- This topic has 18,300 replies, 268 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Hi Is
Quote I think Yeshua said this with an eyebrow raised….in a “do you realise what it is you are inferring?” kind of way I think he did too
Hi P,
Some would urge you to read between the lines and see that really he was saying he actually is God.
No.
What is written is truth.
The rest is from the fantastic imaginations of natural men.Quote (Tim2 @ April 03 2007,23:53) Ken, I'm glad you realize that this is a matter of eternal condemnation. I was a little shy of bringing that up, but thanks be to God that it has been brought up. The fact is, if the Trinity is correct, then those who reject the Trinity are not saved. And if the Trinity is not correct, then those who worship the Trinity are not saved. So that's why we're here, I hope, we're trying to save each other from damnable heresies.
If you are right that the Trinity is a product of the heretical Roman Catholic church, then Luther, Calvin, and all Protestants who follow them are equally damned. In that case, the seed of Abraham is quite small, scarcely as great as the stars above.
But if the Trinity is heresy, then why did Jesus tell us to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?
If you really did receive a word from the Holy Spirit, why don't you publish a new Bible, with a chapter after Revelation, with one verse: “The Holy Spirit told me that God is two persons in one Spirit.”
Tim
“If you really did receive a word from the Holy Spirit, why don't you publish a new Bible, with a chapter after Revelation, with one verse: “The Holy Spirit told me that God is two persons in one Spirit.”I don't have to write a new bible the one we have agrees with the Spirit. If you had the Spirit (or at least heard the Spirit) you would know that.
I don't add or change the word the Pope your god does that.
You follow the Harlot's doctrine then you are OF the Harlot.
No one is judged right now, judgement day is not here. We are in the last day message “Come out of Her my people”. I believe some will find the truth (admit they were deceived) late in the game and will come out of her. I pray that you are one of them!It is obvious that you have never received or at least you don't hear the Holy Spirit being full of the spirit of the Harlot and yourself pride.
What name did the apostles baptize in? What is the Holy Spirit's name?
Did the apostles reject the command of Jesus baptizing in Jesus' name???
In all Paul's salutations there is no mention of the Holy Spirit.
1Co 1:3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Greetings from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Where is the Holy Spirit? When Paul sent greetings from God; he sent greetings from the Holy Spirit. You said the the Holy Spirit is God I agree two persons in one Spirit. That's why the Holy Spirit has no name and is NOT a separate person.
If Someone who follows the Harlot and her doctrines should die while being deceived they would have to go through the millinnum to learn the truth then once again be tempted of your father Satan. Satan's bride is the Harlot. Her children are the protestant religions and all that hold to her false doctrines.
Sir no one is damned YET only deceived but the bible does say that Satan's children of the Harlot will reject the government of God and that their number is as sand.
“The fact is, if the Trinity is correct, then those who reject the Trinity are not saved”.
I see you are not sure “~IF~ the Trinity is correct”. Just like the Harlot for she has said in past that if you don't belong to her you are doomed. Never mind your heart. Never mind that Jesus shed His blood for you. None of that matters the only thing that matters is if you follow the Whore of babylon.
I pray that you are not too far gone. She does seems to have a good hold on you
Sir I see no need to correspond with you because you are long winded being void of the truth, but full of the Harlot.
You seek to argue your mother's doctrine and do not want the truth.IHN&L,
Ken
Quote (Phoenix @ April 04 2007,10:16) In my opinion he might as well have said…. “Dont call me good… only God alone is good”
Right, God alone is good, and Jesus call Himself the good shepherd, so …Ken,
Thanks for labelling all Protestants those who follow the Harlot. It must feel nice to know that you're right and everyone else is wrong.
You agree that the Holy Spirit is God. You don't think He's a person. How then can something that's not a person speak (Acts 8:29, 10:19, *13:2*). Think about Acts 13:2 -The Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saulf for the work I have called them.” You're telling me all Catholics and Protestants are condemned for calling someone who speaks, who calls Himself “Me” and “I,” a person? He's called a parakletos in John 14:26. That's a personal title.
I said, “If the Trinity is correct,” as gesture of goodwill to reach out to you. The fact is the Trinity is correct.
You say the Holy Spirit doesn't have a name. Jesus says He has the same name as Him and His Father in Matthew 28:19.
Tim
Hi Tim2,
Did you not know the Spirit is the finger of God[Lk11cf Mt12] doing all the works of God in His creation?Sorry Nick, can you point out the specific verse?
Don't you know that the Spirit is the Lord, and we behold His glory as in a mirror (2 Corinthians 3:17-18).
Hi tim2
Compare these parallel verses
LK11
18If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out devils through Beelzebub.19And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your sons cast them out? therefore shall they be your judges.
20But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.
Mt 12
26And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?27And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.
28But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
Is your finger another person from you?
2Cor 3
16Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.17Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
18But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.
Christ is manifest among the members of his body on earth as the Spirit of Christ.
Hi Nick,
So you believe the Spirit is the finger of God? That's quite an inference.
But at least, like you said, the Lord is that Spirit. Let's worship Him.
Tim
Quote (Tim2 @ April 05 2007,06:59) Quote (Phoenix @ April 04 2007,10:16) In my opinion he might as well have said…. “Dont call me good… only God alone is good”
Right, God alone is good, and Jesus call Himself the good shepherd, so …
He doesnt say God. He says Shepherd of GodQuote (Phoenix @ April 04 2007,20:56) Quote (Tim2 @ April 05 2007,06:59) Quote (Phoenix @ April 04 2007,10:16) In my opinion he might as well have said…. “Dont call me good… only God alone is good”
Right, God alone is good, and Jesus call Himself the good shepherd, so …
He doesnt say God. He says Shepherd of God
Phoenix,I don't see “Shepherd of God” in John 10:11 or 10:14.
The Shepherd, by the way, is YHWH (Psalm 23:1).
Thus, Jesus is claiming to be “good” (only God) and the shepherd (YHWH).
Tim
Quote (Tim2 @ April 04 2007,20:50) Hi Nick, So you believe the Spirit is the finger of God? That's quite an inference.
But at least, like you said, the Lord is that Spirit. Let's worship Him.
Tim
Hi Tim2,
So you think the scriptures are not parallel?
Then what did Jesus mean in Lk 11?
Did he say he was working in his own divine powers or that of the Spirit?
Is the Spirit separate from God?Quote (Tim2 @ April 04 2007,21:32) Quote (Phoenix @ April 04 2007,20:56) Quote (Tim2 @ April 05 2007,06:59) Quote (Phoenix @ April 04 2007,10:16) In my opinion he might as well have said…. “Dont call me good… only God alone is good”
Right, God alone is good, and Jesus call Himself the good shepherd, so …
He doesnt say God. He says Shepherd of God
Phoenix,I don't see “Shepherd of God” in John 10:11 or 10:14.
The Shepherd, by the way, is YHWH (Psalm 23:1).
Thus, Jesus is claiming to be “good” (only God) and the shepherd (YHWH).
Tim
Hi Tim2,
You make Christ out to be a speaker of riddles.
I rather believe he spoke for the ears of childrenHi Nick,
Christ spoke very clearly. He said that God alone is good. Then he called Himself good. Where's the riddle?
Tim
Hi Tim2,
So we children of God are meant to read between the lines?
No.
Christ spoke plainly.
He told us he has a God, and God is the Father and true worshipers worship the Father.
That should be plain enough.Is 1:18,
I approve of the tone in your last post, so you can start sleeping better at night again.
In all seriousness, I did not take offense to what you wrote. Ironically, I was just being obnoxious. I understand that posts of this nature will have a certain element of combativeness to them, so feel free to call it like you see it, as bluntly as you feel comfortable.
I wrote previously:
Quote Well, I have decided to embrace the extra-biblical musings of the church fathers, and add a modest improvement of my own. Why not evolve the doctrine even further into a Trinity within a Trinity? Instead of a dual natured Christ, why not make him “tri-natured”, completing the divine mathematical formula? Afterall, why limit Jesus to existing merely as God and man, when he could be described as God, man, and angel? Certainly, I need not recount all of the Trinitarian assertions that Christ appeared as the angel of the LORD in the Old Testament. There are even passages that show men falling down before this angel in worship. Obviously, Jesus, the Man, had not yet appeared on the scene, and Jesus, the God, no man can see. So, clearly, it was Jesus, the Angel, who dabbled in the earthly realm in those days. And, since angel beings are a different ontological category from both God and man, Jesus must have had to take on the nature of angels, in addition to the natures of God and man, in order to appear as he did. You wrote:
Quote This would be a great point if: 1) Trinitarians universally held that the “angel of the Lord” was the pre-incarnate Yeshua.
The fact that there is any dispute among Trinitarians on this point proves that there is a need for an evolution in the doctrine. In fact, after working this through with you, and other Trinitarians, I hope to call a council in Trenton – (New Jersey, that is) – so that I can put forth a new version of the Athanasian Creed that will include the new “tri-nature” of Christ clause. Of course, at that point, any Trinitarian who does not agree with this plank of the doctrine will be anathema! (I admit though that this new doctrine will be hard to enforce if we don't bring back the traditional methods of threatening all reluctant converts with death or exile.)
You wrote:
Quote This would be a great point if: …
2) The word angel (malakh = messenger) is exclusively applicable to the “hosts” of heaven, the created spirit beings of ontology intermediate to man and God.
I hate to point this out to you, but the word “god”, (el = “mighty one”), is not exclusively used for a being of a specific ontology either. So, if you are arguing that any use of the word “angel” is insufficient, on its own, to prove that the being desribed is angelic in nature, then you are cutting the legs out from underneath the Trinitarian plank that Jesus is God because he appears to be called “god” on a few occasions. Clearly, there are beings whose ontology differ from God and man, and those beings are best described as angels. Or, do you claim there is no such class of being?
You wrote:
Quote This would be a great point if: …
3. There wasn't such a high degree of ambiguity in ascertaining whether “the angel of the Lord” was a messenger acting on behalf of YHWH or YHWH. As this identity did frequently take ownership of the prerogatives of YHWH and refer to Himself as “YHWH” (Gen 16:7-13, 21:12-13, 22:10-16, 31:11-13; Exodus 3:2-7, Numbers 22:34-35, 22:38, 23:12; Judges 2.1-4….), which would be incomprehensible for a mere appointed messenger.
Yes, that's all very amusing, but since no one has seen God, (John 1:18), and no one can see God, (1 Timothy 1:17), the being seen in those passages had to be an angel being. And, at the same time, that being had to be God, because, as you pointed out, he identified himself as such. In fact, let's look at one of your examples.
Exodus 3:
2 And the Angel of [YHWH] appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed. 3 Then Moses said, “I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush does not burn.”
4 So when [YHWH] saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!”
And he said, “Here I am.”
5 Then He said, “Do not draw near this place. Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground.” 6 Moreover He said, “I am the God of your father—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God.
7 And [YHWH] said: “I have surely seen the oppression of My people who are in Egypt, and have heard their cry because of their taskmasters, for I know their sorrows.The principle actor in this passage is identified as YHWH, even though the being described at the beginning of this passage is an angel. Which is it? Is the being God or an angel? Well, I am glad that you asked. I say that it must be both. This is the tri-natured Christ, (who is only dual natured at this point), being fully God and fully angel at the same time! How gloriously mysterious! How else would you explain it? And for added confirmation we have this description of the principle figure in this passage by a Holy Spirit filled Stephen in Acts 7:30:
“And when forty years were fulfilled, an angel appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in a flame of fire in a bush.”
I must say, the more that I look into this, the more this doctrine looks biblically sound, especially when accounting for “all the biblical data”.
Have you any other objections to the doctrine – scriptural ones, I would hope?
(Again, for the record, for those who are unaware of my beliefs, I do not believe that Yeshua is YHWH. The preceding is simply an example of how I understand the Trinity doctrine to work, which in is too 1) come up with a philosophical construct, 2) account for possible objections within that construct, then 3) interpret all scripture through this extra-biclical construct after the fact.)
Hey Tim2,
Feel free to comment on my post above. As the newest Trinitarian on the block, I imagine that the proposition for a new and updated version of the Trinity doctrine would interest you.
Hi WIT,
The odd thing is that those who are pleased to allow the further evolution of the trinity theory of God are often against the far more likely to be true [though not] evolutionary theory of Darwin.Certainly there is a strong move to allow in the angel of the lord,[ but no other angels because they are different being created??], to be included and we await with bated breath the next exciting developments in the folly of men.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
