3AngelsMom
<img src =/3mom.jpg>
My post didn't accuse any Catholics of anything. It said people worshipping idols.
Are you saying Catholics are those people?
Sounds like you are the one accusing them of idol worship not me.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Who is He? A Trinity? A Oneness?
- Thread starter 3AngelsMom
- Start date
Are you saying Catholics are those people?
Sounds like you are the one accusing them of idol worship not me.
3AngelsMom
<img src =/3mom.jpg>
A_Christian
New Member
Kelly:
The 7th Day Adventist movement was founded on the
sensationalistic false prophecy of a farmer
named William Miller. This man preached a
claim that the Lord was returning in 1843 and
then changed this to October 22nd, 1844.
Here we have only a man, who claimed to be able
to do what Jesus Christ (while here on earth)
would not.
Ellen G. White appears to have been taken in by
the teachings of this mortal at an early age.
Neither of these people understood the scriptures
in their original tongue. They both depended on
the King James TRANSLATION for their interpretations. They seemed to make no attempt
to see the scripture through the eyes of the
early Church and 1st century linguistics.
I would suggest that you read again Philippians
Chapter 2 verses 3 through 11.
Here we have (what you suppose is a created being)
doing what NO created being can do.
HE made HIMSELF of no reputaion.
HE took on the form of a servant.
HE humbled HIMSELF.
God didn't make him of no reputation.
God didn't make him a servant.
God didn't humble him.
Satan attemped this and was cast out.
Christ is God, and is the head of all creation.
The 7th Day Adventist movement was founded on the
sensationalistic false prophecy of a farmer
named William Miller. This man preached a
claim that the Lord was returning in 1843 and
then changed this to October 22nd, 1844.
Here we have only a man, who claimed to be able
to do what Jesus Christ (while here on earth)
would not.
Ellen G. White appears to have been taken in by
the teachings of this mortal at an early age.
Neither of these people understood the scriptures
in their original tongue. They both depended on
the King James TRANSLATION for their interpretations. They seemed to make no attempt
to see the scripture through the eyes of the
early Church and 1st century linguistics.
I would suggest that you read again Philippians
Chapter 2 verses 3 through 11.
Here we have (what you suppose is a created being)
doing what NO created being can do.
HE made HIMSELF of no reputaion.
HE took on the form of a servant.
HE humbled HIMSELF.
God didn't make him of no reputation.
God didn't make him a servant.
God didn't humble him.
Satan attemped this and was cast out.
Christ is God, and is the head of all creation.
3AngelsMom
<img src =/3mom.jpg>
How can David be the firstborn? </font>[/QUOTE]That doesn't answer my question.
David was 'called' the firstborn, for the sake of taking the throne, that should have been his older brothers.
Jesus IS the firstborn. There is no 'calling' Him that. God said He is the firstborn, I believe it.
That word only has one meaning, all throughout the NT. It means firstborn. Literally.
I'm asking you to tell me, why you think there is another meaning for it. Do you have some kind of information that has shown you that they mean the same thing?
God Bless,
Kelly
A_Christian
New Member
First born is the place of honor. The one
deserving of the inheritance. The one to whom
a kingship usually passes.
I'm a fundamentalist. That means I believe the
stories of the Bible are literal and real events.
However, that doesn't mean that I don't understand
God's hand in helping HIS choosen to understand
through the use of human terms. This is done
to communicate GOD's love on a level we can somewhat comprehend. EXAMPLE:
Genesis 6:6 And it repented the LORD that HE
had made man on the earth, and it grieved HIM at
HIS heart.
Now, does GOD have a literal HEART?
Does GOD make MISTAKES that HE would need to
REPENT?
Did the evil of man catch GOD by surprise?
The answer to ALL these questions is NO; however,
GOD is conveying in terms we can identify with
what HE choose to go through to reach HIS
intentions and fulfill HIS plans for those HE
chooses fully.
deserving of the inheritance. The one to whom
a kingship usually passes.
I'm a fundamentalist. That means I believe the
stories of the Bible are literal and real events.
However, that doesn't mean that I don't understand
God's hand in helping HIS choosen to understand
through the use of human terms. This is done
to communicate GOD's love on a level we can somewhat comprehend. EXAMPLE:
Genesis 6:6 And it repented the LORD that HE
had made man on the earth, and it grieved HIM at
HIS heart.
Now, does GOD have a literal HEART?
Does GOD make MISTAKES that HE would need to
REPENT?
Did the evil of man catch GOD by surprise?
The answer to ALL these questions is NO; however,
GOD is conveying in terms we can identify with
what HE choose to go through to reach HIS
intentions and fulfill HIS plans for those HE
chooses fully.
3AngelsMom
<img src =/3mom.jpg>
DHK,
Why do you always have to be such a conspiracy theorist?
Can't you just answer the question? I am not dodging your answer. This isn't a war. I want to know why you think that this word can have more than one meaning.
David being called firstborn by God, when he clearly wasn't the firstborn, for the sake of him being able to take the throne, doesn't compare to Christ being called the firstborn.
There is no evidence that God is calling Him the firstborn for the sake of making Him something He isn't, so He can do something He couldn't before God called Him that!
Do you see what I mean?
I want to know why you feel this word means something other that what it usually means.
Other than David, because they aren't alike.
God Bless,
Kelly
Why do you always have to be such a conspiracy theorist?
Can't you just answer the question? I am not dodging your answer. This isn't a war. I want to know why you think that this word can have more than one meaning.
David being called firstborn by God, when he clearly wasn't the firstborn, for the sake of him being able to take the throne, doesn't compare to Christ being called the firstborn.
There is no evidence that God is calling Him the firstborn for the sake of making Him something He isn't, so He can do something He couldn't before God called Him that!
Do you see what I mean?
I want to know why you feel this word means something other that what it usually means.
Other than David, because they aren't alike.
God Bless,
Kelly
David was called the firstborn because he had the pre-eminence; he was the most important. Don't redefine words, according to your own logic, reasoning, etc.
Christ was called the firstborn because he had the pre-eminence; he was the most important. The words have the same meaning.
DHK
3AngelsMom
<img src =/3mom.jpg>
DHK,
Then, I must make my point clearer. If it took God calling Christ 'firstborn' to give Him the preeminence, then He didn't have it to begin with.
Either way, whether it means He was literally born first, or that God CALLED Him the firstborn so that He would have the preeminence, He was something before, and it required that God call Him firstborn, so that He could be 'most important'.
Because He wasn't before.
Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord, Jesus Christ,
Kelly
Then, I must make my point clearer. If it took God calling Christ 'firstborn' to give Him the preeminence, then He didn't have it to begin with.
Either way, whether it means He was literally born first, or that God CALLED Him the firstborn so that He would have the preeminence, He was something before, and it required that God call Him firstborn, so that He could be 'most important'.
Because He wasn't before.
Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord, Jesus Christ,
Kelly
Col.1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
The meaning here is, that the being and perfections of God are accurately and fully represented by Christ. what respects particularly he was thus a representative of God, the apostle proceeds to state in the following verses; to wit, in his creative power, in his eternal existence, in his heirship over the universe, in the fulness that dwelt in him. This cannot refer to him merely as incarnate, for some of the things affirmed of him pertained to him before his incarnation; and the idea is, that in all things Christ fairly represents to us the Divine nature and perfections. God is manifest to us through him, @1Ti 3:16. We see God in him, as we see an object in that which is in all respects an exact copy of it. God is invisible. No eye has seen him, or can see him; but in what Christ is, and has done in the works of creation and redemption, we have a fair and full representation of what God is. Cmt. on Joh 1:18; Cmt. on Joh 14:9.
The firstborn of every creature. Among all the creatures of God, or over all his creation, occupying the rank and pre-eminence of the firstborn. The first-born, or the eldest son, among the Hebrews as elsewhere, had peculiar privileges. He was entitled to a double portion of the inheritance. It has been, also, and especially in Oriental countries, a common thing for the eldest son to succeed to the estate and the title of his father. In early times, the firstborn son was the officiating priest in the family, in the absence or on the death of the father. There can be no doubt that the apostle here has reference to the usual distinctions and honours conferred on the firstborn, and means to say, that, among all the creatures of God, Christ occupied a pre-eminence similar to that. He does not say, that in all respects, he resembled the firstborn in a family; nor does he say that he himself was a creature, for the point of his comparison does not turn on these things, and what he proceeds to affirm respecting him is inconsistent with the idea of his being a created Being himself. He that "created all things that are in heaven and that are in earth" was not himself created. That the apostle did not mean to represent him as a creature is also manifest from the reason which he assigns why he is called the firstborn. "He is the image of God, and the firstborn of every creature, for oti by him were all things created." That is, he sustains the elevated rank of the firstborn, or a high eminence over the creation, because by him "all things were created in heaven and in earth." The language here used, also, does not fairly imply that he was a creature, or that he was, in nature and rank, one of those in relation to whom it is said he was the firstborn. It is true that the word firstborn-- prwtotokoV --properly means the firstborn child of a father or mother, Mt 1:25; Lu 2:7; or the firstborn of animals. But two things are also to be remarked in regard to the use of the word:
(1.) It does not necessarily imply that any one is born afterwards in the family, for it would be used of the firstborn, though an only child; and
(2) it is used to denote one who is chief, or who is highly distinguished and pre-eminent. Thus it is employed in Ro 8:29, "That he might be the firstborn among many brethren." So, in Col 1:18, it is said that he was "the firstborn from the dead;" not that he was literally the first that was raised from the dead, which was not the fact, but that he might be pre-eminent among those that are raised. Comp. Ex 4:22. The meaning then is, that Christ sustains the most exalted rank in the universe; he is pre-eminent above all others; he is at the head of all things. The expression does not mean that he was "begotten before all creatures," as it is often explained, but refers to the simple fact that he sustains the highest rank over the creation. He is the Son of God. He is the heir of all things. All other creatures are also the "offspring of God;" but he is exalted as the Son of God above all. (Barnes)
The meaning here is, that the being and perfections of God are accurately and fully represented by Christ. what respects particularly he was thus a representative of God, the apostle proceeds to state in the following verses; to wit, in his creative power, in his eternal existence, in his heirship over the universe, in the fulness that dwelt in him. This cannot refer to him merely as incarnate, for some of the things affirmed of him pertained to him before his incarnation; and the idea is, that in all things Christ fairly represents to us the Divine nature and perfections. God is manifest to us through him, @1Ti 3:16. We see God in him, as we see an object in that which is in all respects an exact copy of it. God is invisible. No eye has seen him, or can see him; but in what Christ is, and has done in the works of creation and redemption, we have a fair and full representation of what God is. Cmt. on Joh 1:18; Cmt. on Joh 14:9.
The firstborn of every creature. Among all the creatures of God, or over all his creation, occupying the rank and pre-eminence of the firstborn. The first-born, or the eldest son, among the Hebrews as elsewhere, had peculiar privileges. He was entitled to a double portion of the inheritance. It has been, also, and especially in Oriental countries, a common thing for the eldest son to succeed to the estate and the title of his father. In early times, the firstborn son was the officiating priest in the family, in the absence or on the death of the father. There can be no doubt that the apostle here has reference to the usual distinctions and honours conferred on the firstborn, and means to say, that, among all the creatures of God, Christ occupied a pre-eminence similar to that. He does not say, that in all respects, he resembled the firstborn in a family; nor does he say that he himself was a creature, for the point of his comparison does not turn on these things, and what he proceeds to affirm respecting him is inconsistent with the idea of his being a created Being himself. He that "created all things that are in heaven and that are in earth" was not himself created. That the apostle did not mean to represent him as a creature is also manifest from the reason which he assigns why he is called the firstborn. "He is the image of God, and the firstborn of every creature, for oti by him were all things created." That is, he sustains the elevated rank of the firstborn, or a high eminence over the creation, because by him "all things were created in heaven and in earth." The language here used, also, does not fairly imply that he was a creature, or that he was, in nature and rank, one of those in relation to whom it is said he was the firstborn. It is true that the word firstborn-- prwtotokoV --properly means the firstborn child of a father or mother, Mt 1:25; Lu 2:7; or the firstborn of animals. But two things are also to be remarked in regard to the use of the word:
(1.) It does not necessarily imply that any one is born afterwards in the family, for it would be used of the firstborn, though an only child; and
(2) it is used to denote one who is chief, or who is highly distinguished and pre-eminent. Thus it is employed in Ro 8:29, "That he might be the firstborn among many brethren." So, in Col 1:18, it is said that he was "the firstborn from the dead;" not that he was literally the first that was raised from the dead, which was not the fact, but that he might be pre-eminent among those that are raised. Comp. Ex 4:22. The meaning then is, that Christ sustains the most exalted rank in the universe; he is pre-eminent above all others; he is at the head of all things. The expression does not mean that he was "begotten before all creatures," as it is often explained, but refers to the simple fact that he sustains the highest rank over the creation. He is the Son of God. He is the heir of all things. All other creatures are also the "offspring of God;" but he is exalted as the Son of God above all. (Barnes)
A_Christian
New Member
Firstborn is applied to Jesus. Christ had
emptied HIMSELF and assumed a human form.
Our Father applies human characteristic to
Christ and HE adoptes us as HIS Children. I
really think that you are being confused by
a group that wants to say they have been given
a SPECIAL revelation from GOD. The mormons
do the same thing. They also appeared in the
same time period...
emptied HIMSELF and assumed a human form.
Our Father applies human characteristic to
Christ and HE adoptes us as HIS Children. I
really think that you are being confused by
a group that wants to say they have been given
a SPECIAL revelation from GOD. The mormons
do the same thing. They also appeared in the
same time period...
3AngelsMom
<img src =/3mom.jpg>
DHK,
Even though that was obviously from I commentary I broke my own rules for a moment and took the time to read it. I see where you are coming from now. Thank you.
A_Christian,
The ideas that I set forth are not from a denominational standpoint. I study on my own, and am learning as I go along.
My pov does not represent the SDA Church.
God Bless,
Kelly
Even though that was obviously from I commentary
I broke my own rules for a moment and took the time to read it. I see where you are coming from now. Thank you.A_Christian,
The ideas that I set forth are not from a denominational standpoint. I study on my own, and am learning as I go along.
My pov does not represent the SDA Church.
God Bless,
Kelly
Hi everybody!
Been out of town for a while and have missed some of the "action". It appears that the thread on "God the Son" has disappeared but the doctrine of the Trinity continues to still draw much discussion - as well it should. For the doctrine of God is the foundation of the Christian faith.
Now, in an attempt to slice through all of the theological rhetoric, let's please try to establish EXPLICITLY from God's Word, just who God is. Is God a "He", meaning a singular, personal, divine being, or is God a "they", meaning THREE distinct, individual, stand-alone, divine beingS - all co-equal, all co-eval, all occupying the same exact status of supreme Deity and potentate over the entire universe?
What I'd like to see established here is the answer to the question: "What does the Bible say?" I'm not interested in the decrees of Church councils. I'm not interested in the pronouncements of any ecclesiastical philosophers and their philosophies. I'm not interested in human logic - for God CANNOT be identified through our finite human logic. I'm simply interested in the simple Biblical answer to the question at hand regarding the identity of the one true God. If the Trinitarians are correct and God is not one singular being but rather constitutes the sum total of three separate, individual divine beings or deities, and yes, or Gods - then it should be quite easy for the Trinitarian to Biblically substantiate that fact.
I categorically reject the doctrine of the Trinity in any and all of its forms. And I'll be happy to start out by citing the first Bible text which nicely sums up beyond the peradventure of a doubt, just who this one God is.
1 Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
This one verse sums it all up quite nicely. Emphatically, it states that the one God is the Father and that God the Father is the SOURCE ("of whom are") all things that exist. Emphatically, it further states that there is "one Lord Jesus Christ", who was the agency ("by whom are") through which all created things exist. It is perfectly clear from this verse that the "one God the Father" is NOT the "one Lord Jesus Christ" and the "one Lord Jesus Christ" is NOT the "one God the Father". They are two separate beings, both divine, but are different in this one aspect: TIME! God the Father has always existed and is the SOURCE of ALL things that exist - including the existence of His Son. His Son, on the other hand, did not always exist without beginning - for the Bible emphatically declares of God's Son that He is His "only begotten" Son. Begotten means "born of". God's Son was born from God. Beautifully simple, simply beautiful.
If this discussion can remain soley within the parameters of Biblical revelation, then the confusion resultant from the spurious doctrine of the Trinity will be non-existent.
So, here's the challenge to Trinitarians: prove your theory explicitly from the Bible and the Bible alone. Bring forth a train of harmonious, cohesive Scriptures explicitly teaching that God is NOT a "He", but is a "they" consisting of three separate deities - three Gods. In other words, I'm asking the Trinitarian to do an impossible task. I'm asking the Trinitarian to show from the Bible and the Bible alone that the "one God" means "three Gods" and that these "three Gods" somehow make up "one God".
Understanding and knowing God to perfection is humanely impossible and is a mystery to the finite mind. Understanding HIS identity is NOT mysterious - it is one of those things that "are revealed" and are "for us and our children forever" - it is plainly stated all throughout the Scriptures and is endorsed by Jesus as a requisite for eternal life in John 17:3.
Knowing who God is is essential to having a relationship with HIM. Can we relate to someone that we CANNOT know? Can we relate to someone whose identity is so mysterious that its beyond common sense? Moreover, can we LOVE someone that we CANNOT know? The answer to those questions is a resounding NO! When you read or hear the word "God", what pops into your mind? Is it three individual, separate deities? When I read or hear the word "God", this is what pops into my mind: one singular, wonderfully loving divine Being who loves me to such an extent that He sacrificed His most prized possession in order to save me - His only begotten Son!
God Bless
Been out of town for a while and have missed some of the "action". It appears that the thread on "God the Son" has disappeared but the doctrine of the Trinity continues to still draw much discussion - as well it should. For the doctrine of God is the foundation of the Christian faith.
Now, in an attempt to slice through all of the theological rhetoric, let's please try to establish EXPLICITLY from God's Word, just who God is. Is God a "He", meaning a singular, personal, divine being, or is God a "they", meaning THREE distinct, individual, stand-alone, divine beingS - all co-equal, all co-eval, all occupying the same exact status of supreme Deity and potentate over the entire universe?
What I'd like to see established here is the answer to the question: "What does the Bible say?" I'm not interested in the decrees of Church councils. I'm not interested in the pronouncements of any ecclesiastical philosophers and their philosophies. I'm not interested in human logic - for God CANNOT be identified through our finite human logic. I'm simply interested in the simple Biblical answer to the question at hand regarding the identity of the one true God. If the Trinitarians are correct and God is not one singular being but rather constitutes the sum total of three separate, individual divine beings or deities, and yes, or Gods - then it should be quite easy for the Trinitarian to Biblically substantiate that fact.
I categorically reject the doctrine of the Trinity in any and all of its forms. And I'll be happy to start out by citing the first Bible text which nicely sums up beyond the peradventure of a doubt, just who this one God is.
1 Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
This one verse sums it all up quite nicely. Emphatically, it states that the one God is the Father and that God the Father is the SOURCE ("of whom are") all things that exist. Emphatically, it further states that there is "one Lord Jesus Christ", who was the agency ("by whom are") through which all created things exist. It is perfectly clear from this verse that the "one God the Father" is NOT the "one Lord Jesus Christ" and the "one Lord Jesus Christ" is NOT the "one God the Father". They are two separate beings, both divine, but are different in this one aspect: TIME! God the Father has always existed and is the SOURCE of ALL things that exist - including the existence of His Son. His Son, on the other hand, did not always exist without beginning - for the Bible emphatically declares of God's Son that He is His "only begotten" Son. Begotten means "born of". God's Son was born from God. Beautifully simple, simply beautiful.
If this discussion can remain soley within the parameters of Biblical revelation, then the confusion resultant from the spurious doctrine of the Trinity will be non-existent.
So, here's the challenge to Trinitarians: prove your theory explicitly from the Bible and the Bible alone. Bring forth a train of harmonious, cohesive Scriptures explicitly teaching that God is NOT a "He", but is a "they" consisting of three separate deities - three Gods. In other words, I'm asking the Trinitarian to do an impossible task. I'm asking the Trinitarian to show from the Bible and the Bible alone that the "one God" means "three Gods" and that these "three Gods" somehow make up "one God".
Understanding and knowing God to perfection is humanely impossible and is a mystery to the finite mind. Understanding HIS identity is NOT mysterious - it is one of those things that "are revealed" and are "for us and our children forever" - it is plainly stated all throughout the Scriptures and is endorsed by Jesus as a requisite for eternal life in John 17:3.
Knowing who God is is essential to having a relationship with HIM. Can we relate to someone that we CANNOT know? Can we relate to someone whose identity is so mysterious that its beyond common sense? Moreover, can we LOVE someone that we CANNOT know? The answer to those questions is a resounding NO! When you read or hear the word "God", what pops into your mind? Is it three individual, separate deities? When I read or hear the word "God", this is what pops into my mind: one singular, wonderfully loving divine Being who loves me to such an extent that He sacrificed His most prized possession in order to save me - His only begotten Son!
God Bless
Great Ricky_Lee! So, you do see that God's "Only begotten Son" means His only begotten "FLESH?" Because, without *a body with blood* our sins could never have been remitted.
God did it all! Isn't He wonderful?
1 Tim. 3:16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
MEE
Great Ricky_Lee! So, you do see that God's "Only begotten Son" means His only begotten "FLESH?" Because, without *a body with blood* our sins could never have been remitted.
Hi MEE,
I would disagree with you. God's only begotten Son is just what it says - His only begotten SON - not only begotten flesh. When Jesus prayed to God, He wasn't praying to Himself, but to another Being - His literal Father. God didn't split Himself into two beings - one His Spirit and the other His "flesh". God's only begotten Son BECAME incarnate. Through His Son, God revealed Himself to the world. (John 1:18) That's how God was manifested in the flesh. Jesus Christ, the incarnate SON of God came into this world to reveal His Father - not reveal Himself. He came to glorify His Father, not Himself. Jesus said "I and my Father are one." (John 10:30). He didn't mean one being but one in spirit and character.
God Bless.
Hi MEE,
I would disagree with you. God's only begotten Son is just what it says - His only begotten SON - not only begotten flesh. When Jesus prayed to God, He wasn't praying to Himself, but to another Being - His literal Father. God didn't split Himself into two beings - one His Spirit and the other His "flesh". God's only begotten Son BECAME incarnate. Through His Son, God revealed Himself to the world. (John 1:18) That's how God was manifested in the flesh. Jesus Christ, the incarnate SON of God came into this world to reveal His Father - not reveal Himself. He came to glorify His Father, not Himself. Jesus said "I and my Father are one." (John 10:30). He didn't mean one being but one in spirit and character.
God Bless.
It seems that the only thing that is consistant in bible debate is inconsistancy.
I might make a good politician for I could agree with both Trinitarians and Non-
Trinitarians. Both arguements make sense to me. Salvation does not depend on
my ability to sort out and decide in my mind what God's identity is. Ricky, you seem
to project that it is important to make that assessment before one can rightfully
stand before God in the judgement.
Personally, I can't overcome the evidence that God Is Jesus from the following verses
in the Gospel of John.
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God
1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world
knew him not.
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
1. The Word was In the Beginning
*If Jesus was created later, then that's a lie
2. The Word was with God and the Word was God
*How could some person be WITH and be said to be " WAS GOD" at the same time
if it was two separate beings?
3. The Word (God) from 1:1 was made flesh
*Isn't that saying that God was made flesh?
4. ............and dwelt among us
*God dwelt among us...right?
5. From 1:10, "He was in the world and the world was made by him"
*Tells me that the creator of the world was in the world, and that was referring
to Jesus. So they are One Being.
There are those who claim that it's impossible to be saved if one doesn't believe
that Jesus was God as He is the only one who can make the official sacrifice for us.
Then you, Ricky Lee are implying it's impossible to obtain salvation by believing that
Jesus IS God.
No wonder preaching has such little effect on people....everyone pursues different guidelines.
I might make a good politician for I could agree with both Trinitarians and Non-
Trinitarians. Both arguements make sense to me. Salvation does not depend on
my ability to sort out and decide in my mind what God's identity is. Ricky, you seem
to project that it is important to make that assessment before one can rightfully
stand before God in the judgement.
Personally, I can't overcome the evidence that God Is Jesus from the following verses
in the Gospel of John.
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God
1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world
knew him not.
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
1. The Word was In the Beginning
*If Jesus was created later, then that's a lie
2. The Word was with God and the Word was God
*How could some person be WITH and be said to be " WAS GOD" at the same time
if it was two separate beings?
3. The Word (God) from 1:1 was made flesh
*Isn't that saying that God was made flesh?
4. ............and dwelt among us
*God dwelt among us...right?
5. From 1:10, "He was in the world and the world was made by him"
*Tells me that the creator of the world was in the world, and that was referring
to Jesus. So they are One Being.
There are those who claim that it's impossible to be saved if one doesn't believe
that Jesus was God as He is the only one who can make the official sacrifice for us.
Then you, Ricky Lee are implying it's impossible to obtain salvation by believing that
Jesus IS God.
No wonder preaching has such little effect on people....everyone pursues different guidelines.
Attending a church would expose me to teachings/preachings from whoever
happened to be on the podium at the time and whatever he believed.
A person could church-hop all his life and hear countering ideas and beliefs
that were said to be fact by one preacher and disputed by another.
There are disputes between churches and between preachers and teachers
in churches.
Does Catholicism have the answer for being a closed, united and consistant
church..? Not at all. To an outsider, it's just another of the 28,001 options available
in this complex choice.
I was given the opportunity to personally witness to two individuals this past
week and to the best of my ability, I left out the controversial topics and emphasized
our need to "believe on Him who He has sent" as we read in .............
John 6:29
Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye
believe on him whom he hath sent.
Do I understand Trinity issues....? NO
Does it matter to my salvation and to yours....? NO
Will God hold us accountable for not being able to understand mysteries....? NO
Will God hold us accountable for not telling others about Jesus..........? Possibly
Will God save us when we "believe on him whom he hath sent"......? YES
Are we wasting our time debating who/what/when/where/why when we could
be spending our time witnessing the need to "believe in Him"...........YES
happened to be on the podium at the time and whatever he believed.
A person could church-hop all his life and hear countering ideas and beliefs
that were said to be fact by one preacher and disputed by another.
There are disputes between churches and between preachers and teachers
in churches.
Does Catholicism have the answer for being a closed, united and consistant
church..? Not at all. To an outsider, it's just another of the 28,001 options available
in this complex choice.
I was given the opportunity to personally witness to two individuals this past
week and to the best of my ability, I left out the controversial topics and emphasized
our need to "believe on Him who He has sent" as we read in .............
John 6:29
Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye
believe on him whom he hath sent.
Do I understand Trinity issues....? NO
Does it matter to my salvation and to yours....? NO
Will God hold us accountable for not being able to understand mysteries....? NO
Will God hold us accountable for not telling others about Jesus..........? Possibly
Will God save us when we "believe on him whom he hath sent"......? YES
Are we wasting our time debating who/what/when/where/why when we could
be spending our time witnessing the need to "believe in Him"...........YES
Singer, the problem is that I come here trying to learn the meaning of the doctrine of the Trinity.
So far, I find out that the Trinity is supposed to consist of three persons. I can't find that in the Bible.
Trinitarians say that God is made up of three persons, but still is only one god. That is still very puzzling to me.
How can three persons make up one god? Three doesn't equal one and one doesn't equal three persons.
So, I don't understand how an individual can worship Jesus (God) and leave out the other two persons without causing a problem.
Still confused,
MEE