Should You Believe In The Trinity?

[refractorhead]

Gen 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
Jn 1:1-3 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

John makes the claim Jesus is GOD.

In Acts 5:3-4 Peter tells Ananias that he has lied to the Holy Spirit in verse 3 and in verse 4 says that he lied to God. This passage clearly indicates that these two are the same.

The Holy Spirit is called GOD in the book of Acts.

Just because the word "trinity" doesnt show up in the Bible doesnt mean the Bible doesnt teach the concept.

[terri910]

Welcome, refractorhead

[DispensationalJim]

You tell me. They do both have literature written about them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horton_Hatches_the_Egg


IMO, Koushi, comparing a children's book (clever and well crafted as it might be) to the Bible -- the most published book of all time which has transformed millions of lives around the world for the better according to the many testimonies I have heard and read of over my 70 years -- is really quite a stretch.

But to each his own...

:shrug: Your choice. There are a couple of different KJV on that sit as I remember.

The "different" versions of the KJB have been explained several times on this and other threads.

Since printing as we know it now was pretty much invented to print the Bible (especially the concept of moveable type), it was a fairly new "art" in the 1600s and there were admittedly a number of spelling errors, type style problems, etc., etc., all which necessitated the republishing of the King James 4 times to "get it right," which I believe was actually the King of England's main goal at that time.

My recollection of history is that King James hired 52 of the most respected theologians of his day and gave them complete freedom to translate from the Textus Receptus manuscripts into the Hebrew and Greek. As they finished their individual "assignments," they sent them to another translator for proofing, and then turned them in for printing. But then, it seems to me that as they eventually got their printed "copies" (they didn't have Parcel Post back then so it no doubt took a while) and finally got to "proof" them, they then had to complain to the printers individually about particular errors, etc.. Thus, as the process improved over several years, the translators and editors ultimately concurred that they had completed it to a point where no more corrections were needed.


It's been my experience that the length of time someone does something wrong has no bearing on if or when that action become right. Have you found out something different than I on that fact?

I would agree that one can search for truth in all the wrong places, but I think a good student who wants the truth will check as many sources as possible. I personally have a rather extensive library of books from many sources concerning the history of the Bible. Nowadays, there is also the internet, but most of the info I have found there is from the same books I already have.

So I believe I have carefully considered the possibilities to which you are probably referring, and found them "wanting."

[CMike11]

God allowed it all to happen for a reason, and that is the nice thing about God He gives men leadway to see what they do with it, He gave the Jews the law and the prophets and then they decided to add the oral torah etc..

You are mistaken.

The oral law was given to the jews via Moses on Mt. Sinai.

As you may recall the written law was given to the jews via Moses on Mt Sinai too.

[DRS]

You change the focus of the discussion to support your position. A rather maddening trait of some religious debaters. We were discussing individuals and you now decide to focus on groups. Does God know what an individual is going to do before that indvidual does it?

Does God choose to exercise foreknowledge regarding all indivuals we do not know, we know He has done it regarding certain indivuals

[DRS]

Gen 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
Jn 1:1-3 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

John makes the claim Jesus is GOD.

In Acts 5:3-4 Peter tells Ananias that he has lied to the Holy Spirit in verse 3 and in verse 4 says that he lied to God. This passage clearly indicates that these two are the same.

The Holy Spirit is called GOD in the book of Acts.

Just because the word "trinity" doesnt show up in the Bible doesnt mean the Bible doesnt teach the concept.


Bible also says Moses was made god and the bible also says Jesus is the firstborn of creation and the beginning of creation by God

[DRS]

You are mistaken.

The oral law was given to the jews via Moses on Mt. Sinai.

As you may recall the written law was given to the jews via Moses on Mt Sinai too.

Written well after the destruction of the temple by a class of people not given the authority to teach the law since that belong to the levites

[terri910]

Does God choose to exercise foreknowledge regarding all indivuals we do not know, we know He has done it regarding certain indivuals
Some of us believe that God is not constrained by the concept of time. What for us is past or now or future, for God is simply one "IS." For me, God does not even have choose foreknowledge, He simply "knows."

[refractorhead]

Bible also says Moses was made god and the bible also says Jesus is the firstborn of creation and the beginning of creation by Godhow do you interpret "firstborn of creation" to mean? the Bible in John 1:3 says he created everything. Are you saying he created himself?

[refractorhead]

Welcome, refractorhead:) thankyou very much.

[CMike11]

Bible also says Moses was made god and the bible also says Jesus is the firstborn of creation and the beginning of creation by God

No the bible doesn't say that Moses was made god:rolleyes:

Nothing in the bible can be further away from that.

Moses is referred to as a servant of G-D, a mortal human being.

[CMike11]

Written well after the destruction of the temple by a class of people not given the authority to teach the law since that belong to the levites

You are extremely confused about judaism.

It was called the oral law. The reason that it was called the oral law was because it was oral. Like not written down.

It was passed down from father to son, generation to generation.

The reason it was written down is because the rabbis were afraid that parts would be forgotten or altered by accident as it was passed down. That's why it was written down.

Not authorized to teach the law? What are you talking about? Where does it say only levites can teach torah?

Torah was supposed to be passed down from father to son.

You know a tremendous amount about judaism that simply isn't true.

[Koushi Shinigami]

IMO, Koushi, comparing a children's book (clever and well crafted as it might be) to the Bible


I wasn't. But if you want to, go ahead.



My recollection of history is that King James hired 52 of the most respected theologians of his day and gave them complete freedom to translate from the Textus Receptus manuscripts into the Hebrew and Greek.



I've heard a slightly different account. I've also heard some say it's short a few books.



I would agree that one can search for truth in all the wrong places, but I think a good student who wants the truth will check as many sources as possible. I personally have a rather extensive library of books from many sources concerning the history of the Bible. Nowadays, there is also the internet, but most of the info I have found there is from the same books I already have.


Aren't Catholics often criticized for using 'extra-biblical' sources? Why are your extra sources any different?



So I believe I have carefully considered the possibilities to which you are probably referring, and found them "wanting."

What possibilities am I possibly referring to?

[DispensationalJim]

...
I've heard a slightly different account. I've also heard some say it's short a few books.


Aren't Catholics often criticized for using 'extra-biblical' sources? Why are your extra sources any different?
...


Of course, I (and most other Bible students who are not Catholic) disagree that the KJB is short a few books. I think almost everyone knows that the Catholic Bibles have the "Apocrypha" which is included in their Old Testament but which was rejected by the Jews who actually assembled the Old Testament.

=============================

By "extra-biblical" sources, I think most "critics" usually are referring to the traditions not found in the Bible that are considered as part of the Catholic beliefs but are not accepted among "Protestants" etc. They might also be speaking of the "church fathers" who are not in the Bible but are quoted often to support Catholic doctrines.

I was talking about other books telling the HISTORY of the Bible, its manuscripts, etc.. Those books do not provide any teaching regarding my Christian walk, but simply support the manner in which The King James Bible and other Bible versions were produced.

I believe the Bible stands alone as the sole authority of the Christian "...for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2Tim. 3:16-17).

[terri910]

I believe the Bible stands alone as the sole authority of the Christian "...for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2Tim. 3:16-17).
Of course the Bible itself (including the scripture you give here) does not claim that.

[DispensationalJim]

Of course the Bible itself (including the scripture you give here) does not claim that.

That, dear terri, is one of our greatest disagreements. I have shared many verses which indicate to me the exclusiveness of God's Word. IMO, on this issue, we will probably never come to agreement since it has been debated for many centuries by some of the most brilliant minds ever known to man on both sides with very few concessions that I am aware of.

As I was trying to explain to Koushi, my 50 year search for truth has left me with the conviction that the King James Bible is THE Word of God, thus I will trust it alone as my guide to spiritual maturity and acceptance in the Body of Christ until I join Him in Heaven following the Rapture.

[DRS]

how do you interpret "firstborn of creation" to mean? the Bible in John 1:3 says he created everything. Are you saying he created himself?

Does it say everything?

Or do you imply that?

It says all things came into existence through him

[DRS]

You are extremely confused about judaism.

It was called the oral law. The reason that it was called the oral law was because it was oral. Like not written down.

It was passed down from father to son, generation to generation.

The reason it was written down is because the rabbis were afraid that parts would be forgotten or altered by accident as it was passed down. That's why it was written down.

Not authorized to teach the law? What are you talking about? Where does it say only levites can teach torah?

Torah was supposed to be passed down from father to son.

You know a tremendous amount about judaism that simply isn't true.


You can assert that is was given but it can not be proven, in fact the idea that it was given to Moses at the same time the law code was given contradicts the scripture that says Moses wrote down all the God told him


Fathers taught their sons yes but over and over again it is clear it is the levites who were the teachers

[DRS]

Some of us believe that God is not constrained by the concept of time. What for us is past or now or future, for God is simply one "IS." For me, God does not even have choose foreknowledge, He simply "knows."

Then you create a sort of problem

See if God knows all things in advance then God had to see evil before there was sin or anything meaning evil had to exist in God

[terri910]

Then you create a sort of problem

See if God knows all things in advance then God had to see evil before there was sin or anything meaning evil had to exist in God
I do not believe it creates a problem at all -- that or any other one. And you think it does because you are still using words that use the constraint of time, such as "in advance" and "before." To use such words ignores the very explanation given.

[DRS]

I do not believe it creates a problem at all -- that or any other one. And you think it does because you are still using words that use the constraint of time, such as "in advance" and "before." To use such words ignores the very explanation given.

God created the constraints of time and gave us the chance to choose

God has a schedule and appointed time for things He even has a beginning marked, before God created He had to plan and if He saw evil before He created anything then the only place for evil to have existed was in God's mind

[terri910]

God created the constraints of time and gave us the chance to choose

God has a schedule and appointed time for things He even has a beginning marked, before God created He had to plan and if He saw evil before He created anything then the only place for evil to have existed was in God's mind
The constraints of time are OURS, not His.

I can't tell if you are saying, at the beginning of the second paragraph, that God has a beginning.

I do not believe God had a beginning, and I do believe that God exists outside of time. The word "before" simply does not apply. One. Big. Now.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Of course, I (and most other Bible students who are not Catholic) disagree that the KJB is short a few books.


That's your opinion. Have at it.

Does it not concern you at all, having the name of a mere mortal man on your copy of the word of God?

What sort of prophet was this King James? :think:




I believe the Bible stands alone as the sole authority of the Christian "...for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2Tim. 3:16-17).

If that's true, then why the other books?

[CMike11]

You can assert that is was given but it can not be proven, in fact the idea that it was given to Moses at the same time the law code was given contradicts the scripture that says Moses wrote down all the God told him


Fathers taught their sons yes but over and over again it is clear it is the levites who were the teachers

Exodus 24:12. And the Lord said to Moses, "Come up to Me to the mountain and remain there, and I will give you the stone tablets, the Law and the commandments, which I have written to instruct them."

Why does it say "Law" and "commandments". Law refers to the written law and commandments refers to the oral law.

The oral law was necessary because it explained law that were ambiguous in the written law. Without it the written law couldn't be executed.

Also where exactly did it say that only levites were teachers? :rolleyes: I seem to have missed that passage.

DRS, DRS, DRS, believe it or not you don't know more about judaism than I do.

Below may help educate you.

http://www.aishdas.org/student/oral.htm

Theoretical Proofs

1. R. Yosef Albo [Sefer HaIkkarim, 3:23] offers the following philosophical proof for the existence of an oral law. R. Albo states that a perfect text must, by definition, be totally unambiguous and not require any additional information to be understood. Since the Torah is called perfect [Psalms 19:8], the Torah must not have any ambiguities. However, it does have ambiguities. For example, the verse [Deut. 6:4] "Hear O Israel! The L-rd is our G-d, the L-rd is one" is understood by Jews to imply absolute monotheism while it is understood by Christians to imply a trinity. How can a perfect Torah contain ambiguity? Only if the Torah includes an oral explanation that clarifies all ambiguities can it be called perfect [cf. Maimonides, Moreh Nevuchim, 1:71]. Therefore, R. Albo states, there must have been an oral tradition transmitted along with the written Torah.

Textual Proofs

3. R. HaLevi further asks what the Torah means when it says [Exodus 12:2] "This month shall mark for you the beginning of the months"? To which months is this referring? Is it referring to Egyptian months (where the Jews were living at the time) or Chaldean months (from where their patriarch Abraham originated)? Solar months or lunar months? Without an oral tradition, there is no way to know to what this verse is referring [cf. R. Avraham Ibn Ezra, Commentary, Lev. 25:9; Rashbatz, ibid. This, by the way, seems to alleviate the issue of counting January as the first month. Since the verse is referring to lunar months, there is no prohibition to count January as the first solar month.].

4. Also, R. HaLevi asks, what does the Torah mean when it says that animals are permitted to be eaten after slaughter [Deut. 12:21]? Does that mean any kind of killing or only through slitting the animal's neck? [Cf. Rashbatz, ibid.]

5. Furthermore, when the Torah [Lev. 3:17] says "It is a law for all time throughout the ages, in all your settlements: you must not eat any fat or any blood", what exactly is fat? Are there different types of animal fat, some which are permitted and some which are forbidden? How are these fats differentiated? [Kuzari, ibid; Rashbatz, ibid.]

6. Also, when the Torah forbids certain birds [Lev. 11:13-19], does that mean that all other birds are permitted? Or are there sign for birds like there are for animals [Lev. 11:2-8]? [Kuzari, ibid; Rashbatz, ibid.] How can anyone know whether biblical law permits or forbids eating ducks, geese, and turkeys [Kuzari, ibid]?

10. The laws of inheritance as stated in Numbers [27:8-11] cannot begin to address all of the many complicated situations that can and have arisen throughout the generations. Without an oral law, how does a society apply the biblical inheritance laws [Kuzari, ibid; Rashbatz, ibid.]?

11. How does one fulfill the biblical commandments of circumcision [Gen. 17:10-14], fringes [Num. 15:38-39], and booths [Lev. 23:42]? There is not enough detail in the biblical directive to know how to fulfill these commandments properly. What are fringes? What is a booth? How much and where must be cut off in circumcision? The biblical text is too silent to enable following these commandments unless there was an oral explanation [Kuzari, ibid; Rashbatz, ibid.].

12. A baby must be circumcised on the eighth day [Gen. 17:12]. What if the eighth day falls out on the sabbath? Can a circumcision take place on a sabbath or is that considered work? The Passover sacrifice must be brought by every Jew [Ex. 12:47] on the day before Passover [Num. 9:5]. What happens if that day falls out on the sabbath? Surely, slaughtering and offering a sacrifice is work. Which takes precedence -- the sabbath or the paschal sacrifice? There must be an oral law to explain this if these laws were intended to be put into practice [Kuzari, ibid; Rashbatz, ibid.].

Implicit Proofs

13. R. Shimon ben Tzemach Duran points out that the Torah tells us that Jethro advised Moses to appoint judges. Jethro then told Moses [Ex. 18:20] "Enjoin upon them the laws and the teachings, and make known to them the way they are to go and the practices they are to follow." What does that mean? If the written law is all that was given, then there is nothing more for Moses to instruct these judges. What is Moses supposed to tell them, if not the oral law [Rashbatz, ibid.]?

14. R. Duran also notes the following biblical passage.

Deut. 17:8-11
If a matter of judgement is hidden from you, between blood and blood, between verdict and verdict, between plague and plague, matters of dispute in your cities -- you shall rise up and ascend to the place that the L-rd, your G-d, shall choose. You shall come to the priests, the Levites, and to the judge who will be in those days; you shall inquire and they will tell you the word of judgement. You shall do according to the word that they will tell you, from the place that G-d will choose, and you shall be careful to do according to everything that they will teach you. According to the teaching that they will teach you and according to the judgement that they will say to you, shall you do; you shall not deviate from the word that they will tell you, right or left.
What possible knowledge is there that can be hidden? If there is no oral law, then the only basis for judgement is in the Torah which is open for anyone to study. Clearly, the entire need for the above process of going to the central court and following their ruling implies that there is an oral tradition which also serves as the basis for judgement [Rashbatz, ibid.; Rashbash, ibid.].

Proofs Through Contradiction

16. R. Duran notes that after King Solomon had the Temple built, he sanctified the interior of the courtyard by personally offering sacrifices [1 Kings 8:64]. How could Solomon offer these sacrifices in the Temple when every indication in the Torah is that only priests may offer sacrifices? From where did Solomon know that a non-priestly king can offer a sacrifice to sanctify the Temple if not from an oral law? It certainly is nowhere in the written law [Rashbatz, ibid.].

17. Similarly, R. Duran points out that Elijah offered a sacrifice on Mt. Carmel [1 Kings 18:3-38]. However, the Torah forbids bringing sacrifices outside of the Temple [Deut. 12:13-14]. From where did Elijah receive permission to violate this prohibition unless he knew from an oral law that in his case it was permitted [Rashbatz, ibid.]?

Why Did G-d Give An Oral Torah?

Now that it has been established that there is an oral tradition regarding the law, the question remains why G-d intentionally gave the Torah in two parts -- a written part and an oral part.

20. As we said above (1), any written book is subject to ambiguity [Maimonides, Moreh Nevuchim, 1:71]. Since that is the case, had G-d only given us a written Torah, its interpretation would have been debated due to vagueness. Therefore, G-d also gave a tradition that would be taught orally from teacher to student so that the teacher could clarify any ambiguities [Rashi, Eiruvin, 21b sv. Veyoter; R. Yosef Albo, Sefer HaIkkarim, 3:23]. R. Yair Bachrach [Responsa Chavat Yair, 192] and R. Ya'akov Tzvi Mecklenburg [Haketav Vehakabalah, vol. 1 p. viii] dispute this argument and claim that since G-d is omnipotent, He could have created a totally unambiguous book. However, it seems to this author that the original argument was assuming that any written book is, by definition, ambiguous. It is a logical impossibility to have a completely unambiguous book. In fact, the example that R. Bachrach offers of an unambiguous book is Maimonides' Mishneh Torah which, despite its clarity and brilliance, has dozens if not hundreds of commentaries that try to clarify its ambiguities.

21. It is also suggested that the entire corpus of law that governs every possible case that could arise would be endless and would certainly not fit in one or even five books. The Talmud itself has over 2,700 double-sided pages. To put all of this detail into the bible would have made it a very cumbersome book that, inevitably, would have left out details that cover a future case [Sefer HaIkkarim, ibid.; R. Yehudah Loewe, Gur Aryeh, Ex. 34:27].

[CMike11]

Here is a little more than the oral law.

Bottom line jews couldn't execute the written law, without the oral law. There are too many ambiguities in the written law. That is why the oral law goes on to explain what exactly G-D meant.

G-D gave the oral to Moses on Mt Sinai along with the written law.


Question 3.5: What is the Oral Law?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/03-Torah-Halacha/section-6.html

Answer:

The Torah makes it clear that it was being transmitted side by side
with an oral tradition. Many terms and definitions used in the written
law are totally undefined. Many fundamental concepts such as shekhita
(slaughtering of animals in a kosher fashion), divorce and the rights
of the firstborn are all assumed as common knowledge by text, and are
not elaborated. Some specific examples:
* In describing the proper way to slaughter animals for food, the
Torah writes "If the place which G-d your L-rd has chosen to place
His name there will be too far from you, then you shall kill of
your herd and of your flock which G-d Lord has given you, as I
have commanded you." (Deut 12). However, the Torah doesn't record
that earlier commandment anywhere.
* When it comes to divorce -- the bible never discusses the laws
outright, they are assumed in passing in a discussion about when
remarriage would be allowed. (Deut 24:1-4)
* There is a reliance on sages for interpreting the law in Exod
18:36 and in Deut 17:8-3.

Another story related to this: R' Akiva was 40 years old before he
took an interest in Torah study. He joined a class of little children
studying the Hebrew alphabet. On the first day, the teacher taught
that such was an alef, and such was a beis, etc... On the second day,
the teacher went through the alphabet backwards -- starting with tav
and working down to aleph. R' Akiva asked the teacher, "But didn't you
teach it the other way yesterday?" "And how do you know that that was
the right way and not this one?"

There's an alternate version, perhaps of the same story. This one is
told about a non-Jew who came to Shammai and said that he wanted to
convert on condition that he would accept only the Written Law.
Shammai, realizing that the non-Jew was mocking him, chased him away.
The non-Jew then went to Hillel with the same condition. The first
day, Hillel taught him alef, bais, gimel, dalet. The second day, he
began by calling the same characters tav, shin, raish, kuf. The
non-Jew objected, "But didn't you tell me yesterday that these were
alef, bais, gimel, dalet?" Hillel responded, "You see that even the
names and sounds of the letters can only be understood by an oral
teaching. How much more must the Torah itself be understood only
through the Oral Law." The non-Jew then began studying completely and
honestly.

And an experimental proof: There were numerous movements that tried to
follow the written Torah alone: Baithusians, Saducees, Karaites,
etc... Each, without fail, eventually evolved its own tradition about
how to understand the text. Pure fundamentalism about the verses,
letting each man interpret for his/herself, has yet to provide a
consistant structure. The Torah requires more information than it
gives in the text alone. [Note that even Reform uses traditional
interpretations of the verse; it is not the interpretation of the
verse that is subject to individual choice in Reform, it is whether to
incorporate the practice].

There are a number of examples in the rest of Jewish scriptures that
show consistancy with conclusions contained in the Oral Torah based on
the Pentateuch. In other words, things the prophets assumed about
Jewish law that aren't in the text:
* Zacharia 7:2 and 8:13 refer to the Rabbinically enacted fasts to
commemorate the fall of the first Temple.
* Nechemia 13 notes the Rabbinic prohibition against buying or
selling things on the Sabbath.
* The book of Ruth only works with the Oral Torah that limits the
prohibition of Deut 23:3 to remarrying Moabite men. Otherwise, how
could Boaz marry Ruth -- a Moabite convert. Ruth also relies on
Oral Torah laws on kinsman redeemers and the conversion ritual.

The term "oral law" thus reflects the knowledge about how to fulfill
the laws and regulations of Torah that was transmitted orally, from
generation to generation. The Oral Law can be thought of as a body of
jurisprudence and procedure that accompanies the statutes of the
Written Law. It is believed to have been passed down from the time of
Moses, restored after the first exile by Ezra and Nehemiah, and
finally written down by the academies at Yavne and in the Galilee in
the two generations following the destruction of the Second Temple in
70 CE. It consists of specific interpretations and elaborations of the
Written Law, and some commentary on the principles by which the
Written Law can be expounded.

[refractorhead]

Does it say everything?

Or do you imply that?

It says all things came into existence through him
"All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."
king james version

no where in the bible do you see anyone creating anything but GOD.

[refractorhead]

Then you create a sort of problem

See if God knows all things in advance then God had to see evil before there was sin or anything meaning evil had to exist in GodGod created us with a free will. we chose to sin not GOD.

dont quite get your logic

[DRS]

"All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."
king james version

no where in the bible do you see anyone creating anything but GOD.

Really?

(Proverbs 8:22-31) “Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. 23*From time indefinite I was installed, from the start, from times earlier than the earth. 24*When there were no watery deeps I was brought forth as with labor pains, when there were no springs heavily charged with water. 25*Before the mountains themselves had been settled down, ahead of the hills, I was brought forth as with labor pains, 26*when as yet he had not made the earth and the open spaces and the first part of the dust masses of the productive land. 27*When he prepared the heavens I was there; when he decreed a circle upon the face of the watery deep, 28*when he made firm the cloud masses above, when he caused the fountains of the watery deep to be strong, 29*when he set for the sea his decree that the waters themselves should not pass beyond his order, when he decreed the foundations of the earth, 30*then I came to be beside him as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time, 31*being glad at the productive land of his earth, and the things I was fond of were with the sons of men.

[ralittlefield]

Does it say everything?

Or do you imply that?

It says all things came into existence through him

Actually it is a little more specific than that. It says that everything that was made, was made by Him.

Not "everything", but "everything that was made".

[DRS]

God created us with a free will. we chose to sin not GOD.

dont quite get your logic

If God is without sin then sin can not reside in Him therefore He would not see sin and evil before there was nothing otherwise the only place it would be was inside His mind

[DRS]

Actually it is a little more specific than that. It says that everything that was made, was made by Him.

Not "everything", but "everything that was made".

It does say that either it say through him all things were made and apart from nothing was made, since he is the beginning of creation by Gos it is safe to safe nothing came into existence apart from him

[DRS]

Exodus 24:4*Accordingly Moses wrote down all the words of Jehovah. Then he got up early in the morning and built at the foot of the mountain an altar and twelve pillars corresponding with the twelve tribes of Israel

Exodus 34:27*And Jehovah went on to say to Moses: “Write down for yourself these words, because it is in accordance with these words that I do conclude a covenant with you and Israel.”

Deuteronomy 31:9*Then Moses wrote this law and gave it to the priests the sons of Le′vi, the carriers of the ark of Jehovah’s covenant, and to all the older men of Israel. 10*And Moses went on to command them, saying: “At the end of every seven years, in the appointed time of the year of the release, in the festival of booths, 11*when all Israel comes to see the face of Jehovah your God in the place that he will choose, you will read this law in front of all Israel in their hearing

The law was written if there was an oral law it should be mentioned in the bible but it does not

[DRS]

The constraints of time are OURS, not His.

I can't tell if you are saying, at the beginning of the second paragraph, that God has a beginning.

I do not believe God had a beginning, and I do believe that God exists outside of time. The word "before" simply does not apply. One. Big. Now.

I am saying God marked a beginning for counting time

[ralittlefield]

It does say that either it say through him all things were made and apart from nothing was made, since he is the beginning of creation by Gos it is safe to safe nothing came into existence apart from him

What does "apart from [sic] nothing was made" mean?

It means that He made everything that was made.


Here is the correctly quoted passage from the NWT:

"and apart from him not even one thing came into existence"

[DRS]

What does "apart from [sic] nothing was made" mean?

It means that He made everything that was made.


Here is the correctly quoted passage from the NWT:

"and apart from him not even one thing came into existence"

So since he was the beginning of creation by God there was nothing that came into existence apart from him

[CMike11]

Exodus 24:4*Accordingly Moses wrote down all the words of Jehovah. Then he got up early in the morning and built at the foot of the mountain an altar and twelve pillars corresponding with the twelve tribes of Israel

Exodus 34:27*And Jehovah went on to say to Moses: “Write down for yourself these words, because it is in accordance with these words that I do conclude a covenant with you and Israel.”

Deuteronomy 31:9*Then Moses wrote this law and gave it to the priests the sons of Le′vi, the carriers of the ark of Jehovah’s covenant, and to all the older men of Israel. 10*And Moses went on to command them, saying: “At the end of every seven years, in the appointed time of the year of the release, in the festival of booths, 11*when all Israel comes to see the face of Jehovah your God in the place that he will choose, you will read this law in front of all Israel in their hearing

The law was written if there was an oral law it should be mentioned in the bible but it does not


You are not getting the nuances of the Torah.

Exodus 34:
27. The Lord said to Moses: "Inscribe these words for yourself, for according to these words I have formed a covenant with you and with Israel."

What is meant by "these words"? What other words is G-D talking about?

"These words" refers to the written torah, the other words are not supposed to be written down, that is the oral law.

As I stated the jews needed the oral law to execute the written law.

The written law says don't "work" on the sabbath.

What is work? Cooking? Cleaning? Riding your donkey? Reading?

When does the shabbos start? Dusk? When three stars come out? When it's completely dark?

This may not seem important. But if you are a jew trying to live the commandments you need the answers to these questions. The answers were in the....you guessed it....oral law.

[DRS]

Actually when looking through the scriptures you see answer to many of those questions

5*In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, between the two evenings is the passover to Jehovah.
The day started at sun down

Now as to what you did would depend on who you were, if you a were a priest there was work to be done

[DispensationalJim]

That's your opinion. Have at it.

Does it not concern you at all, having the name of a mere mortal man on your copy of the word of God?

What sort of prophet was this King James? :think:



If that's true, then why the other books?

I'm hoping that you are aware that "King James" is simply the TITLE of a particular Bible.

Do you also reject other Bibles with such "titles" as the Douay/Rheims Bible (the Catholic Bible of the 1600s), or The Jerusalem Bible (a Catholic Bible published in 1968) or The Oxford Bible (1962), or the Schofield Study Bible, or the MaCarthur Study Bible, etc., etc...

Actually, almost all of the different Bibles I have (including my King James) actually say "HOLY BIBLE" in huge print on the front cover, then in smaller print tells which "version" it is. So IMO your point is moot.

==============================

Koushi, please tell me, when did anyone EVER claim that King James was a prophet? He was asked by a very large contingent of British theologians to provide funds and support to produce a new English Bible from the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts which could be printed in large quantities to be made available to anyone who wanted one.

==============================

And again, Koushi, you ask me, "why the other books" which I thought I had answered at least twice.

I'll try to make my answer plain and simple this time:

I read many other books about the Bible because I wanted to learn how, when, and where the known Greek and Hebrew manuscripts in existence (from whence came the translations) were discovered, dated, and categorized, how the translators were chosen to make the various translations, how and why the translations ended up so different, etc., etc. That is one of the reasons why I ultimately came to the conclusion that the King James was the superior Bible version.

I hope that finally helps you understand.

[refractorhead]

Really?

(Proverbs 8:22-31) “Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. 23*From time indefinite I was installed, from the start, from times earlier than the earth. 24*When there were no watery deeps I was brought forth as with labor pains, when there were no springs heavily charged with water. 25*Before the mountains themselves had been settled down, ahead of the hills, I was brought forth as with labor pains, 26*when as yet he had not made the earth and the open spaces and the first part of the dust masses of the productive land. 27*When he prepared the heavens I was there; when he decreed a circle upon the face of the watery deep, 28*when he made firm the cloud masses above, when he caused the fountains of the watery deep to be strong, 29*when he set for the sea his decree that the waters themselves should not pass beyond his order, when he decreed the foundations of the earth, 30*then I came to be beside him as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time, 31*being glad at the productive land of his earth, and the things I was fond of were with the sons of men.
Chapter 8
In chapter 8 we have an ode to wisdom. Wisdom is personified. And because of the personification of wisdom in this chapter, some have even likened wisdom unto Jesus Christ. "For in Him are hid all of the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Colossians 2:3 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Col&c=2#3)). So there are analogies that can definitely be drawn. Because Christ is the soul, the heart of wisdom. "In Him all the treasures of wisdom." So there are definite analogies that can be made to wisdom and to Jesus Christ, and there is definite parallels. There are definite parallels.
Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice? (Pro 8:1 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Pro&c=8#1))
Now, of course, we have just this is in sharp contrast to the previous chapter where this loud, stubborn, little impudent female is running around with her words of flattery in the streets and all. But, "Doth not wisdom cry? And understanding put forth her voice?"
She stands at the top of the high places, by the way in the places of the paths. She cries at the gates, and at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors: Unto you, O men, I call; my voice is to the sons of man. O ye simple, understand wisdom: and, ye fools, be ye of an understanding heart. Hear; for I will speak of excellent things; and the opening of my lips shall be right things. For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is an abomination to my lips. All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing perverse or froward in them. They are all plain to him that understands, and right to them that find knowledge. Receive my instruction, and not silver; and knowledge rather than choice gold (Pro 8:1-10 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Pro&c=8#1)).
In other words, prefer wisdom to wealth.
For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired cannot be compared to wisdom. I wisdom dwell with prudence, and I find out knowledge of witty inventions. The fear of the LORD is to hate evil (Pro 8:11-13 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Pro&c=8#11)):
Now wisdom is speaking and declares,
pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the perverse mouth, I hate. Counsel is mine, sound wisdom: I am understanding; I have strength. By me kings reign, and princes decree justice. By me princes rule, and nobles, even all of the judges of the earth. I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me. Riches and honor are with me; yea, durable riches and righteousness. My fruit is better than gold, yea, than fine gold; and my revenue better than choice silver. I lead in the way of righteousness, in the midst of the paths of judgment: That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance; and I will fill their treasures. The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or before the earth ever was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was brought forth: While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men. Now therefore hearken unto me, O ye children: for blessed are they that keep my ways. Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not. Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors. For whoso findeth me finds life, and shall obtain favor of the LORD. But he that sinneth against me wrongs his own soul: and all they that hate me love death (Pro 8:13-36 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Pro&c=8#13)).
So we see how that Solomon is exhorting concerning wisdom. How wisdom is crying out for people, "Come, know me. Understand me. Listen to me." And the value of wisdom, treasure.
Now you remember when David died and Solomon was appointed king in his place. The Lord came to Solomon and said, "Ask of Me whatever you want." And Solomon prayed unto the Lord and said, "Oh, Lord, I ask that You will grant unto me wisdom in order that I might govern over these, Your people."
Now Solomon was aware of the awesome responsibility that was placed upon him when he took the scepter from his father David and began to rule over Israel. He realized what an awesome responsibility this was. And he also realized his own inability to stand up to this awesome responsibility. "Oh God, I need wisdom to know how to govern over these, Your people. That I might go out and in before them in such a way and that I might be a proper king." And God said unto Solomon, "Solomon, inasmuch as you've asked for wisdom, you've asked for a good thing. Because you didn't ask for riches, you didn't ask for fame, you didn't ask for your enemies to be delivered in your hands, but you asked instead for wisdom, excellent choice. And because you didn't ask for riches, fame, your enemies, but you've asked for wisdom instead, I'm not only going to give you wisdom, but I'm also going to give you great riches, fame and all."
And so God gave unto Solomon wisdom above all of his predecessors. So that from all over the world, people came to sit at the feet of Solomon to hear the wisdom of this man. So it is proper that this man who was given so much wisdom by God and knew the value and the benefits of wisdom should exhort unto wisdom.
And in then the personification of wisdom, I'm sure as we were reading through, you could see the parallels and the analogies that could be made to Jesus Christ. How that He was with the Lord in the beginning of the creation and the beautiful picturesque speech of the creation of the earth before. I wonder what it was like before God created the universe. I wonder what there was. What dimensions and whatever, you know. "Before the earth ever was, before He laid the foundation, before He set the boundaries of the sea, before He raised up the mountains, I was there."

[refractorhead]

sorry.. it is referenced from a chuck smith commentary.

[terri910]

I am saying God marked a beginning for counting timeI'm very happy to know that you do not believe God had a beginning! I believe God created man, who was under the constraints of the concept of "time."

[gpd®]

sorry.. it is referenced from a chuck smith commentary.

I've quoted Chuck Smith. Outside of the Non-Denominationals here, many think he spins.

You and I know better.;)

[terri910]

You are not getting the nuances of the Torah.

Exodus 34:
27. The Lord said to Moses: "Inscribe these words for yourself, for according to these words I have formed a covenant with you and with Israel."

What is meant by "these words"? What other words is G-D talking about?

"These words" refers to the written torah, the other words are not supposed to be written down, that is the oral law.

As I stated the jews needed the oral law to execute the written law.

The written law says don't "work" on the sabbath.

What is work? Cooking? Cleaning? Riding your donkey? Reading?

When does the shabbos start? Dusk? When three stars come out? When it's completely dark?

This may not seem important. But if you are a jew trying to live the commandments you need the answers to these questions. The answers were in the....you guessed it....oral law.
It makes sense to me.

(I know you were waiting breathlessly for that! :)))

[gpd®]

It makes sense to me.

(I know you were waiting breathlessly for that! :)))

And I say you hardly see 3 stars in Los Angeles.:whistle:

[Tucson Jim]

And Jesus is also smart enough to know he is not God.

Really God never had to claim he was God, than why did he ?


A real non-answer, doncha think?

Come on now, be honest . . . :naughty:

[Tucson Jim]

You have never heard of the term nicene ?:))

Of course. I was simply pointing out your use of the term "Nicene" was inaccurate. The proper tern for the place of origin of the Doctrine is "Nicea".

A minor correction - no offense intended.

Someone as smart as you, i would have believed you would not believe in the triune doctrine.

I don't believe it has as much to do with intelligence as it does with revelation.

I'll just leave it at that, my friend. May God bless you.

[Tucson Jim]

Is it the nicea creed or nicene creed ?

It's the Nicene Creed, which originated from a church council at Nicea.

Sorry I brought it up.

Really . . .

[Tucson Jim]

The question, pertinent to the post Tuscon quoted would be: It is the Council of Nicea or the Council of Nicene?

You said the council of nicene, and Tuscon Jim was pointing out to you that it was the Council of Nicea. When speaking of those things that council confirmed in the creed, THEN it might be called the Nicene creed.

See the difference?


It's interesting that Tuscon only corrected you for future reference, but you decided to laugh at what you thought (erroneously) was a mistake by him. If you're still laughing, look in the mirror -- the laugh may just be on you.

:)) Terri, you are truly a gem!!

[Tucson Jim]

Oh and when you correct someone i would suggest you get it right.

It's Nicaea.:)) you are so funny:))

Google nicene creed and Nicea creed :)):)):))

I did. about 99% of the sources spell it "Nicea".

And none of them use it incorrectly as you did.

But hey, no one's perfect.

I'm sorry I upset you so much by pointing out a minor error.

I hope your mocking tone on a point you hold in error makes you feel better.

Peace.

[Tucson Jim]

Because the one rule :mrgreen:

I guess you simply don't have the time to formulate real answers anymore.

Then why not simply ignore the post?

[Tucson Jim]

You are sounding like the old tj.

Lets rumble:mrgreen:

Merely pointing out the obvious disrespect in Mike's post. I don't think it's ungodly to do that, do you?

[Tucson Jim]

No, Jesus never claimed to be God ?

He claimed to be the son of God,that is not claiming he is equal to or God.

Yes, in fact it is claiming to be of the same nature as the Father. That's why the crowd wanted to stone Him.

[terri910]

I see you are catching up, Tuscon!

[Tucson Jim]

They can have it. The bold are doing a pretty fine job of destroying it right now.

:clap:

[Tucson Jim]

I see you are catching up, Tuscon!

Slowly - I've been away!

[Tucson Jim]

King Jimmy started it to cement his position of authority.

Not very nice . . . :naughty: You assume evil motives for what simply seems to be a sincerely held belief.

[Tucson Jim]

I hope Dj is not reading this, but i do agree.:whistle:

Shame on you.

[Tucson Jim]

It is not a threat,it is fact.

Besides we don't choose God,God chooses us.

For once, I agree with you.

[Tucson Jim]

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=54677171&postcount=22063

if you need links to your derisive posts to Tuscon Jim, just let me know. I'm getting better at this search thing...

:)) Classic. . .

[Tucson Jim]

:))

I shouldn't laugh, because it is sad...but the way you say that sad thing is still funny.

Don't encourage Koushi . . . please! :))

[Tucson Jim]

One can choose to follow anything they wish, but Jesus said there was two paths so the question and since the bible is the map are we following the path it lays out or the one that is easiest

105*Your word is a lamp to my foot,
And a light to my roadway

I think the "easiest" path is to let someone else tell you what to believe.

[Tucson Jim]

Just poppin in to say hey...........doing ok but too many meds and stay sick to my stomach.


God gave me a wakeup call and I have serious changes to make in diet and just about every other aspect of life including my walk with God.

God Bless you all and my prayers are for all of us to draw closer to our God.

My prayers are with you Warrior. Please be good (on your diet and stuff) and get better!

[Tucson Jim]

Hi, Warrior.

I've been insulin dependent for over 30 years. My doctor's have told me I'm the best controlled diabetic they know. I try to JOG a couple of miles at least every other morning before shooting my insulin. For several years, I RAN 5 miles every day, but I've slowed down a bit the last few years and find jogging is much less stressful and still does the job with my morning blood sugar readings.

One of my "secrets" is only one carb per meal. If we're having spaghetti or mashed potatoes, for instance, I have no bread. It works well for me, anyway.

I usually have a bed time snack of crackers and peanut butter or a little sugar-free/fat free ice cream.

I found a great diet drink at WalMart a couple years ago called "Sunrise" that is half the price of Crystal Light and tastes better to me.

I'll try to think of some more tips this evening and get back to you before bed time.

Keep your chin up, Warrior. You'll be fine. I think the Lord has more work for you! :)

Excellent post Jim - in many ways . . .

[Tucson Jim]

Gen 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
Jn 1:1-3 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

John makes the claim Jesus is GOD.

In Acts 5:3-4 Peter tells Ananias that he has lied to the Holy Spirit in verse 3 and in verse 4 says that he lied to God. This passage clearly indicates that these two are the same.

The Holy Spirit is called GOD in the book of Acts.

Just because the word "trinity" doesnt show up in the Bible doesnt mean the Bible doesnt teach the concept.



AMEN and WELCOME!!!

[Tucson Jim]

Bible also says Moses was made god and the bible also says Jesus is the firstborn of creation and the beginning of creation by God

None of which, of course, disprove the doctrine of the trinity!

[Tucson Jim]

No the bible doesn't say that Moses was made god:rolleyes:

Nothing in the bible can be further away from that.

Moses is referred to as a servant of G-D, a mortal human being.

Thank you . . . we have been trying to reason with DRS and AA about this for the past 6 months!

[Tucson Jim]

You are extremely confused about judaism.

It was called the oral law. The reason that it was called the oral law was because it was oral. Like not written down.

It was passed down from father to son, generation to generation.

The reason it was written down is because the rabbis were afraid that parts would be forgotten or altered by accident as it was passed down. That's why it was written down.

Not authorized to teach the law? What are you talking about? Where does it say only levites can teach torah?

Torah was supposed to be passed down from father to son.

You know a tremendous amount about judaism that simply isn't true.

So . . . if what he believes about Judaism is wrong, what about his beliefs about Christianity . . . :think:

[Tucson Jim]

Does it say everything?

Or do you imply that?

It says all things came into existence through him

It also says all things were created "BY" Him and "FOR" Him.

Think about that . . .

[Tucson Jim]

So since he was the beginning of creation by God there was nothing that came into existence apart from him

:wall::wall::wall: But if He was created, then HE came into existence apart from Himself, didn't create "all things", and the Bible is contradictory!!!

[the oldtimer]

Thank you . . . we have been trying to reason with DRS and AA about this for the past 6 months!
Maybe, that is where we went wrong. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Tucson Jim]

Maybe, that is where we went wrong. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

You have a point . . . :think:

[ralittlefield]

I was thinking about something this morning and wanted to get input on this.

A number of the non-Trinitarian contributors to this thread have pointed out their view that it is not necessary to believe the doctrine of the Trinity to be saved. To state it a slightly different way, it is not necessary to understand Who Jesus is, or the nature of God to be saved. One simply has to believe in "Jesus".

I think I may have even agreed to this in the past, though I can't find the post.

But let's phrase the point a little differently:

Is it OK for the Church (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant) to be wrong about something as basic as the nature of God?

If the overwhelming majority of the (indeed nearly the entire) Church throughout the centuries, has been wrong about something as basic as Who Jesus is, what doctrine of the church(es) can we trust?

Are "all our creeds wrong", as Joseph Smith says God said?

Are all churches except theirs apostate, as the JWs believe?

If the Doctrine of the Trinity is wrong, the Church has some serious "splainin" to do!

If this is the case, no doctrine can be trusted, as this is one of the few doctrines that practically all Christian churches believe.

For my part, I do not believe the Church is wrong on this, as anyone who has read this thread knows.

I believe the Bible teaches the basics of the Trinity, as detailed in these thousands of pages of posts, and that the Church took the teachings of the Bible and formalized them into the Doctrine we have today over a period of many years.

So back to the original point - can someone be saved without believing the doctrine of the Trinity? I say, without the Trinity, all doctrines are suspect and no one really knows WHO can be saved!

This post has been on my mind for a few days.

Sound doctrine was very important to the apostle Paul. Titus was told that he "MUST teach what is in accord with sound doctrine".

Why was sound doctrine so important? What is the consequence of believing, or perhaps even more so, teaching, false doctrine?

Can we assume that God will ignore our wrong belief on His nature? If so, why would He not ignore the belief in false gods? Is incorrect belief in the nature of God different than belief in a false god?

I do not claim to have the answer to this question, but, to me, it is a very serious question.

I also have to wonder if denying the doctrine of the Trinity is not blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. That sin being the one sin that can not be forgiven.

Comments?

[refractorhead]

:wall::wall::wall: But if He was created, then HE came into existence apart from Himself, didn't create "all things", and the Bible is contradictory!!!
it isnt you. drs is missing the entire point we all have made and are turning blue in the face reiterating ourselves, or he is just having fun with us. :)

[DispensationalJim]

I was thinking about something this morning and wanted to get input on this.

A number of the non-Trinitarian contributors to this thread have pointed out their view that it is not necessary to believe the doctrine of the Trinity to be saved. To state it a slightly different way, it is not necessary to understand Who Jesus is, or the nature of God to be saved. One simply has to believe in "Jesus".

I think I may have even agreed to this in the past, though I can't find the post.

But let's phrase the point a little differently:

Is it OK for the Church (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant) to be wrong about something as basic as the nature of God?

If the overwhelming majority of the (indeed nearly the entire) Church throughout the centuries, has been wrong about something as basic as Who Jesus is, what doctrine of the church(es) can we trust?

Are "all our creeds wrong", as Joseph Smith says God said?

Are all churches except theirs apostate, as the JWs believe?

If the Doctrine of the Trinity is wrong, the Church has some serious "splainin" to do!

If this is the case, no doctrine can be trusted, as this is one of the few doctrines that practically all Christian churches believe.

For my part, I do not believe the Church is wrong on this, as anyone who has read this thread knows.

I believe the Bible teaches the basics of the Trinity, as detailed in these thousands of pages of posts, and that the Church took the teachings of the Bible and formalized them into the Doctrine we have today over a period of many years.

So back to the original point - can someone be saved without believing the doctrine of the Trinity? I say, without the Trinity, all doctrines are suspect and no one really knows WHO can be saved!

Then ralittlefield responded to Tucson Jim this way:

This post has been on my mind for a few days.

Sound doctrine was very important to the apostle Paul. Titus was told that he "MUST teach what is in accord with sound doctrine".

Why was sound doctrine so important? What is the consequence of believing, or perhaps even more so, teaching, false doctrine?

Can we assume that God will ignore our wrong belief on His nature? If so, why would He not ignore the belief in false gods? Is incorrect belief in the nature of God different than belief in a false god?

I do not claim to have the answer to this question, but, to me, it is a very serious question.

I also have to wonder if denying the doctrine of the Trinity is not blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. That sin being the one sin that can not be forgiven.

Comments?

And here is how I responded to Tucson Jim when he originally made that very serious post:

That is a very serious matter that you have brought up, T-Jim, and I believe it needs to be thoughtfully considered by all on here.

If Jesus Christ was not and is not God, how could He pay for ALL our sins?

God tells us through Paul that believers are "bought with a price" (Col. 6:20;7:23) and that price was clearly paid by Jesus Christ on the cross.

IMO, that price had to be paid by God.

• 1Cor. 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.

• 1Cor. 7:20 Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. 21 Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. 22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord’s freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ’s servant. 23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men. 24 Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.

So, ironically, now this post has become a "trinity" of posts from three sincere trinitarians hoping to convince anyone we can that JESUS IS GOD!

[Tucson Jim]

This post has been on my mind for a few days.

Sound doctrine was very important to the apostle Paul. Titus was told that he "MUST teach what is in accord with sound doctrine".

Why was sound doctrine so important? What is the consequence of believing, or perhaps even more so, teaching, false doctrine?

Practically the whole Book of Galatians is devoted to this very topic.

Teachers of false doctrine are "accursed" according to Paul:

" I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

7Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. " Gal 1:6-9

And regarding practitioners of a particular false doctrine, i.e. that one must be circumcised as well as accept Christ in order to be saved, Paul said this:

"Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. " Gal 5:4

So apparently, it is a very serious matter to either teach or follow false doctrine.

Can we assume that God will ignore our wrong belief on His nature?

You know what happens when we assume!! ;)

So, no, I don't think we can.

If so, why would He not ignore the belief in false gods? Is incorrect belief in the nature of God different than belief in a false god?

I don't know. I think perhaps it could be. I think this will be God's call.

I do not claim to have the answer to this question, but, to me, it is a very serious question.

I also have to wonder if denying the doctrine of the Trinity is not blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. That sin being the one sin that can not be forgiven.

Comments?

I believe blasphemy of the Spirit is rejecting Christ. But then, of course, the question arises, if you believe in a false view of Christ, have you really accepted Him?

I don't pretend to know the answers to such questions either.

The reason for my post was simply, to reiterate, that I believe the doctrine of the Trinity is so fundamental to the Church, both in terms of its subject matter (the very nature of God) and universality (nearly every church that calls itself "Christian" believes it) that if it is wrong, then it seems to me that all doctrines of all so-called Christian churches are suspect.

Indeed, what you often see with churches that have rejected the doctrine of the Trinity is a wholesale rejection of virtually all traditional beliefs of the Church, not just the Trinity.

I was wondering why I just cannot let this thread go. Why do I spend my efforts here?

I think the answer is that I see this doctrine as so basic to Christian belief.

If Christ is the foundation of the Church, then I believe Trinity is the mortar that holds the churches (Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant) together. We worship the same God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We understand the Person of Christ, the Foundation, in essentially the same way. It's a basis for dialogue, for brotherhood, for fellowship, even if we disagree on other issues.

[Tucson Jim]

it isnt you. drs is missing the entire point we all have made and are turning blue in the face reiterating ourselves, or he is just having fun with us. :)

I tend to think it's the latter. DRS gets the point.

[Tucson Jim]

Then ralittlefield responded to Tucson Jim this way:



And here is how I responded to Tucson Jim when he originally made that very serious post:



So, ironically, now this post has become a "trinity" of posts from three sincere trinitarians hoping to convince anyone we can that JESUS IS GOD!

Not to quibble, but actually I think this is, more properly, a "triad" of posts. :))

But seriously, the verses you quoted about Jesus buying us with a price immediately made me think of Acts 20:28, an oft-cited Trinitarian verse:

"Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood."

[DRS]

:wall::wall::wall: But if He was created, then HE came into existence apart from Himself, didn't create "all things", and the Bible is contradictory!!!

Life is what came into existence it what is say so apart from nothing came into existence

Paul uses the word all many time and does not mean everything it is hyperbole I can give three examples

[DRS]

None of which, of course, disprove the doctrine of the trinity!

Well that and many other scripture do, like the fact that the bible says you only need knowledge of the only true God and the one whom He sent forth

No third person there and there is only one true God and the one whom He sent is not the true God

[ralittlefield]

Life is what came into existence it what is say so apart from nothing came into existence

Paul uses the word all many time and does not mean everything it is hyperbole I can give three examples

Are you saying God did not have life before Jesus created it?

All, in this case, is defined as everything that was created, so we know what all means with regard to what Jesus created, it is everything that is created.


John 1
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men.


Life was in Him. Life is as eternal as God is.

[Tucson Jim]

Life is what came into existence it what is say so apart from nothing came into existence

There seem to be missing words here, as I cannot discern the meaning of this collection of words.

Paul uses the word all many time and does not mean everything it is hyperbole I can give three examples

Uh huh . . . been through this before. You give me your examples and then I tell you to read John 1:3 which clarifies the meaning of the statement that Jesus created "all" things by saying "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Once more - he made ALL things AND without Him was not ANYTHING MADE THAT WAS MADE.

It simply could not be any clearer than that.

Yet you don't believe what the Bible clearly says.

[Tucson Jim]

Well that and many other scripture do, like the fact that the bible says you only need knowledge of the only true God and the one whom He sent forth

No third person there and there is only one true God and the one whom He sent is not the true God

In your humble opinion.

[Tucson Jim]

Are you saying God did not have life before Jesus created it?

All, in this case, is defined as everything that was created, so we know what all means with regard to what Jesus created, it is everything that is created.


John 1
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men.


Life was in Him. Life is as eternal as God is.

Ha ha - didn't see your post until right now. We both gave him the same answer - or at least the same verse!

[the oldtimer]

I think there is only one TRUE God. All the rest are false. The true God consists of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father, has a one, and only begotten, Son. IMO, the god in this thread that has a created son, cannot be the same god as the one with the only begotten Son. Their are two different people both named Jesus being spoken of. One is begotten, the other created. They can not logically be the same person. I believe, the begotten Son, to be God come in the flesh. I do not know, nor care, who the created one is. And here I will agree with DRS and AA. This Jesus, is not God. IMO, to deny the trinity, you must deny, the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, or in some cases all three.
In my house I say who can come in, and who cannot. Heaven is Gods house, and He gets to decide who enters. To many, think that God, must accept them on their terms. I don't think He does. I do know, that the Jesus so many are trying to belittle here on earth is the same Jesus that every knee will bow to in Heaven. We have his word on that.

[Tucson Jim]

I think there is only one TRUE God. All the rest are false. The true God consists of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father, has a one, and only begotten, Son. IMO, the god in this thread that has a created son, cannot be the same god as the one with the only begotten Son. Their are two different people both named Jesus being spoken of. One is begotten, the other created. They can not logically be the same person. I believe, the begotten Son, to be God come in the flesh. I do not know, nor care, who the created one is. And here I will agree with DRS and AA. This Jesus, is not God. IMO, to deny the trinity, you must deny, the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, or in some cases all three.
In my house I say who can come in, and who cannot. Heaven is Gods house, and He gets to decide who enters. To many, think that God, must accept them on their terms. I don't think He does. I do know, that the Jesus so many are trying to belittle here on earth is the same Jesus that every knee will bow to in Heaven. We have his word on that.

Amen oldtimer!

[CMike11]

I think there is only one TRUE God. All the rest are false. The true God consists of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father, has a one, and only begotten, Son. IMO, the god in this thread that has a created son, cannot be the same god as the one with the only begotten Son. Their are two different people both named Jesus being spoken of. One is begotten, the other created. They can not logically be the same person. I believe, the begotten Son, to be God come in the flesh. I do not know, nor care, who the created one is. And here I will agree with DRS and AA. This Jesus, is not God. IMO, to deny the trinity, you must deny, the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, or in some cases all three.
In my house I say who can come in, and who cannot. Heaven is Gods house, and He gets to decide who enters. To many, think that God, must accept them on their terms. I don't think He does. I do know, that the Jesus so many are trying to belittle here on earth is the same Jesus that every knee will bow to in Heaven. We have his word on that.

Speak for yourself.

I would never bow to who I consider to be a false god. That would be the greatest affront to G-D possible.

Besides according to my beliefs I will never encounter him, unless I find his remains.

[TaylorW65]

I think there is only one TRUE God. All the rest are false. The true God consists of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father, has a one, and only begotten, Son. IMO, the god in this thread that has a created son, cannot be the same god as the one with the only begotten Son. Their are two different people both named Jesus being spoken of. One is begotten, the other created. They can not logically be the same person. I believe, the begotten Son, to be God come in the flesh. I do not know, nor care, who the created one is. And here I will agree with DRS and AA. This Jesus, is not God. IMO, to deny the trinity, you must deny, the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, or in some cases all three.
In my house I say who can come in, and who cannot. Heaven is Gods house, and He gets to decide who enters. To many, think that God, must accept them on their terms. I don't think He does. I do know, that the Jesus so many are trying to belittle here on earth is the same Jesus that every knee will bow to in Heaven. We have his word on that.

Another who believes that a person must believe certain things about God or God will not accept that person.

I though spirituality was a relationship and not a theology test?

[Warrior4God]

In your humble opinion.

That verse was a quote from Jesus so it appears it is his opinion.

oldtimer is right, there is only one true God and that God is the God of Jesus and who Jesus prayed to.

My humble opinion is that Jesus knows more then all of us and he said word for word that he was sent by the one true God.

Good enough for me and if its not good enough for you to believe the words of my Lord then thats up to you but beware of doctrines contrary to the words of Jesus.

Thankyou Jim for your kind words and for your prayers and asking for others to pray.

You are truly a great believer.

I hope my post does not make anyone mad but as you know my belief is a view I believe comes from scripture and will always stand upon scripture.

I know every verse that has been posted trying to make the view on the trinity fit but I have studied and looked into every verse and still stand firm with Jesus Christ my Lord that there is only one true God and that Jesus was sent by the one true God.


Since this thread started I believe even more now then ever before in my view because it caused me to study even more and the more I studied the more I saw (IMO of course)I am right.



Love all of you guys and just wanted to let ya know I am still as hardheaded and steadfast as ever.


I respect most opinions in this thread but there are a few that try to say that if one does not follow the opinion they have means that person is not following the True God.............I could ALMOST agree if the trinity formula was made very clear and that a verse in scripture would explain it but there are none that do so and to make it try and fit you must fit the jigsaw puzzle together from all over the place and not heed the words of Jesus Christ while doing so.


Just speaking from my heart in this post and wanted to share it and I have devoted my Life in service to my God and my Lord Christ Jesus and will not allow anyone to say things that judges others when it is God who judges and not the pompous and arrogant minds of men who are fallible.


Tried to say that bout as nice as I can and hoping it does not sound mean and still get the point across.

By the way Jim this was not at all pointed at you but to those who are filled with disdain and a lack of kindness and respect for others who don't believe as them.


Even if you believe that others are not following what YOU think God is I believe you should keep that to yourself and try to just debate without the arrogance and pompous attitude that does more harm then good in trying to make YOUR GOD look good.

Just sayin.............Just sayin.

[the oldtimer]

Speak for yourself.
Thank you!, I did!
I would never bow to who I consider to be a false god. That would be the greatest affront to G-D possible.

Besides according to my beliefs I will never encounter him, unless I find his remains.
Say what???:doh:

[the oldtimer]

Another who believes that a person must believe certain things about God or God will not accept that person.
1. What does His word say?
2. In Gods house who do you think makes the rules, God, or you? I will tell it like it is, IT WON"T BE ME!! And, it wont' be you.
I though spirituality was a relationship and not a theology test?
I'd say it is both. Only it is between God, and you.

[the oldtimer]

Speak for yourself.

I would never bow to who I consider to be a false god. That would be the greatest affront to G-D possible.

Besides according to my beliefs I will never encounter him, unless I find his remains.
Phil. 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow.......

[Tucson Jim]

Speak for yourself.

He is speaking according to the Bible, not himself.

I would never bow to who I consider to be a false god. That would be the greatest affront to G-D possible.

The Bible says you will.

Besides according to my beliefs I will never encounter him, unless I find his remains.

I believe you most certainly WILL encounter Him!

[Tucson Jim]

That verse was a quote from Jesus so it appears it is his opinion.

The interpretation of the quote is DRS' opinion. I believe his interpretation is wrong.

oldtimer is right, there is only one true God and that God is the God of Jesus and who Jesus prayed to.

DURING HIS INCARNATION! As you know, since I have told you several times!

My humble opinion is that Jesus knows more then all of us and he said word for word that he was sent by the one true God.

He was sent by the only true God! What you seem unable to grasp is that the rest of the NT tells you that Jesus shares the nature of the only true God, being ONE with Him and sharing His attributes.

Good enough for me and if its not good enough for you to believe the words of my Lord then thats up to you but beware of doctrines contrary to the words of Jesus.

And I would caution you, my Brother whom I love, to beware of doctrines based on only PART of the Bible, which do not take into account the REST of the Bible, inspired by the Holy Spirit, which make it clear, IMO, that Jesus is God.

Thankyou Jim for your kind words and for your prayers and asking for others to pray.

You are truly a great believer.

Thank you Warrior, you too!! I am so glad, and grateful to God, to see you well enough to post here again!

I hope my post does not make anyone mad but as you know my belief is a view I believe comes from scripture and will always stand upon scripture.

I know every verse that has been posted trying to make the view on the trinity fit but I have studied and looked into every verse and still stand firm with Jesus Christ my Lord that there is only one true God and that Jesus was sent by the one true God.

I simply believe you are in error. But I love you and pray for your full recovery.


Since this thread started I believe even more now then ever before in my view because it caused me to study even more and the more I studied the more I saw (IMO of course)I am right.

God has given us all free will and you certainly have a right to your opinion. I just believe, after I am sure an equal amount of study, that you have missed the boat on this, I say that with respect, love and hope.

Love all of you guys and just wanted to let ya know I am still as hardheaded and steadfast as ever.

Best news I have had all week! And I believe the Holy Spirit can break through that hard head of yours!! ;)


I respect most opinions in this thread but there are a few that try to say that if one does not follow the opinion they have means that person is not following the True God.............I could ALMOST agree if the trinity formula was made very clear and that a verse in scripture would explain it but there are none that do so and to make it try and fit you must fit the jigsaw puzzle together from all over the place and not heed the words of Jesus Christ while doing so.

I believe the trinity is very clear, as I have tried to outline over these many months.



Just speaking from my heart in this post and wanted to share it and I have devoted my Life in service to my God and my Lord Christ Jesus and will not allow anyone to say things that judges others when it is God who judges and not the pompous and arrogant minds of men who are fallible.

The "pompous and arrogant minds of men"?? Come on Warrior, give those who disagree with you a little credit. I know you didn't mean that.


Tried to say that bout as nice as I can and hoping it does not sound mean and still get the point across.

Well, the "pompous and arrogant" part did sound mean to me but I have to cut you some slack given all you have been through. I don't think you meant that.

By the way Jim this was not at all pointed at you but to those who are filled with disdain and a lack of kindness and respect for others who don't believe as them.

Even such people need our prayers, not our condemnation. I know your heart is good Warrior, let's agree to pray for those who are intolerant of others, pray that the love of God fills their lives.


Even if you believe that others are not following what YOU think God is I believe you should keep that to yourself and try to just debate without the arrogance and pompous attitude that does more harm then good in trying to make YOUR GOD look good.

Just sayin.............Just sayin.

I hope you feel better soon Warrior.

Good to hear from you.

[ralittlefield]

Life is what came into existence it what is say so apart from nothing came into existence

Paul uses the word all many time and does not mean everything it is hyperbole I can give three examples

Think about what you are saying.

Do you really believe that life did not exist until a created being created it?

[DRS]

Think about what you are saying.

Do you really believe that life did not exist until a created being created it?

No created life did not exist until God create Jesus

[DRS]

Are you saying God did not have life before Jesus created it?

All, in this case, is defined as everything that was created, so we know what all means with regard to what Jesus created, it is everything that is created.


John 1
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men.


Life was in Him. Life is as eternal as God is.

He is not eternal, he died and he is the beginning of creation installed from eternity brought forth first as the beginning of Jehovah's ways

The bible is clear on who alone is almighty and who would anoint the messiah and who he would serve

[DRS]

I think there is only one TRUE God. All the rest are false. The true God consists of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father, has a one, and only begotten, Son. IMO, the god in this thread that has a created son, cannot be the same god as the one with the only begotten Son. Their are two different people both named Jesus being spoken of. One is begotten, the other created. They can not logically be the same person. I believe, the begotten Son, to be God come in the flesh. I do not know, nor care, who the created one is. And here I will agree with DRS and AA. This Jesus, is not God. IMO, to deny the trinity, you must deny, the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, or in some cases all three.
In my house I say who can come in, and who cannot. Heaven is Gods house, and He gets to decide who enters. To many, think that God, must accept them on their terms. I don't think He does. I do know, that the Jesus so many are trying to belittle here on earth is the same Jesus that every knee will bow to in Heaven. We have his word on that.


Begotten and created mean the same thing but you do not bother to accept that

To deny the trinity is to deny the pagan thought introduced into Christianity along with many other pagan thoughts

You are right though there is only one true God and one needs knowledge of him and the one whom he sent forth

You notice you do not need knowledge of three people in that verse

Do you also notice that you need knowledge of the true God and Jesus, if John thought Jesus was the true God then there would have been no need for him to mention Jesus apart from Him

[ralittlefield]

No created life did not exist until God create Jesus


John 1
3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

What has come into existence 4 by means of him was life (NWT)

So, according to the NWT, what did Jesus create? All things that were created, or life?

In the past, you have said that this verse says that Jesus created life.

[DRS]

John 1
3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

What has come into existence 4 by means of him was life (NWT)

So, according to the NWT, what did Jesus create? All things that were created, or life?

In the past, you have said that this verse says that Jesus created life.

What came into existence throught his creation was life

When Jesus was begotten created life came to be

So apart from nothing was created, the bible then goes on in other places like Proverbs to show his hand in creation, and the bible also shows the who directed things to be created and the power source for creation

[ralittlefield]

No created life did not exist until God create Jesus



God was not alive until He created Jesus? How did a dead God create anything?

[DRS]

Created life did not exist until Jesus

14*“And to the angel of the congregation in La‧o‧di‧ce′a write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God
22*“Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. 23*From time indefinite I was installed, from the start, from times earlier than the earth.

[ralittlefield]

Created life did not exist until Jesus

14*“And to the angel of the congregation in La‧o‧di‧ce′a write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God
22*“Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. 23*From time indefinite I was installed, from the start, from times earlier than the earth.



So you do believe God was dead before He created Jesus!

I see nothing about that in the passage that you posted, but whatever!

You are welcome to that view.

[DRS]

So you do believe God was dead before He created Jesus!

I see nothing about that in the passage that you posted, but whatever!

You are welcome to that view.

I am not sure how you get that, but if you wish to say that you can even if it is not true

I said created life did not exist until Jesus

[ralittlefield]

I am not sure how you get that, but if you wish to say that you can even if it is not true

I said created life did not exist until Jesus

I get it from what you are saying.

[DRS]

And you ignore everything else?

[CMike11]

Phil. 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow.......

That is utterly revolting as far as jews doing it.

And it will never ever happen.

We don't pray in the name of who we consider to be foreign/false gods.

[CMike11]

Thank you!, I did!

Say what???:doh:

I'll say it a little louder.

I would never bow to who I consider to be a false god. That would be the greatest affront to G-D possible.

Besides according to my beliefs I will never encounter him, unless I find his remains

[CMike11]

He is speaking according to the Bible, not himself.

The Bible says you will.

I believe you most certainly WILL encounter Him!

Your bible, not mine.

Will you encounter Zeus and Apollo?

[DRS]

Interesting we have three ideas going in this thread

Jesus is the messiah

Jesus is not the messiah

Jesus is God

Should have had a poll

[Tucson Jim]

No created life did not exist until God create Jesus

Show me ONE verse in the Bible that says "God created Jesus" and I will reject the doctrine of the Trinity forever.

[DRS]

Show me ONE verse in the Bible that says "God created Jesus" and I will reject the doctrine of the Trinity forever.

Revelation 3:14*“And to the angel of the congregation in La‧o‧di‧ce′a write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God

We know from Paul's writings Jesus is the Amen

And here see God's first creation

(Proverbs 8:22) “Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago.

[Tucson Jim]

Begotten and created mean the same thing but you do not bother to accept that

Because it is simply not true! So you believe a man "creates" his child when he "begets" him? Did God "beget" the universe? Come on . . . :rolleyes:

To deny the trinity is to deny the pagan thought introduced into Christianity along with many other pagan thoughts

To deny the Trinity is to deny the most fundamental doctrine of the Church and to begin sliding down the slippery slope to numerous other false doctrines.

Some slide much further than others, of course.

You are right though there is only one true God and one needs knowledge of him and the one whom he sent forth

You notice you do not need knowledge of three people in that verse

Perhaps not in that particular verse, but so what?? What does the Bible say about "the world" (i.e. unbelievers) and their knowledge of the Holy Spirit?

"16And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him:but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. " John 14:17.

Do you know the Holy Spirit DRS?

Do you also notice that you need knowledge of the true God and Jesus, if John thought Jesus was the true God then there would have been no need for him to mention Jesus apart from Him

Once more you display an appalling lack of understanding of the very doctrine you criticize.

Tri-Une - Three Persons, One God. You need to know the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (as I just showed you). In other words, you need to know God.

[Tucson Jim]

Revelation 3:14*“And to the angel of the congregation in La‧o‧di‧ce′a write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God

We know from Paul's writings Jesus is the Amen

And here see God's first creation

(Proverbs 8:22) “Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago.

I don't see a verse that says "God created Jesus".

What I do see are assumptions and interpretations on your part.

Still waiting for a verse, any verse, that says "God created Jesus" . . .

Is that in the Bible DRS?

[DRS]

I don't see a verse that says "God created Jesus".

What I do see are assumptions and interpretations on your part.

Still waiting for a verse, any verse, that says "God created Jesus" . . .

Is that in the Bible DRS?

Who is the beginning of creation by God?

[Warrior4God]

Won't be long and there will be another thread that will have more posts then this thread and thats a shame because the content of the thread is not near as deep as this one.

Just about 1000 posts behind this thread and won't be long before it surpasses this one.


Heyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy my colors and stuff works now

[Warrior4God]

Months and months have gone by and I have to say that the trinity doctrine as well as those who don't believe in it will probably never be able to come to any agreement..............pretty safe to say.


Without Jesus and without the Gift of Holy Spirit, Gods plan could not happen and that is the redemption of man from the clutches of the devil.

Col. 2:10 says we are complete in Christ and therefore we have every tool including the truth that we have God in Christ in us to defeat the adversary.

My point is that God,Jesus Christ and The Gift of Holy Spirit makes us complete and the word complete conotes the absolute completeness to its full extent.

Without all three we lack that completeness.

That is my take on the three but still don't see the three being one except for in purpose or in the purpose God wrought in Christ when he sent him and then raised him after Jesus gave his life in the ultimate sacrifice for us and then sent his Gift which is The Holy Spirit on the day of pentecost.

I guess my point is that without all 3 we are not complete but still does not make the three one as in one being yet three persons.


Man it feels good to get some strength back and will be glad to go back in the hospital to get the other stents put in.

God Bless you all for your stand and continuing to speak and share your view with kindness and respect for others who disagree on some points.

You are Gods best!!!!!!

[CMike11]

As far as what DRS said.

The Torah was supposed to be taught from father and son.

This is from Deutronomy 6

4. Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God; the Lord is one. ד. שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֶחָד:
5. And you shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your means. ה. וְאָהַבְתָּ אֵת יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּכָל לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל נַפְשְׁךָ וּבְכָל מְאֹדֶךָ:
6. And these words, which I command you this day, shall be upon your heart. ו. וְהָיוּ הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ הַיּוֹם עַל לְבָבֶךָ:
7. And you shall teach them to your sons and speak of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk on the way, and when you lie down and when you rise up.

[DRS]

ever said father's were not suppose to teach their sons, but the teaching of the congregation was the job of the levites

No where will you find the talmud mentioned in the bible nor the pharisees being appointed to teach

[terri910]

Won't be long and there will be another thread that will have more posts then this thread and thats a shame because the content of the thread is not near as deep as this one.

Just about 1000 posts behind this thread and won't be long before it surpasses this one.

But I see more evidence of love shown in that other thread....which trumps "deep" in my opinion!

What is a shame is that this one cannot be "deep" and all the posts within it as loving as the other.

[the oldtimer]

Begotten and created mean the same thing but you do not bother to accept that
So, from here on out we will know, that when you say, "Created", what you really mean is "Begotten". Is that what you are saying? Or are we to take into account the context of the rest of your idea. From now on instead of telling people that I , created an item, I should say I have, begotten this item. And since the words mean the same, they will understand. At least you would. Right????

To deny the trinity is to deny the pagan thought introduced into Christianity along with many other pagan thoughtsThere is one big difference. The pagan ideas of the trinity are man made. The christian trinity is not. And that is a concept, I know you simply cannot grasp.

[the oldtimer]

So you do believe God was dead before He created Jesus!

I see nothing about that in the passage that you posted, but whatever!

You are welcome to that view.
I don't know how to do it, but if memory serves me right I think you will find in this thread where DRS, made the statement that God had a beginning.

[DRS]

So, from here on out we will know, that when you say, "Created", what you really mean is "Begotten". Is that what you are saying? Or are we to take into account the context of the rest of your idea. From now on instead of telling people that I , created an item, I should say I have, begotten this item. And since the words mean the same, they will understand. At least you would. Right????
There is one big difference. The pagan ideas of the trinity are man made. The christian trinity is not. And that is a concept, I know you simply cannot grasp.


Yep you can use either as both mean the same thing, you cause something to become

So the ideas that influenced the thinking of a so called christianity are man made but when they were imposed on the bible they ceased to be so?

[Warrior4God]

But I see more evidence of love shown in that other thread....which trumps "deep" in my opinion!

What is a shame is that this one cannot be "deep" and all the posts within it as loving as the other.

Well if You could just show more love in this thread it would be deep and loving.

Get with the love program.

Seriously though if this thread did not discuss something as heated as it does I think you could see plenty of love to go around.

In fact with the topic being so heated this thread more then the other is the thread that shows more Love despite the heat.

So there :mrgreen:


Easy to show love when there is no heat but give a thread some heat and watch what happens.

I am just being silly and difficult so don't get upset..............


Show some Love..............geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez.

I know whatchatinkin and I resemble that thought

Whyyatinkin bad of me anyway?

Dang wheresdaluv?

Now ya done made me cry.

[the oldtimer]

ever said father's were not suppose to teach their sons, but the teaching of the congregation was the job of the levites
So, in your congregation, all the teachers are levites. Right???

[DRS]

So, in your congregation, all the teachers are levites. Right???

Are Christians under the law code?

I know you do not like my faith but this is one poor fight you are picking

[the oldtimer]

Yer you can use either as both mean the same thing, you cause something to become
And you think that every one would understand what I was saying??? Or is there need for context.
So the ideas that influenced the thinking of a so called christianity are man made but when they were imposed on the bible they ceased to be so?
MNS

[DRS]

And you think that every one would understand what I was saying??? Or is there need for context.

MNS

Violence creates more violence

Violence begates more violence

Do you understand?

[terri910]

Now ya done made me cry.
You, too, Warrior. I so apologize for any and all of the times that I have not been loving toward you or any other poster in this thread and in this forum. I know that is just words, and words are cheap, but they are all I have to give you, and they are meant from my heart.

God bless you, each and every one.

[the oldtimer]

Are Christians under the law code?
That, is not an answer.
I know you do not like my faith but this is one poor fight you are picking
Why, do you accuse me of picking a fight, when I asked a simple question, that could have been answered with a yes, or no. Your post does bring to mind the fact that you have implied in the past that yours is a christian belief. Are you then asking for yourself too??

[Warrior4God]

You, too, Warrior. I so apologize for any and all of the times that I have not been loving toward you or any other poster in this thread and in this forum. I know that is just words, and words are cheap, but they are all I have to give you, and they are meant from my heart.

God bless you, each and every one.

I hope you know I was just kidding right?

[DRS]

That, is not an answer.

Why, do you accuse me of picking a fight, when I asked a simple question, that could have been answered with a yes, or no. Your post does bring to mind the fact that you have implied in the past that yours is a christian belief. Are you then asking for yourself too??

That is an answer since if one claim's to be under the law code the levites were teachers of the law

We can always discuss the pagan origins of the trinity and those other ideas rooted in paganism that came with it if you wish

[terri910]

I hope you know I was just kidding right?
No. There was truth there. When can I look at my own words and not realize that I could have said them differently? You may have been kidding, but the Holy Spirit convicting me was not.

[ralittlefield]

Violence creates more violence

Violence begates more violence

Do you understand?

Only when create and beget are used as figures of speech.

Violence has no mind or will of its own. It can not create or beget anything.


But to your point, I think that you may have beget, create, and cause confused. None of those three words mean the same thing.

[the oldtimer]

Violence creates more violence

Violence begates more violence

Do you understand?
Of coarse, I understand what that statement means. BUT, what does it have to do with the discussion of whether you can switch the words , created and begotten, around in a conversation and still make sense. IMO, you are perfectly willing to throw away all context of a statement just to win the discussion of whether or not the words ,"created, and begotten" mean the same thing. when you place the words side, by side of course they mean the same thing. A point which no one disagrees with. But, when you add context, they take on the meaning to the subject of the conversation. A point that IMO, you fail to grasp.

[DRS]

Only when create and violence are used as figures of speech.

Violence has no mind or will of its own. It can not create or beget anything.


But to your point, I think that you may have beget, create, and cause confused. None of those three words mean the same thing.

be⋅get  /bɪˈgɛt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [bi-get] Show IPA
–verb (used with object), be⋅got or (Archaic) be⋅gat; be⋅got⋅ten or be⋅got; be⋅get⋅ting. 1. (esp. of a male parent) to procreate or generate (offspring).
2. to cause; produce as an effect: a belief that power begets power.

cre⋅ate  /kriˈeɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kree-eyt] Show IPA verb, -at⋅ed, -at⋅ing, adjective verb (used with object) 1. to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.

Both mean to cause

Even if you want to use solely begotten it stills mean to procreate or generate and means Jesus has a beginning

[DRS]

Of coarse, I understand what that statement means. BUT, what does it have to do with the discussion of whether you can switch the words , created and begotten, around in a conversation and still make sense. IMO, you are perfectly willing to throw away all context of a statement just to win the discussion of whether or not the words ,"created, and begotten" mean the same thing. when you place the words side, by side of course they mean the same thing. A point which no one disagrees with. But, when you add context, they take on the meaning to the subject of the conversation. A point that IMO, you fail to grasp.

Either way both words show Jesus had a starting point

Jesus is called the beginning of creation in the bible

[the oldtimer]

So, are the teachers in your faith Levites, or not?

[DRS]

So, are the teachers in your faith Levites, or not?

Am I Jew under the old law code?

Are they required to be under the Christian teachings?

[the oldtimer]

Either way both words show Jesus had a starting point

Jesus is called the beginning of creation in the bible
So, you are in agreement that the context of the word usage has no bearing on the meaning of the statement at hand??

[the oldtimer]

Am I Jew under the old law code?

Are they required to be under the Christian teachings?
Can you give a yes, or no answer?

[DRS]

Can you give a yes, or no answer?

You answer those questions and you have your answer

[the oldtimer]

You answer those questions and you have your answer
That, is what I thought.

[DRS]

So, you are in agreement that the context of the word usage has no bearing on the meaning of the statement at hand??

Either way you slice it Jesus is called the beginning of creation by God

[DRS]

That, is what I thought.

Glad I could help

[CMike11]

Am I Jew under the old law code?

Are they required to be under the Christian teachings?

For some strange reaason you seem to think that you know bettter than the jews what their laws are.

Levites were responsible for administrating the temple.

There is nothing to say that only they could teach Torah or lead congregations.

Care to give a source?

[DispensationalJim]

DRS and AA have insisted that Jesus was or is the angel Michael.

I was reminded this morning of this passage which seems to say the opposite:

• Heb. 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; 4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. 5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? 6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. 7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. 8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. 9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. 10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: 11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; 12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail. 13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? 14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

IMO, that passage shows clearly that Jesus was not an angel, and that He was/is God who created the worlds, etc.

[CMike11]

Hey I heard only those born in Italy are allowed to teach the NT.

Is that correct?

[terri910]

hey i heard only those born in italy are allowed to teach the nt.

Is that correct?
*lol*

[CMike11]

*lol*

Hey I am sure I know who is supposed to teach the NT better than christians do. What's so funny?:wall:

[CID_0687]

Hey I am sure I know who is supposed to teach the NT better than christians do. What's so funny?:wall:
:rolleyes:

[the oldtimer]

DRS and AA have insisted that Jesus was or is the angel Michael.

I was reminded this morning of this passage which seems to say the opposite:

• Heb. 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; 4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. 5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? 6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. 7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. 8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. 9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. 10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: 11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; 12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail. 13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? 14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

IMO, that passage shows clearly that Jesus was not an angel, and that He was/is God who created the worlds, etc.
In verse 14 would you please explain the meaning of the word, "all". As ,I am sure you will remember all does not need to mean all, all the time. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[CMike11]

ever said father's were not suppose to teach their sons, but the teaching of the congregation was the job of the levites

No where will you find the talmud mentioned in the bible nor the pharisees being appointed to teach

You are mistaken about judaism...again.

I showed you two passages where the oral law is mentioned

One was where G-D told the jews to obey the "laws and commandments". Why the redundancy? Because one refers to the written law and the other to the oral law.

In the other passage G-D told Moses to write down "these" words. Why did G-D say "these" words? Because these words refers to the written law, and the other words refers to the oral law.

Also, once again, the written law could not be implemented without the oral law.

I gave examples. G-D told the jews not to work on the sabbath.

The obvious questions are exactly what is meant by work? When does Shabbos start?

Incidently, Shabbos starts at sunset and ends when three stars come out the next day. How do we know? Oral law.

There are a good chunk of laws that are mentioned vaguely without describing how to carry them out.

This may seem trivial. However, jews have lived their lives based on implementing the laws in the torah. The only way to know how to implement the laws other than guessing is based on the oral law, which was given, guess when? Go ahead guess?

The oral law was given to Moses on Mt Sinai along with the written law.

[TaylorW65]

In verse 14 would you please explain the meaning of the word, "all". As ,I am sure you will remember all does not need to mean all, all the time. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Hmmm....so words don't mean what they say? :think:

[terri910]

Hmmm....so words don't mean what they say? :think:
I'm not certain how far back in this thread you've read, Taylor. So what I'm about to tell you may or may not be something you already know. But oldtimer said that because DRS earlier said that "all" doesn't always mean "everything."
http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=55277831&postcount=22580

I am pretty certain oldtimer believes "all" means "all."

[TaylorW65]

I'm not certain how far back in this thread you've read, Taylor. So what I'm about to tell you may or may not be something you already know. But oldtimer said that because DRS earlier said that "all" doesn't always mean "everything."
http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=55277831&postcount=22580

I am pretty certain oldtimer believes "all" means "all."

Ok, I am on his side then. If we have to try and figure out when an author in the Bible is using hyperbole I will need to have a score card! :)

[DispensationalJim]

...

Paul uses the word all many time and does not mean everything it is hyperbole I can give three examples

Just for kicks, DRS, why don't you give us those three examples, please.

I just did a word search on my Mac KJ accordance software, and "all" shows up 5,621 times. Just reading the first couple of dozen verses in Genesis, it sure looks to me like "all" means "all" in "all" of them, so I'd like to see those three exceptions, please. Thanks...

==================================

BTW, here is a great verse from Paul with "all" in it twice:
• Rom. 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

I -- for one -- and very, very thankful that I can be included in the "all them that believe." :)

[CID_0687]

Just for kicks, DRS, why don't you give us those three examples, please.

I just did a word search on my Mac KJ accordance software, and "all" shows up 5,621 times. Just reading the first couple of dozen verses in Genesis, it sure looks to me like "all" means "all" in "all" of them, so I'd like to see those three exceptions, please. Thanks...

==================================

BTW, here is a great verse from Paul with "all" in it twice:
• Rom. 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

I -- for one -- and very, very thankful that I can be included in the "all them that believe." :)
That would make you a Whosoever...I'm a Whosoever too. :)

[Tucson Jim]

Won't be long and there will be another thread that will have more posts then this thread and thats a shame because the content of the thread is not near as deep as this one.

Just about 1000 posts behind this thread and won't be long before it surpasses this one.


Heyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy my colors and stuff works now

We're going for quality, not quantity!

[Tucson Jim]

Months and months have gone by and I have to say that the trinity doctrine as well as those who don't believe in it will probably never be able to come to any agreement..............pretty safe to say.


Without Jesus and without the Gift of Holy Spirit, Gods plan could not happen and that is the redemption of man from the clutches of the devil.

Col. 2:10 says we are complete in Christ and therefore we have every tool including the truth that we have God in Christ in us to defeat the adversary.

My point is that God,Jesus Christ and The Gift of Holy Spirit makes us complete and the word complete conotes the absolute completeness to its full extent.

Without all three we lack that completeness.

That is my take on the three but still don't see the three being one except for in purpose or in the purpose God wrought in Christ when he sent him and then raised him after Jesus gave his life in the ultimate sacrifice for us and then sent his Gift which is The Holy Spirit on the day of pentecost.

I guess my point is that without all 3 we are not complete but still does not make the three one as in one being yet three persons.


Man it feels good to get some strength back and will be glad to go back in the hospital to get the other stents put in.

God Bless you all for your stand and continuing to speak and share your view with kindness and respect for others who disagree on some points.

You are Gods best!!!!!!

Really glad to hear you're feeling better Warrior!

[Tucson Jim]

But I see more evidence of love shown in that other thread....which trumps "deep" in my opinion!

What is a shame is that this one cannot be "deep" and all the posts within it as loving as the other.

It's probably a bit easier to show love when your beliefs are not under attack and ridicule.

[Tucson Jim]

Well if You could just show more love in this thread it would be deep and loving.

Get with the love program.

Seriously though if this thread did not discuss something as heated as it does I think you could see plenty of love to go around.

In fact with the topic being so heated this thread more then the other is the thread that shows more Love despite the heat.

So there :mrgreen:


Easy to show love when there is no heat but give a thread some heat and watch what happens.

I am just being silly and difficult so don't get upset..............


Show some Love..............geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez.

I know whatchatinkin and I resemble that thought

Whyyatinkin bad of me anyway?

Dang wheresdaluv?

Now ya done made me cry.

Warrior - you gotta ease up on the pain meds . . . :))

[Tucson Jim]

be⋅get  /bɪˈgɛt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [bi-get] Show IPA
–verb (used with object), be⋅got or (Archaic) be⋅gat; be⋅got⋅ten or be⋅got; be⋅get⋅ting. 1. (esp. of a male parent) to procreate or generate (offspring).
2. to cause; produce as an effect: a belief that power begets power.

cre⋅ate  /kriˈeɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kree-eyt] Show IPA verb, -at⋅ed, -at⋅ing, adjective verb (used with object) 1. to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.

Both mean to cause

Even if you want to use solely begotten it stills mean to procreate or generate and means Jesus has a beginning

Merely your opinion. Nothing more.

[Tucson Jim]

Either way both words show Jesus had a starting point

Jesus is called the beginning of creation in the bible

Still waiting for that verse that says "God created Jesus" . . . :whistle:

[Tucson Jim]

Either way you slice it Jesus is called the beginning of creation by God

Which, obviously, does not mean He was created. It never says He was created. Still waiting . . .

[Tucson Jim]

You are mistaken about judaism...again.

I showed you two passages where the oral law is mentioned

One was where G-D told the jews to obey the "laws and commandments". Why the redundancy? Because one refers to the written law and the other to the oral law.

In the other passage G-D told Moses to write down "these" words. Why did G-D say "these" words? Because these words refers to the written law, and the other words refers to the oral law.

Also, once again, the written law could not be implemented without the oral law.

I gave examples. G-D told the jews not to work on the sabbath.

The obvious questions are exactly what is meant by work? When does Shabbos start?

Incidently, Shabbos starts at sunset and ends when three stars come out the next day. How do we know? Oral law.

There are a good chunk of laws that are mentioned vaguely without describing how to carry them out.

This may seem trivial. However, jews have lived their lives based on implementing the laws in the torah. The only way to know how to implement the laws other than guessing is based on the oral law, which was given, guess when? Go ahead guess?

The oral law was given to Moses on Mt Sinai along with the written law.

So . . . DRS bases his faith on the OT, but doesn't know much about it?

[the oldtimer]

Really glad to hear you're feeling better Warrior!
Amen, to that!

[DRS]

Still waiting for that verse that says "God created Jesus" . . . :whistle:

Who is the beginning of creation by God according to the bible?

[DRS]

Which, obviously, does not mean He was created. It never says He was created. Still waiting . . .

If you are called the beginning of creation by another how does that make you uncreated?

[DRS]

Merely your opinion. Nothing more.

The dictionary is my opinion?

[DRS]

So . . . DRS bases his faith on the OT, but doesn't know much about it?

I guess Jesus was wrong too?

23 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying: 2*“The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the seat of Moses. 3*Therefore all the things they tell YOU, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds, for they say but do not perform


I guess Jesus should have said that God put them in the seat of Moses

You and Oldtimer keep trying maybe one of these days you will connect on a swing

[the oldtimer]

The dictionary is my opinion?
Yes, but it also lacks context.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Do you also reject other Bibles with such "titles" as the Douay/Rheims Bible (the Catholic Bible of the 1600s), or The Jerusalem Bible (a Catholic Bible published in 1968) or The Oxford Bible (1962), or the Schofield Study Bible, or the MaCarthur Study Bible, etc., etc...



Do you?

<snip>
That is one of the reasons why I ultimately came to the conclusion that the King James was the superior Bible version.


It appears so.




==============================

Koushi, please tell me, when did anyone EVER claim that King James was a prophet? He was asked by a very large contingent of British theologians to provide funds and support to produce a new English Bible from the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts which could be printed in large quantities to be made available to anyone who wanted one.

==============================


The history I'm reading looks a little different...



Because of the growing animosity of James toward the Puritans, a leading Puritan spokesman, Dr. John Reynolds, proposed that a new English Bible be issued in honor of the new King. King James saw an opportunity to bring about a unity with the church service in Presbyterian Scotland and Episcopal England

http://www.bible-history.com/kjv/


Looks to me like his true motivation was to unify England and Scottland and solidify his power.



And again, Koushi, you ask me, "why the other books" which I thought I had answered at least twice.

I'll try to make my answer plain and simple this time:

I read many other books about the Bible because I wanted to learn how, when, and where the known Greek and Hebrew manuscripts in existence (from whence came the translations) were discovered, dated, and categorized, how the translators were chosen to make the various translations, how and why the translations ended up so different, etc., etc. That is one of the reasons why I ultimately came to the conclusion that the King James was the superior Bible version.

I hope that finally helps you understand.

Looks to me, that the Bible does not stand on its own.

Were all the other books you've read, pro-King James? Or have you read any material supporting one of the other bibles as a better manuscript?

[DispensationalJim]

Who is the beginning of creation by God according to the bible?

DRS, I see only this one verse to answer that:
• Rev. 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

Now, we can see that "the beginning of the creation of God" in that verse is also "the Amen." Then in the verses below, we see that He is also "the Alpha and Omega," "the beginning AND the end" and "the first AND the last."

• Rev. 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
• Rev. 21:6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
• Rev. 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. ...16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

==============================

But who is "the beginning and the end, the first and the last"?
• Is. 41:4 Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he.
• Is. 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

So, "the beginning and the end, the first and the last" is definitely God, and it also happens to definitely be Jesus.

=============================

Then, we read a few more verses which speak of "the beginning":

• Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

• John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God.

• Col. 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

===================================

Then we have this verse about "the beginning":

• Heb. 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

Of course, we know that the context of Heb. 1 is speaking of Jesus as the Lord who "laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of thine hands" especially when we read these verses:
• John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
• Eph. 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
• Col. 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
• Rev. 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
• Heb. 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
• Heb. 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

===========================

Finally, DRS, while I am a King James adherent, I know you sometimes like to use other versions to support your "theories," so I will show that verse we started with from a few other versions:

First, the KJ:
• Rev. 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

Then, some others:
* Rev. 3:14 “To the angel of the assembly in Laodicea write: “The Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Head of God’s creation, says these things: (World English Bible)
* Rev. 3:14 ‘And to the messenger of the assembly of the Laodiceans write: These things saith the Amen, the witness — the faithful and true — the chief of the creation of God; (Young's Literal Translation)
* Rev. 3:14 And to the angel of the church in Laodicea say: These things says the true and certain witness, the head of God’s new order: (Bible in Basic English)
* Rev. 3:14 “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write the following: “This is the solemn pronouncement of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the originator of God’s creation: (The NET Bible)

Doesn't that put a different light on Rev. 3:14 for you? :)

[DRS]

DRS, I see only this one verse to answer that:
• Rev. 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

Now, we can see that "the beginning of the creation of God" in that verse is also "the Amen."

The rest of your post is nothing more than inferal nothing stated clearly

So the Amen is the beginning of creation by God so who is the Amen?

[the oldtimer]

This morning I was reading in the book of Timothy. In 2 Tim.1:9 (KJV) I read, "Who has saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus BEFORE the world began". That verse show that Jesus was before, ALL things. Because if Jesus, was really Michael before His incarnation this passage would be a lie. DRS, what do you think? Is it a lie, or not?
2 Tim.1:9 (NWT) He saved us and called us with a holy calling, not by reason of our works, but by reason of His own purpose with undeserved kindness. This was given us in connection with Christ Jesus, BEFORE times long lasting.

[DRS]

Not really since Peter explains

20*True, he was foreknown before the founding of the world, but he was made manifest at the end of the times for the sake of YOU

So he was present before the founding of the world and had a hand in creation

(Proverbs 8:22-31) “Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. 23*From time indefinite I was installed, from the start, from times earlier than the earth. 24*When there were no watery deeps I was brought forth as with labor pains, when there were no springs heavily charged with water. 25*Before the mountains themselves had been settled down, ahead of the hills, I was brought forth as with labor pains, 26*when as yet he had not made the earth and the open spaces and the first part of the dust masses of the productive land. 27*When he prepared the heavens I was there; when he decreed a circle upon the face of the watery deep, 28*when he made firm the cloud masses above, when he caused the fountains of the watery deep to be strong, 29*when he set for the sea his decree that the waters themselves should not pass beyond his order, when he decreed the foundations of the earth, 30*then I came to be beside him as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time, 31*being glad at the productive land of his earth, and the things I was fond of were with the sons of men.

[the oldtimer]

Were all the other books you've read, pro-King James? Or have you read any material supporting one of the other bibles as a better manuscript?
Koushi, I have no idea how old you are, but I do know there is a very good chance, that DJ was reading books on both sides of the issue since before you were even born.

[DispensationalJim]

Do you?

To me, a title is just that, a title. The title could be "The Purple People Eaters Bible" for all I care... :) I would still check out some of the usual verses in it and see what I found.


The history I'm reading looks a little different...
http://www.bible-history.com/kjv/

We could probably find a few dozen different historical (or even hysterical) versions about most anything.


Looks to me like his true motivation was to unify England and Scottland and solidify his power.

Looks to me like you added "and solidify his power" since I don't see it in this quote from the web site:
===========================

History of the King James Version of the Bible
The Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments, King James Version also known as KJV. In 1604 James VI, King of Scotland from his youth, became King James I of England, the first ruler of Brittain and Ireland. Because of the growing animosity of James toward the Puritans, a leading Puritan spokesman, Dr. John Reynolds, proposed that a new English Bible be issued in honor of the new King. King James saw an opportunity to bring about a unity with the church service in Presbyterian Scotland and Episcopal England. King James appointed 54 learned scholars in the making of this new translation from the original Greek and Hebrew into English. For the Old Testament they used the ben Asher text, and for the New Testament they used the Greek text of Erasmus and a Greek and Latin text of the 6th Century found by Theodore Beza. They used Chapters (developed by Archbishop Stephen Langton in 1551) and Verses (the verse divisions of Robert Estienne). It was completed and published in 1611 and became known as the "Authorized Version" because the making of it was authorized by King James. It became the "Official Bible of England" and the only Bible of the English church. There have been many revisions of the King James Bible ie. 1615, 1629, 1638, and 1762. ...

=============================

I see a lot of OPINION there, but I don't see the part where you say James was trying to "solidify his power." If that's what you got out of that man's opinions, fine.



Looks to me, that the Bible does not stand on its own.

If you were a Shakespeare fan, wouldn't you find it interesting to read other books about him in addition to relishing his actual writings?

Were all the other books you've read, pro-King James? Or have you read any material supporting one of the other bibles as a better manuscript?

I really don't think you've been paying attention to what I have written, dear Koushi. I have read and studied several "Religions of the World" books, the WatchTowers and NWT of the JWs, the Book of Mormon, the Koran, etc., etc., including several books supporting the Wescott and Hort manuscripts from which almost every English Bible published in the last 100 years (except the KJB) came from.

If you have some other recommendations for my reading, please pass them on. I'll try to work them in as soon as possible. :)

[CMike11]

So . . . DRS bases his faith on the OT, but doesn't know much about it?

He does know a tremendous amount about judaism that isn't true.

[DRS]

He does know a tremendous amount about judaism that isn't true.

You also tend to think the same about Jesus and Paul so I am in good company

[the oldtimer]

Not really since Peter explains

20*True, he was foreknown before the founding of the world, but he was made manifest at the end of the times for the sake of YOU
Where, is the rest of the reference please? He was Michael just before the founding of the world then,right?? "he was made manifest at the end of the times". That statement is past tense. With that you are implying that the "end of times" have already come. True,or false?
[quote]So he was present before the founding of the world and had a hand in creation
Who, was he at this point in time??
(Proverbs 8:22-31) “Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. 23*From time indefinite I was installed, from the start, from times earlier than the earth. 24*When there were no watery deeps I was brought forth as with labor pains, when there were no springs heavily charged with water. 25*Before the mountains themselves had been settled down, ahead of the hills, I was brought forth as with labor pains, 26*when as yet he had not made the earth and the open spaces and the first part of the dust masses of the productive land. 27*When he prepared the heavens I was there; when he decreed a circle upon the face of the watery deep, 28*when he made firm the cloud masses above, when he caused the fountains of the watery deep to be strong, 29*when he set for the sea his decree that the waters themselves should not pass beyond his order, when he decreed the foundations of the earth, 30*then I came to be beside him as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time, 31*being glad at the productive land of his earth, and the things I was fond of were with the sons of men.
DRS, You have gone to this chapter, and verse so many times that it is really getting out of hand. You have been informed, that we are all (trinitarians) well aware, that Pro. 8. is speaking of wisdom, not Christ.

[DRS]

So wisdom had a hand in creation?

Funny how you guys tried to use this one time in a link from an antiJW site

But Proverbs like other passages in the OT use something else to let us know what has happened in heaven, Lucifer the king of Tyre

[the oldtimer]

So wisdom had a hand in creation?
That question does not even deserve an answer. Which reminds me, you did not answer 1 single question that I asked you in my last post.
When you duck a question, you reveal more than you would if you came right out and gave an answer.
Funny how you guys tried to use this one time in a link from an antiJW site
Long before I read the anti JW site, I got my understanding of Pro. 8, from my link to common sense.
But Proverbs like other passages in the OT use something else to let us know what has happened in heaven, Lucifer the king of TyreAnd speaking of common sense, IMO, that sentence contains none.

[DRS]

You got your answers you just do not like them

22*For both the Jews ask for signs and the Greeks look for wisdom; 23*but we preach Christ impaled, to the Jews a cause for stumbling but to the nations foolishness; 24*however, to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God

. 22*Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish 23*and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed creatures and creeping things.

Who has turned God into a man?

Or said God became a man?

[the oldtimer]

You got your answers you just do not like them

22*For both the Jews ask for signs and the Greeks look for wisdom; 23*but we preach Christ impaled, to the Jews a cause for stumbling but to the nations foolishness; 24*however, to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God

. 22*Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish 23*and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed creatures and creeping things.

Who has turned God into a man?

Or said God became a man?
Ahh! lets see. Oh ya, That would be John 1:14," So the word became flesh, and resided among us.
And Rev.19:13, " and arrayed with an outer garment sprinkled with blood, and the name he is called is The Word of God".
1 Tim.3:16, "He was made manifest in flesh".
You see DRS those are answers. They make sense. And they all come from the, NWT. :whistle::whistle::whistle:

[DRS]

Ahh! lets see. Oh ya, That would be John 1:14," So the word became flesh, and resided among us.
And Rev.19:13, " and arrayed with an outer garment sprinkled with blood, and the name he is called is The Word of God".
1 Tim.3:16, "He was made manifest in flesh".
You see DRS those are answers. They make sense. And they all come from the, NWT. :whistle::whistle::whistle:

But John never said the word was the God and John says many times no man has seen God at anytime yet you seem to say differently

And what you see is Jesus in heaven that is nothing new take for instance in Daniel where he is brought before Almighty God

13*“I kept on beholding in the visions of the night, and, see there! with the clouds of the heavens someone like a son of man happened to be coming; and to the Ancient of Days he gained access, and they brought him up close even before that One. 14*And to him there were given rulership and dignity and kingdom, that the peoples, national groups and languages should all serve even him. His rulership is an indefinitely lasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom one that will not be brought to ruin.

[DispensationalJim]

You got your answers you just do not like them

22*For both the Jews ask for signs and the Greeks look for wisdom; 23*but we preach Christ impaled, to the Jews a cause for stumbling but to the nations foolishness; 24*however, to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God

. 22*Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish 23*and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed creatures and creeping things.

Who has turned God into a man?

Or said God became a man?

DRS, you once again disrespected us by refusing to give us the Bible references to your verses. Apparently, you don't want us to be able to easily check your version against ours.

And, the simple answer -- as we have said so many times already -- is that God Himself made Himself into a man, as John 1:1-14 and Phil. 2:5-9, etc. show so plainly.

Naturally, while Jesus was on earth as a man, He would not say that He was God, since He was a man.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Phil. 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Phil. 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Phil. 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Phil. 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Phil. 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

[Koushi Shinigami]

Koushi, I have no idea how old you are, but I do know there is a very good chance, that DJ was reading books on both sides of the issue since before you were even born.

If that is true, it's important because.....?


I give little credence in the ability of the number of trips one takes around Sol, on this third rock, to impart wisdom to that individual.

[CID_0687]

He does know a tremendous amount about judaism that isn't true.
As do you about Christianity.

[DispensationalJim]

Koushi, I have no idea how old you are, but I do know there is a very good chance, that DJ was reading books on both sides of the issue since before you were even born.

Thanks, old timer. Yes, I'm an old man (just like you, I'm guessing), and I'm not ashamed to admit it -- as obviously you aren't either. :)

[Koushi Shinigami]

Looks to me like you added "and solidify his power" since I don't see it in this quote from the web site:
===========================

History of the King James Version of the Bible
The Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments, King James Version also known as KJV. In 1604 James VI, King of Scotland from his youth, became King James I of England, the first ruler of Brittain and Ireland. Because of the growing animosity of James toward the Puritans, a leading Puritan spokesman, Dr. John Reynolds, proposed that a new English Bible be issued in honor of the new King. King James saw an opportunity to bring about a unity with the church service in Presbyterian Scotland and Episcopal England. King James appointed 54 learned scholars in the making of this new translation from the original Greek and Hebrew into English. For the Old Testament they used the ben Asher text, and for the New Testament they used the Greek text of Erasmus and a Greek and Latin text of the 6th Century found by Theodore Beza. They used Chapters (developed by Archbishop Stephen Langton in 1551) and Verses (the verse divisions of Robert Estienne). It was completed and published in 1611 and became known as the "Authorized Version" because the making of it was authorized by King James. It became the "Official Bible of England" and the only Bible of the English church. There have been many revisions of the King James Bible ie. 1615, 1629, 1638, and 1762. ...

=============================

I see a lot of OPINION there, but I don't see the part where you say James was trying to "solidify his power." If that's what you got out of that man's opinions, fine.

Bolded it. What I don't see there is that a multitude of people asked James to fund it as you stated in an earlier post.



If you were a Shakespeare fan, wouldn't you find it interesting to read other books about him in addition to relishing his actual writings?

Nope. I don't listen to movie critics either.


I really don't think you've been paying attention to what I have written, dear Koushi. I have read and studied several "Religions of the World" books, the WatchTowers and NWT of the JWs, the Book of Mormon, the Koran, etc., etc., including several books supporting the Wescott and Hort manuscripts from which almost every English Bible published in the last 100 years (except the KJB) came from.


Meh.


If you have some other recommendations for my reading, please pass them on. I'll try to work them in as soon as possible. :)

I recommend a good Zane Grey.

[DispensationalJim]

Since DRS kind of ignored most of this post by saying this:

"The rest of your post is nothing more than inferal nothing stated clearly
So the Amen is the beginning of creation by God so who is the Amen?"

... here it is again.

DRS, I see only this one verse to answer that:
• Rev. 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

Now, we can see that "the beginning of the creation of God" in that verse is also "the Amen." Then in the verses below, we see that He is also "the Alpha and Omega," "the beginning AND the end" and "the first AND the last."

• Rev. 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
• Rev. 21:6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
• Rev. 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. ...16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

==============================

But who is "the beginning and the end, the first and the last"?
• Is. 41:4 Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he.
• Is. 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

So, "the beginning and the end, the first and the last" is definitely God, and it also happens to definitely be Jesus.

=============================

Then, we read a few more verses which speak of "the beginning":

• Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

• John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God.

• Col. 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

===================================

Then we have this verse about "the beginning":

• Heb. 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

Of course, we know that the context of Heb. 1 is speaking of Jesus as the Lord who "laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of thine hands" especially when we read these verses:
• John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
• Eph. 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
• Col. 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
• Rev. 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
• Heb. 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
• Heb. 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

===========================

Finally, DRS, while I am a King James adherent, I know you sometimes like to use other versions to support your "theories," so I will show that verse we started with from a few other versions:

First, the KJ:
• Rev. 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

Then, some others:
* Rev. 3:14 “To the angel of the assembly in Laodicea write: “The Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Head of God’s creation, says these things: (World English Bible)
* Rev. 3:14 ‘And to the messenger of the assembly of the Laodiceans write: These things saith the Amen, the witness — the faithful and true — the chief of the creation of God; (Young's Literal Translation)
* Rev. 3:14 And to the angel of the church in Laodicea say: These things says the true and certain witness, the head of God’s new order: (Bible in Basic English)
* Rev. 3:14 “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write the following: “This is the solemn pronouncement of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the originator of God’s creation: (The NET Bible)

Doesn't that put a different light on Rev. 3:14 for you? :)

And I believe "The Amen" is Jesus Christ, who is "The beginning and the end" as shown above.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Since DRS kind of ignored most of this post by saying this:

"The rest of your post is nothing more than inferal nothing stated clearly
So the Amen is the beginning of creation by God so who is the Amen?"

... here it is again.



And I believe "The Amen" is Jesus Christ, who is "The beginning and the end" as shown above.


Maybe. But God is the Alpha and the Omega.

[DRS]

So Jesus is the beginning of creation by God thus God's first creation

You know what is nice when you can see the the actual wording for

(Isaiah 41:4) Who has been active and has done [this], calling out the generations from the start? “I, Jehovah, the First One; and with the last ones I am the same.”

(Isaiah 44:6) “This is what Jehovah has said, the King of Israel and the Repurchaser of him, Jehovah of armies, ‘I am the first and I am the last, and besides me there is no God.

So you can see that is the three Revelation verse quotes it is not Jesus speaking

[DispensationalJim]

Bolded it. What I don't see there is that a multitude of people asked James to fund it as you stated in an earlier post.

I don't remember saying that, so if you could please show me where I said it...

As I've often said, "We lose three things when we get old. The first one is the memory, but I forget what the other two are..." :))


Nope. I don't listen to movie critics either.
....

So you don't need to investigate anything ever?



I recommend a good Zane Grey.

I never read fiction. Just give me the facts... or at least your opinion of the facts. :)

[DRS]

DRS, you once again disrespected us by refusing to give us the Bible references to your verses. Apparently, you don't want us to be able to easily check your version against ours.

And, the simple answer -- as we have said so many times already -- is that God Himself made Himself into a man, as John 1:1-14 and Phil. 2:5-9, etc. show so plainly.

Naturally, while Jesus was on earth as a man, He would not say that He was God, since He was a man.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Phil. 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Phil. 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Phil. 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Phil. 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Phil. 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

Accordding to the verse you posted here in Phillipians who exalted Jesus?

There is not one scripture that says God has turned Himself into a man, the bible says no man has seen God at anytime

[DispensationalJim]

Maybe. But God is the Alpha and the Omega.

I will actually Amen that, DRS. Since you insist that God is "the Alpha and Omega," and since The Revelation shows that Jesus is the "beginning and the end" that makes Jesus God! Thanks, DRS, for clearing that up.

[DispensationalJim]

Accordding to the verse you posted here in Phillipians who exalted Jesus?

There is not one scripture that says God has turned Himself into a man, the bible says no man has seen God at anytime

I am amazed, DRS, that you keep missing it.

Jesus was God, then He HUMBLED HIMSELF and became a man as John 1:14 and Phil. 2:5-9 showed. That of course means he was much more than a man previously (but we showed yesterday that Jesus could not be an angel based on Hebrews).

So then, God exalted Jesus when He returned to the very Heaven He Himself had created, as you have conceded.

[CMike11]

As do you about Christianity.

The only information I mention about the NT is what is provided by you guys and ususally because it makes stuff up about judaism. Otherwise I don't care that much what the NT says.

[DRS]

I will actually Amen that, DRS. Since you insist that God is "the Alpha and Omega," and since The Revelation shows that Jesus is the "beginning and the end" that makes Jesus God! Thanks, DRS, for clearing that up.

You realize you are quoting Koushi?

[DRS]

I am amazed, DRS, that you keep missing it.

Jesus was God, then He HUMBLED HIMSELF and became a man as John 1:14 and Phil. 2:5-9 showed. That of course means he was much more than a man previously (but we showed yesterday that Jesus could not be an angel based on Hebrews).

So then, God exalted Jesus when He returned to the very Heaven He Himself had created, as you have conceded.

So Jesus who existed in God's form took a lower form as prophecied in Psalms
and then God exalted him.

Now there is only one God and this God exalted him and Jesus is the beginning of creation by God

[CID_0687]

The only information I mention about the NT is what is provided by you guys and ususally because it makes stuff up about judaism. Otherwise I don't care that much what the NT says.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be cherry picking.

If the only thing you know about the NT is what we've told you then you don't really know anything about it, and you won't unless you picked up a Bible and read it for yourself.

You've already told me in another thread that you have not and will not do that....

Why the resistance to learn something for yourself?

[fdrake]

This is the Sean Hannity forum. The same Hannity who venerates Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Ayaan is an atheist. I have read her book (INFIDEL). I have also read Hitchens (GOD IS NOT GREAT). As Hirsi Ali and Christopher Hitchens say there is no god, I agree with both of them.
We are all mammals and when we perish that is the end.

[fdrake]

What sort of god would ask a man to murder his own son? Abraham.

[the oldtimer]

Accordding to the verse you posted here in Phillipians who exalted Jesus?

There is not one scripture that says God has turned Himself into a man, the bible says no man has seen God at anytime
I don't know the reference off the top of my head, but didn't Jesus tell his followers that, if you have seen me, you have seen the father. I don't have time right now to look it up.

[the oldtimer]

What sort of god would ask a man to murder his own son? Abraham.
Why do you stop in the middle of the story? Is it because at the end of the story God provides the lamb, which in turn shows Gods love. That is the part you don't want to admit is it not? If it is true that when you die that is the end, would you please give me one logical reason to be here in the first place.

[Koushi Shinigami]

I will actually Amen that, DRS. Since you insist that God is "the Alpha and Omega," and since The Revelation shows that Jesus is the "beginning and the end" that makes Jesus God! Thanks, DRS, for clearing that up.

:))

[Koushi Shinigami]

I don't remember saying that, so if you could please show me where I said it...


ok. 3 days ago:


==============================

Koushi, please tell me, when did anyone EVER claim that King James was a prophet? He was asked by a very large contingent of British theologians to provide funds and support to produce a new English Bible from the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts which could be printed in large quantities to be made available to anyone who wanted one.

==============================




Ring a bell?



So you don't need to investigate anything ever?

Investigate for myself? Yes.



I never read fiction. Just give me the facts... or at least your opinion of the facts. :)

Some people would disagree with your claim.

When Jesus told a parable, was his story fact or fiction?

[DispensationalJim]

You realize you are quoting Koushi?

My apologies, DRS. I must really be getting old...

[DispensationalJim]

So Jesus who existed in God's form took a lower form as prophecied in Psalms and then God exalted him.

Now there is only one God and this God exalted him and Jesus is the beginning of creation by God

I think I can agree with most of what you say there, DRS, but could you share a couple of the specific Psalms for us, please?

[DispensationalJim]

:))

Yep... you both caught me in a hurried response. Glad you enjoyed that! :)

[DispensationalJim]

...
Ring a bell?

Yep, you've got me again. I will go back and see where I must have gotten that idea in my head. I'll get back to you on that.


Investigate for myself? Yes.

That's good to hear, Koushi. That is my main purpose in reading lots of info, to try to see what the other side says.


Some people would disagree with your claim.

When Jesus told a parable, was his story fact or fiction?

Certainly, Jesus used parables to teach His apostles. The word "parable" is found about 32 times in Matthew-John and "parables" is in 15 verses in the same books.

I think the main reason for His use of parables is seen here:
• Matt. 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. 12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. 13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.


I guess I would consider calling a parable fiction a "nit-pick," but you could probably say some of them were "fiction" in the strictest sense of the word. But then , I would prefer to descibe many of them as an "illustration." The dictionary refers to a parable as an "allegory" which in turn it then defines as "a figurative discourse...; a symbolic representation, a narrative in which abstract ideas are personified; a sustained metaphor."

Just for kicks, I also looked up "fiction": "A creation of the imagination, esp. a fanciful story; a falsehood; a prose narrative of imagined events..."

I think most of the folks on this forum would reject the idea that Jesus ever told a falsehood.

[DispensationalJim]

Bolded it. What I don't see there is that a multitude of people asked James to fund it as you stated in an earlier post.

Here is a quote from this web site:
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/king-james.html

"King James is considered to have been one of the most intellectual and learned individuals ever to sit on any English or Scottish throne. He is primarily remembered for authorizing the production of the King James Version of the Bible, the highly popular English translation from Greek and Hebrew, which remains the most printed book in the history of the world, with over one billion copies in print. King James had nothing to do with the translating the Bible, he merely authorized it and provided financing for its production. Beyond that, however, James wrote several books himself."

That probably doesn't prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, but at least it puts me at ease that I'm not completely senile. :)

[terri910]

"King James is considered to have been one of the most intellectual and learned individuals ever to sit on any English or Scottish throne.
As an anglophile I probably shouldn't be saying this....but I'm wonder if being considered one of the most intellectual and learned individuals ever to sit on an English or Scottish throne is something of a back-handed compliment...:think:

[Tucson Jim]

Who is the beginning of creation by God according to the bible?

I"ll tell you as soon as you show me a verse that says "God created Jesus".

If the statement isn't in the Bible, it must not be true. Right DRS? That's what you say about the Trinity.

Try being fair . . .

[Tucson Jim]

If you are called the beginning of creation by another how does that make you uncreated?

Because it never says He was created and you cannot produce one verse that says God created Jesus.

In addition, the Bible says Jesus is eternal:

"2But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." Micah 5:2

Who came forth from Bethlehem?

Also, Who created ALL things?

Jesus.

So let's summarize:

1. The Bible DOES NOT say God created Jesus.

2. The Bible DOES say the one Who came forth from Bethlehem is eternal.

3. The Bible DOES say Jesus created ALL things and without Him nothing was created that has been created.

It's all so simple when you just focus on the Bible and ignore the teachings of mere men.

[Tucson Jim]

The dictionary is my opinion?

No, it is merely your opinion that Jesus was created by God. You cannot produce one verse that says Jesus was created by God.

Not one.

[Tucson Jim]

I guess Jesus was wrong too?

23 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying: 2*“The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the seat of Moses. 3*Therefore all the things they tell YOU, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds, for they say but do not perform


I guess Jesus should have said that God put them in the seat of Moses

You and Oldtimer keep trying maybe one of these days you will connect on a swing

I guess when bluster is all you got you should use it! :))

[Tucson Jim]

The rest of your post is nothing more than inferal nothing stated clearly

You cannot answer D-Jim so you say "nothing is stated clearly???

It looks clear to me!!!

[Tucson Jim]

DRS, I see only this one verse to answer that:
• Rev. 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

Now, we can see that "the beginning of the creation of God" in that verse is also "the Amen." Then in the verses below, we see that He is also "the Alpha and Omega," "the beginning AND the end" and "the first AND the last."

• Rev. 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
• Rev. 21:6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
• Rev. 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. ...16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

==============================

But who is "the beginning and the end, the first and the last"?
• Is. 41:4 Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he.
• Is. 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

So, "the beginning and the end, the first and the last" is definitely God, and it also happens to definitely be Jesus.

=============================

Then, we read a few more verses which speak of "the beginning":

• Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

• John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God.

• Col. 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

===================================

Then we have this verse about "the beginning":

• Heb. 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

Of course, we know that the context of Heb. 1 is speaking of Jesus as the Lord who "laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of thine hands" especially when we read these verses:
• John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
• Eph. 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
• Col. 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
• Rev. 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
• Heb. 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
• Heb. 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

===========================

Finally, DRS, while I am a King James adherent, I know you sometimes like to use other versions to support your "theories," so I will show that verse we started with from a few other versions:

First, the KJ:
• Rev. 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

Then, some others:
* Rev. 3:14 “To the angel of the assembly in Laodicea write: “The Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Head of God’s creation, says these things: (World English Bible)
* Rev. 3:14 ‘And to the messenger of the assembly of the Laodiceans write: These things saith the Amen, the witness — the faithful and true — the chief of the creation of God; (Young's Literal Translation)
* Rev. 3:14 And to the angel of the church in Laodicea say: These things says the true and certain witness, the head of God’s new order: (Bible in Basic English)
* Rev. 3:14 “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write the following: “This is the solemn pronouncement of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the originator of God’s creation: (The NET Bible)

Doesn't that put a different light on Rev. 3:14 for you? :)

Excellent post D-Jim!! :clap:

[Tucson Jim]

He does know a tremendous amount about judaism that isn't true.

:)) True, true . . .

[Tucson Jim]

That question does not even deserve an answer. Which reminds me, you did not answer 1 single question that I asked you in my last post.
When you duck a question, you reveal more than you would if you came right out and gave an answer.

Long before I read the anti JW site, I got my understanding of Pro. 8, from my link to common sense.
And speaking of common sense, IMO, that sentence contains none.

:)):)):))

Your "link to common sense"!!!

That was classic Oldtimer!!! Well done!!!

[Tucson Jim]

You got your answers you just do not like them

22*For both the Jews ask for signs and the Greeks look for wisdom; 23*but we preach Christ impaled, to the Jews a cause for stumbling but to the nations foolishness; 24*however, to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God

. 22*Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish 23*and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed creatures and creeping things.

Who has turned God into a man?

Those who made graven images and worshiped them.. Pagans, some Jews.

Or said God became a man?

Nice how you try to slip that in and liken it to pagan idolatry. :naughty:

That pig don't fly. A totally different matter!!!

The Bible says God became man, as you well know (Phil 2).

[Tucson Jim]

So Jesus is the beginning of creation by God thus God's first creation

Mere conjecture and opinion. It does not say God created Jesus. That is your interpretation.

You know what is nice when you can see the the actual wording for

(Isaiah 41:4) Who has been active and has done [this], calling out the generations from the start? “I, Jehovah, the First One; and with the last ones I am the same.”

(Isaiah 44:6) “This is what Jehovah has said, the King of Israel and the Repurchaser of him, Jehovah of armies, ‘I am the first and I am the last, and besides me there is no God.

So you can see that is the three Revelation verse quotes it is not Jesus speaking

Mere Watchtower dogma.

[Tucson Jim]

This is the Sean Hannity forum. The same Hannity who venerates Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Ayaan is an atheist. I have read her book (INFIDEL). I have also read Hitchens (GOD IS NOT GREAT). As Hirsi Ali and Christopher Hitchens say there is no god, I agree with both of them.
We are all mammals and when we perish that is the end.

Thank you for your OPINION.

[Tucson Jim]

What sort of god would ask a man to murder his own son? Abraham.

The sort of God who knows everything and is in control of everything. Didn't happen now did it . . .

[the oldtimer]

You cannot answer D-Jim so you say "nothing is stated clearly???

It looks clear to me!!!
I would have to say, me too.

[DispensationalJim]

Always great to see those Tucson Jim posts. Thanks, TJ! :)

And thank you, oldtimer, for your support, too.

We're finally putting on a new roof today, so I'll pop in from time to time when I can.

[Angryamerican]

Hey Reeder. It stopped raining here, but it's supposed to storm tonight. I kind of like that because my wife gets scared and cuddles up close next to me ;)

Ahem...where were we? Oh yes.

No, I don't believe G-D wants man to be like G-D. We will never have divine powers nor are we supposed to seek them. We can't part red seas nor should we strive to do so.

G-D stated numerous times that there is only him. He doesn't want any of us to strive to be him, after admonishing us that there is no one but him.

What we are supposed to do is follow what G-D told us to do.

Angels are messengers, the word malach (angel in hebrew) means messenger. Angels get tasks to do for G-D. They do them, and return. However, they don't have free will.

In fact, man is considered holier than angels, because man does free will, therefore, man can get closer to G-D, by doing the right thing. Angels don't get credit for doing the right thing, because they have no choices.

BTW what's Moses 1:39?

If we do what God wants us to do,would that not make us like God ?

[Angryamerican]

That was rather cold, AA. Are you taking that Dale Carnegie course in "How to lose friends and aggravate people" or are you taking a course from DRS? :))


Sorry i was just doing some correcting of someone correcting me :D

[Angryamerican]

Or...perhaps he is smart enough to recognize that it is implicitly taught in scriptures, and believes that the doctrine came from the teachings of Jesus and the witness of the Apostles and that is why he (and others) support it.

If you are going to call others' beliefs "assumptions" then I would like to see you use that word in every post where you might say, "I believe..." You should, from this point on, say "I assume...."

If you can show me where Jesus says he is God,or God say he is Jesus,and the Holy Spirit says the same, then yes i will no longer say the doctrine is built on assumptions.

But we do have scripture of Jesus saying he was not God.

[Angryamerican]

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=54677171&postcount=22063

if you need links to your derisive posts to Tuscon Jim, just let me know. I'm getting better at this search thing...


Now now.:D

[Angryamerican]

So do you also believe it would be impossible for someone to be forgiven for their sins, and ultimately go to heaven, if they did not repent and gain forgiveness from the person they wronged before that wronged person died?

No,i think we should seek forgiveness from the person we wronged.

Don't know if your eternal life is banking on it though.


But i quoted what i wrote from the lords prayer and it also states this.


Father i pray for your will to be done here on earth as it is in heaven,so i think it's still Gods plan for the meek of mankind to be here on earth not in heaven,for we know Gods will for the earth will not come until Jesus second coming.

[Angryamerican]

Looking at the results that method has produced- a total lack of unity in the body of Christ, yes.

God will unite us all someday and he will even do it to the animal kingdom.


God will bring peace security and unity to all.

[Angryamerican]

He doesn't already know?

God knows all things,and he lets it happen for a reason. I think the big reason is to show mankind what kind of world it is without out him leading the way.

[Angryamerican]

So since he was the beginning of creation by God there was nothing that came into existence apart from him

And that is exactly the point they keep missing, he was the beginning of Gods creation.

[terri910]

And that is exactly the point they keep missing, he was the beginning of Gods creation.
Actually, Angryamerican, no one misses your point, they just disagree with it. You might have noticed Tuscon Jim has asked for one verse that states "God created Jesus."

So far, none has been forthcoming. So, your belief that Jesus was created is developed from your understanding of the scriptures and what is taught, even if implicitly. Nothing wrong with that.

For many Trinitarians, it is exactly the same. They read the same scriptures and have a different understanding, and believe something else is taught, even if implicitly. Also, nothing wrong with that.

Some Trinitarians believe that it was taught before the New Testament scriptures, as I said before. Again, nothing wrong with that.

There will be a time, I believe, when we will all know the truth.

[Angryamerican]

Because it is simply not true! So you believe a man "creates" his child when he "begets" him? Did God "beget" the universe? Come on . . . :rolleyes:



To deny the Trinity is to deny the most fundamental doctrine of the Church and to begin sliding down the slippery slope to numerous other false doctrines.

Some slide much further than others, of course.



Perhaps not in that particular verse, but so what?? What does the Bible say about "the world" (i.e. unbelievers) and their knowledge of the Holy Spirit?

"16And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him:but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. " John 14:17.

Do you know the Holy Spirit DRS?



Once more you display an appalling lack of understanding of the very doctrine you criticize.

Tri-Une - Three Persons, One God. You need to know the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (as I just showed you). In other words, you need to know God.

There is a difference between creating and procreating.

[Angryamerican]

I don't see a verse that says "God created Jesus".

What I do see are assumptions and interpretations on your part.

Still waiting for a verse, any verse, that says "God created Jesus" . . .

Is that in the Bible DRS?

Proverbs chapter 8.

Would an all knowing God have to create wisdom ?

Or is this the son of God here in proverbs ?

Who did God enthrone ?

20. In the way of righteousness I will go, in the midst of the paths of justice. כ.
21. There is substance to give inheritance to those who love me, and I will fill their treasuries. כא.
22. The Lord acquired me at the beginning of His way, before His works of old. כב.
23. From the distant past I was enthroned, from the beginning, of those that preceded the earth. כג.
24. I was created when there were yet no deeps, when there were no fountains replete with water. כד.
25. I was created before the mountains were sunk, before the hills;

Jesus said he was the faithful and true witness the beginning of creation by God.

[Angryamerican]

I don't know how to do it, but if memory serves me right I think you will find in this thread where DRS, made the statement that God had a beginning.


Nope to the contrary, trinitarians reject the idea of Jesus having a beginning making him God, even though Jesus said he had a beginning.

Trust me, Drs has never said God had a beginning.

[Reeder]

Hey Reeder. It stopped raining here, but it's supposed to storm tonight. I kind of like that because my wife gets scared and cuddles up close next to me ;)

Well, since you wrote this 31 pages ago, I'm sure the storm has now passed. :D


Ahem...where were we? Oh yes.

No, I don't believe G-D wants man to be like G-D. We will never have divine powers nor are we supposed to seek them. We can't part red seas nor should we strive to do so.

It is the power of God that parted the Red Sea. Moses was the instrument through which the Lord parted it. I don't necessarily believe that God NEEDED to use Moses to part the Sea, but rather that God was teaching His people a lesson, and setting up an order to things. God called Moses as His Prophet - as His "mouthpiece" for His people.


G-D stated numerous times that there is only him. He doesn't want any of us to strive to be him, after admonishing us that there is no one but him.

Again, I believe there is a difference between striving to "be Him" and striving to "be LIKE Him." The first almost sounds as though we're looking to destory God and become His replacement. The latter is more of a mentor/student situation.


What we are supposed to do is follow what G-D told us to do.

We are in complete agreement on that point.


Angels are messengers, the word malach (angel in hebrew) means messenger.

Again, I completely agree on that point, as well.


Angels get tasks to do for G-D. They do them, and return. However, they don't have free will.

I agree. Except that I believe they have free will. In fact, while I know you probably won't agree with this, in the Doctrine & Covanents (latter-day scripture in the LDS Church), it speaks of angels in this manner:

D&C 130: 5

...there are no angels who minister to this earth but those who do belong or have belonged to it.



In other words, because we believe in a pre-existent state, we also believe that all angels who have ever visited this earth, or who WILL visit the earth, have either already lived as mortals upon the earth, or will one day be born as mortals upon the earth. For example, we believe that Adam was once Michael, the archangel. We also believe that Gabriel is the same person as Noah, just as we believe that Jehovah is also Jesus Christ (although we consider Jehovah to be much more than an angel :) ). Probably strange doctrine to you, but hopefully it explains why we believe that angels have "free will" - because we essentially believe that angels ARE humans.


In fact, man is considered holier than angels, because man does free will, therefore, man can get closer to G-D, by doing the right thing. Angels don't get credit for doing the right thing, because they have no choices.

That is an interesting belief. I can't remember if you already responded, but are there scriptures which support that belief?


BTW what's Moses 1:39?

The Book of Moses is found in the "Pearl of Great Price," another Book of Scripture that we (LDS) consider to be inspired.

[Angryamerican]

What sort of god would ask a man to murder his own son? Abraham.

Did God allow it to happen ?

[Reeder]

Reeder might be able to provide you with a reliable LDS site, or reference for a definition according to his faith.

This might help. It is more than just a definition of that one phrase...but the different points give reference to various scriptures (either Biblical or LDS scripture) which you might be able to look up for more info.

http://institute.lds.org/manuals/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/doc-gosp-01-10-6.asp

The link you provided was perfect. Thanks, terri.

[Reeder]

A child that drinks a lot of alcohol.

:))

[Angryamerican]

The sort of God who knows everything and is in control of everything. Didn't happen now did it . . .

The God you think that had to create wisdom in proverbs chapter 8?

[DispensationalJim]

If you can show me where Jesus says he is God,or God say he is Jesus,and the Holy Spirit says the same, then yes i will no longer say the doctrine is built on assumptions.

But we do have scripture of Jesus saying he was not God.

Of course, I disagree that Jesus ever said He was NOT God, but the fact is whatever verse you might use to give that impression will almost certainly be a verse in which Jesus was on earth AS A MAN! As I've said several times, when He was walking the earth which He Himself made, He obviously could not say He was God since He had MADE HIMSELF INTO A MAN!

But there are plenty of verses which say that Jesus WAS GOD in the beginning and that He made everything that was made, which mean He could not have been made.

[DRS]

Those who made graven images and worshiped them.. Pagans, some Jews.



Nice how you try to slip that in and liken it to pagan idolatry. :naughty:

That pig don't fly. A totally different matter!!!

The Bible says God became man, as you well know (Phil 2).

The bible does not say God became man the prophecy was God made the messiah lower than the angels you try to say that he was God

So you make God in man's image

[DRS]

Mere Watchtower dogma.

The bible is Watchtower dogma?

[the oldtimer]

The God you think that had to create wisdom in proverbs chapter 8?
In Pro.8 God is explaining to us where wisdom comes from. Science tells us that you can not get wisdom where there is none. So, where does it come from? God, in Pro. 8, says it comes from, ME. God says, he created it. Are you saying He did not? "The God you think had to create wisdom". That statement implies that he did not, and that you know better. So tell us. Where did "wisdom" come from???? IMO, God had wisdom all along, but needed to put the explanation in terms we would understand. So, again I ask, where did wisdom come from.
I think that you already know that Pro. 8, when read in context is not talking about Jesus being created. So, no need to use that to duck the question. We, ain't buying it.

[DRS]

Oh and that wisdom then had a hand in creation and was fond of the sons of men?

Do you also believe the king of tyre was really an angel in the garden?