- This topic has 18,300 replies, 268 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (truebelief4u @ Mar. 09 2006,19:01) Quote (Sultan @ Mar. 09 2006,14:04) Quote Why must we baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit? Matthew 28:19 (Is found in NW also) Can you please show me in the Bible where the apostles baptized in the name of the Father,Son, and Holy Spirit?
Matthew 28:19 is a completely spurious verse. See:
http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htmNote that former Cardinal Ratzinger (now the Pope) himself admits the verse is spurious, as does the Catholic Encyclopedia, etc. There is no command to baptize using this formula…the proper formula is found in Acts (baptize in the name of Jesus), and in the original wording of Matthew 28:19 as evidence by Eusebius…”in my (Jesus) name.”
Great link, and my point exactly. We must always remember to balance what we believe with the whole counsel of God.I really love this forum, not only the insight gained from others posts, but it has helped me to focus, clarify, and tie together scriptures as I prepare to make a post.
I was intrigued by David's post – “This was because the angelic messenger was acting for Jehovah as his representative, speaking in his name, perhaps using the first person singular pronoun, and even saying, “I am the true God.” (Ge 31:11-13; Jg 2:1-5) Thomas may therefore have spoken to Jesus as “my God” in this sense, acknowledging or confessing Jesus as the representative and spokesman of the true God. Whatever the case, it is certain that Thomas’ words do not contradict the clear statement he himself had heard Jesus make, namely, “The Father is greater than I am.”—Joh 14:28.” I do however see it a little differently.
Exodus 14:19 The angel of God, who went before the camp of Israel, moved and went behind them
1 Corinthians 10:4 for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
I believe the above to show that the “angel of God” was the pre-incarnate Jesus. While I do not embrace the traditional teaching of a trinity. I do see the usage of “God” in the OT as a title which refers to the Almighty Father, his begotten Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Son and the Holy Spirit are subject to YHWH, who is the One without beginning or end, and while Jesus was not created He did have a beginning. Jesus is less then the Father but when we've seen Jesus we've seen the Father (at least all we can see of God).
Quote I believe the above to show that the “angel of God” was the pre-incarnate Jesus.
As do I.
But I'm not sure how that's connected to my post.david.
Quote (seekingtruth @ Mar. 10 2006,05:13) The Son and the Holy Spirit are subject to YHWH, who is the One without beginning or end, and while Jesus was not created He did have a beginning. Jesus is less then the Father but when we've seen Jesus we've seen the Father (at least all we can see of God).
I wonder if someone could explain to me, and you might want to think carefully about your answer before you submit it, if the pre-incarnate Yahshua created ALL THINGS, including TIME, could there be a TIME when He WAS NOT? Could He have a beginning in time BEFORE time?We are now stepping into the unknown, and what for the time, seems to be the unknowable.
Your question seems to be a paradox. I'm not going to attempt to answer your question, but only to say that is is a fascinating question.
Time troubles me. Time and space are linked in ways we don't really understand.
Jehovah has existed for time indefinite, which in his case is forever, without beginning. Speaking of this is tricky because our concept of what time is, and what scientists believe time is, is connected to the universe, a thing that came into being, either not too long ago comparitively, or at the beginning of the creation of time, as we know it.
And we assume that if Jehovah is existing, time is flowing. But time (as we know it) seems to be only as old as the universe. Or, maybe scientists have no idea of what they speak. I don't know. Perhaps speculation in this area is best left alone.david.
Quote (OneoftheLordsGenerals @ Mar. 05 2006,16:46) You have danced around scripture that plainly states that Jesus is God, that the Holy Spirit is God. Scripture from ALL THE TRANSLATIONS. Read some of the things that are the same no matter what translation.
To OneoftheLordsGenerals,The Trinity doctrine seems to work with some scriptures, particularly the ones you have quoted, but contradicts many hundreds of others. If your belief in the Trinity were true, it would agree with ALL scripture, not just 10-20.
Here are 2 scriptures that you have to throw away for starters:
Ephesians 4:4-6 (English-NIV)
4 there is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;
6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.or 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 (English-NIV)
24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.
25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
27 For he has put everything under his feet. Now when it says that everything has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.
28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.In case you think these 2 scriptures are possibly lost in translation, then I offer you another 100.
NOTE: I am not flooding the Board as I do not expect anyone to read all these scriptures. Perhaps a few random ones. I quote these 100 scriptures to show the extent of scriptures that need to be thrown out if we hold to the Trinity doctrine. There are of course many more scriptures than these. This is the tip of the iceberg.
Try reading each word for 'God' with a Trinitarian understanding and watch the doctrine fail miserably.
Matthew 27:46
Mark 1:24
Mark 10:18
Mark 15:34
Mark 16:19
Luke 2:52
Luke 6:12
Luke 18:19
John 3:2
John 8:42
John 8:54
John 9:3
John 13:31
John 14:1*
John 17:3
John 20:17
Acts 2:22
Acts 2:32
Acts 2:36
Acts 3:13
Acts 4:10
Acts 5:30
Acts 7:55
Acts 10:36
Acts 10:38
Acts 13:23
Acts 20:21
Romans 1:7
Romans 1:8
Romans 2:16
Romans 3:22
Romans 4:24
Romans 5:1
Romans 5:11
Romans 5:15
Romans 5:17
Romans 6:23
Romans 7:25
Romans 8:34
Romans 10:9
Romans 15:5
Romans 15:6
Romans 16:27
1 Corinthians 1:3
1 Corinthians 1:9
1 Corinthians 1:30
1 Corinthians 8:6
1 Corinthians 15:57
2 Corinthians 1:2
2 Corinthians 1:3
2 Corinthians 11:31
2 Corinthians 13:14
Galatians 1:1
Galatians 1:3
Ephesians 1:2
Ephesians 1:3
Ephesians 1:17
Ephesians 2:6
Ephesians 6:23
Philippians 1:2
Philippians 2:11
Colossians 1:3*
Colossians 3:17
1 Thessalonians 1:1
1 Thessalonians 1:3
1 Thessalonians 3:11
1 Thessalonians 3:13
1 Thessalonians 4:14
1 Thessalonians 5:9
2 Thessalonians 1:1
2 Thessalonians 1:2
2 Thessalonians 1:12
2 Thessalonians 2:16
1 Timothy 1:1
1 Timothy 1:2
1 Timothy 2:5
1 Timothy 5:21
1 Timothy 6:3
2 Timothy 1:1
2 Timothy 1:2
2 Timothy 4:1
Titus 1:4
Titus 2:13
Philemon 1:3
Hebrews 13:20
James 1:1
1 Peter 1:2
1 Peter 2:5
2 Peter 1:1
2 Peter 1:2
1 John 5:1*
1 John 5:20
2 John 1:3
Jude 1:1
Jude 1:4
Jude 1:21
Jude 1:25
Revelation 1:1
Revelation 1:2
Revelation 14:12I don't believe that time is a product of the universe (however we do use the universe to quantify time). I believe time existed prior to creation. “In the beginning” does not mean the beginning of time any more than “It all started with” does. Jesus existed prior to creation but I believe as I've stated before that Jesus was a new manifestation of God with our reality. Just as a shadow is made manifest by light, prior to the light it did not exist but as long as the light is eternal so will the shadow be eternal.
If Jesus was 100% God and 100% man then where is the room for growth?
And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man. (Luke 2:52)
My point is not to argue whether Christ was both God and man because the scriptures testify of that, but my challenge is still against the man made doctrine of the trinity, and it's assumptions. If the Trinity is true then Luke 2 must be false. How can Jesus grow in wisdom if He is already 100%, and how can He grow in favour with God?
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 10 2006,23:20) Quote (OneoftheLordsGenerals @ Mar. 05 2006,16:46) You have danced around scripture that plainly states that Jesus is God, that the Holy Spirit is God. Scripture from ALL THE TRANSLATIONS. Read some of the things that are the same no matter what translation.
To OneoftheLordsGenerals,The Trinity doctrine seems to work with some scriptures, particularly the ones you have quoted, but contradicts many hundreds of others. If your belief in the Trinity were true, it would agree with ALL scripture, not just 10-20.
Here are 2 scriptures that you have to throw away for starters:
Ephesians 4:4-6 (English-NIV)
4 there is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;
6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.or 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 (English-NIV)
24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.
25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
27 For he has put everything under his feet. Now when it says that everything has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.
28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.In case you think these 2 scriptures are possibly lost in translation, then I offer you another 100.
NOTE: I am not flooding the Board as I do not expect anyone to read all these scriptures. Perhaps a few random ones. I quote these 100 scriptures to show the extent of scriptures that need to be thrown out if we hold to the Trinity doctrine. There are of course many more scriptures than these. This is the tip of the iceberg.Try reading each word for 'God' with a Trinitarian understanding and watch the doctrine fail miserably.
Matthew 27:46
Mark 1:24
Mark 10:18
Mark 15:34
Mark 16:19
Luke 2:52
Luke 6:12
Luke 18:19
John 3:2
John 8:42
John 8:54
John 9:3
John 13:31
John 14:1*
John 17:3
John 20:17
Acts 2:22
Acts 2:32
Acts 2:36
Acts 3:13
Acts 4:10
Acts 5:30
Acts 7:55
Acts 10:36
Acts 10:38
Acts 13:23
Acts 20:21
Romans 1:7
Romans 1:8
Romans 2:16
Romans 3:22
Romans 4:24
Romans 5:1
Romans 5:11
Romans 5:15
Romans 5:17
Romans 6:23
Romans 7:25
Romans 8:34
Romans 10:9
Romans 15:5
Romans 15:6
Romans 16:27
1 Corinthians 1:3
1 Corinthians 1:9
1 Corinthians 1:30
1 Corinthians 8:6
1 Corinthians 15:57
2 Corinthians 1:2
2 Corinthians 1:3
2 Corinthians 11:31
2 Corinthians 13:14
Galatians 1:1
Galatians 1:3
Ephesians 1:2
Ephesians 1:3
Ephesians 1:17
Ephesians 2:6
Ephesians 6:23
Philippians 1:2
Philippians 2:11
Colossians 1:3*
Colossians 3:17
1 Thessalonians 1:1
1 Thessalonians 1:3
1 Thessalonians 3:11
1 Thessalonians 3:13
1 Thessalonians 4:14
1 Thessalonians 5:9
2 Thessalonians 1:1
2 Thessalonians 1:2
2 Thessalonians 1:12
2 Thessalonians 2:16
1 Timothy 1:1
1 Timothy 1:2
1 Timothy 2:5
1 Timothy 5:21
1 Timothy 6:3
2 Timothy 1:1
2 Timothy 1:2
2 Timothy 4:1
Titus 1:4
Titus 2:13
Philemon 1:3
Hebrews 13:20
James 1:1
1 Peter 1:2
1 Peter 2:5
2 Peter 1:1
2 Peter 1:2
1 John 5:1*
1 John 5:20
2 John 1:3
Jude 1:1
Jude 1:4
Jude 1:21
Jude 1:25
Revelation 1:1
Revelation 1:2
Revelation 14:12
I agree but we also see that Jesus was called Everlasting Father. (Isaiah 9:6) Yet we know Jesus is the Son. Father here in Ephesians denoting one God(Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) and Father(to whom we are sons and he has ownership over all things as does 'the father of the household')
New Testament shows Christ's exaple of always pointing to the Father. The Father points to the Spirit and Son, The Son points to the Father and Spirit, The Spirit points to the Father and The Son. So the Godhead may be glorified. The three personas glorify each other through-out scripture. I won't be able to explain or show the relevance of each scripture you pointed out, just remember that Jesus was man and God. Never seperate the two parts, but know in which some cases it speaks of one part and not the other doesn't mean they are seperate.
Matthew 27:46-Jesus as man crying to the Father. Again pointing to the Father. Jesus Christ is a mortal example of how we should live our life.(Being the Word-John 1:1-is God)
Mark 1:24-Again talking about Jesus-Holy One of God.
Mark 10:18- Never says he isn't good. Gotta read the verse, he never answers there question with an answer, but another question. To see what they would say. When Peter called Jesus the Son of God, Jesus said that the Father had revealed this to him and no man did. That is what Jesus wanted from his questions, to see who truly seeked out God. Where there answer would come from, God or a man made answer.
Mark 15:34-same as answer for Matthew 27:46
Mark16:19- Jesus went and sat at the right hand of God, never says on a different throne.(You and two friends can share the same chair, who is at your right hand, the one friend. Even though you share the same chair.)
Luke 2:52-Jesus was still a man, he ate, drank, slept and grew in wisdom. Jesus was a mortal example.
Luke 6:12-Mortal example
Luke 18:19-same answer as Mark 10:18
John 3:2- to Jesus(mortal example) sent by God the Father, which the Jews din't realize the Tri-unity of God. They only knew him as Father.
John 8:42-Jesus was sent by God(The Father), Jesus went when he was sent by God-mortal example. God sends us were we should go, we are to go.
John 8:54-Jesus humbles himself to the lowly stature, God glorifies him.(Matthew 23:12,Luke 14:11,Luke 18:14,) Also Jesus being the Son-Phillipians 2:5-11.
John 9:3-Jesus(mortal example talking about God as His Father-Phillipians 2:5-11)
John 13:31-Without seperating The Word(Son of God/God the Son[of does not consist of ownership only but a part of something]) and Jesus(Son of Man) into two different people. They are a union.
John 14:1-a good example of Jesus showing him-self to be God in the Flesh. Emmanuel/Immanuel however ya spell it meaning God with us. (literally)
John 17:3-The Only true God(Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ-(Mortal example).
John 20:17-Mortal example, he humbled himself and being in a different position(as man) he showed the example to follow.
Acts 2:22- The man Jesus
Acts 2:32- The man Jesus
Acts 2:36- God made The man Jesus, Lord and Christ. Lord-stature over all things and Christ being the Annoited One(Savior of man).
Acts 3:13- The Word became flesh- then seeing his form as a man, he humbled himself to that of a servant. Phillipians 2:7 but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
Acts 5:30- Jesus- the mortal example
Acts 7:55- Ok same as before, they share same throne.
Acts 10:36-Acts 20:21 talk about Jesus(mortal example)
Romans 1:7-God(Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) our Fa
ther(not God the Father but the Trinity[our Tri-une God]) and from the Lord Jesus Christ(mortal example)
Romans 1:8 God(Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)-Jesus(mortal example)
Romans 2:16-God(our Tri-une God) will judge by Jesus Christ(mortal example of how we should live, that is what we are judged by)
Romans 3:22-Remeber Jesus is a mortal example.I have to stop here because the Library is closing. So here are some scriptures in the NIV i have for you-
John 5(whole chapter-mostly towards the end.) Jesus says Moses wrote about him, Well we know Moses only wrote about God. How can this be?
Collosians 2:9
Hebrews 1:8(I would put more but i have to go they are pushing me out.)
Hi Seekingtruth
Quote I don't believe that time is a product of the universe (however we do use the universe to quantify time).
According to Einsteins general theory of relativity time is irrevokably inter-related to space/matter. That is why we call it the time-space continuum. If you have no matter, you have no time. ALL matter was created by/through the Word of God. So, logically time, as we know it, had its origin then too. If you disagree with Einstein's theory, that's fine, you are entitled to do that, but I would be interested to know why.Quote I believe time existed prior to creation. “In the beginning” does not mean the beginning of time any more than “It all started with” does.
I wrote this to David about 40 pgs back i this thread (slightly modified), and think it's highly relavent to the points you made:“Since Christ actually created T, S & M (I will get to this soon) then it naturally follows that time began when Christ created it, He must have transcended time altogether and therefore be, by definition, time-less. John underscores this aspect of His eternality with the syntax he utilises and (especially) the tense. The verb “was” (Gr: eimi) is the used in the imperfect tense. That denotes a continuous action of the Word being in the past, or simply put: whenever the “beginning” was, the logos was already in existence. By using this construction John was making it clear that logos is without a beginning, He is time-less. It always surprises me to see people trying to make a case for the Father preceding the Word in terms of their “beginnings”. Words like “first”, “last”, “preceding”, “proceeding”, “before” and “after” are appropriate chronological terms to use onlyin the framework of our time-space continuum. There is no before and after in the context timelessness.
The juxtaposition of the two words used to describe the pre-incarnate existence of the Word and His incarnation is, I think, very provocative. The Greek word for “was” in John 1:1a is the imperfect verb “eimi” (continuous action, perpetuity), whereas John used the aorist verb “egeneto” to describing the incarnation in v 14 which, in contrast, happened at a fixed point in time. By using this contradistinction in terminology John delineated the eternal logos from the temporal nature of the “things” He created.”
I am interested in your thoughts on this.
Quote Jesus existed prior to creation but I believe as I've stated before that Jesus was a new manifestation of God with our reality. Just as a shadow is made manifest by light, prior to the light it did not exist but as long as the light is eternal so will the shadow be eternal.
The main problem I see with the concept that The Word was a manifestation of the living God is that they (the Word and the Father) had a meaningful relationship both pre and post incarnation. John chapter 17, bears this out quite clearly, I think. Its also clear that not only do they have a relationship, but LOVE eachother. Can a manifestation love its source and vise versa? Isn't that quintessentially 'self love'?Hi Is 1:18
I'll try to answer your questions to the best of my abilities.If you disagree with Einstein's theory, that's fine, you are entitled to do that, but I would be interested to know why.
I'm over 50 now and though out my life I've seen scientific dogma changed every so often. Man cannot understand eternity or time itself for that matter so although I believe Einstein to be brilliant I know in the end the scriptures will always true. To me begotten speaks of a beginning. Yet Jesus was used in all of creation so his beginning had to proceed creation. While trying to understand who Jesus was over many sleepless nights I believe I was given the revelation I've explained as best I could elsewhere in the forum. I will gladly discuss points and I do want to know if what I believe will lead myself or others to error. Personally I believe these are areas we can speculate on but not be dogmatic nor should we argue over them (arguing is different then discussing).
I don't know if I'd consider it fair for me to respond, as I read far more than I contribute to these discussions. However, from reading I think it's a bit of an unfair question to disprove the belief that Jesus had a beginning. God's thoughts are infinite, while ours are finite, time is just a subject human minds cannot fully comprehend, and never will. How can God have always existed, having no beginning and having no end? It blows our minds to try to understand.
Jesus I believe was begotten (had a beginning) perhaps even before time. Does that make sense to us? Not really. But, obviously before God created time he wasn't in a frozen state. Time didn't exist but his thoughts must have existed. If he thought of things, perhaps planning his creation of the universe, wouldn't time still progress? We would think so, but we can't comprehend it not existing.
God must be beyond time. I dont think “the beginning” really signifies anything, but more or less the beginning of the creation of Earth (as seen in Genesis 1). I believe God must have created Heaven and angels before he created Earth and beast. Am I correct? I can't say, this is just theology trying to answer questions we were never meant to know.
A more worrisome question (not to attack anyones beliefs but it really should be a simple question) for those who enter Heaven, what will God look like (if He's a trinity) when they see him? One being, who is three persons. Does God have three bodies bound together? Does he have three heads? Or does he just have multiple personalities? No one has ever seen God. But, we should know what God looks like, as Jesus is image of God, he who was seen Jesus has seen the Father, and we were made in His image.
Understanding time is not a topic we were meant to know, the God we worship is something we should know, as it is written: God is not a God of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33). I think God has perfectly displayed what we should know of Him, our sinful behaviour has twisted it dramatically, however. These are just my views.
Take care.
“Since Christ actually created T, S & M (I will get to this soon) then it naturally follows that time began when Christ created it, He must have transcended time altogether and therefore be, by definition, time-less. John underscores this aspect of His eternality with the syntax he utilises and (especially) the tense. The verb “was” (Gr: eimi) is the used in the imperfect tense. That denotes a continuous action of the Word being in the past, or simply put: whenever the “beginning” was, the logos was already in existence. By using this construction John was making it clear that logos is without a beginning, He is time-less. It always surprises me to see people trying to make a case for the Father preceding the Word in terms of their “beginnings”. Words like “first”, “last”, “preceding”, “proceeding”, “before” and “after” are appropriate chronological terms to use onlyin the framework of our time-space continuum. There is no before and after in the context timelessness.
The juxtaposition of the two words used to describe the pre-incarnate existence of the Word and His incarnation is, I think, very provocative. The Greek word for “was” in John 1:1a is the imperfect verb “eimi” (continuous action, perpetuity), whereas John used the aorist verb “egeneto” to describing the incarnation in v 14 which, in contrast, happened at a fixed point in time. By using this contradistinction in terminology John delineated the eternal logos from the temporal nature of the “things” He created.”
I am interested in your thoughts on this.
My thoughts mm… well you got me on the above, mostly cause I'm not sure what you said. Your obviously very intelligent but attacking me with English is just so unfair (just kidding).
Seriously though I really don't feel that I'm capable of holding up my end of a discussion on tense, verb, etc. (oh how I hate English) but I would like know if there is more than the above which leads you to believe that time was part of creation?
Obviously it may just be beyond me, but I do not see how time could not be outside of creation.
The main problem I see with the concept that The Word was a manifestation of the living God is that they (the Word and the Father) had a meaningful relationship both pre and post incarnation. John chapter 17, bears this out quite clearly, I think. Its also clear that not only do they have a relationship, but LOVE eachother. Can a manifestation love its source and vise versa? Isn't that quintessentially 'self love'?
I believe that God made our reality to exist outside of himself and the manifestation (Jesus) became a being that exists independently, other than that I agree with everything you've stated.
May God bless you.
Quote (jbl @ Mar. 12 2006,04:34) I don't know if I'd consider it fair for me to respond, as I read far more than I contribute to these discussions. However, from reading I think it's a bit of an unfair question to disprove the belief that Jesus had a beginning. God's thoughts are infinite, while ours are finite, time is just a subject human minds cannot fully comprehend, and never will. How can God have always existed, having no beginning and having no end? It blows our minds to try to understand. Jesus I believe was begotten (had a beginning) perhaps even before time. Does that make sense to us? Not really. But, obviously before God created time he wasn't in a frozen state. Time didn't exist but his thoughts must have existed. If he thought of things, perhaps planning his creation of the universe, wouldn't time still progress? We would think so, but we can't comprehend it not existing.
God must be beyond time. I dont think “the beginning” really signifies anything, but more or less the beginning of the creation of Earth (as seen in Genesis 1). I believe God must have created Heaven and angels before he created Earth and beast. Am I correct? I can't say, this is just theology trying to answer questions we were never meant to know.
A more worrisome question (not to attack anyones beliefs but it really should be a simple question) for those who enter Heaven, what will God look like (if He's a trinity) when they see him? One being, who is three persons. Does God have three bodies bound together? Does he have three heads? Or does he just have multiple personalities? No one has ever seen God. But, we should know what God looks like, as Jesus is image of God, he who was seen Jesus has seen the Father, and we were made in His image.
Understanding time is not a topic we were meant to know, the God we worship is something we should know, as it is written: God is not a God of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33). I think God has perfectly displayed what we should know of Him, our sinful behaviour has twisted it dramatically, however. These are just my views.
Take care.
I don't believe it's wrong to speculate, however I agree we need to be very careful when discussing items like this as they can led to arguments. To allow something like this to come between brothers would not be consistent with love.Quote Seriously though I really don't feel that I'm capable of holding up my end of a discussion on tense, verb, etc. (oh how I hate English)
Seekingtruth, you are an honest man. I have rarely seen anyone admit when they are out of their intellectual depth. Most will try to bluff there way out of it, or quietly disappear. Praise God for you.Quote but I would like know if there is more than the above which leads you to believe that time was part of creation
Well….Einstein's theory of general relativity, has been around for a while now and has been generally accepted…but more importantly it can be tested by observable evidence, and holds up. His theory established that time, space and matter all had a beginning and are all linked together, none can have a meaningful existence without the other. Therefore the dimension of time itself must have begun with the rest of the universe. This makes sense to me, but I have an open mind on this issue and will consider other ideas on their merit. I think it's also important to remember that YHWH is eternal and hence is not subject to the constraints of time. Why therefore would time have been required before creation when only YHWH existed?Blessings to you too.
Quote (seekingtruth @ Mar. 12 2006,06:11) I don't believe it's wrong to speculate, however I agree we need to be very careful when discussing items like this as they can led to arguments. To allow something like this to come between brothers would not be consistent with love.
You are a wise man too.Quote (Sultan @ Mar. 11 2006,10:02) If Jesus was 100% God and 100% man then where is the room for growth? And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man. (Luke 2:52)
My point is not to argue whether Christ was both God and man because the scriptures testify of that, but my challenge is still against the man made doctrine of the trinity, and it's assumptions. If the Trinity is true then Luke 2 must be false. How can Jesus grow in wisdom if He is already 100%, and how can He grow in favour with God?
I'll just place this here. Since the topic is on the Trinity and not time, I wanted to try and get back on track.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
