- This topic has 18,300 replies, 268 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (david @ Sep. 09 2005,00:54) Why did they have the power to heal?
Even further, why did Jesus heal people when he was on earth? Why did he perform miracles? What was the purpose of those miracles Nick?I'm curious as to what you think.
Hi,
They did not haver the power to heal but they had the gift of the Spirit of God who healed through them. The Spirit has not changed but men are no longer expecting power being manifest.
Jesus came to destroy the kingdom of darkness and all it'ss associated misery. Jesus healed becasue he could and they needed help and they asked .Hi david,
I think it is sad when those who serve (or claim to) rely on a denomination for their teaching and truth. Why do men need the teachings or support of Babylon. Is it not better to let God talk to us personally and be filled with his Spirit. That way all those who are born from above are one. All these teachings and organisations of men are at least distractions and at worse they lead men away from a life of prayer and faith.
If you look at any denomination, I can guarantee you that too much time and money is spent on keeping the organisation running and too little for the poor, needy, and for the sake of the true gospel.
Why do we have denominations? Well a long time ago, certain men decided that in order to protect their so-called truth, they needed a creed. This creed went through many transformations, but it was protected by an organisation that even killed in order to preserve the works with their own hands. Certain others rebelled against such false authority and setup their OWN churches. They became the daughters even rebellious daughters. The point is though, that any church we (men) set up is another church and another foundation. Another church and foundation can be summed up in 1 word. “Vanity.”
Today God is calling his people out of her, out of Babylon, out of the religions and institutions of men. There is a big difference between being led by God and being one with his people, or being institutionalised. An institutionilised person is a person who is bound in a prison. The walls are the traditions and doctrines of men. But the truth can set you free. Of course all the prisoners of Babylon can escape at anytime. But many are willing prisoners and others are deceived.
But it all depends on how much you love truth or how much of your foundation is built by mens hands and how much you trust in the works of men.
It is written: “Come out of her MY PEOPLE. For her sins have piled up to heaven. Come out of her lest you be judged with her”.
I was just reminded that Isaac Newton didn't believe in the trinity.
Please, someone talk about something other than baal gad.
This is the trinity thread t8. I would recommend the JW thread or the Religion of Man, if you think that would be better. This is the trinity topic.
t8 says:
“Is it not better to let God talk to us personally and be filled with his Spirit.”Well, I'm sure the early Christians didn't feel that way. The 'let's all do our own thing' mentality is a dangerous one t8. Satan pecks off those who leave the security of the flock. A 'flock' is a group something that is 'together.'
Like a lion, seeking to devour someone, he looks for the week. And like a lion, he will go to those that wander away and are easy prey.Ya, the money that my grandma paid out to the Catholic church makes me sick. Me, sitting inthe pews of Catholic church as the money collectors passed the money tray while everyone was watching make me angry. I'm sure you've had similar experiences. Lumping them altogether does not a sound argument make.
“Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you.” (Matthew 28:19, 20)
How could such a task be satisfactorily accomplished if there were no direction or organization? How could one obey this Scriptural injunction if he tried to serve God independently?
ACTS 1:8
“but YOU will receive power when the holy spirit arrives upon YOU, and YOU will be witnesses of me both in Jerusalem and in all Judéa and Samaŕia and to the most distant part of the earth.””
ROMANS 10:18
“Nevertheless I ask, They did not fail to hear, did they? Why, in fact, “into all the earth their sound went out, and to the extremities of the inhabited earth their utterances.””
ROMANS 11:13
“Now I speak to YOU who are people of the nations. Forasmuch as I am, in reality, an apostle to the nations, I glorify my ministry,”
REVELATION 14:6
“And I saw another angel flying in midheaven, and he had everlasting good news to declare as glad tidings to those who dwell on the earth, and to every nation and tribe and tongue and people,”
I’ll ask these questions again:
How could such a task be satisfactorily accomplished if there were no direction or organization? How could one obey this Scriptural injunction if he tried to serve God independently?You do not seem to have the mentality of the Ethiopian eunuch. I think some bad things have happened in your life and you want total freedom without any authority other than God. These words come to mind:
“Religion and the clergy have been, and will perhaps remain for a long time, among the greatest enemies of progress and freedom.”—Khristo Botev, Bulgarian poetJesusdeclared: “Be on your guard against false religious teachers, who come to you dressed up as sheep but are really greedy wolves. You can tell them by their fruits. . . . Every good tree produces sound fruit, but a rotten tree produces bad fruit.” (Matthew 7:15-17, Phillips) Seeing the bad fruit of the world’s “great” religions, and even of the sects and cults that have sprung up, many sincere people are coming to view them all as ‘rotten trees,’ simply not good enough. But how can they find the true religion?
Truth and Fruitage
Jesus mentioned truth. As for this, what group of believers reject the religious lies derived from ancient mythology and Greek philosophy that permeate most religions? One such lie is the teaching that the human soul is inherently immortal. This teaching has given rise to the God-dishonoring doctrine of hellfire.
Jesus also mentioned fruitage. As for this, do you know a religion that has produced a genuine international fellowship where racial, linguistic, and nationalistic barriers are overcome by love and mutual understanding? Do you know a worldwide religious community whose members would rather be persecuted than allow politicians or religious leaders to incite them to hate their brothers and sisters and kill them in the name of nationalism or religion? A religion that rejected such religious lies and produced such fruitage would give powerful evidence of being the true one, would it not?Is belonging to an organized religion necessary?
Most religious organizations have produced bad fruitage. It is not the fact that groups are organized that is bad. But many have promoted forms of worship that are based on false teachings and are largely ritualistic instead of providing genuine spiritual guidance; they have been misused to control the lives of people for selfish objectives; they have been overly concerned with money collections and ornate houses of worship instead of spiritual values; their members are often hypocritical. Obviously no one who loves righteousness would want to belong to such an organization. But true religion is a refreshing contrast to all of that. Nevertheless, to fulfill the Bible’s requirements, it must be organized.
Heb. 10:24, 25: “Let us consider one another to incite to love and fine works, not forsaking the gathering of ourselves together, as some have the custom, but encouraging one another, and all the more so as you behold the day drawing near.”
(To carry out this Scriptural command, there must be Christian meetings that we can attend on a consistent basis. Such an arrangement encourages us to express love toward others, not only concern about self.)1 Cor. 1:10: “Now I exhort you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that you should all speak in agreement, and that there should not be divisions among you, but that you may be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought.”
(Such unity would never be achieved if the individuals did not meet together, benefit from the same spiritual feeding program, and respect the agency through which such instruction was provided. See also John 17:20, 21.)1 Pet. 2:17: “Have love for the whole association of brothers.”
(Does that include only those who may meet together for worship in a particular private home? Not at all; it is an international brotherhood, as shown by Galatians 2:8, 9 and 1 Corinthians 16:19.)Matt. 24:14: “This good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come.”
(For all nations to be given the opportunity to hear that good news, the preaching must be carried out in an orderly way, with suitable oversight. Love for God and for one’s fellowman has caused people around the earth to unite their efforts to do this work.)david
If the trumpet sounds an indistinct call….
Ask yourself, ‘What religious group is noted for sticking closely to God’s Word, even when its teachings differ from the beliefs of most people? Who stress the importance of God’s personal name, even using it to identify themselves? Who optimistically point to God’s Kingdom as the only solution to all human problems? Who uphold Bible standards of conduct, at the risk of being considered old-fashioned? What group is noted for having no paid clergy, all of its members being preachers? Who are praised for being law-abiding citizens, even though they refrain from taking part in politics? Who lovingly spend time and money in helping others to learn about God and his purposes? And despite all of these positive things, who are still looked down on, ridiculed, and persecuted?’
Zechariah 8:23: “We will go with you people, for we have heard that God is with you people.”
I'm wondering how you will reach the Amish with the good news?
David, you know as well as I, that the “” trinity “” represents the pagan sunworship.
THE TRINITARIAN BULL
Wade Cox points out that one of the Hebrew words for bull (-s) is “abiyrim.” This word is #47 in Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance Hebrew And Chaldee Dictionary. Its definition is given as: abbiyr; for 46:—angel, bull, chiefest, mighty (one), stout [-hearted], strong (one), valiant.
#46 is defined as: abiyr; from 82; mighty (spoken of G-d):—mighty (one).
#82 is defined as: abar; a prim. root; to soar:—fly.
#83 also comes from #82 and is defined as: eber, from 82; a pinion:—[long-] wing (-ed).
I list these words and definitions in order to link this word with Figure #1.
This is a Syrian representation of an abbiyrim. Syria, Assyria and other nations depicted their gods and kings as part man and part bull even as this relief depicts the images as the upper half men and the lower half bulls. This relief depicts the Syrian representation of the Trinitarian sun god. The sun is given wings because it soars through the heavens. The three man-bulls would be the Trinitarian Taurus the Bull that mediates between heaven and earth for they uphold the sun as it wings its way through heaven.
Figures #2 & #3 are panels from four-sided blocks, probably originally parts of an altar, found during excavations in the choir of Nôtre Dame church, Paris, France, in 1711. The remaining panels not shown featured Jovis and Volcanus (Vulcan). Esus (pronounced Hesus) was a Celtic god in mainland Europe. Jovis and Volcanus were Roman gods. Thus there appears to be a blending of Celtic and Roman Deities.
Taros Trigaranus simply means “The triune bull.” Notice the three cranes on the back of the back of the bull. A crane flies through the midst of heaven. Thus this would symbolize mediators between heaven and earth. These are Celto-Roman gods (bulls). Jovis is Jupiter while Volcanus was a fire-god. Esus (Hesus) is none other than Jesus.
Alexander Hislop writes, “It is well know that Kronos, or Saturn, was Rhea’s husband; but it is not so well known who was Kronos himself. Traced back to his original, that divinity is proved to have been the first king of Babylon. Theophilus of Antioch shows that Kronos in the east was worshipped under the names of Bel and Bal; and from Eusebius we learn that the first of the Assyrian kings, whose name was Belus, was also by the Assyrians called Kronos. As the genuine copies of Dusebius do not admit of any Belus as an actual king of Assyria, prior to Ninus, king of the Babylonians, and distinct from him, that shows that Ninus, the first king of Babylon, was Kronos. But, further, we find that Kronos was king of the Cyclops, who were his brethren, and who derived that name from him, and that the Cyclops were known as ‘inventors of tower-building,’ occupied a position exactly correspondent to that of Rhea, who ‘first erected (towers) in cities.’ If, therefore, Rhea, the wife of Kronos, was the goddess of fortifications, Kronos or Saturn, the husband of Rhea, that is, Ninus or Nimrod, the first king of Babylon, must have been Ala Mahozin, ‘the god of fortifications.’
“The name Kronos itself goes not a little to confirm the argument. Kronos signifies ‘The Horned one.’ As a horn is a well-known Oriental emblem for power or might, Kronos, ‘The Horned one,’ was, according to the mystic system, just a synonym for the Scriptural epithet applied to Nimrod—viz., Gheber, ‘The mighty one’ (Gen. x.8), ‘He began to be mighty on the earth.’….
“The meaning of this name Kronos, ‘The Horned one,’ as applied to Nimrod, fully explains the origin of the remarkable symbol, so frequently occurring among the Nineveh sculptures, the gigantic HORNED man-bull, as representing the great divinities in Assyria. The same word that signified a bull, signified also a ruler or prince*.
*The name for a bull or ruler, is in Hebrew without points, Shur, which in Chaldee becomes Tur. From Tur, in the sense of a bull, comes the Latin Taurus; and from the same word, in the sense of a ruler, Turannus, which originally had no evil meaning. Thus, in these well-known classical words, we have evidence of the operation of the very principle which caused the deified Assyrian kings to be presented under the form of the man-bull.
Hence the ‘Horned bull’ signified ‘The Mighty Prince,’ thereby pointing back to the first of those ‘Mighty ones,’ who, under the name of Guebres, Gabrs, or Cabiri, occupied so conspicuous a place in the ancient world, and to whom the deified Assyrian monarchs covertly traced back the origin of their greatness and might. This explains the reason why the Bacchus of the Greeks was represented as wearing horns, and why he was frequently addressed by the epithet ‘Bull-horned,’ as one of the high titles of his dignity. Even in comparatively recent times, Togrul Begh, the leader of the Seljukian Turks, who came from the neighbourhood of the Euphrates, was in a similar manner represented with three horns growing out of his head, as the emblem of his sovereignty….
“As sovereignty in Nimrod’s case was founded on physical force, so the two horns of the bull were the symbols of that physical force. And, in accordance with this, we read in ‘Sanchuniathon,’ that ‘Astarte put on her own head a bull’s head as the ensign of royalty.’
By-and-by, however, another and a higher idea came in, and the expression of that idea was seen in the symbol of the three horns. A cap seems in course of time to have come to be associated with the regal horns. In Assyria the three-horned cap was one of the ‘sacred emblems,’ in token that the power connected with it was of celestial origin, — the three horns evidently pointing at the power of the trinity.
“There was another way in which Nimrod’s power was symbolized besides by the ‘horn.’ A synonym for Gheber, ‘The mighty one,’ was ‘Abir,’ while ‘Aber’ also signified a ‘wing.’ Nimrod, as Head and Captain of those men of war, by whom he surrounded himself, and who were the instruments of establishing his power, was ‘Baal-aberin,’ “Lord of the mighty ones.’ But ‘Baal-aberin’ (pronounced nearly in the same way) signified ‘The winged one,” and therefore in symbol he was represented, not only as a horned bull, but as at once a horned and winged bull–as showing not merely that he was mighty himself, but that he had mighty ones under his command, who were ever ready to carry his will into effect, and to put down all opposition to his power; and to shadow forth the vast extent of his might, he was represented with great and wide expanding wings. To this mode of representing the mighty kings of Babylon and Assyria, who imitated Nimrod and his successors, there is manifest allusion in Isaiah vii. 6-8: ‘Forasmuch as this people refuseth the waters of Shiloah that go softly, and rejoice in Rezin and Remaliah’s son; now therefore, behold, The Lord bringeth up upon them the waters of the river, strong and mighty, even the king of Assyria, and all his glory; and he shall come up over all his banks. And he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go over; he shall reach even unto the neck; and the STRETCHING OUT OF HIS WINGS SHALL FILL the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel.’ When we look at such figures as those which are here presented to the reader (Fig. 14 and 15), with their great extent of expanded wing, as symbolising an Assyrian king, what a vividness and force does it give to the inspired language of the prophet! And how clearis it, also, that the stretching forth of the Assyrian monarch’s WINGS, that was to fill the breadth of Immanuel’s land,’ has that very symbolic meaning to which I have referred—viz., the overspreading of the land by his ‘mighty ones,’ or hosts of armed men, that the king of Babylon was to bring with him in his overflowing invasion!
“Now, the understanding of this equivocal sense o
f ‘Baal-aberin’ can alone explain the remarkable statement of Aristophanes, that at the beginning of the world ‘the birds’ were first created, and then after their creation, came the ‘race’ of the blessed immortal gods.’ This has been regarded as either an atheistical or nonsensical utterance on the part of the poet, but, with the true key applied to the language, it is found to contain an important historical fact. Let it only be borne in mind that ‘the birds’—that is, the ‘winged ones’—symbolised ‘the Lords of the mighty ones,’ and then the meaning is clear, viz., that men first ‘began to be mighty on the earth;’ and then, that the ‘Lords’ or Leaders of ‘these mighty ones’ were deified.” (The Two Babylons pp. 33-39.)No use beating arround the bush concerning sun worship.
Eliyah C.
Quote (david @ Sep. 18 2005,17:27) This is the trinity thread t8. I would recommend the JW thread or the Religion of Man, if you think that would be better. This is the trinity topic…………. Ask yourself, ‘What religious group is noted for sticking closely to God’s Word, even when its teachings differ from the beliefs of most people? Who stress the importance of God’s personal name, even using it to identify themselves? Who optimistically point to God’s Kingdom as the only solution to all human problems? Who uphold Bible standards of conduct, at the risk of being considered old-fashioned? What group is noted for having no paid clergy, all of its members being preachers? Who are praised for being law-abiding citizens, even though they refrain from taking part in politics? Who lovingly spend time and money in helping others to learn about God and his purposes? And despite all of these positive things, who are still looked down on, ridiculed, and persecuted?’
………………I'm wondering how you will reach the Amish with the good news?
Hi david,You point out that my post doesn't belong here and then post yourself on the subject you say doesn't belong here.
But the subject of Babylon and the Trinity are inseparable. I actually think that the works based on creeds or the result of creeds are from Babylon. The Mother, of false religion.
Since the creation of creeds and the organisations that enforce them, there have been those who have rejected them and forged their own creeds to fight them. But they too are doing the same thing. They are doing things in their own name or the name of another that is not the son of God. Jehovah Witnesses, baptists, and Catholics are a different name to the son of God. We should do all in the name of Jesus.
Look at what man did at the Tower of Babel. They built it in their own name and God divided them. Now men build churches in their own name with their stepples piercing into Heaven, and is it any wonder that God divides them. What do you think denonimations are? They are divisions, the curse for iniquity. Think about it? Denominations of money for example are different divisions of money, but they are all money.
Of course not all daughters agree with their mother, but they are still of their mother. Look at the JWs and all other denominations. They usually all think that they have more truth than the others and yet they are really all the same. They are systems that promote a certain point of view and claim to be the true Church or at least the one with most truth. They often compare themselves with each other and are quick to point out the faults of the others in order to make themselves look good. If the JW's say that the mother is bad and they are good, then they are only rebelling against their mother. That is a normal thing that you see in any family. Daughters squabbling among themselves and comparing themselves.
It is not a matter of choosing the right denomination, but coming out of her that you may not partake of her sins.
You need the Spirit to see the real Church. You need to be born from above to see the Kingdom of God. If you are not born from above, if you are not born in the Spirit, then how can you receive from the Spirit of God. How can the Spirit of God lead you to all truth?
How will I reach the Amish community? If God's Spirit leads me there is how. If I am not led there then God will lead someone else. This is the whole point. If you are not led by God's Spirit then all that you do comes from your own spirit, even other spirits. When men scheme together as an organisation, is that the same as Jesus being the head of his Church?
The promotion of the Trinity doctrine created a system that enforced it. Many of those who rebelled against the main proponents of that system, just created their own system to do it. But it is the system itself that is wrong. The system is not of God and dates back to Babylon. So you are either of that system or you are not. If you are of it, then you should come out of it.
It is the truth that sets us free. Our Adversary has set up the lie and then he also caters for those who know it is a lie, but he gives them another. Like Witchcraft, there are supposed white witches and black witches. But both sides belong to our adversary, each side is only a deception to keep you away from the truth. The only way you can escape his lies is to be led by the Spirit of God. No man made organisation will save you.
I say this as a friend: “Come out of her, lest you partake of her sins”. “It is the truth that sets you free.”
t8, if this responce to your post which doesn't belong here were in another thread, would you find it? Would you know what I was talking about? So I responded to you in the same thread, the wrong one.
I had thought the trinity thread was about discussing the doctrine itself. If you wanted to stretch far enough, most anything could be related to the trinity.When I originally typed in “trinity doctrine” into google, do you know what the top 5 sites were?
1. You guys.
2. A site that promotes trinity doctrine
3. A different site that promotes trinity doctrine
4. A site devoted to tearing apart Jehovah's Witnesses belief that the trinity is not scriptural.
5. Jehovah's Witnesses site explaining that God is not a trinity.For someone who knows so much about the trinity, I would think that in itself is enough to know that Jehovah's Witnesses are not “just like every other denomination.”
t8 writes: “When men scheme together as an organisation, is that the same as Jesus being the head of his Church?”
Right, what does this have to do with me?
I can play the same game.t8, When someone decides to “do their own thing,” is that the same as Jesus being the head of his congregation?
David, as you asked me,
“”
Quote 5. Jehovah's Witnesses site explaining that “””God””” is not a trinity. Is David ingesting DUNG in his mouth and mind?
IF you're planning on asking that question any time anyone used the word “god” on this forum, have fun.
I'm wondering where Nick went.
Quote (david @ Sep. 19 2005,16:46) t8, if this responce to your post which doesn't belong here were in another thread, would you find it? Would you know what I was talking about? So I responded to you in the same thread, the wrong one.
I had thought the trinity thread was about discussing the doctrine itself. If you wanted to stretch far enough, most anything could be related to the trinity.
Yes it is suppose to be about the Trinity. It is OK to make other references that may add to the main thrust of the subject, but not to divert. So yes we should take any debate regarding JWs and denominations to a more suitable discussion.
Hey David,
Good to see you still here. My wife and I have been away at a barbershop singing convention-loving life and enjoying a break from the site. Your views are helpful and positive and I would encourage you to continue. We agree God is not a Trinity. But can you ever not use the word “Jehovah” when you speak of our loving Father?Hey Nick and t8.
Interesting. barbershop singing convention? I suddenly see you in a whole new light. Since we're sharing, I had today off work and went on a little trip and spent a few hours talking to people in the country (farm) territory about Jehovah and our hope for the future. Then I went golfing. Then to a bookstudy where we have recently been studying the book of Daniel.I'm not quite sure I understand what you're asking when you say:
“can you ever not use the word “Jehovah” when you speak of our loving Father?”
I refer to him as Father, God, Almighty, etc. also, if that's what you're asking.
Or, do you mean, can I use one of the many possible other common translations or transliterations such as:
YHVH YHWH Yahweh Yahveh Yaveh Yaweh Jehova Jehovah Jahova Jahovah Yahova Yahovah Yahowah Jahowa Jahowah Yahavah Jahavah Yahowe Yahoweh Jahaveh Jahaweh Yahaveh Yahaweh Jahuweh Yahuweh Jahuwah Yahuwah Yahuah Yah Jah Yahu Yahoo Yaohu Jahu Yahvah Jahvah Jahve Jahveh Yahve Yahwe Yauhu Yawhu Iahu Iahou Iahoo Iahueh?Well, if talking to someone who uses “Yahweh” for example, I would tend to use “Yahweh” and “Jehovah” in talking to this person. I really don't find very many people at all who use God's name.
Here, since we all know what we're talking about, I've only been using “Jehovah.”david.
Hi david,
Do you use “Jehovah” because you are so familiar with that name? Because in the past year or so you are the only one to always do so here? It is not familiar usage here. Do you feel uncomfortable using other terms?I use the term “Jehovah” because people in general are familiar with it due to the last several hundred years of use. It is the common form of the divine name as used by English speaking people, as used in most English Bibles. (The sort of people on this forum aren't “normal” everyday people. They are somewhat scholarly and fit into that group that is searching for the true Hebrew pronunciation of God's name. I'm used to dealing with common people.) When we go to people in the field ministry, we encounter people with the KJV of the Bible for example. We show them that God has a name. Some people fall over when they see it in their own Bible for the first time.
Shall I use Javeh or Yauha? I prefer to use the name that is commonly used in the English language, Jehovah.david
Other than this forum, I've never talked to anyone other than Jehovah's Witnesses who use God's name.
Hi david,
And your presence has been a blessing to us. But it shows that your culture is different and I suggest that is a hindrance to your accepted task. Paul tried to relate to the culture of the Athenians by speaking in terms with which they were familiar. If you really wanted to surpass barriers would you not be best to do the same?Just wondering what the main Bibles used in New Zealand are?
OK, Elijah's from Kentucky. You (and t8?) are from New Zealand, right?
Where's Brandon from?
OneSpirit?
Is 1:18?
I'm not sure you completly understand my “accepted task,” but I assure you that using Jehovah's name is not a hindrance to it.
If you're asking me to stop discussing the “We must use the Hebrew pronunciation of God's name” theory with Elijah, I completly agree. I really don't want to discuss that anymore. I have never said we must use the term “Jehovah” in referring to God. I have only stressed the importance of using his name and tried to show that we don't know how his name was pronounced in Hebrew.david
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
