- This topic has 25,959 replies, 116 voices, and was last updated 1 month, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (RokkaMan @ Sep. 23 2009,05:53) Great analysis, you write very well. But question….
In the beginning was The Word, The Word was with God, and The Word was God.
What is your take on The Word was God.
Is it literally God as in YHWH, or a qualitive God? As in title.
And if the original word was Logos what are the implications then?
Like your president analogy
If I were to say I am president in a sentence…there would have to be an object or reference to fully understand…like if I said…I started a coke company where I have many workers and I am the president….
That sentence wouldn't imply I am the president of the united states, it'd imply, I am the president of the coke company.
So if the reference of John 1:1 states….
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Can we not conclude the reference would be The Beginning
And that The Word was God in or of The beginning ?
I'd only like t8 to respond to this please. Seems like the most sensible one around here with an unbiased outlook.
Hi Rokkaman.I will respond to this either tomorrow which is Friday here, or in the weekend.
Thanks
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 24 2009,21:16) Hi Irene,
God is not family but He has a family.[eph3.14]
Yes God is the Father. He is the most high God. We will never be the Most High God.God shares his nature and attributes, so we can be sons of God, images of God, and children of God. We can be representations of him, and vessels to display his glory. But we are not him.
For us there is one God the Father. It doesn't say for us there is one family called God.
Again, if people understood that God is a person or being, and that nature, character, and attributes Of God can be shared or had by multiple beings, then people wouldn't confuse anyone but the Father as being God.
There is only one God. Seems like this is under serious attack by many groups. Trinitarians attack it perhaps without realising it, by saying that there are 3 persons who are God. Binatarians are not that much better.
Should the idea that God is a family be called Multiplarians?
If it is divine nature or the Spirit of God that is the focus, then you could say that there is a family that partakes in divine nature and is filled with his Spirit, and hence could be in quality “theos”, (ye are theos). If “theos” can describe that, then perhaps I understand. But “Theos” in identity is the Father. He is the only true God.
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 24 2009,22:39) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 24 2009,21:16) Hi Irene,
God is not family but He has a family.[eph3.14]
Yes God is the Father. He is the most high God. We will never be the Most High God.God shares his nature and attributes, so we can be sons of God, images of God, and children of God. We can be representations of him, and vessels to display his glory. But we are not him.
For us there is one God the Father. It doesn't say for us there is one family called God.
Again, if people understood that God is a person or being, and that nature, character, and attributes Of God can be shared or had by multiple beings, then people wouldn't confuse anyone but the Father as being God.
There is only one God. Seems like this is under serious attack by many groups. Trinitarians attack it perhaps without realising it, by saying that there are 3 persons who are God. Binatarians are not that much better.
Should the idea that God is a family be called Multiplarians?
If it is divine nature or the Spirit of God that is the focus, then you could say that there is a family that partakes in divine nature and is filled with his Spirit, and hence could be in quality “theos”, (ye are theos). If “theos” can describe that, then perhaps I understand. But “Theos” in identity is the Father. He is the only true God.
t8 We did not believe in a trinity in the W.W.Church of God.
Is there something wrong with calling us the Family of God? Nick gave us a Scripture that says that. I believe that there is only One Almighty God. Jesus is called God by His Father in Hebrew 1:8 And to the Son He says:” Your throne O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness, is the scepter of Your Kingdom.
verse 9 You have lovd righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more then Your companions.
So what are we to do with that, if God is not a title. We know that our Heanenly Father is above all
Ephesians4:6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and in us all.
If we don't understand that God is a title, then how do you understand John 1:1
Peace and Love IreneQuote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 24 2009,02:17) From the EOB Appendix on John 1:1 JOHN 1:1 – THE WORD WAS {WHAT} GOD {WAS}
Although the majority of modern translations render John 1:1c as “and the
Word was God,” this translation is somewhat problematic and possibly
misleading. As one of the leading scholars on this issue admits:
[It] is clear that in the translation “the Word was God,” the term God is
being used to denote his nature or essence, and not his person. But in
normal English usage “God” is a proper noun, referring to the person of the
Father or corporately to the three persons of the Godhead. Moreover, “the
Word was God” suggests that “the Word” and “God” are convertible terms,
that the proposition is reciprocating. But the Word is neither the Father
nor the Trinity… The rendering cannot stand without explanation.
(Murray Harris – Jesus as God, p. 69)
In the words of a non-Trinitarian critic of this translation, “Trinitarians do
not mean what they say and they do not say what they mean.” Moreover,
qualified Greek scholars such as Jason BeDuhn have also taken a public
stand against the traditional translation, going as far as to state that:
Grammatically, John 1:1 is not a difficult verse to translate. It follows
familiar, ordinary structures of Greek expression. A lexical (“interlinear”)
translation of the controversial clause would read: “And a god was the
Word.” A minimal literal (“formal equivalence”) translation would
rearrange the word order to match proper English expression: “And the
Word was a god.” The preponderance of evidence, from Greek grammar,
from literary context, and from cultural environment, supports this
translation, of which “the Word was divine” would be a slightly more
polished variant carrying the same basic meaning. Both of these renderings
are superior to the traditional translation which goes against these three
key factors that guide accurate translation. The NASB, NIV, NRSV, and
NAB follow the translation concocted by the KJV translators. This
translation awaits a proper defense, since no obvious one emerges from
Greek grammar, the literary context of John, or the cultural environment
in which John is writing… (Jason BeDuhn – Truth in translation)
This concern has been taken seriously and a number of alternative
translations have been proposed and used in recent versions, including:
(1) The Word was a god or The Word was god (Jannaris, Becker,
DeBuhn)(2) The Word was divine (Moffatt, Goodspeed, Schonfield, Temple,
Strachan, Zerwick)
(3) The Word was deity (Dana and Mantey, Perry, Tenney, Fennema)
(4) What God was, the Word was (NEB, REB).
The EOB footnote for this verse explains the difficulty:
VEn avrch/| h=n o` lo,goj( kai. o` lo,goj h=n pro.
j to.
n qeo,
n( kai.
qeo.
j h=
n o`
lo,
gojÅ
This second theos could also be translated ‘divine’ as the construction
indicates a qualitative sense for theos. The Word is not God in the sense
that he is the same person as the theos mentioned in 1:1a; he is not God the
Father (God absolutely) or the trinity. The point being made is that he is of
the same uncreated nature or essence as God the Father, with whom he
eternally exists. This verse is echoed in the Nicene Creed: “God from
God… True God from True God… homoousion with the Father”
In order to allow the public reader to use the now traditional form “The
Word was God,” the EOB uses parentheses to inform the private reader
that the second theos should be understood in a qualitative, not personal
sense. The liturgical reader also has the option to read the verse as “the
Word was what God was” which is indeed a very accurate translation of
the grammar and intent of the Greek text.
JOHN 1:18 – THE UNIQUELY LOVED SON
John 1:18 presents a double difficulty. The first aspect is that the original
Greek is debated. Several ancient manuscripts read monogenh. j qeo.j (“only-
begotten or unique God”) instead of monogenh. j ui`o.j (“only-begotten or
unique son”). Inasmuch as the Critical Text gives preponderance to the so-
called Alexandrian textual tradition, it adopts qeo.j as the most likely
original reading of John 1:18. This reading is also quoted by Irenaeus (latin
text), Clement (2 out of 4 citations), Origen, Arius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory
of Nyssa, Jerome and Cyril.
On the other hand, Byzantine manuscripts always read monogenh.j ui`o. j
which is therefore the reading found in the Patriarchal Text and the main
text of the EOB. The witnesses supporting this reading are geographically
widespread and it is consistent with Johannine usage (3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9).
Hence, it is extremely difficult to be certain as to the original reading of
this passage, but it is clear that both monogenh. j qeo.j and monogenh.j ui`o.j
are consistent with John 1:1 and that they do not create any doctrinal
issues.
The second difficulty of John 1:18 is how to properly translate monogenh.j.
The King James version rendered this Greek word as “only begotten” but
extensive research in the usage of monogenh.j seem to indicate that a betterrendition would be “unique” or “only.” Based on various interpretations and
grammatical options, modern scholars and translations have adopted a
variety of renditions, including:
The only-begotten God (NASB)
God, only-begotten (Westcott)
God the only Son (TCNT, NAB1, NIV1973,1978, NRSV)
The only son, God (NAB2)
The divine only Son (Goodspeed)
God the one and only (NIV1984)
The only One, who is the same as God (GNB1966,1971).
For grammatical and theological reasons, the EOB translates monogenh. j
ui`o.n as either “only-begotten son” or “unique son” where monogenh.j is
construed as an adjective qualifying ui`o.j. However, the reading monogenh. j
qeo.j would best be translated as “the only son, who is divine.”
As Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon writes:
God the Father loves uniquely only one Person, that is his Son. The
adjective monogenh.j, with which the Father refers to his Son (Jn 1:14-18;
3:16), does not mean simply the ‘only-begotten’ but also the ‘uniquely loved
one’ (o`
av
gaphto,
j; Mt. 3:17; 12.18; 2 Pet. 1.17; etc.). It is in and through and
because of him that the Father loves all the beings that exist, for he made
them ‘in him’ and ‘for him’ (Col. 1.16-18). (John D. Zizioulas – Communion
and Otherness, p. 73-74)
Good post CA.I believe that John 1:18 is referring to the Son as the only begotten God and that has cleared up much confusion for me.
Blessings,
KathiQuote (Lightenup @ Sep. 25 2009,02:23) Good post CA. I believe that John 1:18 is referring to the Son as the only begotten God and that has cleared up much confusion for me.
Blessings,
Kathi
Glad this helped.Please remember, though, that this is exegetical analysis of a book which is inspired evidence of the teaching of the Church in all times and places. So of course the proper interpretation will concur with the Church. The confusion happens when we divorce the apostolic Scriptures from their source and context: the Orthodox Catholic Church.
Hi CA,
Your church has no connection with the body of Christ.
A vain and pompous irrelevance that men take too seriously.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 25 2009,13:28) Hi CA,
Your church has no connection with the body of Christ.
A vain and pompous irrelevance that men take too seriously.
You are so right Nick
Math. 15:9 ” But in vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrine the commandment of men.”
IreneQuote (georg @ Sep. 25 2009,14:45) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 25 2009,13:28) Hi CA,
Your church has no connection with the body of Christ.
A vain and pompous irrelevance that men take too seriously.
You are so right Nick
Math. 15:9 ” But in vauin do they worship Me, teaching for doctrine the commandment of men.”
Irene
Irene,
You quote scripture out of context. It was the unbelieving Jews who rejected Christ that were worshiping God “in vain.” How can trinitarians who exalt Christ be spoken of when it was those who rejected Christ that Jesus was talking about?
Just another example of an anti-trinitarian mishandling scripture.
thinker
Quote (georg @ Sep. 24 2009,20:29) Quote (thethinker @ Sep. 24 2009,20:23) Irene said: Quote So are you going to deny vese 14 were it says that the Word became flesh? And if so, what does that mean? Irene,
Yes God became flesh. You know that this is the Christian doctrine of the incarnation. You yourself have said that God can do anything He wants (except have sex with Himself as Kathi thinks).thinker
But you think in the way that God is a trinity which I don't believe. If it is a title then it is Jesus who became flesh and the Word being Jesus. Is that what you believe also?
I thought that you believe in the trinity?
Irene
I do NOT think the way to God is “a trinity.” Jesus said that He Himself is the way to the Father and that no one comes to the Father but through Him. Show where I have ever said that one must believe in “a trinity” to come to God.thinker
Hi TT,
You don't need it.
It is a human encumbrace.
Get rid of the catholic folly and we can move on.Quote (thethinker @ Sep. 25 2009,19:34) I do NOT think the way to God is “a trinity.” Jesus said that He Himself is the way to the Father and that no one comes to the Father but through Him. Show where I have ever said that one must believe in “a trinity” to come to God. thinker
The Roman Catholic faith is based on a creed that says that you must believe the Trinity for salvation. It is their doctrine. You might not be that staunch, but you are obviously under the influence to some degree.Come out of her my people.
Quote (thethinker @ Sep. 24 2009,04:23) Irene said: Quote So are you going to deny vese 14 were it says that the Word became flesh? And if so, what does that mean? Irene,
Yes God became flesh. You know that this is the Christian doctrine of the incarnation. You yourself have said that God can do anything He wants (except have sex with Himself as Kathi thinks).thinker
Well, I don't believe what this guy thinks that I believe, but what else is new.God has an only begotten son that is from Himself that shares His nature…who was begotten, an offspring. How that happened we are not told. He could have spoken Him into existence if He needed to for the Father of the only begotten Son can do anything.
Kathi
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 25 2009,21:52) Quote (thethinker @ Sep. 25 2009,19:34) I do NOT think the way to God is “a trinity.” Jesus said that He Himself is the way to the Father and that no one comes to the Father but through Him. Show where I have ever said that one must believe in “a trinity” to come to God. thinker
The Roman Catholic faith is based on a creed that says that you must believe the Trinity for salvation. It is their doctrine. You might not be that staunch, but you are obviously under the influence to some degree.Come out of her my people.
Those anti-trinitarians who confess that Christ Himself is the Savior are indeed saved whether they confess the trinity or not. But those who deny that Christ was truly and properly the Savior are damned. And why do you suppose that it is ONLY anti-trinitarians who deny that Christ is the real Savior?Some anti-trinitarians say, “The Father is the true and proper Savior while Christ was merely the vessel He used.” Anti-trinitarianism sometimes leads to this. This is why I could never adopt the Arian tradition. Jesus Christ is the PERSONAL Savior of men. It was Christ PERSONALLY who received men's spittle in His face and was mocked and ridiculed by them.
It was Christ PERSONALLY who was beaten with the whips while carrying His own torture stake up the hill. It was Christ PERSONALLY who had the spikes pierce His hands and His feet and who had the spear thrust through His side. It was Christ PERSONALLY who bore our sins in His own PERSONAL self and in His own PERSONAL body.
The Father is Savior but THROUGH Christ. Christ is the PERSONAL Savior. Let not one of you even think about charging me to “come out of her” when you have exchanged one “lie” for another (I speak only to those anti-trinitarians who deny that Christ is truly Savior).
I would like to see an anti-trinitarian here tell Gene to “come out of her” the next time he splatters his vomit that Christ is not really the Savior.
Gene knows that if he confesses Christ as Savior in a sense that is real then he will have to re-think YHWH's statement “There is no Savior besides Me.”
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ Sep. 25 2009,10:27) Quote (t8 @ Sep. 25 2009,21:52) Quote (thethinker @ Sep. 25 2009,19:34) I do NOT think the way to God is “a trinity.” Jesus said that He Himself is the way to the Father and that no one comes to the Father but through Him. Show where I have ever said that one must believe in “a trinity” to come to God. thinker
The Roman Catholic faith is based on a creed that says that you must believe the Trinity for salvation. It is their doctrine. You might not be that staunch, but you are obviously under the influence to some degree.Come out of her my people.
Those anti-trinitarians who confess that Christ Himself is the Savior are indeed saved whether they confess the trinity or not. But those who deny that Christ was truly and properly the Savior are damned. And why do you suppose that it is ONLY anti-trinitarians who deny that Christ is the real Savior?Some anti-trinitarians say, “The Father is the true and proper Savior while Christ was merely the vessel He used.” Anti-trinitarianism sometimes leads to this. This is why I could never adopt the Arian tradition. Jesus Christ is the PERSONAL Savior of men. It was Christ PERSONALLY who received men's spittle in His face and was mocked and ridiculed by them.
It was Christ PERSONALLY who was beaten with the whips while carrying His own torture stake up the hill. It was Christ PERSONALLY who had the spikes pierce His hands and His feet and who had the spear thrust through His side. It was Christ PERSONALLY who bore our sins in His own PERSONAL self and in His own PERSONAL body.
The Father is Savior but THROUGH Christ. Christ is the PERSONAL Savior. Let not one of you even think about charging me to “come out of her” when you have exchanged one “lie” for another (I speak only to those anti-trinitarians who deny that Christ is truly Savior).
I would like to see an anti-trinitarian here tell Gene to “come out of her” the next time he splatters his vomit that Christ is not really the Savior.
Gene knows that if he confesses Christ as Savior in a sense that is real then he will have to re-think YHWH's statement “There is no Savior besides Me.”
thinker
Hi JackGood points!
All other 'Savours” like Moses were by “Proxy”, not so with Jesus.
He said he was the “Way, the Truth, and the “life”. John 14:6
This means that Jesus is the “Source” of our life and our salvation!
Couple that together with the Hebrew scriptures that there is only “One Savour” and “None else beside him”, then Jesus is YHWH (God) in the flesh.
while we wait for the blessed hope–the glorious appearing of “our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ“, Titus 2:13
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 26 2009,02:42) Quote (thethinker @ Sep. 25 2009,10:27) Quote (t8 @ Sep. 25 2009,21:52) Quote (thethinker @ Sep. 25 2009,19:34) I do NOT think the way to God is “a trinity.” Jesus said that He Himself is the way to the Father and that no one comes to the Father but through Him. Show where I have ever said that one must believe in “a trinity” to come to God. thinker
The Roman Catholic faith is based on a creed that says that you must believe the Trinity for salvation. It is their doctrine. You might not be that staunch, but you are obviously under the influence to some degree.Come out of her my people.
Those anti-trinitarians who confess that Christ Himself is the Savior are indeed saved whether they confess the trinity or not. But those who deny that Christ was truly and properly the Savior are damned. And why do you suppose that it is ONLY anti-trinitarians who deny that Christ is the real Savior?Some anti-trinitarians say, “The Father is the true and proper Savior while Christ was merely the vessel He used.” Anti-trinitarianism sometimes leads to this. This is why I could never adopt the Arian tradition. Jesus Christ is the PERSONAL Savior of men. It was Christ PERSONALLY who received men's spittle in His face and was mocked and ridiculed by them.
It was Christ PERSONALLY who was beaten with the whips while carrying His own torture stake up the hill. It was Christ PERSONALLY who had the spikes pierce His hands and His feet and who had the spear thrust through His side. It was Christ PERSONALLY who bore our sins in His own PERSONAL self and in His own PERSONAL body.
The Father is Savior but THROUGH Christ. Christ is the PERSONAL Savior. Let not one of you even think about charging me to “come out of her” when you have exchanged one “lie” for another (I speak only to those anti-trinitarians who deny that Christ is truly Savior).
I would like to see an anti-trinitarian here tell Gene to “come out of her” the next time he splatters his vomit that Christ is not really the Savior.
Gene knows that if he confesses Christ as Savior in a sense that is real then he will have to re-think YHWH's statement “There is no Savior besides Me.”
thinker
Hi JackGood points!
All other 'Savours” like Moses were by “Proxy”, not so with Jesus.
He said he was the “Way, the Truth, and the “life”. John 14:6
This means that Jesus is the “Source” of our life and our salvation!
Couple that together with the Hebrew scriptures that there is only “One Savour” and “None else beside him”, then Jesus is YHWH (God) in the flesh.
while we wait for the blessed hope–the glorious appearing of “our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ“, Titus 2:13
WJ
Amen WJ,thinker
Quote (thethinker @ Sep. 25 2009,19:28) Quote (georg @ Sep. 25 2009,14:45) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 25 2009,13:28) Hi CA,
Your church has no connection with the body of Christ.
A vain and pompous irrelevance that men take too seriously.
You are so right Nick
Math. 15:9 ” But in vauin do they worship Me, teaching for doctrine the commandment of men.”
Irene
Irene,
You quote scripture out of context. It was the unbelieving Jews who rejected Christ that were worshiping God “in vain.” How can trinitarians who exalt Christ be spoken of when it was those who rejected Christ that Jesus was talking about?Just another example of an anti-trinitarian mishandling scripture.
thinker
No thinker whatever was written in that time is also for us.
If you want to believe that, then you have to do away with alot of Scriptures. No my friend. That is about the untruth that you have come up with. Blame eveything on the Jews.
The Caholic Church is worshipping in vain. From the third centutry on. I know I was one of them. And I will say this till I die, THANK YOU GOD FOR CALLING US OUT OF THAT CHURCH.
Peace and Love Irenethinker……….Jesus (HIMSELF) could save no ONE, It was GOD in Christ that filled Jesus with (HIS) LOVE. Jesus was the FATHERS Lamb offered BY GOD for the Sins of the world. Yes Jessu is savior through the operation of GOD. Just as Moses was and Joshua, and Samsion and all the Judges of Israel were. Evidently you don't understand Scripture , where IT Says John 3:16…>(“THAT (GOD) SO LOVED THE WORLD, THAT HE (GOD) GAVE HIS UNIQUE BEGOTTEN SON, THAT WHO SO BELIEVES IN HIM MAY HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE. Now who is the SAvior of HIS creation, it say GOD IS. want more proof> 1 Ti 4:10….>”For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living GOD, who (IS) the (SAVIOR0 of (ALL) men, especially of those that believe.
What part of those scriptures do you and WJ disbelieve. YOU both try to push Jesus to the Full Level of GOD the FATHER is nothing but false TRINITARIAN teachings. Pulse you make Jesus' death worse then any of the apostles deaths, They ALL dies a HORRIBLE DEATHS , some were sawed asunder, Peter is said to be crucified upside down. John the baptist had His head cut off. Steven was stoned to death. Some like Michel Servetus was slowly burned to death with green wood , by that Murder John Calvin the great leader of the Protestants who is credit as one who organized your false Churches. The Catholic Church (your mother church) invented all Kinds of extreme toruchers for the Saints to be killed by. Jesus died a horrible death , but to think other have no also is simply a LIE.
It was GOD the FATHER that raised Jesus from the dead, but you false teachers make Him raising HIMSELF and SAY he was not really dead, But was still alive. Going around doing things when He was in the grave. So in reality you are saying Jesus was NOT (REALLY) dead as HE said HE was. Jesus is a savior sent from God, He is GOD'S workmanship and GOD was even HIS SAVIOR TO> Lets give credit to who Jesus gave credit of salvation to. HIS AND OUR FATHER, (GOD). IMOgene
Quote (georg @ Sep. 26 2009,03:38) Quote (thethinker @ Sep. 25 2009,19:28) Quote (georg @ Sep. 25 2009,14:45) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 25 2009,13:28) Hi CA,
Your church has no connection with the body of Christ.
A vain and pompous irrelevance that men take too seriously.
You are so right Nick
Math. 15:9 ” But in vauin do they worship Me, teaching for doctrine the commandment of men.”
Irene
Irene,
You quote scripture out of context. It was the unbelieving Jews who rejected Christ that were worshiping God “in vain.” How can trinitarians who exalt Christ be spoken of when it was those who rejected Christ that Jesus was talking about?Just another example of an anti-trinitarian mishandling scripture.
thinker
no thinker whatever was written in thatr times is also for us.
if you want to believe tht, then you have to do away with alot of Scriptures. No my friend. That is about the untruth that you have come up with. Blame eveything on the Jews.
The Caholic Church is worshipping in vain. From the third centutry on. I know I was one of them. And I will say this till I die, THANK YOU GOD FOR CALLING US OUT OF THAT CHURCH.
Peace and Love Irene
Irene,
I was not blaming everything on the Jews. I was simply saying their rejection of Jesus as the Messiah is what rendered their worship “vain” to God. Had they accepted their Messiah that would not have been true of them. Since trinitarians accept Jesus as the Messiah then how can Jesus' statement apply to them? God accepts the worship of anyone who honors His Son!All you prove is that you have an axe to grind with Catholicism and that you are not a fair judge of things. So throw away your Bible because it was the Catholic Church that decided that the books contained therein are the word of God. I am not a Catholic but I will still give credit where credit is due. The fact that you can't do this tells a lot about you.
Grow up!
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ Sep. 26 2009,03:48) Quote (georg @ Sep. 26 2009,03:38) Quote (thethinker @ Sep. 25 2009,19:28) Quote (georg @ Sep. 25 2009,14:45) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 25 2009,13:28) Hi CA,
Your church has no connection with the body of Christ.
A vain and pompous irrelevance that men take too seriously.
You are so right Nick
Math. 15:9 ” But in vauin do they worship Me, teaching for doctrine the commandment of men.”
Irene
Irene,
You quote scripture out of context. It was the unbelieving Jews who rejected Christ that were worshiping God “in vain.” How can trinitarians who exalt Christ be spoken of when it was those who rejected Christ that Jesus was talking about?Just another example of an anti-trinitarian mishandling scripture.
thinker
no thinker whatever was written in thatr times is also for us.
if you want to believe tht, then you have to do away with alot of Scriptures. No my friend. That is about the untruth that you have come up with. Blame eveything on the Jews.
The Caholic Church is worshipping in vain. From the third centutry on. I know I was one of them. And I will say this till I die, THANK YOU GOD FOR CALLING US OUT OF THAT CHURCH.
Peace and Love Irene
Irene,
I was not blaming everything on the Jews. I was simply saying their rejection of Jesus as the Messiah is what rendered their worship “vain” to God. Had they accepted their Messiah that would not have been true of them. Since trinitarians accept Jesus as the Messiah then how can Jesus' statement apply to them? God accepts the worship of anyone who honors His Son!All you prove is that you have an axe to grind with Catholicism and that you are not a fair judge of things. So throw away your Bible because it was the Catholic Church that decided that the books contained therein are the word of God. I am not a Catholic but I will still give credit where credit is due. The fact that you can't do this tells a lot about you.
Grow up!
thinker
Jack, you say “God accepts the worship of anyone who honors His Son!“Could you explain to me WHO you think the GOD is, in your above statement?
Quote (Jodi Lee @ Sep. 26 2009,03:54) Quote (thethinker @ Sep. 26 2009,03:48) Quote (georg @ Sep. 26 2009,03:38) Quote (thethinker @ Sep. 25 2009,19:28) Quote (georg @ Sep. 25 2009,14:45) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 25 2009,13:28) Hi CA,
Your church has no connection with the body of Christ.
A vain and pompous irrelevance that men take too seriously.
You are so right Nick
Math. 15:9 ” But in vauin do they worship Me, teaching for doctrine the commandment of men.”
Irene
Irene,
You quote scripture out of context. It was the unbelieving Jews who rejected Christ that were worshiping God “in vain.” How can trinitarians who exalt Christ be spoken of when it was those who rejected Christ that Jesus was talking about?Just another example of an anti-trinitarian mishandling scripture.
thinker
no thinker whatever was written in thatr times is also for us.
if you want to believe tht, then you have to do away with alot of Scriptures. No my friend. That is about the untruth that you have come up with. Blame eveything on the Jews.
The Caholic Church is worshipping in vain. From the third centutry on. I know I was one of them. And I will say this till I die, THANK YOU GOD FOR CALLING US OUT OF THAT CHURCH.
Peace and Love Irene
Irene,
I was not blaming everything on the Jews. I was simply saying their rejection of Jesus as the Messiah is what rendered their worship “vain” to God. Had they accepted their Messiah that would not have been true of them. Since trinitarians accept Jesus as the Messiah then how can Jesus' statement apply to them? God accepts the worship of anyone who honors His Son!All you prove is that you have an axe to grind with Catholicism and that you are not a fair judge of things. So throw away your Bible because it was the Catholic Church that decided that the books contained therein are the word of God. I am not a Catholic but I will still give credit where credit is due. The fact that you can't do this tells a lot about you.
Grow up!
thinker
Jack, you say “God accepts the worship of anyone who honors His Son!“Could you explain to me WHO you think the GOD is, in your above statement?
Jodi Lee,
I am not going to explain it for you again. One's view of God is measured by his view of His Son. Jesus said that the Father has committed all judgment to Him IN ORDER THAT all men should honor the Son EVEN AS they honor the Father.When I was 14 years old I lived with my aunt and uncle for a year. One day after I came home from school I had an altercation with my aunt and I started lipping off disrespectfully to her big time. Well, my uncle came storming out of the bathroom. I had not known he was home from work early that day. He picked me up with one fist and slammed me against the wall. I was pasted to the wall airborne.
My uncle drew back the other fist and with a scary grimace on his face he said to me, “If you don't respect my wife you don't respect me. And if you don't respect me I'll beat the s__t out of you.”
If men don't honor the Son EVEN AS they honor the Father then they don't honor the Father and they are in danger.
Do trinitarians honor the Son EVEN AS they honor the Father? You bet they do. So how can they be among those who worship God “in vain” as Irene has wrongfully said? And where did Irene get the idea that all judgment was committed to Irene? The word “honor” means “to prize or value.” The “even as” would indicate “to prize or value EQUALLY.”
thinker
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
