- This topic has 18,300 replies, 268 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 04 2007,22:13) 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?
Hi Nick,I think the Scriptures are parallel. The “finger of God” may be a title or an indication for the Spirit. Does this mean the Spirit is part of God? I don't think so. You think it does. But if that's your inference, then you have to believe God has other parts, and all those parts are in Jesus: 1. His word, 2. His power, 3. His wisdom.
If all these parts of God are in other beings, what's left of Him that is God?
Tim
Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 04 2007,22:54) 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.
Nick,I fail to see where we have to read between the lines. Jesus said that God alone is good. Then he called himself good. All we have to do is read those two lines.
Tim
Nick,
Oh yeah, and Thomas told us plainly that Jesus is God. He's an apostle of the Lord. I suggest you listen to him.
Tim
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ April 04 2007,23:20) 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 Athanasian Creed didn't update the doctrine of the Trinity. It merely stated the doctrine of God that is found in Scripture. I've shown verses to support all of its assertions, and all the responses I've gotten have been logical objections, like the one Nick puts up every hour: “Jesus might be called God, but His Father is called God, so, uh, Jesus isn't God.” So it seems to me that people are attacking the Trinity because it seems illogical, not because it is unscriptural. The Trinity doctrine is Scriptural. The people who object to it simply don't accept all of the Scriptural assertions of the deity of Christ and the personality of the Spirit.
The point of that rant is that there's nothing in the Athanasian Creed to update, unless you want to update the Bible.
As for Jesus being an angel, I don't believe there are any verses that say Jesus is an angel. We have verses that Jesus is God (John 20:28), and verses that say He is man (1 Timothy 2:5). That is what the Athanasian Creed and the Definition of Chalcedon are repeating.
Tim
Tim2,
Thanks for your response. I appreciate your opinion that the Athanasian creed needs no update, but I would ask you this one question for clarification:
Who do you say the person is in Exodus 3:2-7 and Acts 7:30?
a. a mere angel
b. YHWH, but not Jesus, and certainly not a mere angel
c. Jesus, but not an angel
d. Jesus, the Angel of YHWH
e. none of the above.Thanks.
Quote (Tim2 @ April 05 2007,00:45) Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 04 2007,22:13) 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?
Hi Nick,I think the Scriptures are parallel. The “finger of God” may be a title or an indication for the Spirit. Does this mean the Spirit is part of God? I don't think so. You think it does. But if that's your inference, then you have to believe God has other parts, and all those parts are in Jesus: 1. His word, 2. His power, 3. His wisdom.
If all these parts of God are in other beings, what's left of Him that is God?
Tim
Hi Tim2,
I do not believe God has parts,.
Some trinitarians do and they believe part of God died.
How silly.No I said the Spirit is a manifestation of God, an aspect of God and Christ was filled with the fullness of God's deity as Spirit.
God is in heaven where Jesus told us to pray to Him but He manifests within creation by His Spirit.
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ April 05 2007,01:22) Tim2, Thanks for your response. I appreciate your opinion that the Athanasian creed needs no update, but I would ask you this one question for clarification:
Who do you say the person is in Exodus 3:2-7 and Acts 7:30?
a. a mere angel
b. YHWH, but not Jesus, and certainly not a mere angel
c. Jesus, but not an angel
d. Jesus, the Angel of YHWH
e. none of the above.Thanks.
Hi WIT,Exodus 3 says that the angel is in the bush, and it says that God is in the bush. Thus, the angel is identified as YHWH, as is often the case in the OT. I will defer to the text and accept that this angel is in fact YHWH.
Since no one has ever seen God, but the God the one and only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known (John 1:18), I believe that this angel is Jesus, the Logos, before he became flesh.
Thus, I believe that Jesus appeared to man as an angel, or was at least called an angel, in the New Testament. I don't believe this means that Jesus actually became an angel in the sense of having the same nature as those in the heavenly host.
However, just because Jesus appeared as an angel at certain moments in the past does not mean He has retained that nature, if He had it at all. However, we know that Jesus still has the natures of God and man today. That is why the creeds assert He only has those two natures.
Tim
Quote (Tim2 @ April 04 2007,20:09) 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
“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?
*Jesus has a separate name. The Father has a name. The Holy Spirit is God and is not a third separate person and therefore has no name. If the Holy Spirit is a separate person then Paul ignored Him.
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
————–
MAN—FIRST DAYQuote (Tim2 @ April 05 2007,02:23) Quote (WhatIsTrue @ April 05 2007,01:22) Tim2, Thanks for your response. I appreciate your opinion that the Athanasian creed needs no update, but I would ask you this one question for clarification:
Who do you say the person is in Exodus 3:2-7 and Acts 7:30?
a. a mere angel
b. YHWH, but not Jesus, and certainly not a mere angel
c. Jesus, but not an angel
d. Jesus, the Angel of YHWH
e. none of the above.Thanks.
Hi WIT,Exodus 3 says that the angel is in the bush, and it says that God is in the bush. Thus, the angel is identified as YHWH, as is often the case in the OT. I will defer to the text and accept that this angel is in fact YHWH.
Since no one has ever seen God, but the God the one and only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known (John 1:18), I believe that this angel is Jesus, the Logos, before he became flesh.
Thus, I believe that Jesus appeared to man as an angel, or was at least called an angel, in the New Testament. I don't believe this means that Jesus actually became an angel in the sense of having the same nature as those in the heavenly host.
However, just because Jesus appeared as an angel at certain moments in the past does not mean He has retained that nature, if He had it at all. However, we know that Jesus still has the natures of God and man today. That is why the creeds assert He only has those two natures.
Tim
Hi Tim,
This looks like significant progress in the evolution of trinity.
It is free from scriptural restraints and is heading off deep into the swamps of confusion.
Good luck.Tim2,
You wrote:
Quote Exodus 3 says that the angel is in the bush, and it says that God is in the bush. Thus, the angel is identified as YHWH, as is often the case in the OT. I will defer to the text and accept that this angel is in fact YHWH. Since no one has ever seen God, but the God the one and only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known (John 1:18), I believe that this angel is Jesus, the Logos, before he became flesh.
Magnificent! So you agree that Jesus is both fully God and fully angel in this passage. That certainly seems like an endorsement of the doctrine that I am proposing.
You wrote:
Quote Thus, I believe that Jesus appeared to man as an angel, or was at least called an angel, in the New Testament. I don't believe this means that Jesus actually became an angel in the sense of having the same nature as those in the heavenly host. However, just because Jesus appeared as an angel at certain moments in the past does not mean He has retained that nature, if He had it at all. However, we know that Jesus still has the natures of God and man today. That is why the creeds assert He only has those two natures.
That sounds like a logical objection and not a scriptural one. Stephen does not identify the figure in the Exodus passage as Jesus. He, being full of the Holy Spirit, identified him as an angel! Why would he do this if it was not an angelic being that appeared in the bush?
Furthermore, I don't see any scripture that suggests that Jesus ever gave up his angelic nature. Do you? In fact, Hebrews 1:9 strongly implies that angels are Jesus's companions.
Why do you protest this biblically based doctrine?
Hi WIT,
As Is1:8 pointed out, we don't have an ontological category for angel. All we know for certain is that it means messenger. One of the angels in the OT is called God repeatedly, and in Exodus 3 the angel appears to be identified as YHWH. Stephen says there was an angel (which still means messenger) and that Moses heard the voice of the Lord. He doesn't resolve the matter one way or another. I believe there is no god other than YHWH. So unless the people who saw this angel were afraid of false gods, I believe they were seeing YHWH. But we know that no one can see the Father, but the one and only God has made Him known, so this can only be the Logos.
Is it definitely the Logos? I don't know. We're not required to know. That's why it's left out of the creeds, because the saints are not certain. But the saints are certain that Jesus is not an angel today. For He has “become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they.” Hebrews 1:4.
In any event, the saints are certain of everything in the creeds because everything in the creeds is in the Bible. The Bible says the Jesus is God and that He is man.
Tim
Hi Tim2,
I cannot find 'ontological' in the bible.
That is because it is not there but is a theological tool.
We should rather study the bible according to the bible lest we fall into the traps of men..Hi Nick,
I was responding to WIT, who I believe agreed to the use of the term.
But for you, I'll keep it simple. Jesus is not an angel.
Tim
Hi Tim2,
Why not keep it simple all the time?
Therin is safety
2cor 11
“1Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me.2For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
3But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
4For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
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”
Okay, well your quite entitled to interpret it as you see fit. However…..
That interpretation has an unspoked assertion that comes with it, which is- Yeshua is in some sense not good. I guess we would both agree that Yeshua, in Mark 10:18, was speaking of absolute goodness. Only God is absolutely good. Even bad men can be said to be “good” in a relative sense. So the question is Phoenix, was Yeshua, as He was portrayed in the NT, only relatively good?
I have some thoughts but i'd like to read what you think about this.
Blessings
Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 04 2007,10:43) 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.
Hi NH,
Given that Yeshua did not explicitly confirm or deny that He was good (or God) in the Mark 10:18 text, you have to read between the lines no matter how you interpret his statement.I asked you yesterday if you every doctrine you hold to and espouse is explicitly written in scripture, but you didn't answer. I'd really appreciate a 'yes' or 'no' answer to this question. I'll explain why when I get one…..
Cheers
Quote (Tim2 @ April 05 2007,04:27) Hi WIT, As Is1:8 pointed out, we don't have an ontological category for angel. All we know for certain is that it means messenger. One of the angels in the OT is called God repeatedly, and in Exodus 3 the angel appears to be identified as YHWH. Stephen says there was an angel (which still means messenger) and that Moses heard the voice of the Lord. He doesn't resolve the matter one way or another. I believe there is no god other than YHWH. So unless the people who saw this angel were afraid of false gods, I believe they were seeing YHWH. But we know that no one can see the Father, but the one and only God has made Him known, so this can only be the Logos.
Is it definitely the Logos? I don't know. We're not required to know. That's why it's left out of the creeds, because the saints are not certain. But the saints are certain that Jesus is not an angel today. For He has “become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they.” Hebrews 1:4.
In any event, the saints are certain of everything in the creeds because everything in the creeds is in the Bible. The Bible says the Jesus is God and that He is man.
Tim
That's well explained Tim. I was hoping that WIT would have taken my point that there is nothing in the term “malak” itself that demands a “hosts of heaven” meaning….it simply denotes a messenger.But I think he knew that and is just having some fun with us…..Gee, I guess the jokes on us……
Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 05 2007,08:36) Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 04 2007,10:43) 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.
Hi NH,
Given that Yeshua did not explicitly confirm or deny that He was good (or God) in the Mark 10:18 text, you have to read between the lines no matter how you interpret his statement.I asked you yesterday if you every doctrine you hold to and espouse is explicitly written in scripture, but you didn't answer. I'd really appreciate a 'yes' or 'no' answer to this question. I'll explain why when I get one…..
Cheers
Hi Is 1.18,
I am just a searcher
straining verse against verse
to extract truth.Quote I am just a searcher
straining verse against verse
to extract truth.
Is that a yes or no? It's neither…Please, for once, can I just have a straight answer from you??
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
