becomes flesh, Jesus, He limits himself and takes on human form. He now becomes lower than the angels, How? He becomes mortal. Since God is immortal then yes Jesus, now being mortal, is lessor than God the Father. Not a hard concept.

[HisServant]

Well we are just gonna disagree on John 1:1, You don't believe it is mistranslated, and i do. But we can discuss other scripture. I feel that there is more biblical evidence, to prove God is not a trinity then there is to prove he is a trinity.

If you are saying God is indeed Greater then Jesus. then there goes the trinity theory. Because the true teaching of the trinity is that Jesus and God and the Holy Spirit are co-Eternal and co-Equal. Now i don't think i have explain that any further right?

Did not moses ask to see all of God's glory? There was no mention at all anywhere in the old testament, to insinuate that he was a trinity ,and there was no mention of Jesus but we knew he exitsted before he came to the earth.

Do you not agree that the scriptures say ,that no man has ever seen God or no man can see God and live?So you asked for the scripture about Jesus calling satan a god 2Co 4:4. Now if Christ can call satan a god i can call Jesus a god right atleast? You havn't even looked at the verse and you are spinning.

I just looked over 2 Cor. 4:4 now I know why I did not remember any verse where Jesus says Satan is a god. Because there is no such verse. Lets look at it again and not add to scripture.

3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.


Now ask some questions:
1. who wrote this? Correct Paul.
2. Who called satan "the god of this age"? correct Paul.
3. Does this mean satan is a god? No it is a phrase. For there is only one God and beside Him there is no other.

So what you have shown me is 2 things. One either you cannot tell the difference between a phrase (2 Cor4:4) and a declaration (John 1:1) or two you choose to ignore the difference to prove a point. For instance when Jesus called the pharasees a brood of vipers is He really saying they are literal snakes? Or is this a phrase that denotes an insult to their lack of character?

[HisServant]

Going a step further i think you are ready to see this. You said that God is greater then Christ because Christ is a man. But the word says no man has ever seen God.Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

No man can see God and live. Exo 33:20 And He said, You cannot see My face. For there no man can see Me and live.

So you have just read also that Christ has declared God, he has made the Father known. So do you still hold that view that we are not to know who God is?
Where did I say we can't know who God is? Please paste my statement where I say this. Or did I say God is incomprehensible. That we will never fully understand who God is because our minds cannot comprehend Him in his fulness. Seems to me you don't even read my statements properly.

Now if you still believe that God is greater then Christ because he was a man.

Well we know Christ is coming back but not as a mortal man. He is coming back in godly form. And we know every eye will see him. Rev 1:7 Behold, He comes with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, and those who pierced Him will see Him, and all the kindreds of the earth will wail because of Him. Even so, Amen

This is just one more reason why Jesus can't be god. because when he returns in godly form he will be seen by all and remember the scriptures saying that no man can see God and live and no man has ever seen God.
Again lack of understanding. Try this: No man Has seen God the Father at any time. Jesus is God the Son. Scripture's integrity secure.
This again comes from understanding that there are 3 in 1. Father, Son, Spirit.

[HisServant]

Mat 15:9 But in vain they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

Mar 7:7 However, they worship Me in vain, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Col 2:22 which things are all for corruption in the using, according to the commands and doctrines of men?

Quite interesting seeing how the JW doctrine was created by a man and they print their own bibles. :think:

[trettep]

To avoid the distinct teaching of Scripture of Jesus being a unique Person, who as the Logos is eternally divine in essence or nature, also took on the additional nature of human flesh in the incarnation. From thence on, Christ is One Person, with two distinct natures, divine and human.

That would be incorrect for the nature of man is carnal and not subject to the law of God. Jesus is not carnal and never had been thus doesn't have that nature. Additionally, had He had that nature then He would be not only the child of God but also the child of the devil. Jesus would produce fruits of the fleshy nature if He had both natures for by their fruits do we know them. So as that rule alone we can verify that Jesus never had the nature of man. Jesus was always from ABOVE even when walking amonst others in the form of a man. So He may have been fashioned as a man but was never of the nature of man.

Paul

[Angryamerican]

Thank you I did not know how to adequately explain it. You cannot look at Jesus without realizing that He is all human and yet He is God. How I don't know I don't need to know. I just believe what the Bible says. We get so caught up on not knowing how something works that we forget that there very nature of God is incomprehensible to our little minds.

Totally absurd thinking.

[HisServant]

Totally absurd thinking.

No this is:

That would be incorrect for the nature of man is carnal and not subject to the law of God. Jesus is not carnal and never had been thus doesn't have that nature. Additionally, had He had that nature then He would be not only the child of God but also the child of the devil. Jesus would produce fruits of the fleshy nature if He had both natures for by their fruits do we know them. So as that rule alone we can verify that Jesus never had the nature of man. Jesus was always from ABOVE even when walking amonst others in the form of a man. So He may have been fashioned as a man but was never of the nature of man.



It shows a lack of understanding of Jesus being man who was created via the Holy Spirit thus did not have the nature of Adam but of God.

[Angryamerican]

I just looked over 2 Cor. 4:4 now I know why I did not remember any verse where Jesus says Satan is a god. Because there is no such verse. Lets look at it again and not add to scripture.

3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.


Now ask some questions:
1. who wrote this? Correct Paul.
2. Who called satan "the god of this age"? correct Paul.
3. Does this mean satan is a god? No it is a phrase. For there is only one God and beside Him there is no other.

So what you have shown me is 2 things. One either you cannot tell the difference between a phrase (2 Cor4:4) and a declaration (John 1:1) or two you choose to ignore the difference to prove a point. For instance when Jesus called the pharasees a brood of vipers is He really saying they are literal snakes? Or is this a phrase that denotes an insult to their lack of character?

Whether it was paul or Christ they stilled called him a god and the ruler of this world.

[Angryamerican]

Where did I say we can't know who God is? Please paste my statement where I say this. Or did I say God is incomprehensible. That we will never fully understand who God is because our minds cannot comprehend Him in his fulness. Seems to me you don't even read my statements properly.


Again lack of understanding. Try this: No man Has seen God the Father at any time. Jesus is God the Son. Scripture's integrity secure.
This again comes from understanding that there are 3 in 1. Father, Son, Spirit.

You totally ignored the 2nd coming in which we will all see him. But he is in GODLY FORM NOW. What say you?

[Angryamerican]

Quite interesting seeing how the JW doctrine was created by a man and they print their own bibles. :think:

And who printed your bible?

And i am not a JW.

Is the trinity a man made idea?

Do you remember it was made a doctrine by the catholics?

[Angryamerican]

No this is:

That would be incorrect for the nature of man is carnal and not subject to the law of God. Jesus is not carnal and never had been thus doesn't have that nature. Additionally, had He had that nature then He would be not only the child of God but also the child of the devil. Jesus would produce fruits of the fleshy nature if He had both natures for by their fruits do we know them. So as that rule alone we can verify that Jesus never had the nature of man. Jesus was always from ABOVE even when walking amonst others in the form of a man. So He may have been fashioned as a man but was never of the nature of man.



It shows a lack of understanding of Jesus being man who was created via the Holy Spirit thus did not have the nature of Adam but of God.

If you can't explain God through the scriptures i have no interest in your opinion. Because the bible is a major part of my beliefs.That is the only source we have to get to know God and what he expects from us.

Luk 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written that "man shall not live by bread alone, but by every Word of God."

[Angryamerican]

No this is:

That would be incorrect for the nature of man is carnal and not subject to the law of God. Jesus is not carnal and never had been thus doesn't have that nature. Additionally, had He had that nature then He would be not only the child of God but also the child of the devil. Jesus would produce fruits of the fleshy nature if He had both natures for by their fruits do we know them. So as that rule alone we can verify that Jesus never had the nature of man. Jesus was always from ABOVE even when walking amonst others in the form of a man. So He may have been fashioned as a man but was never of the nature of man.



It shows a lack of understanding of Jesus being man who was created via the Holy Spirit thus did not have the nature of Adam but of God.

In the Beginning Man Created God!
And one was not enough.
So he created three,
And called them Holy Trinity.

RELIGIOUS TRIADS EXISTED FOR CENTURIES IN BABYLON: Many centuries before the time of Christ, back at the very beginning of civilization, there were trinities of gods in ancient Babylonia and Assyria. It was common in the ancient world to group pagan gods in threes or triads. Egypt, Greece, and Rome were noted for following trinitarian practices in the centuries before, during, and after Christ. After the death of the apostles, these pagan beliefs slowly became a part of Christianity. According to the Encylopedia Americana, “Fourth century Trinitarianism was a deviation from early Christian teaching.”

A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge calls our attention to an important fact about the Trinity Doctrine. It says that the Trinity “is a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions, and ingrafted on the Christian faith.” The more you research the history of mankind the more apparent it becomes that the Christian teaching of the Trinity is entirely pagan.

THE HOLY SCRIPTURES: Look at the teachings of the prophets found in the Hebrew Scriptures. Do they even once speak of a Trinity as the “central doctrine” of faith? No! They always speak about one God, who demands exclusive devotion. Search the teachings of Jesus Christ and his apostles in the Christian Greek Scriptures and see for yourself that they emphatically preached One God, and father of us all! It is obvious, man created the Trinity!

MONOTHEISTIC: Belief that there is only one true God. The Holy Scriptures present Jehovah God as the one and only God. (John 4:23) (1 Corinthians 8:5-6) He requires exclusive devotion. (Nahum 1:2) (Exodus 20:2-5) (John 14:28) (Matthew 22:36-38) The Bible specifically states that the true God was and is the Father of Jesus Christ. (1 Corinthians 8:4-6) The theory of “three gods in one” does not respect Jehovah God’s requirement for exclusive devotion stated at Deuteronomy 4:24, and it is not found in the Bible. There is only one true God, not three! The word monotheistic is also not found in the Holy Scriptures, but the concept is present throughout the context of the Bible.

Read Deuteronomy 4:35, “To you it is shown that you might know that the LORD, He is God; there is no other besides Him.” NASB. Also read Deuteronomy 4:39, “Know therefore this day, and consider in thine heart, that the LORD he [is] God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath; [there is] none else.” KJV. How much clearer must that be stated? The LORD is God and there is no other besides Him!

[Angryamerican]

TRINITY DOCTRINE, A ROMAN CATHOLIC CREATION: The Trinity Doctrine was officially adopted by the Roman Catholic Church nearly 300 years after Christ! The apostles had completed the writing of the Christian Greek Scriptures 250 years before the Catholic Church approved of the Trinity Doctrine. The Catholic Encylopedia will verify that fact.

It was a gradual process that took many years and much debate but in the year 325 C.E. the Creed of the Council of Nicaea was approved and the teaching of the Trinity became formalized in the church. Arius, a priest in Alexandria denied the dogma from the church that Jesus was God incarnate. He claimed it to be false doctrine and contrary to Holy Scriptures. The Emperor Constantine (Constine) convoked a church council at Nicaea in 325 to organize the Catholic Church against the teaching of Arius.

Hilarius (300-367 C.E.) was the Roman Catholic Bishop of Pictavium. He was referred to as the “malleus Arianorum,” the “hammer against Arianism.” This is because he expended great amounts of energy fighting the Christians who believed that God was totally one God and not Trinitarian. Hilarius was unanimously elected bishop about 353 C.E. At that time Arianism was threatening to overrun the Western Church. One of his first duties as bishop was to secure the excommunication of the Arian bishop of Arles and of Ursacius and Valens, two of his prominent supporters. This was one of the major battles fought in the great Trinitarian war.

The Council of Constantinople also approved the teaching of the Trinity in 381 C.E. Previous to this in the year 200 C.E. Tertullian quoted the old Roman Creed which was completely devoid of any reference to the Trinity. The New Simplified Bible features the true monotheistic God, one God, not three in one!

TRADITIONS OF MEN, False Doctrine: The Jewish leaders were following the commands of men as doctrines. (Matthew 15:9) Jesus said that by their tradition they made God’s Word invalid, overstepping the commands of God. (Matthew 15:3-6) Neither Jesus nor the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures ever spoke anything that was not absolutely found in the Holy Scriptures. (2 Timothy 3:16, 17)

Jesus Christ and the first century Christian leaders never gave permission to add new doctrine and traditions to the teachings of the Holy Scriptures. Christian leaders of the third, fourth and fifth centuries added a large number of new doctrine and traditions to the church. (1 Timothy 1:3; 6:3-5) This is especially true of the Roman Catholic Church. However, most of the church organizations that broke away from the Catholic Church retained these questionable doctrines and added their own. This apostate practice has been going on since the first century.

[Angryamerican]

CHURCH LEADERS CLAIM DIVINE AUTHORITY TO TEACH TRINITY: Church leaders proclaim that God has given them divine authority to write new teachings and traditions. It is not uncommon for a religious leader to claim that God speaks to him directly. In spite of the fact that interpretation belongs to God, church leaders continue to make up their own doctrines. (2 Peter 1:20) (Genesis 40:8) (Revelation 22:9)

TRINITARIAN CONSPIRACY: A conspiracy is a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act. The act of teaching millions of church members that Jesus Christ is one and the same spirit person as Jehovah God is an organized conspiracy. It is a deliberate attempt to persuade people that God’s Word does not state that “the LORD, He is God; there is no other besides Him.” (Deuteronomy 4:35 NASB) It is a deliberate and highly organized conspiracy to overthrow the Truth from the Bible!

TRINITY NOT FOUND IN THE BIBLE: This word is not found in the Holy Scriptures. In fact the entire context of the Bible does not support a mysterious three-persons-in-one spirit being. Jesus instructions at Matthew 28:18-20 identify three spirit entities, but do not say they are three in one. Paul’s salutation at 2 Corinthians 13:14 identify the three separate spirit entities, but do not say they belong to a trinity. God does not share his name or glory with anyone. (Isaiah 42:8, 44:6; 48:11) The unity emphasized at Ephesians 4:3-6 proves He is a monotheistic God, one God and Father of all. (SEE N S B Notes: HOLY SPIRIT, “WHO” OR “WHAT?”)

NEW SIMPLIFIED BIBLE, THE OTHER NON-TRINITARIAN BIBLE: Of the nearly 350 complete “New Testaments” and 102 complete translations of the entire “Old and New Testaments” translated into English since 1450 Common Era, more than 95 percent have been “Trinitarian Biased.” Trinitarian translators and Trinitarian publishers provide Bibles to Trinitarian-minded people. The end result is Bible translations filled with Trinitarian views! The New Simplified Bible is Not Trinitarian Biased! John 1:1, 18; 8:58; 10:34-36; 14:10, 17; 16:13-15; Exodus 3:14, 15 and many other references give evidence of this.

JESUS CHRIST: Hebrew: Jehoshua, meaning Jehovah Is Salvation. Jesus Christ is the name and title of the Son of God. He is the only begotten Son. Jesus paid the ransom sacrifice for mankind. (Matthew 20:28) (1 Timothy 2:6) (1 John 2:1, 2) He is referred to as the Word of God. He is now at the right hand of God. (Acts 7:55) (Hebrews 10:12) Jesus Christ and his anointed will rule as kings over the earth. (Revelation 5:8-14) Jesus is the expression of God’s love for mankind. (John 3:16, 36)

John 1:1 is translated using the same words in nearly every translation. This translation is different! If you believe Jesus is God the wording here should not disturb your beliefs, for he was and is like his Father. If you accept God’s own statement that Jesus is the Son of God the rendering in The New Simplified Bible will fit your theology. The following is the way you will find it in this translation along with related notes: (John 1:1) “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and Word was like God.”

(Strong’s Bible Dictionary: Theos: God, a god, magistrate, deity, godly or God-like) (Family relationship, son with father) (Logos en pros Theos; Jesus Christ the Word was with {pros} God) Transliteration: In the beginning was Jesus Christ the Son of God, and Jesus Christ the Son of God was with God, and Jesus Christ the Son of God was like his Father, God. Another way to state this: “The Word was in the beginning, and the Word was with God, and the Word was like God. This is a family relationship, son with father. “Logos en pros Theos.” Jesus Christ the Word (Logos) was with (pros) God. And Jesus Christ was like, his Father, God (Theo's). (1 Corinthians 11:3; 15:27, 28) (John 1:18) (Philippians 2:6) (Acts 7:55) (Hebrews 10:12) GREEK: “kai theos en ho logos.” ENGLISH: and God-like was the Word.

If God was a Trinity, Jesus would also be “like God.” Since God is not a Trinity, it is even more important to convey the fact that he is still like his Father and his God. (John 20:17) (Revelation 3:12) After all, being second only to God in the universe is very close to being a deity. At this very moment Jesus is at the right hand of the Almighty God, Jehovah. (Acts 7:55) (Hebrews 1:3; 10:12)

[Angryamerican]

Non-Trinitarian Bible Translations

COMPARE John 1:1: Approximately four hundred English translations of the Christian Greek Holy Scriptures have been written over the past five hundred years. Of this total, only eight have rendered John 1:1 with wording that is different then the usual Trinitarian statement: “the Word was God”. They are as follows:

1867 Inspired Version also called Joseph Smith Translation: “the Son was of God.”
1922 Moffatt New Translation: “the Word was divine.”
1931 American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed): “the Word was divine.”
1942 Emphatic Diaglott: “a god was the Word.”
1958 Authentic New Testament: “the Word was divine.”
1961 New World Translation: “the Word was a god.”
1885 Original New Testament: “so the Word was divine.”
2003 New Simplified Bible: “the Word was like God.”

One might conclude that Jesus Christ, the Word, was part of a trinity while reading that “the Word was divine”. So we could eliminate these translations. And the Joseph Smith Translation is highly questionable at best. So let’s eliminate it too! The Emphatic Diaglott is an Interlinear Greek-to-English publication with very awkward English.

COMPARE John 14:10: Now let’s compare how John 14:10 is translated in several modern translations. The phrase in question is “I am in the Father” and “the Father is in me.” One would think that Jesus and the Father were one and the same being from this wording. However, they translated the Greek word “en” to the English word “in.” It can also be translated “with.” Notice the comparison:

1769 Authorized Version of KJV: “I am in the Father.”
1902 Rotherham Bible: “I am in the Father.”
1933 George M Lamsa Translation: “I am with the Father.”
1961 New World Translation: “I am in union with the Father.”
1989 New Revised Standard Version: “I am in the Father.”
1995 New American Standard Bible: “I am in the Father.”
2000 New International Version: “I am in the Father.”
2003 New Simplified Bible: “I am with the Father.”

Nearly all English Bible translations use the phrase “I am in the Father” at John 14:10. This time we find three translations that do not emphasize the false and mysterious Trinity. They are the New World Translation, George M Lamsa Translation, and the New Simplified Bible.

COMPARE John 8:58: Take a closer look at John 8:58. Most Bible translations use the deliberate Trinitarian phrase, “Before Abraham was, I am.” This is Jesus Christ the Son of God speaking. They want you to think that phrase “I am” means God. But does it? Or does it simply mean “I exist (existed).” The word they translated “am” is from the Greek “eimi.” It has several meanings including: am, exist, and was. Notice how the the translations compare:

1611 King James Version: “I am”
1901 American Standard Version: “I am”
1933 George M Lamsa Translation: “I was”
1961 New World Translation: “I have been”
1989 New Revised Standard Version: “I am”
1995 New American Standard Bible: “I am”
2ooo New International Version: “I am”
2003 New Simplified Bible: “I existed before Abraham was born”

Again we find the same three translations that champion the true God of the Bible, a Monotheistic Deity. They are the New World Translation, George M Lamsa Translation, and the New Simplified Bible.

COMPARE Exodus 3:14: This is where the devious conspiracy begins! The Trinitarian translators mislead the unsuspecting Bible student at the very begininng of the the Holy Scriptures. The Hebrew word that they translate “I AM WHO I AM” is “hayah.” It can be translated “am”, “have been”, “will become”, “exist”, remain”, “will be”. Look at these translation comparisons:

1611 King James Version: “I AM THAT I AM”
1901 American Standard Version: “I AM THAT I AM”
1933 George M Lamsa Translation: “I am AHIAH ASHAR HIGH, (that is, THE LIVING GOD)
1961 New World Translation: “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE”
2003 New Simplified Bible: “[I exist and] I WILL BE WHO I WILL BE.”

[Angryamerican]

The Truth about John 1:1

By Ebrahim Saifuddin


This verse is one of the most famous verses quoted by Christians when they want to show that Jesus is God. First we will look at the English translation of the verse as seen in some different versions of the Bible.




Different Translations of John 1:1


King James Version

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


New International Version

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


Douay-Rheims Bible

In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.

The above are the different translations of the concerned verse as seen in the different versions of the Bible. When moving from one translation or the other, this verse is generally translated in the same manner in all the versions. However there is a certain level of deception in these translations.




Greek Text of John 1:1



The Greek Text

enarch hn o logoV,kai ologoV hnproV tonqeon, kai qeoVhn ologoV.



Pay close attention to the words in the bold text. I will translate these texts below:



Transliteration,Pronunciation and Translation



· Greek word: o

Transliteration: ho

Pronunciation: ho

Translation: the



· Greek word: logoV

Transliteration: logos

Pronunciation: log’-os

Translation: word



The Mistranslated Word ‘qeoV’

In the above example, ‘ho’ is basically an article. In the English language there are 2 articles, ‘the’ which is a definite article and ‘a’ which is an indefinite article. In Greek however there is only 1 article which is definite.

When ‘logos’ is put after ‘ho’ it becomes ‘the word’ and with the absence of ‘ho’, it remains as ‘word’. However this is not where the great deception really is. The part with the great deception will come below.

Greek word: qeoV

Transliterated: theos

Pronounced: theh’-os


This word ‘theos’ does not only mean ‘God’ with a capital ‘G’. According to the “Thayer’s Greek Definitions”, the first meaning of this word ‘theos’ is written to be:


“A god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities.”

One of the meanings of this word as explained by Strong’s Greek Dictionary is:


“A deity.”

As seen above, ‘theos’ also means ‘god’ i.e. any god. Greek has no such law like English where we can differentiate between ‘god’ and ‘God’ by the use of the capital letter or small letter. Hence to indicate whether ‘theos’ is referring to any ‘god’ or ‘God’, the language uses ‘articles’.

Depending on whether a word is the ‘subject’ or the ‘direct object (accusative)’ in a sentence, ‘o’ (ho) or ‘ton’ (ton) is used respectively.

[Angryamerican]

Verifying the English Translation



Do note that when ‘theos’ is the subject, then it is written as ‘qeoV’ (theos) and when it is the direct object (accusative) then it is written as ‘qeon’ (theon). In the Greek text of the verse John 1:1, it can be seen that there is an article before ‘qeon’ and the text is thus written as ‘tonqeon’ which is transliterated to be ‘ton theon’ and should be translated as ‘the God’ or one can even translate it as only ‘God’. The point is that using the definite article, the word refers to God and not to the other meanings of the word ‘theos’ i.e. ‘a god’ or any god or goddess.

In the second instance where we see ‘theos’, it is written as ‘qeoV’ and there is no article before it. If this word would have been referring to ‘God’, then we would have seen the article ‘o’ (ho) before it. The article ‘ho’ is used before the word if it is the subject. However we see that there is an absence of a definite article. Thus it means that in this place, ‘theos’ should be translated as ‘god’ or ‘a god’ and not as ‘God’.




Correct Translation



The correct translation for John 1:1 would then be as such:

In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was a god.

However we find that Christendom tries to put a veil over this problem in the Bible and all of them falsely translate the verses in a way to imply by hook or crook that the Word was also God.




Random Translations by Christendom



Not only does Christendom not translate John 1:1 properly, it is seen that they have been randomly translating the terms ‘ho theos’ and ‘ton theon’. For example lets take a look at 2 Corinthians 4:4.

In that verse ‘ho theos’ is translated as ‘the god’ with a small ‘g’ to refer to Satan. In the same verse ‘ton theon’ is translated as ‘God’. This is a clear ‘pick and choose’ tactic being practiced by Christendom.




Conclusion



The Christian world is trying hard to cover up the correct wordings of this verse. As it is the only verse in the Bible which came closest to the concept of Trinity, 1John 5:7 (“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one”), has been detected as a fabrication and a corruption in the Bible by biblical scholars and kept out of the later versions of the Bible. This verse in truth also does not support Jesus’ divinity. So what we find is that as more investigations are made into the Greek texts of the Bible, Jesus is seen to be losing the “divinity factor”. However it is up to the Christian brothers and sister to realize the games that the Churches are playing with them.

It is an undeniable fact that the Bible got corrupted over time,



Note (5th March 2006): It was brought to my attention that the “New World Translation” by the “Jehovah’s Witnesses” has also translated this verse as it ought to be translated.

In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

[Angryamerican]

Athanasius was a Greek philosopher inside the pre-Nicaea Roman and Greek Churches. He did not accidentally come up with the Plato theory of godhead as his revelation, he learned it at the university where he studied and applied it brilliantly to the Scriptures as none before him. His genius and diplomatic power were assets around the old-heads at Nicaea, most who were unlearned, and some we might term today as liberals [so lose they don't believe fat meat is greasy]. How could a thirty two year old unknown archdeacon, come to such political strength behind closed doors, to cause 316 of 318 old grey-haired Bishops to fall for his Greek re-interpretation of monotheism [the Monarchy]? Could it be that Greek philosophy had already nearly deceived the Bishops that attended, through the writings of Clement, Irenaeus, Tertullian, et al? It must be said that the Monotheistic beliefs of the early Apostles and Christians, was firmly that there was one God and one person in the Godhead. This is verified by the following Scriptures, and the fact that the word "trinity" is not in the Bible:

MAL 2:10
10a: Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us?

MAR 12:32
32: And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he.

ROM 3:30
30: Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

EPH 4:6
6: One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

1TI 2:5
5: For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

JAM 2:19
19: Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble [the devil does not believe in three gods, he ought to know, he was there].

1TI 3:16
16: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh [as Jesus Christ], justified in the Spirit [to still be God], seen of angels [in heaven], preached unto the Gentiles [when on earth], believed on in the world [as God by Christians], received up into glory [back to his throne].

The Greek Orthodox deny that these Scriptures prove there is one God the Father; that God is one person; that God came to earth in the fleshly form as Jesus Christ; that we are to believe upon Jesus that he is Almighty God; and that he went back to heaven; from whence he will return in the last day for his people as GOD. That he is the great God and Saviour, both at the same time, who will come back from heaven, we have only to quote one verse of Scripture:

TIT 2:13
13: Looking for that blessed hope [the rapture], and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.

Is not then the trinity doctrine, the fruit of the Nico-Latin seed, that grew in the fertile soil of Greek gnosticism, that tried to infiltrate the Church at Pergamos? Is not the acceptance of the trinity doctrine a proof that Greek Orthodoxy is a form of Hellenized Christian Gnosticism, and not the true Orthodox Apostolic Church at all? If the trinity doctrine was such a fact, why did it take 295 years before it become an established Church doctrine, in 325 AD at Nicaea?

I would urge Christian and Apostolic researchers not to minimize the Jewish-Greek-Gnostic influence, Athanasius wielded at Nicaea, and the fact that he learned the trinity doctrine from the two sources of Hellenized Judaism [Cabalism], and Plato philosophy. Those researching the trinity usually fail to make discovery of the bridge and route of the trinity doctrine from Babylon to Jerusalem to Greece to Alexandria and then to Nicaea. The genealogy is very clear to those who research the background life of Athanasius back to Philo.

[Angryamerican]

A couple of more things need to be said.

Why are these terms that are used by people that believe in the trinity. Never appear anywhere in the bible .

God the son or God the holy spirit?"

But God the father does appear many times. So they are clearly not the same being.

[Harmonious]

The Cabalist Jewish Connection

By Cohen G. Reckart, Pastor

What is missed by the majority of researchers of the trinity doctrine, is the educational and Jewish influence upon Athanasius. Athanasius was from Alexandria, a learning center heavily populated by Jews who had Hellenized, and who had adopted a Babylonian Gnostic re-interpretation of the Old Testament. It is well recognized that the Jews played a major role in fertilizing the world with their own brand of Greek Gnosticism, that included a secret belief in a trinity of Kether [first elohim], Hokhmah [second elohim], and Binah [third elohim] (16). That Kabbalism is Gnosticism, I have only to quote the most eminent scholar and Kabbalist of the twentieth century: "Behind the whole stands the living personality of a mystic who, starting with the philosophical and Talmudic education of his time, lets himself be ever more deeply drawn to the mystical and gnostic ideas of the Kabbalah" (17).

It is from the Kabbalah often also called the Quabbalah, that the trinitarian and pluralistic use of "echad" the Hebrew word for "one", is said by the mystics to mean "unity" rather than an absolute oneness. I have challenged this heresy for several years. For instance, the trinitarians and the Jewish mystics, including many Jewish Messianic Rabbis, will say that the Hebrew word "Elohim" is a plural of unity compromising three separate persons in the trinity, namely: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. These neo-Plato philosophers, corrupting the intent of the Word of God that there is one God, now saying that both the Hebrew word "Elohim" and "echad" means "unity". Well then, if these in this heresy believe this doctrine why then do they balk and hesitate to translate "Elohim" as "Gods" plural rather than in the singular "God"? Why then do they not likewise translate "echad" as "three" and not rather as "one"? Obviously such distortions would wreck the entire text of the Bible from lid to lid and these men of alleged great esteem are not ready to take that wrecking -ball upon the sacred text. The concept of a unity in a trinity or even more gods, has its roots within the ancient Jewish traditions of the Kabbalah, known in the days of Jesus Messiah as "THE TRADITIONS OF THE ELDERS." And, did Jesus validate these traditions as truth or of having within them the sacred revelations of God? And if he did not, what does this say of those alleged scholars and Bible teachers who take their trinitarian cue from Plato or these nefarious traditions?

If we were to translate "Elohim" as "Gods" since they say it is plural and means more than one person that are all equally God, and if we translate "echad" as "three" instead of the "One" as they teach it for doctrine, what would this heresy do to Deut 6:4?:

"Hear ,O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord."

Hear, O Israel: the Lords our Gods are three Lords!

And: In the beginning Gods created the heavens and the earth, and Thou shalt have no other Gods before us! Does not the first Commandment prohibit a plural view or pluralistic practice of worship of God?

Jewish Kabbalahism has been the secret lodge of the trinity doctrine since the days of Babylonian captivity. Even prior to that eviction from the Holy land, the Jews worshiped a trinity in the form of "Baal, Ashtoreth, and Tammuz." So the trinity is not new to them, nor is it new that Jews would believe in a trinity of gods. Elijeh confronted the trinitarians on Mount Carmel. And after this encounter, the Prophets have each in their generations and in their Ministries stood firm against the trinity doctrine of the pagans and any adoption of it to be applied to God. The trinity did not begin in Nicaea, it was just adopted from paganism at that time as an explanation of the relationship of the three gods: the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost to the former two.

How did the trinity come from Babylon to Egypt and then to Nicaea in 325AD? We shall now see the genealogy of the cult doctrine that has so many millions in bondage and captivity came through Jewish mysticism known as the Kabballah. Many are unlearned of this connection and because of it are blinded and remain lost without salvation in the cults of the trinitarians.

The Genealogy of the trinity from apostate Judaism:

Jews had settled in Alexandria from the time of Jeremiah. They held high positions in civic affairs, but mostly as educators. According to David M. Scholer, there were over a million Jews in Alexandria at the time of Philo (18). Philo Judaeaus, is perhaps the most celebrated Jewish Gnostic-mystic of the Christian era, being a contemporary of Christ and the Apostles. His daughter Bernice, was the wife of Herod Agrippa, who tried the Apostle Paul. Philo is recognized as the first who "openly" applied Babylonian and Greek methods of mysticism, in an allegorical re-interpretation of the Scriptures (19). He considered the Greek philosophers on the same level as the Prophets. He believed their logic, reasonings, and hypostasis were divine in origin. Later, so did the Roman and Greek Orthodox Catholics. Many Jews, following Philo's beliefs, Hellenized, and adopted the trinity concept of Plato and applied it to their God. This Gnosticism is known as Cabalism, the spiritual and metaphysical strength of the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds. Few know that behind Jewish mysticism is the secret belief in a triad of gods in interlocking trinities. These powers or elohims are pictured in the ten emanations of the Sefiroth, or tree of life, in Cabalism. This mysticism invalidates the literal meaning and interpretation of the Scriptures. Among Apostolics we call this "spiritualizing." In fact, "Christian spiritualizing" is mysticism, using private re-interpretation as a claim to invalidate the literal meaning and interpretation of Scripture. The trinity doctrine is birthed out of mysticism, not revelation. Out of this "spiritualizing and mysticism" comes the theory of the hidden trinity in God, that must come by "special" revelation through philosophy.

From Philo [20BC-50AD], to Athanasius [293AD-373AD], roughly 275 years, the Greek-Plato fermentation concerning God had reached its intellectual peak in Egypt. Judaism had fully molded to Platonism. Now it was time for the Christian Church to be molded. Would it reject Greek paganism, or philosophy as Apostle Paul called it [Col. 2:8]? Certainly we might question, that since Platonism was well known by Paul and the Apostles, why, if it was truth, that they rejected it and it took another 275 years for it to be accepted at Nicaea? Did God miss something here? Were his Apostles not led of the Spirit but those at Nicaea were?

Athanasius, the thirty two year old, archdeacon of Bishop Alexander, and the replacement of the aged Arius, championed Platonism, and fully impregnated the Roman and Greek Churches with it. "He received a liberal education. From early years he was instructed in Scriptures, that is the Septuagint and New Testament. He knew no Hebrew. These studies, combined with Greek learning, molded his later thought. In mind and outlook he was a through Greek. There was nothing of the native Egyptian about him" (20)
Mr. Reckart has no clear understanding of Judaism or Jewish mysticism.

[Constantine the Great]

Mr. Reckart has no clear understanding of Judaism or Jewish mysticism.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

[Angryamerican]

:clap: :clap: :clap:

So you are reduced to a cheerleader now. :rolleyes:

[Constantine the Great]

So you are reduced to a cheerleader now. :rolleyes:
I told you that you are a lightweight and there is no further need for me to engage you. However, when I see someone posting truth in the face of your ridiculousness, I will encourage them and cheer them on sure.
ETA: And considering I have over 9000 posts, cheerleader is hardly an accurate characterization.

[Harmonious]

Please explain harmonious?

I greatly respect your opinion's.

Sure.

I only have limited understanding of Kabalah, but one thing I know is that ALL of it only supports ONE God. If someone decided that Kabalah in ANY way supports a trinity, they are making up words in a branch of knowledge that is known esoterically at best.

The bits of Kabalah I know has to do with the Creation of the World, and I know about the Sephirot, which describe the mystical levels between the heavens and the earth. I know that there are mystical understandings of certain ways of performing certain commandments, and there is power to reciting Psalm 23 several times over the course of Shabbat.

One thing that is gone into in serious depth is the sexually intimate descriptions of how God and Israel love each other, and things that we can learn about the sexual relations between a husband and wife, as there is nothing more holy than sexual communion between a husband and wife, and the creation of a child.

There is far more out there than I am aware of, but one thing I know for certain: Kabalah is only a more mystical understanding of the Torah, that is understood in the Oral Law and Written Law. Kabalah is just more of that Oral Law which is severely difficult to understand unless a person is truly familiar with all things that have to do with the Written and the Oral Law.

If someone decided that there is anything Christian, or triune about God and that it was "found in the Kabalah," they made it up. They created information that doesn't exist in Jewish tradition.

In this way, your pastor has demonstrated that he doesn't have a clue about Jewish law, Judaism, and least of all, Kabalah.

[Constantine the Great]

Mums the word. OK you think what you like, but engage the evidence. That is truly why you can't make an intelligent post because you can't refute the evidence.

So just punt and move on little man.
I did engage the evidence. You weren't able to refute much. All you did was recycle the old "paganism" cannard. repeating the same mantra over and over does not a valid point make.
But by all means, please feel free to return to your own blissful ignorance.

[Angryamerican]

Ancient paganism and the dangers of compromise

This Chapter will discuss the Dangers of Compromise. It should be noted that In Katz's web site, there is a Christan Attempt to Answer Pagan Influences. Yet most of the articles are mediocre some very poorly written. I encourage all those who seek the truth visit his site, and afterwards study and examine the true dangers of compromise.

In this chapter, we shall demonstrate that most of the practices of today's "Christianity" as well as most of its beliefs were only introduced into the religion as a regrettable outcome of an excessive undue willingness to compromise with the surrounding pagans in order to attain their support and conversion. This was the same paganism Jesus (pbuh) fought so valiantly during his lifetime to destroy. This will be proven, by the will of God, through the writings of Christians themselves. We shall demonstrate how all of these practices and beliefs were well established among many other pagan cults centuries before the arrival of Paul and his "visions."

The expanse of land between the river Nile and the river Euphrates was home to the Jews for centuries before the coming of Jesus (pbuh). During this period, this land fell under the rule of many empires, including the Babylonians, the Persians, and the Romans, all of whom had extensive contact with many other cultures and beliefs. We shall see in what follows that the religion of Jesus (pbuh) was revised and modified after his departure through the influence of all of these cultures and beliefs and how it now bears characteristics of many of these religions, including Buddhism, Roman and Greek worship, Hinduism, Persian and Egyptian beliefs, in addition to Judaism and many others.

The following information has been obtained from the books "Bible myths and their parallels in other religions" by T. W. Doane and "Islam and Christianity in the modern world," by Dr. Muhammad Ansari.

The general impression among Christians today is that the difference between today's "Christianity" and Paganism is so great that any similarity between them is scarcely recognizable. This, however, is far from the truth. The more knowledgeable a Christian becomes with today's "Christianity," the more they realize that it is the end result of a continuous effort to appease the pagan Romans in order to gain their support. This has regrettably resulted in the foisting upon Jesus (pbuh) and his apostles the pre-existent beliefs of ancient paganism. The established beliefs of these pagans were "inserted" into the word of God and its religious practices through the agency of many centuries of divine "inspiration" to the Church. The knowledgeable Christian scholars are the most well-acquainted with this fact.

The great luminary of the Church, Saint Augustine (354-430 C.E.), is quoted to have said "The same thing which is now called CHRISTIAN RELIGION existed among the ancients. They have begun to call Christian the true religion which existed before."

"Our love for what is old, our reverence for what our fathers used, makes us keep still in the church, and on the very altar cloths, symbols which would excite the smile of an Oriental, and lead him to wonder why we send missionaries to his land, while cherishing his faith in ours" James Bonwick.

[Constantine the Great]

In this way, your pastor has demonstrated that he doesn't have a clue about Jewish law, Judaism, and least of all, Kabalah.
You can add Christianity to the list of things he hasn't a clue about as well.

[Angryamerican]

Let us start with the very symbol of Christianity itself, the "cross."

The Cross:

Fish: Symbol of last supper

It is well known that the first symbol of Christianity was that of a fish. On sacramental cups, seals, and lamps the Holy Spirit was symbolized by a dove and Christ by a fish (perhaps because at the time, fish was one of the elements of the sacred meal) or by a shepherd carrying a sheep on his shoulders (from Luke 15:3-7) The cross was not adopted until long after the departure of Jesus. One of the main reasons for this was the fact that he who dies on the cross is considered cursed by God (Galatians 3:13). Current historical knowledge recognizes the fact that the cross was well recognized as a religious symbol long before the advent of Jesus (pbuh). It was adored in India as the symbol of the Hindu god Agni, the "light of the world." It was placed in the hands of Siva, Brahma, Vishnu, Krishna, Tvashtri, and Jama. The cross was also well known among the Buddhists from ancient times and the followers of Lama of Thibet.

The ancient Egyptians also adopted the cross as a religious symbol of their pagan gods. Countless Egyptian drawings depict themselves holding crosses in their hands. Among them, the Egyptian savior Horus is depicted holding a cross in his hand. He is also depicted as an infant sitting on his mother's knee with a cross on the seat they occupy. The most common of the crosses used by these pagan Egyptians, the CRUX ANSATA, was later adopted by the Christians.

The Egyptian savior, Osiris, the Egyptian god of the dead and the underworld, is sometimes represented holding out this cross to mortals signifying that this person has discarded mortality for the life to come.

Another cross has been unearthed in Ireland. It belongs to the cult of the Persian god of the sun "Mithra" and bears a crucified effigy. The Greeks and Romans too adopted the cross as their religious symbol many centuries before Christianity did the same. An ancient inscription in Tessaly is accompanied by a Calvary cross. More crosses can be found to adorn the tomb of king Midas in Phrygia. The above references may be referred to for many more examples.

The "Trinity":

Now let us study the "Trinity" and its roots in ancient pagan worship. The "Trinity" of Christendom, as defined in the creed of Nicea, is a merging of three distinct entities into one single entity, while remaining three distinct entities. We are told to speak of the three gods as one god, and never as three gods which would be considered heresy (Isaiah 43:10). They are considered to be co-eternal, co-substantial, and co-equal. However, only the first was self existent. The others preceded from the first. This Neo-Platonic philosophical doctrine has its roots not in the inspiration of God, but in ancient paganism. Most ancient religions were built upon some sort of threefold distinction. Deities were always trinities of some kind or consisted of successive emanation in threes

[Angryamerican]

In India we find the doctrine of the divine trinity called "Tri-murti" (Three-forms) consisting of Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva. It is an inseparable unity though three in form. Worshipers are told to worship them as one deity. Such concepts posed no problem to the logic of a Hindu worshipper since they were already used to worshipping gods with the body of a man and the head of an elephant(Ganesh), or monkey-faced gods (Hanuman), or gods with six arms, and so forth. Remember, classical Hinduism dates back to at least 500BC, with roots extending as far back as 2000BC.

The Brahmas also have their trinity. In their trinity, Vajrapani, Manjusri, and Avalokitesvara form a divine union of three gods into one god called "Buddha." The citizens of China and Japan also worship Buddha, but they know him as "Fo." When they worship him they say "Fo, is one god but has three forms."

Sir William Jones says:

"Very respectable natives have assured me, that one or two missionaries have been absurd enough to in their zeal for the conversion of the Gentiles, to urge that the Hindoos were even now almost Christians; because their Brahma, Vishnu, and Mahesa (Siva), were no other than the Christian Trinity."

Bible myths and their parallels in other religions, p. 370.

The ancient Egyptians also worshipped a trinity. Their symbol of a wing, a globe, and a serpent is supposed to have stood for the different attributes of their god.

The Greeks also had their trinities. When making their sacrifices to their gods, they would sprinkle holy water on the altar three times, they would then sprinkle the people three times also. Frankincense was then taken with three fingers and strewed upon the alter three times. All of this was done because the oracle had proclaimed that all sacred things ought to be in threes. Remember that the philosophy of these people (The Greeks) is what was primarily responsible for defining the Christian "Trinitarian" nature of God. This was done through the writings of the Greek philosopher Plato regarding his "Logos" ("word"). Further, remember that the Gospels of the Bible were named the "Greek Gospels" for a reason: they were written in their language and based upon their philosophy (see chapter one).

As mentioned previously, T. W. Doane says:

"The works of Plato were extensively studied by the Church Fathers, one of whom joyfully recognizes in the great teacher, the schoolmaster who, in the fullness of time, was destined to educate the heathen for Christ, as Moses did the Jews. The celebrated passage : "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word Was God" is a fragment of some Pagan treatise on the Platonic philosophy, evidently written by Irenaeus. It is quoted by Amelius, a Pagan philosopher as strictly applicable to the Logos, or Mercury, the Word, apparently as an honorable testimony borne to the Pagan deity by a barbarian........We see then that the title "Word" or "Logos," being applied to Jesus, is another piece of Pagan amalgamation with Christianity. It did not receive its authorized Christian form until the middle of the second century after Christ. The ancient pagan Romans worshipped a Trinity. An oracle is said to have declared that there was 'First God, then the Word, and with them the Spirit'. Here we see the distinctly enumerated, God, the Logos, and the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost, in ancient Rome, where the most celebrated temple of this capital - that of Jupiter Capitolinus - was dedicated to three deities, which three deities were honored with joint worship."

Bible Myths and their parallels in other religions, pp. 375-376.

Trinities were not confined to these groups alone, but the Persians, the Assyrians, the Phoenicians, the Scandinavians, the Druids, the inhabitants of Siberia, the ancient Mexicans, the Peruvians, and many others, all worshipped "Trinitarian" pagan deities (among a great multitude of other gods) long before the council of Nicea of 325 C.E. officially recognized this to be God's "true" nature.

Christmas:

Let us now move on to the "birthday of Jesus," Christmas. Jesus (pbuh) is commonly considered to have been born on the 25th of December. However, it is common knowledge among Christian scholars that he was not born on this day. It is well known that the first Christian churches held their festival in May, April, or January. Scholars of the first two centuries C.E. even differ in which year he was born. Some believing that he was born fully twenty years before the current accepted date. So how was the 25th of December selected as the birthday of Jesus (pbuh)?

Grolier's encyclopedia says:

"Christmas is the feast of the birth of Jesus Christ, celebrated on December 25.... Despite the beliefs about Christ that the birth stories expressed, the church did not observe a festival for the celebration of the event until the 4th century.... since 274, under the emperor Aurelian, Rome had celebrated the feast of the "Invincible Sun" on December 25. In the Eastern Church, January 6, a day also associated with the winter solstice, was initially preferred. In course of time, however, the West added the Eastern date as the feast of the Epiphany, and the East added the Western date of Christmas."

So who else celebrated the 25th of December as the birth day of their gods before it was agreed upon as the birth day of Jesus (pbuh)? Well, there are the people of India who rejoice, decorate their houses with garlands, and give presents to their friends on this day. The people of China also celebrate this day and close their shops. The pagan god Buddha is believed to have been born on this day when the "Holy Ghost" descended on his virgin mother Maya. The great savior and god of the Persians, Mithras, is also believed to have been born on the 25th of December long before the coming of Jesus (pbuh). The Egyptians celebrated this day as the birth day of their great savior Horus, the Egyptian god of light and the son of the "virgin mother" and "queen of the heavens" Isis. Osiris, god of the dead and the underworld in Egypt, the son of "the holy virgin," again was believed to have been born on the 25th of December.

The Greeks celebrated the 25th of December as the birthday of Hercules, the son of the supreme god of the Greeks, Zeus, through the mortal woman Alcmene. Bacchus, the god of wine and revelry among the Romans (known among the Greeks as Dionysus) was also born on this day.

Adonis, revered as a "dying-and-rising god" among the Greeks, miraculously was also born on the 25th of December. His worshipers held him a yearly festival representing his death and resurrection, in midsummer. The ceremonies of his birth day are recorded to have taken place in the same cave in Bethlehem which is claimed to have been the birth place of Jesus (pbuh).

The Scandinavians celebrated the 25th of December as the birth day of their god Freyr, the son of their supreme god of the heavens, Odin.

The Romans observed this day as the birth day of the god of the sun, Natalis Solis Invicti ("Birthday of Sol the invincible"). There was great rejoicing and all shops were closed. There was illumination and public games. Presents were exchanged, and the slaves were indulged in great liberties. Remember, these are the same Romans who would later preside over the council of Nicea (325 C.E.) which lead to the official Christian recognition of the "Trinity" as the "true" nature of God, and the "fact" that Jesus (pbuh) was born on the 25th of December too. The pagan emperor Constantine, who presided over the council of Nicea, was popularly considered the "embodiment" or "incarnation" of the this supreme Roman "Sun" god. Neither was Constantine the first Roman emperor to be given this title, rather, many or his predecessors before him were also promoted to the status of the "incarnation" of the god of the sun.

[Fire Watch]

Mums the word. OK you think what you like, but engage the evidence. That is truly why you can't make an intelligent post because you can't refute the evidence.

So just punt and move on little man.
I'm your Huckleberry...I've posted a plethora of evidence that shows that Jesus IS God..yet you cant engage the evidence...punt and move on little man.

[Angryamerican]

Edward Gibbon says:

"The Roman Christians, ignorant of his (Christ's) birth, fixed the solemn festival to the 25th of December, the Brumalia, or Winter Solstice, when the Pagans annually celebrated the birth of Sol"

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. ii, Gibbon, p. 383.

Christmas festivals today incorporate many other pagan customs, such as the use of holly, mistletoe, Yule logs, and wassail bowls. The Christmas tree itself is the most obvious aspect of ancient pagan celebrations which were later incorporated into church rites. Scholars believe that the Christian celebration was originally derived in part from rites held by pre-Christian Germanic and Celtic peoples to celebrate the winter solstice. The Christmas tree, an evergreen trimmed with lights and other decorations, because it keeps its green needles throughout the winter months, was believed by pre-Christian pagans to have special powers of protection against the forces of nature and evil spirits. The end of December marked the onset of a visible lengthening of daylight hours - the return of warmth and light and defeat of those evil forces of cold and darkness. The Christmas tree is derived from the so-called paradise tree, symbolizing Eden, of German mystery plays. The use of a Christmas tree began early in the 17th century, in Strasbourg, France, spreading from there through Germany, into northern Europe and Great Britain, and then on to the United States.

Christmas is not the only Christian festival which was borrowed from ancient paganism and foisted upon the religion of Jesus (pbuh). There is also Easter (see details in chapter one), the Feast of St. John, the Holy communion, the Annunciation of the virgin, the assumption of the virgin, and many others have their roots in ancient pagan worship. Since we can not get into the details here, therefore, the interested reader is encouraged to consult the above books.

Many people object to people who advise them not to introduce new and innovative practices into their religion, even if they were only to be festivals and celebrations. They object "what could it hurt if I were to worship God and thank Him for his blessings on this day when pagans performed their worship? I am not worshipping idols." For this we only need to read the very explicit prohibition of God in this regard which He Himself emphatically declared in the Bible:

"Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them (pagans), after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou inquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise."

Deuteronomy 12:30

There is a good reason why God commands us to do things. Just because we do not know the wisdom behind a prohibition does not give us the freedom to disregard it. Indeed, it is exactly such willingness to "adapt" and "compromise" which eventually lead to the loss of the message of Jesus, as seen chapter one.

General similarities with paganism:

As we have seen, the common thread among most of these pagan sects is their worship of the sun as their deity and their selection of the winter solstice (25th of December) as the time of the birth of their supreme god. The winter solstice is the time of year when the sun would reach its last stage of decline and once again begin to rise and become "re-born." This rise would continue until day and night become equal in length. At this point, the god of the sun would appear to be at a stand off with the "prince of darkness." This would occur at the vernal equinox, or Easter. This situation, however, would not last for long, as the god of the sun would triumph after Easter, and days would become longer than nights.

We notice that the church too received divine "inspiration" that Jesus (pbuh) was born on the 25th of December, and also that he too "triumphed over the prince of darkness" on Easter day, just as the pagan gods of the Greeks and Romans had done centuries before. Let us have a brief look at the popular beliefs of the pagan Gentiles who would later take it upon themselves to spread "Jesus'" religion to the world:

Attis:

The pagan god Attis was the son of the virgin Nana. He was the "savior" and "only begotten son." His blood was believed to have renewed the fertility of the earth. As such, he was a symbol of immortality. He was believed to have died on March 24th and been resurrected shortly thereafter. Sacramental meals and baptism of blood were features of his church.

Adonis or Tammuz:

He was born of a virgin and was the "savior" of Syria. He died in redemption for mankind and was later resurrected in the spring.

Dionysus or Bacchus:

He was the "only begotten son" of Jupiter, the king of the gods of the Romans and the lord of life and death (For the Greeks, his father was the almighty Zeus). He was named the god of wine and revelry. Dionysus died at the hands of the Titans, who tore him apart, roasted the pieces, and began to eat them. At that point Zeus intervened, saved some of the pieces, and had Apollo bury them at Delphi. There, it was believed, Dionysus arose from the dead He said to mankind "It is I who guide you; it is I who protect you, and who save you; I am Alpha and Omega." He was slain for redeeming humanity and was called "the slain one," "the sin bearer," and "the redeemer." In celebrating his festival, his worshippers would observe the sparagmos: the tearing apart of a live animal, the eating of its flesh, and the drinking of its blood; participants believed they were in fact partaking of the god's body and blood. Plays were also staged at these festivals. Wine had a central place at his festivals. Does any of this sound familiar?

Bel or Baal:

He was the sun god of Babylon. The story of his life and his passion play bears a tremendous resemblance to that given to Jesus (pbuh) in our current Gospels. Called the lord of the universe, he was killed by monsters but restored to life. His death and resurrection were celebrated annually as a part of Canaanite fertility rituals.

Osiris:

He was the Egyptian's god of the dead and the underworld, born of the "virgin of the world" on the 29th of December. He preached gentleness and peace. Wine and corn were both his discoveries. He was betrayed by Typhen, slain and dismembered. He remained in hell for two or three days and three nights. He would be the judge of mankind in a future life.

Mithras or Mithra

He was the sun god of the Persians and the son of a virgin. He was born on the 25th of December. Christmas and Easter were two of the most important festivals of his church. His worshipers observed baptism, confirmation, and Eucharist supper at which time they would partake of their "god" in the form of bread and wine.

Krishna:

The Indian god Krishna too bears a tremendous resemblance to Jesus (pbuh) in the story of his mission and his divinity. He was the incarnation of the Indian's supreme god Vishnu (the preserver and protector of the world) in the womb of Devaki. The Hindoo prophet Bala predicted that a divine Savior would "become incarnate in the house of Yadu, and issue forth to mortal birth from the womb of Devaci (a Holy Virgin), and relieve the oppressed earth of its load of sin and sorrow." Upon Krishna's birth, a great chorus of angles proclaimed "In the delivery of this favored woman, nature shall have cause to exalt." His birth was indicated by a star in heaven. Although of royal blood, he was born in a cave. He was presented with gifts of sandalwood and perfumes. His foster father was told to flee and hide him lest king Kansa might take his life. King Kansa had ordered all male infants born on that night to be slain. One of his first miracles was the healing of a leper. He was later slain and this resulted in an eclipse of the sun and a black circle forming around the moon. Spirits were seen on all sides and he descended into hell, rose again, and ascended into heaven with many people being witnesses to his bodily accent. He will have a "second coming" in the future which his followers continue await. There are countless other similarities with what is known today as "Christianity" even though his religion was well establish centuries before the birth of Jesus (pbuh). The accounts of Krishna's childhood agree quite closely with the apocryphal accounts of Jesus' childhood. In the ancient epic poems, Krishna is simply regarded as a great hero, it was not until about the 4th century BC that he was elevated to the position of a god.

[Angryamerican]

Buddha:

Both books mentioned above have compiled a very detailed comparison of the legends of both Jesus (pbuh) and Buddha. The similarities are astounding. T.W. Doane has gone so far as to dedicate an entire chapter to this comparison, including a 48 point side-by-side narration from the time of their birth till the end of their lives on earth. Their conception, birth, mission, miracles, temptation, preaching, worship, prophesies, death, ascension, divinity, judgment of mankind, and many other matters are almost word-for-word exact copies of one another. Dr. Ansari records in his book the following words of the eminent Christian scholar S. M. Melamed:

"Yet the fact remains that Buddhist canons were already known to the Western world before the coming of Jesus. Today hardly any Indologist of note denies the organic connection between the two redemptive religions. So close is the connection between them that even the details of the miracles recorded between Buddhism and Christianity are the same. Of Buddha, too, it was told that he fed five hundred men with one loaf of bread, that he cured lepers and caused the blind to see."

As far back as 1884, a German historian of religion by the name of Rudolph Seydel published a very detailed study demonstrating that all of the tales, miracles, similes, and proverbs of the Christian Bible have their counterparts in the much more ancient Buddhastic gospel.

The author of "Bible Myths" observes that even though Buddha has been elevated today to the position of God, still, Mr. Doane observes that

"There is no reason to believe that he ever arrogated to himself any higher authority than that of a teacher of religion, but as in modern factions, there were readily found among his followers those who carried his peculiar tenets much further than their founder. These, not content with lauding during his life-time the noble deeds of their teacher, exalted him, within a quarter of a century after his death to a place among their deities - worshipping as a god one they had known only as a simple hearted, earnest, truth-seeking philanthropist."

Once again, this conforms exactly to the claim of the Qur'an that God was selecting prophets from every nation on earth (not just the Jews) and sending them to their people (and only to their people) to return them to the true worship of God alone, and that after their departure, their followers would not be content with themselves until they had managed to totally corrupt what their prophet had come to preach to them and even to go so far as to make this prophet himself the object of their pagan worship (see the Qur'an, Fatir (35):24).

Does this mean that Buddha was a true prophet of God? Only God Almighty Himself knows the answer to that question. However, it does appear that there at least exists the possibility that he might have been one of those many thousands of prophets and that his message may have started out as a true message of God which was later changed by mankind.

We have already seen in chapter one how Christian scholars today readily recognize the fact that for the first three decades C.E., "Christianity" remained a sect within Judaism and that the first fifteen Bishops of Christianity were circumcised Jews who worshipped in the synagogues of the Jews. We have seen how it was only after the introduction of Christianity to the Romans and the official "guardianship" of the Roman empire of the religion of Jesus (pbuh) that it began to see many of the "truths" of the mission of Jesus (pbuh) which were hidden from the very first apostles of Jesus (pbuh). We have seen how the "Trinity," the birth of Jesus (pbuh) on the 25th of December, the Easter festival and many other founding doctrines of Christianity were not recognized to be the "truth" until after the religion of Jesus (pbuh) was adopted by those people who for many centuries before that had been spoon fed the doctrines of "Trinity," "savior from sin," "incarnation of the Almighty," "death and resurrection," Christmas and Easter, "three days and three nights in hell," "only begotten of the almighty," "killed by the enemy," and many other matters which were later "inspired" to them by God in order to be "clarified" in the Bible so that they could be seen clearly.

Sadly enough, once all of this detailed evidence has been presented by Western scholars in support of the fact that all of these matters were acts of pagan worship and belief centuries before the coming of Jesus (pbuh), even with all of this, the adamant orthodox will ever manage to find a way out. "It is quite simple really," they will explain, "All of these countless pagan cults from all over the earth must have had prior knowledge of the coming of Jesus and inserted the story of his life into pagan mythology centuries before his actual arrival."

The great and elect messenger of Allah, Jesus the son of Mary (peace be upon them both), is innocent of these pagan innovations which have been foisted upon him after his departure by those who did not fear God. He was a true messenger of God and would never dare to say otherwise. God is One. Period!. He is indivisible and inseparable. There is no God but He. He has no sons nor any equal. He does not hold mankind responsible for the sin of others, but only for their own worship. And God alone shall be the final judge of all of mankind on the Day of Judgment.

There are many other parallels that could be brought up in this comparison. However, we can not get into the details here, therefore, it shall be left up to the interested reader to read about them in the books mentioned above, or in the book "Mohammed A Prophesy Fulfilled," by H. Abdul Al-Dahir, which I recommend highly

[Constantine the Great]

Ancient paganism and the dangers of compromise

This Chapter will discuss the Dangers of Compromise. It should be noted that In Katz's web site, there is a Christan Attempt to Answer Pagan Influences. Yet most of the articles are mediocre some very poorly written. I encourage all those who seek the truth visit his site, and afterwards study and examine the true dangers of compromise.

In this chapter, we shall demonstrate that most of the practices of today's "Christianity" as well as most of its beliefs were only introduced into the religion as a regrettable outcome of an excessive undue willingness to compromise with the surrounding pagans in order to attain their support and conversion. This was the same paganism Jesus (pbuh) fought so valiantly during his lifetime to destroy. This will be proven, by the will of God, through the writings of Christians themselves. We shall demonstrate how all of these practices and beliefs were well established among many other pagan cults centuries before the arrival of Paul and his "visions."

The expanse of land between the river Nile and the river Euphrates was home to the Jews for centuries before the coming of Jesus (pbuh). During this period, this land fell under the rule of many empires, including the Babylonians, the Persians, and the Romans, all of whom had extensive contact with many other cultures and beliefs. We shall see in what follows that the religion of Jesus (pbuh) was revised and modified after his departure through the influence of all of these cultures and beliefs and how it now bears characteristics of many of these religions, including Buddhism, Roman and Greek worship, Hinduism, Persian and Egyptian beliefs, in addition to Judaism and many others.

The following information has been obtained from the books "Bible myths and their parallels in other religions" by T. W. Doane and "Islam and Christianity in the modern world," by Dr. Muhammad Ansari.

The general impression among Christians today is that the difference between today's "Christianity" and Paganism is so great that any similarity between them is scarcely recognizable. This, however, is far from the truth. The more knowledgeable a Christian becomes with today's "Christianity," the more they realize that it is the end result of a continuous effort to appease the pagan Romans in order to gain their support. This has regrettably resulted in the foisting upon Jesus (pbuh) and his apostles the pre-existent beliefs of ancient paganism. The established beliefs of these pagans were "inserted" into the word of God and its religious practices through the agency of many centuries of divine "inspiration" to the Church. The knowledgeable Christian scholars are the most well-acquainted with this fact.

The great luminary of the Church, Saint Augustine (354-430 C.E.), is quoted to have said "The same thing which is now called CHRISTIAN RELIGION existed among the ancients. They have begun to call Christian the true religion which existed before."

"Our love for what is old, our reverence for what our fathers used, makes us keep still in the church, and on the very altar cloths, symbols which would excite the smile of an Oriental, and lead him to wonder why we send missionaries to his land, while cherishing his faith in ours" James Bonwick.

You often use Islamic websites to justify your Christian theology? :)) :)) :))

[Fire Watch]

Angry, you HAVE to post the links to your source of "evidence".

[Angryamerican]

You can add Christianity to the list of things he hasn't a clue about as well.

You refute with no evidence. Now who is coming off as a fool?

[Harmonious]

You haven't responded to my explanation at all, Angry. :naughty:

[Angryamerican]

You often use Islamic websites to justify your Christian theology? :)) :)) :))

Are you saying they don't have a brain? Are you saying they can't research history? Are you saying they can't translate Greek and Hebrew? So what is your point ?

You would not begin to believe how much more info i can post on here about this subject.

How bout i post all the sources i have researched will that make you feel better?

[rsuhls]

Are you saying they don't have a brain? Are you saying they can't research history? Are you saying they can't translate Greek and Hebrew? So what is your point ?

You would not begin to believe how much more info i can post on here about this subject.

How bout i post all the sources i have researched will that make you feel better?

So Angry I must say something to you here.

One I don't Believe in the Trinity I believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are there sperate people.

That said what exactly are trying to do because I can tell you that all your post is doing is cause animostity toward you.

You are trying to paint them as Pagens using what ever source you have through long winded posts. The question is why?

[Angryamerican]

So Angry I must say something to you here.

One I don't Believe in the Trinity I believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are there sperate people.

That said what exactly are trying to do because I can tell you that all your post is doing is cause animostity toward you.

You are trying to paint them as Pagens using what ever source you have through long winded posts. The question is why?

I have been called a pagan in here as well ,and have gotten over it. I am not trying to offend anyone but i am not gonna be offended either.

And discussing the roots of the trinity isn't worthy of this conversation?

Sorry let them refute the facts. They can search the Catholic encyclopedia that confirms most everything i have posted.

[Fire Watch]

Repost or show me, i remember you posting some scriptures trying to insinuate Jesus is God but no trinity.

And if you care to reply to what i have posted please.

And don't get involved with my argument with that arrogant little greek.

I have infinitely more respect for Constantine that I do for you. He responds with HIS OWN thoughts, ideas, and beliefs...not cut and paste jobs from materials that are nothing but foolish people expounding upon foolishness.

I do NOT care to respond to what you've posted, as it is utter nonsense and eisigesical comedy.

I've given you enough to chew on..go back, read through my posts in this thread..try to disprove them using YOUR OWN mind.

[DRS]

I'm your Huckleberry...I've posted a plethora of evidence that shows that Jesus IS God..yet you cant engage the evidence...punt and move on little man.

You tend to ignore when your so called evidence is over turned and you also seem to have a problem with the prefigurment and you yourself add words to scriptures like this one.

8*To this Abraham said: “God will provide himself the sheep for the burnt offering, my son.” And both of them walked on together.

[rsuhls]

I have infinitely more respect for Constantine that I do for you. He responds with HIS OWN thoughts, ideas, and beliefs...not cut and paste jobs from materials that are nothing but foolish people expounding upon foolishness.

I do NOT care to respond to what you've posted, as it is utter nonsense and eisigesical comedy.

I've given you enough to chew on..go back, read through my posts in this thread..try to disprove them using YOUR OWN mind.

Beyond even using his own mind one thing I know is that beliefs are more than just facts that can be regurgitated on to a computer screen. It involves feelings.

[Angryamerican]

I have infinitely more respect for Constantine that I do for you. He responds with HIS OWN thoughts, ideas, and beliefs...not cut and paste jobs from materials that are nothing but foolish people expounding upon foolishness.

I do NOT care to respond to what you've posted, as it is utter nonsense and eisigesical comedy.

I've given you enough to chew on..go back, read through my posts in this thread..try to disprove them using YOUR OWN mind.

Of course you do because you both base your belief off of mans philosiphy and making Gods word invalid. And i notice you don't refute scripture that contradicts your belief but you run back to mans philosiphy.

And ask me if i care what you think about me or the word of God you don't care to respond to.If you can't refute the evidence then remain silent.

[Angryamerican]

Beyond even using his own mind one thing I know is that beliefs are more than just facts that can be regurgitated on to a computer screen. It involves feelings.

I have plenty of respect and feeling for people that extend it to me as well.

Like you even though we are from different faiths i have respect for you because you show respect to me.

[rsuhls]

Of course you do because you both base your belief off of mans philosiphy and making Gods word invalid. And i notice you don't refute scripture that contradicts your belief but you run back to mans philosiphy.

And ask me if i care what you think about me or the word of God you don't care to respond to.If you can't refute the evidence then remain silent.

Angry I think you have done what some do here; you came with idea that you are right, you are the only one that is right, you can regurgitate facts from some web site so you acn "PROVE" that catholics are wrong.

Well you are really trying to prove about 99% of the christian world wrong.

Problem is that beliefs stem as much from feelings as facts and since you can convay no feeling you are, and will remain, on the losing end.

Oh and don't tell him he has to reamain silent.:rolleyes:

[DRS]

Beyond even using his own mind one thing I know is that beliefs are more than just facts that can be regurgitated on to a computer screen. It involves feelings.

Faith may cause emotion but it is rooted in logic and fact.

[rsuhls]

I have plenty of respect and feeling for people that extend it to me as well.

Like you even though we are from different faiths i have respect for you because you show respect to me.

yet you show no respect for them.

I am not talking about you hurting their feelings. I am talking that Belief is emotional as well as intelectual. Since your regurgitated facts have no emotion attached (the Holy Spirit) you are going nowhere fast.

[rsuhls]

Faith may cause emotion but it is rooted in logic and fact.

Yet regurgitating stuff from God knows where will not change a heart.

You are going to lose this argument no matter how many "Facts" you post.

[Fire Watch]

DRS has already shined the light on you and what you posted. You still don't know you lost that debate?
Daniel posts false translations, false interpretations, and refuted material over and over..whenever faced with a challenge he dodges the question and posts something else to try and deflect...I've taken the debate every time DRS and I have engaged.


Of course you do because you both base your belief off of mans philosiphy and making Gods word invalid. And i notice you don't refute scripture that contradicts your belief but you run back to mans philosiphy.

And ask me if i care what you think about me or the word of God you don't care to respond to.If you can't refute the evidence then remain silent.

My beliefs are directly taken from scripute that is interpreted correctly. YOU may God's word invalid by relying upon an agenda drioven translation to "prove" your points. You've provided no "evidence" of anything except your theological fallacy.

[rsuhls]

I report you decide. I don't need to change anyones mind but if you are wrong admit it and move on.

Yeah you just contradicted your self in one sentence.

And my belief didn't come from the internet. Hours and hours of research in the libraries and getting in to Gods word. I didn't need someone to teach me what the word of God say's.

Yet you feel that you can change them with your facts from the internet. You can cahnge their beliefs arived at the same as your through regurated facts on a posting board?

People can believe it or not and i will meet God some day with a clear conscience.

Yet here you are implying that you are right and they are wrong.

[DRS]

Yet regurgitating stuff from God knows where will not change a heart.

You are going to lose this argument no matter how many "Facts" you post.

One of thing you learn early on no matter how many facts you have and no matter how good a teacher you are very very few people will accept what they are told choosing to believe as they please.

Jesus spent how long on Earth teaching yet what happened to him and just how many accepted his message?

[Fire Watch]

You tend to ignore when your so called evidence is over turned and you also seem to have a problem with the prefigurment and you yourself add words to scriptures like this one.

8*To this Abraham said: “God will provide himself the sheep for the burnt offering, my son.” And both of them walked on together.


I've added no words DRS..typical of you though to make false accusations when you lose an argument. You use an agenda driven translation of scripture and cannot prove your doctrine out without it. I ignore no evidence, nor has my evidence or opinion rather..been "over turned"..I have NO problem with the "prefigurement"..the only problem seems to be with your reading comprehension.

[rsuhls]

One of thing you learn early on no matter how many facts you have and no matter how good a teacher you are very very few people will accept what they are told choosing to believe as they please.

Jesus spent how long on Earth teaching yet what happened to him and just how many accepted his message?

So then you come here and regurgitae stuff just for the sake fo it? I hope you don't think this misionary work?

[DRS]

I've added no words DRS..typical of you though to make false accusations when you lose an argument. You use an agenda driven translation of scripture and cannot prove your doctrine out without it. I ignore no evidence, nor has my evidence or opinion rather..been "over turned"..I have NO problem with the "prefigurement"..the only problem seems to be with your reading comprehension.

You have never restated this as God will provide Himself as a sacrifice?

Before making the same tired arguement about agenda driven trnslation then explain why at least one of proof texts is from a scripture than has clearly been mistranslated. Exodus 3:14

[DRS]

So then you come here and regurgitae stuff just for the sake fo it? I hope you don't think this misionary work?

Do I cut and paste?

No posting on an internet board is not missionary nor evagangilzing at all in opinion.

[rsuhls]

I can and do show respect to them, but i had enough of their baloney look back and see how they disrespected me.

The thing is then ,how do you voice your opinion without offending them? sorry that was partly why i believe what i do because of the history of the trinity.

Well lets see I did it in one post let me do it again.

I believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three sperate personages.

Let me go on I believe that the Father and the Son have bodies of flesh and bone.

Then I end with the 11th article of the LDS faith.

11 We claim the privilege (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1/11a) of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1/11b) of our own conscience (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1/11c), and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1/11d) how, where, or what they may.

that was pretty easy.

Now can you do the same?

[rsuhls]

Do I cut and paste?

No posting on an internet board is not missionary nor evagangilzing at all in opinion.

Glad to hear it because that is what you made it sound like. And no you don't but you are being dragged into it by one who does since he keeps invoking you as an ally.

[Angryamerican]

Daniel posts false translations, false interpretations, and refuted material over and over..whenever faced with a challenge he dodges the question and posts something else to try and deflect...I've taken the debate every time DRS and I have engaged.

[/I]

My beliefs are directly taken from scripute that is interpreted correctly. YOU may God's word invalid by relying upon an agenda drioven translation to "prove" your points. You've provided no "evidence" of anything except your theological fallacy.

Oh and by the way don't alter my posts because that is again'st the rules here.

Who wrote that book you posted on here again? The bible isn't enough to prove who and what God is?

And prove that what DRS and i have put in this thread is false? and i for one will gladly remove my posts.

I am a bigger person then you know, I can admit it when i am wrong.

[DRS]

Glad to hear it because that is what you made it sound like. And no you don't but you are being dragged into it by one who does since he keeps invoking you as an ally.

Sometimes when things are new to people or they have not spent a lot of time explainings things it is helpful.

Some of the things he has pasted have been quite interesting espicially when showing a variety of translations for some biblical verses, it will give those who are really interested in seeing there can be differences in translation. I find it interesting that people will accuse some translations as being agenda driven and not others.

[Angryamerican]

I've added no words DRS..typical of you though to make false accusations when you lose an argument. You use an agenda driven translation of scripture and cannot prove your doctrine out without it. I ignore no evidence, nor has my evidence or opinion rather..been "over turned"..I have NO problem with the "prefigurement"..the only problem seems to be with your reading comprehension.

So tell us the proper bible to read from?

[rsuhls]

How can a person refute fact?

It is a no-brainer how the trinity came to be in Christanity.

Who use to worship triads before Christ even came to the earth.

And the glaring similarities between Christianity and paganism.

you contradicted your self right here, "I don't need to change anyones mind but if you are wrong admit it and move on."

Let see you argue that you are not here to change minds yet you want people admit they are wrong and move on.:rolleyes:

How about you do as I did state your point of view and move on.

People can and do disagree on what scriptures mean. You will not, with out having the spirit with you, change their minds.

Beliefs are as much emotional as intellectual do you not get that?

[rsuhls]

Well i put the reasons why i believe what i do if they can't take it, it's not my problem.

But point well taken.

no what you are doing is beating them over the heads with what you believe and act as though you are the one who is right no matter what.

And you wonder why people are fighting against your posts?

[rsuhls]

Because we share similar views?

ruhls how long have you been on here?

I'm sure you are familiar with people posting links and pasting articles?

So you think when i read from the encyclopedias i should just type all that i agree with?

Just so someone can join the thread and say, That's not true :lol: :rolleyes:

I saw you long posts and don't need to see you "WEBsite" since anyone can have a web site.

You can quote scripture all day they will post back and you are right were you are they see it one way you see it another.

How about you go be happy believing what you want and let them go on believing what they want?

[rsuhls]

Well then they shouldn't join the thread . If they are gonna call on me i will call on them.

And how many out there may not know any of this stuff i have posted?

Someone that is thourough in their bible studies, may find it interesting what i posted.

dude I'll bet you a dollar that I can quote scripture just like you. I know the scriptures you poseted where you lost was when you started down the road of calling them Pagans.

I'm sorry if you don't understand that.

[Warrior4God]

Something you apparently did a long time ago.

Rick that was crap
You know what Romans 1:23 means and so you take a verse out of context in Gods Word and use it to call me a fool?
You Sir used to have some respect in my eyes but using the Word to call names is disgusting

I will gladly post the whole chapter if you like

Your pride has resorted you to name calling
Romans 1:23 is a verse you wont adress,Why?
I think in my opinion you know calling Jesus God is just what this verse declares and you know what? That Sir is just what it does
call me a fool if you like but dont use a verse that clearly shows something you believe is wrong and use it to bash me with,your weakness is your pride it seems
I can sit here and honestly tell you I have not made the image of the incorruptible God into an Image of a man.
so this verse seems to point to you making Jesus 100% God,100% man
and you turn your eyes from this truth in the foundational doctrine of Romans
is Romans in your Bible?

[Harmonious]

I need to learn more about the Kabalah. But i have read that it was false worship and not obeying God. Is why God allowed Israel to be taken in to Babylon. And i think he allowed belshazzar to rule over and turn the Jews in to slaves.As well as persicute them because they started worshiping false gods and as well as the pagan gods.

But i'm not totally sure about them worshiping Trinities.

Learning Kabalah is really not going to be useful until you learn far more about Judaism.

And yes, God punishes Israel with exile. But God hasn't forgotten about us.

But as I said before, Jews don't worship trinities. Jews who do separate themselves from the rest of Judaism, and are no longer considered Jews by other Jews.

(We'll gladly welcome them back if they give up on the Jesus and/or trinity thing.)

[rsuhls]

What is your point now?

Do you disagree with me on my beliefs?

I was called a pagan myself, now i am showing what a pagan is.

I am sorry i am very blundt when it comes to God. I think many of the great men of God are the same way. Although i do need work in the pride area.

Ah so you are right and come hell or high water you will prove it even if you have to beat them over the head with it.

Got it.

God Bless.

[Warrior4God]

You keep using this verse ever consider the fact that it could be describing you? No one is changing the image of God the Father. Name one way in which the Trinity doctrine changes who God The Father is?

Do you believe Jesus is God?
simple question
I believe God is Spirit and I have made no Image of God
To make Jesus God in any way is what this verse would be talking about.
that verse and 100s more you cant explain except its a mystery

[Warrior4God]

Something you apparently did a long time ago.

Dont take half of my quote thats decietful
especially when the Word is posted.
I have never took part of anyones quote I post all of it
Now you will respond with a smart crack and think you look smart,at least thats what you usually do Rick
I have bent over backwards to show you respect and consideration but you seem to show none toward me
What have I ever done to you,
speaking the Word and my beliefs is all I know
But if I offended you Im sorry I dont want confrontation only to show what I believe and why
Which is just what you wish to do I thought
Honestly I dont want any contention here,
I admire your passion but dont take your passion so far as to tear people down
what good is that
Think,have I ever done you that way?

[Angryamerican]

Ah so you are right and come hell or high water you will prove it even if you have to beat them over the head with it.

Got it.

God Bless.

You to. Have a good evening.

[Fire Watch]

You have never restated this as God will provide Himself as a sacrifice?

Before making the same tired arguement about agenda driven trnslation then explain why at least one of proof texts is from a scripture than has clearly been mistranslated. Exodus 3:14

I stated that I saw FORESHADOWING in that story...not that I think the translation should be changed, words added, or subtracted...theres a difference between OPINION and DOCTRINE.

[Fire Watch]

Oh and by the way don't alter my posts because that is again'st the rules here. I didnt alter you quotes content. I was within the rules.

Who wrote that book you posted on here again? The bible isn't enough to prove who and what God is? David K. Bernard. I gave the link and proper credit. Something you have yet to do. I gave the link as a source of information on my beliefs as a courtesy. The Bible IS all I need..and I use it over and over to prove my point.

[HisServant]

Verifying the English Translation



Do note that when ‘theos’ is the subject, then it is written as ‘qeoV’ (theos) and when it is the direct object (accusative) then it is written as ‘qeon’ (theon). In the Greek text of the verse John 1:1, it can be seen that there is an article before ‘qeon’ and the text is thus written as ‘tonqeon’ which is transliterated to be ‘ton theon’ and should be translated as ‘the God’ or one can even translate it as only ‘God’. The point is that using the definite article, the word refers to God and not to the other meanings of the word ‘theos’ i.e. ‘a god’ or any god or goddess.

In the second instance where we see ‘theos’, it is written as ‘qeoV’ and there is no article before it. If this word would have been referring to ‘God’, then we would have seen the article ‘o’ (ho) before it. The article ‘ho’ is used before the word if it is the subject. However we see that there is an absence of a definite article. Thus it means that in this place, ‘theos’ should be translated as ‘god’ or ‘a god’ and not as ‘God’.




Correct Translation



The correct translation for John 1:1 would then be as such:

In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was a god.

However we find that Christendom tries to put a veil over this problem in the Bible and all of them falsely translate the verses in a way to imply by hook or crook that the Word was also God.




Random Translations by Christendom



Not only does Christendom not translate John 1:1 properly, it is seen that they have been randomly translating the terms ‘ho theos’ and ‘ton theon’. For example lets take a look at 2 Corinthians 4:4.

In that verse ‘ho theos’ is translated as ‘the god’ with a small ‘g’ to refer to Satan. In the same verse ‘ton theon’ is translated as ‘God’. This is a clear ‘pick and choose’ tactic being practiced by Christendom.




Conclusion



The Christian world is trying hard to cover up the correct wordings of this verse. As it is the only verse in the Bible which came closest to the concept of Trinity, 1John 5:7 (“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one”), has been detected as a fabrication and a corruption in the Bible by biblical scholars and kept out of the later versions of the Bible. This verse in truth also does not support Jesus’ divinity. So what we find is that as more investigations are made into the Greek texts of the Bible, Jesus is seen to be losing the “divinity factor”. However it is up to the Christian brothers and sister to realize the games that the Churches are playing with them.

It is an undeniable fact that the Bible got corrupted over time,



Note (5th March 2006): It was brought to my attention that the “New World Translation” by the “Jehovah’s Witnesses” has also translated this verse as it ought to be translated.

In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

Are you seriously posting a muslim's view of what John 1:1 means to say christians are wrong?

[Fire Watch]

Dont take half of my quote thats decietful
especially when the Word is posted.
I have never took part of anyones quote I post all of it
Now you will respond with a smart crack and think you look smart,at least thats what you usually do Rick
I have bent over backwards to show you respect and consideration but you seem to show none toward me
What have I ever done to you,
speaking the Word and my beliefs is all I know
But if I offended you Im sorry I dont want confrontation only to show what I believe and why
Which is just what you wish to do I thought
Honestly I dont want any contention here,
I admire your passion but dont take your passion so far as to tear people down
what good is that
Think,have I ever done you that way?

I dont think it was deceitful at all. You were responding to AI's post in which he was replying to me..he said..

Sounds confusing to me.

He said that in response to an answer I gave him...

You replied with...

Ya think?

Romans 1:22,23

22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
I believe this is describing Idolatry
Who do you say Jesus is? You were agreeing with him that my answer was confusing..you then quoted scripture as a backhanded way of calling me a fool, and an idolater. My response to you was justified.

[HisServant]

Do you believe Jesus is God?
simple question
I believe God is Spirit and I have made no Image of God
To make Jesus God in any way is what this verse would be talking about.
that verse and 100s more you cant explain except its a mystery

Yes. I do. I believe Jesus is God the Son. I believe He was the Logos God from John 1 and became flesh, Jesus. I believe it because scripture teaches it. Now ask me do I understand how it all works? No I don't. But I accept it because I will never understand everything about God. That is why He is God and we are not. He is far beyond our ways and incomprehensible.

Lets just suppose for a second that John 1 is correct and that God Himself says the Logos is God also and that they are one. Then we are not creating an image. It is God who is doing it. God becomes human by taking on flesh. And scripture repeats over and over again that Jesus is the image of God. So man did not make an image. God did. There is no violation of scripture.

[Angryamerican]

Are you seriously posting a muslim's view of what John 1:1 means to say christians are wrong?

Not all Christians are wrong.

Is there a point to this comment?

You didn't read all the others that wasn't muslim?

[rsuhls]

It was in post # 980

Take your pick of the sources. I have plenty more.


http://www.tomorrowsworld.org/cgi-bi...tem=1140203084

http://members.aol.com/IslamTeam/pagan.htm

http://www.voiceofjesus.org/index34.html

http://jesus-messiah.com/html/greek-3.html

http://www.webspawner.com/users/news...estrinity.html

http://ebrahimsaifuddin.wordpress.co...about-john-11/

You do know I could go start a website and say whatever I feel like saying would that make it true?

You dear friend have decided that you are right and they are wrong....guess what I have been trying to get you to see.....beliefs are personal.

Go be happy with yours, I'll be happy with mine, and let them be happy with thiers.

Think you can handel that?

edit to add: Only thee of those links work One is Muslim, one is Jewish and the other....well who knows.

[rsuhls]

Is there a point to this comment?

You didn't read all the others that wasn't muslim?

I think his point is, and actually I agree with him, that quoting the muslim interpetation of the Bible is like a Muslim using the Pope as a refernce.

They see it wholly and completely differnt, are you Muslim?

[Angryamerican]

Yes. I do. I believe Jesus is God the Son. I believe He was the Logos God from John 1 and became flesh, Jesus. I believe it because scripture teaches it. Now ask me do I understand how it all works? No I don't. But I accept it because I will never understand everything about God. That is why He is God and we are not. He is far beyond our ways and incomprehensible.

Lets just suppose for a second that John 1 is correct and that God Himself says the Logos is God also and that they are one. Then we are not creating an image. It is God who is doing it. God becomes human by taking on flesh. And scripture repeats over and over again that Jesus is the image of God. So man did not make an image. God did. There is no violation of scripture.

Show us where that term is used in the bible please?

God the father appears many times. God the son doesn't appear anywhere in the scriptures . Funny nor does God the holy spirit. Are you now making up terms?

How can you worship what you can't comprehen?

Let's just suppose that verse is mistranslated, you are breaking the law i will have NO gods before me.

Not just the scholars are saying it is mistranslated. It just doesn't fit because the amount of scriptures that contradict the way it is translated in your bible.

Common sense and reasoning can come to that conclusion.

[rsuhls]

Yeah but you could also open history books and encyclopedias and the bible to get these answers.

I'll fix the links.

Thanks

are you a Jew or a Muslim?

[Constantine the Great]

Hey Recothemoron.
Wow, very classy. Very erudite. Very eloquent. :clap: bravo :clap:

[rsuhls]

Wow, very classy. Very erudite. Very eloquent. :clap: bravo :clap:

Yeah I believe the Angry part of his user name all right.:frown:

[rsuhls]

So you need a white boy to explain it. I get it. Actually i am indian or Native American.

Well i ask you can not muslims translate Greek?

Or i have said this more then once but i'll say it once more,

If they have a problem with hearing it from a muslim open up a encyclopedia or go to the Catholic encyclopedia.

Or look further in to the translating of the scripture.

So you are a christian that thinks the Muslims inteprepation of the Bible...very interesting?

Or are you a Jew?

I have to work at work now I'll be back in a while.:hug:

[Angryamerican]

Yeah I believe the Angry part of his user name all right.:frown:


Honestly i am not an angry person, But i have my moments just like any human.

[Constantine the Great]

Honestly i am not an angry person, But i have my moments just like any human.
You've had about 105 pages of them so far.

[cbut1]

I'm surprised this thread is still alive.

[rsuhls]

After three times you are asking me questions that have nothing to do with this conversation.

I have already said what i was.

By your comments i am wondering if you are a racist.

But i don't think you are. So get to your comment.

No I'm not a racist....I wonder what religion you are because I have very seldom seen a Christian use a Muslim site to try to argue their interpretation of the bible. It is, to say the least, unique.

But hey have at it.

[DRS]

So why is there so much of a problem with the fact that some Muslims have a better grasp of the bible than some of those who claim the Christian faith?

Over the years I have met many muslims and they have great respect for the bible and are pretty knowledgable about it, and I have never had a muslim rip out pages in the bible he did not like, I did have a preacher do that though after being shown scriptures that showed Jesus was not the Almighty God.

Muslims are descendants from Abraham and are monotheistic.

[rsuhls]

So why is there so much of a problem with the fact that some Muslims have a better grasp of the bible than some of those who claim the Christian faith?

Over the years I have met many muslims and they have great respect for the bible and are pretty knowledgable about it, and I have never had a muslim rip out pages in the bible he did not like, I did have a preacher do that though after being shown scriptures that showed Jesus was not the Almighty God.

Muslims are descendants from Abraham and are monotheistic.

you really believe that don't you? I'll bet you a Dollar that if he were using it to try to prove your interpertation you would not be jolly on the spot with comments like the above.

But I could be wrong.

[Fire Watch]

Hey Recothemoron. You are decietful, the way you play with quotes. I see that integrity is lacking . No wonder why you believe what you do.

God has to conform to you not you conform to God. Just my opinion.
You such a wonderful person. The brotherly love comes off you in sheets doesnt it? Lol. MY integrity is lacking? Good stuff..You have a problem with me, so you attack my entire religion..thats bannable..I think I may go ahead and report you.

God doesnt conform to me. He conforms to no man. You're the one that has to use an agenda driven translation to have the Bible agree with you...carry on AI, carry on.

[Angryamerican]

No I'm not a racist....I wonder what religion you are because I have very seldom seen a Christian use a Muslim site to try to argue their interpretation of the bible. It is, to say the least, unique.

But hey have at it.

Yes two muslim sites.

But nothing is said about me using a Jewish site and other Christian sites.

[Angryamerican]

you really believe that don't you? I'll bet you a Dollar that if he were using it to try to prove your interpertation you would not be jolly on the spot with comments like the above.

But I could be wrong.

Ruhls maybe you should save your money? :lol:


That's not your first bet you offered.