- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi WJ,
Really?
He did not claim to be an ultimate source of anything.
He ascribed all powers and teachings to His Father God.Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 20 2008,09:56) Hi WJ,
Really?
He did not claim to be an ultimate source of anything.
He ascribed all powers and teachings to His Father God.
NHYou know the Unitarians like GB and Mandy and Gm have you on this.
Can you give me a verse pre-incarnation where Yeshua ascribed all powers and teachings to his Father, like when he “Laid the foundations of the World”?
You use your preexisting theology when it is to your advantage against the Unitarians and then abondon that to speak of Yeshua's words post Phil 2. when trying to reduce Yeshua to less than God in nature.
Laughable!
to all…..1 cor15:27…> for He (God) hath put all things under his feet, (BUT) when He (GOD) saith all things; are put under him, it is MANIFEST that He (GOD) is Excepted, which did put all things under him. The Father is in complete control of everything He is SOVEREIGN. And the ONLY TRUE GOD, as Jesus said.
peace……gene
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 20 2008,10:17) Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 20 2008,09:56) Hi WJ,
Really?
He did not claim to be an ultimate source of anything.
He ascribed all powers and teachings to His Father God.
NHYou know the Unitarians like GB and Mandy and Gm have you on this.
Can you give me a verse pre-incarnation where Yeshua ascribed all powers and teachings to his Father, like when he “Laid the foundations of the World”?
You use your preexisting theology when it is to your advantage against the Unitarians and then abondon that to speak of Yeshua's words post Phil 2. when trying to reduce Yeshua to less than God in nature.
Laughable!
HJi WJ,
It is Jesus himself who said this.
John 10:29
My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.Why will you not believe?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 20 2008,09:46) Hi DK Quote (dirtyknections @ June 20 2008,09:06)
The trinity is not taught in scripture…pre constantine Christians did not preach, teach, believe, or even know of the doctrine…neither did the apostles…History shows otherwise.
Quote (dirtyknections @ June 20 2008,09:06)
All scholars agree on these facts…therefore I choose to not add to the word of GOD…the trinity to me is as “unconceived yet believed” as the “doctrine” that “the devil is not real..he is only evil within”..or “all will be saved”…Your opinion.
Quote (dirtyknections @ June 20 2008,09:06)
This to all trinitarians on the sight…explain Revelation 1:1How could Jesus while in Heaven be given knowledge he did not know..if he is GOD the Father?
Does Rev 1:1 tell you “When” Yeshua received the Revelation that he gave to the churches?
Even you believe that he preexisted and yet “Grew in grace and in the knowledge of God”.
All you have to do is put this with Phil 2 and these verses…
Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God; John 13:3
All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you. John 16:15
Then Paul says…
In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Col 2:3
All that Yeshua emptied himself of when he left the Glory that he shared with the Father in the form of God has now returned to him. Yeshua having received again all the Power and Glory and wisdom and knowledge of God that he created the universe by, now gives John the Revelation.
Or do you think that when Yeshua was born a little baby he had all the knowledge and wisdom he had before he came in the flesh? You do believe in his preexistence dont you?
So DK, unless you can show me “when” he received the Revelation you simply make another ambiguous attempt to prove the Trinitarian view as false.
WJ…Its obvious he recieved this revelation after he ascended to heaven..therefore trinity debunked…
History…shows otherwise? Prove it
Why, for thousands of years, did none of God's prophets teach his people about the Trinity? At the least, would Jesus not use his ability as the Great Teacher to make the Trinity clear to his followers? Would God inspire hundreds of pages of Scripture and yet not use any of this instruction to teach the Trinity if it were the “central doctrine” of faith?
http://www.nabion.org/html/trinity.html..
Trinity is the only Gnostic concept to have ever remained and taken root in mainstream Christian thinking. The word does not exist in the accepted books of the current New Testament. It is something alluded to in concept by the reiteration of the 2nd and 3rd century AD Catholic formula: “Father, Son and Holy Ghost.” This is found, amazingly, in the end of Matthew where Jesus gives them his final instruction before ascending into heaven, and, lo and behold, the latter day Catholic benediction follows (Matthew 28): “And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
However, in the book of Acts of the Apostles, penned by Luke who was an actual eyewitness to the early events of the Apostolic Age, the Apostles only baptized in the name of Jesus. (Acts 2:38) “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” This is true also of Paul, who in his epistles makes no references to the concept of trinity. These are just a couple of examples of where actual application in the apostolic age shows that a supposed earlier (from their point of view) instruction (such as in Matthew 28) did not occur.
The introductions and benedictions of the letters of Ignatius (circa 107 AD) and Polycarp (circa 130 AD) maintain the same formula as in all apostolic New Testament letters except inverting the precedence, now with Jesus Christ coming first instead of God the Father. This noteworthy change helps textual and Biblical students to date certain New Testament era writings, plus New Testament apocryphal writings. There is still no such mention of the “Holy Ghost” in any of the benedictions and salutations. Jews never regarded God’s own spirit as a separate entity. Just when that little ditty was added to Matthew no one knows, but it had to be toward the latter part of the 2nd century, if not later.
As the church became an almost wholly Gentile institution there were clear problems encountered between the Jewish origin of the religion and the Greek Gnostic rationalizing that was entering the church. Many Greeks could not believe that corrupt flesh could be one with the Spirit of God, and therefore they rationalized a whole slough of ideas to make the Messiah conform to their Greek background and prejudices. Docetism was born to show Jesus was not born. Then there was Valentinus who even saw fit by esoteric means to describe Jesus’ pure digestive system. Fragment E of the Epistle to Agathapous reads: “He was continent, enduring all things. Jesus digested divinity; he ate and drank in a special way, without excreting his solids. He had such a great capacity for continence that the nourishment within him was not corrupted, for he did not experience corruption.”
Already by the time of Cerinthus (circa late 1st century) there was an ongoing attempt to rationalize the divinity of Jesus, especially in light of the firm scriptural stance on “One God.” Coupled with Greek Stoic and Gnostic contempt for the flesh, several peculiar divisions between God and Jesus were proposed.
One was from the Naassene Gnostics who thrived during the time of Trajan and Hadrian. They clearly possessed the Gospel of John, which in its early days was first used exclusively by Gnostics because it was so Gnostic, often engaging, oratorical, and mystically Greek. Hippolytus describes their unusual views of a Triethism— the earliest term discovered referring to a Trinity.
It is Christian counter-philosophy to explain to Greeks the actual unity of God while at the same time trumping Cerinthian Gnosticism, and explaining why Jesus is God but that he is also Jesus. It may not be accurate, and should not be regarded as holy oracle, but it was explaining to Greeks the things of Hebrew writings they never had and Hebrew prophecy they had no cultural way of understanding. This must be remembered at all times by Jews and modern Christians— Gentiles back then had little knowledge of Scripture or Hebrew culture. They would naturally try and rationalize what they were being told. That neither makes their rationalizations heresy or the counter explanations by the church holy writ. Church leaders were trying to put Judaism and Christianity into Greek thought.
This, however, opens the door on the problem today: that Jews are told that Trinity is holy oracle when it is not. It was passing counter philosophy to stop the separation that Gnostics were proposing. The Gnostics themselves were grappling with trying to understand how Jesus can be God if there is but one God. The omnipresence and omnipotence of God was not understood.
The excessive overkill to link God to Jesus as the Christ, while yet not being able to explain how they are still separate, eventually had the Spirit added to it. The concept of Trinity was eventually ingrained until it became an article of faith, though it is proclaimed to be a mystery how God can be one but there are three entities to him. Many examples are used, like an egg or an apple; but none of those preachers trying to rationalize it know they are close to Naassene rationalizations for a Triethism. It is incomprehensible because it is irrational and opposed to the word of God. God is one and unique.
The sad result of not remaining firmly based in Scripture was to create a Trinity, 3 in one, working in tandem. There were many examples of this in Roman religion, such as the Capitoline Triad of Jupiter, Juno and Minerva. Trinity is a less “Gnostic” Naassene Tritheism, one meant in all good Christian Greek philosophizing to destroy it and show that all things are represented by the Christian trinity that is united in Christ. However laudable and understandable it was back then, it clung to a church that outlived the Gnostics, outlived Greek philosophy, and outlived the concept of gods being represented in varied forms to express incarnations of their various attributes. It is simply time that the church realizes it must outlive some of its counter rationalizing and realize it must stop calling some of this holy word.
Quote (dirtyknections @ June 20 2008,12:59) Why, for thousands of years, did none of God's prophets teach his people about the Trinity? At the least, would Jesus not use his ability as the Great Teacher to make the Trinity clear to his followers? Would God inspire hundreds of pages of Scripture and yet not use any of this instruction to teach the Trinity if it were the “central doctrine” of faith? http://www.nabion.org/html/trinity.html..
Trinity is the only Gnostic concept to have ever remained and taken root in mainstream Christian thinking. The word does not exist in the accepted books of the current New Testament. It is something alluded to in concept by the reiteration of the 2nd and 3rd century AD Catholic formula: “Father, Son and Holy Ghost.” This is found, amazingly, in the end of Matthew where Jesus gives them his final instruction before ascending into heaven, and, lo and behold, the latter day Catholic benediction follows (Matthew 28): “And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
However, in the book of Acts of the Apostles, penned by Luke who was an actual eyewitness to the early events of the Apostolic Age, the Apostles only baptized in the name of Jesus. (Acts 2:38) “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” This is true also of Paul, who in his epistles makes no references to the concept of trinity. These are just a couple of examples of where actual application in the apostolic age shows that a supposed earlier (from their point of view) instruction (such as in Matthew 28) did not occur.
The introductions and benedictions of the letters of Ignatius (circa 107 AD) and Polycarp (circa 130 AD) maintain the same formula as in all apostolic New Testament letters except inverting the precedence, now with Jesus Christ coming first instead of God the Father. This noteworthy change helps textual and Biblical students to date certain New Testament era writings, plus New Testament apocryphal writings. There is still no such mention of the “Holy Ghost” in any of the benedictions and salutations. Jews never regarded God’s own spirit as a separate entity. Just when that little ditty was added to Matthew no one knows, but it had to be toward the latter part of the 2nd century, if not later.
As the church became an almost wholly Gentile institution there were clear problems encountered between the Jewish origin of the religion and the Greek Gnostic rationalizing that was entering the church. Many Greeks could not believe that corrupt flesh could be one with the Spirit of God, and therefore they rationalized a whole slough of ideas to make the Messiah conform to their Greek background and prejudices. Docetism was born to show Jesus was not born. Then there was Valentinus who even saw fit by esoteric means to describe Jesus’ pure digestive system. Fragment E of the Epistle to Agathapous reads: “He was continent, enduring all things. Jesus digested divinity; he ate and drank in a special way, without excreting his solids. He had such a great capacity for continence that the nourishment within him was not corrupted, for he did not experience corruption.”
Already by the time of Cerinthus (circa late 1st century) there was an ongoing attempt to rationalize the divinity of Jesus, especially in light of the firm scriptural stance on “One God.” Coupled with Greek Stoic and Gnostic contempt for the flesh, several peculiar divisions between God and Jesus were proposed.
One was from the Naassene Gnostics who thrived during the time of Trajan and Hadrian. They clearly possessed the Gospel of John, which in its early days was first used exclusively by Gnostics because it was so Gnostic, often engaging, oratorical, and mystically Greek. Hippolytus describes their unusual views of a Triethism— the earliest term discovered referring to a Trinity.
It is Christian counter-philosophy to explain to Greeks the actual unity of God while at the same time trumping Cerinthian Gnosticism, and explaining why Jesus is God but that he is also Jesus. It may not be accurate, and should not be regarded as holy oracle, but it was explaining to Greeks the things of Hebrew writings they never had and Hebrew prophecy they had no cultural way of understanding. This must be remembered at all times by Jews and modern Christians— Gentiles back then had little knowledge of Scripture or Hebrew culture. They would naturally try and rationalize what they were being told. That neither makes their rationalizations heresy or the counter explanations by the church holy writ. Church leaders were trying to put Judaism and Christianity into Greek thought.
This, however, opens the door on the problem today: that Jews are told that Trinity is holy oracle when it is not. It was passing counter philosophy to stop the separation that Gnostics were proposing. The Gnostics themselves were grappling with trying to understand how Jesus can be God if there is but one God. The omnipresence and omnipotence of God was not understood.
The excessive overkill to link God to Jesus as the Christ, while yet not being able to explain how they are still separate, eventually had the Spirit added to it. The concept of Trinity was eventually ingrained until it became an article of faith, though it is proclaimed to be a mystery how God can be one but there are three entities to him. Many examples are used, like an egg or an apple; but none of those preachers trying to rationalize it know they are close to Naassene rationalizations for a Triethism. It is incomprehensible because it is irrational and opposed to the word of God. God is one and unique.
The sad result of not remaining firmly based in Scripture was to create a Trinity, 3 in one, working in tandem. There were many examples of this in Roman religion, such as the Capitoline Triad of Jupiter, Juno and Minerva. Trinity is a less “Gnostic” Naassene Tritheism, one meant in all good Christian Greek philosophizing to destroy it and show that all things are represented by the Christian trinity that is united in Christ. However laudable and understandable it was back then, it clung to a church that outlived the Gnostics, outlived Greek philosophy, and outlived the concept of gods being represented in varied forms to express incarnations of their various attributes. It is simply time that the church realizes it must outlive some of its counter rationalizing and realize it must stop calling some of this holy word.
Just some more JW gobly gook!
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 20 2008,13:44) Quote (dirtyknections @ June 20 2008,12:59) Why, for thousands of years, did none of God's prophets teach his people about the Trinity? At the least, would Jesus not use his ability as the Great Teacher to make the Trinity clear to his followers? Would God inspire hundreds of pages of Scripture and yet not use any of this instruction to teach the Trinity if it were the “central doctrine” of faith? http://www.nabion.org/html/trinity.html..
Trinity is the only Gnostic concept to have ever remained and taken root in mainstream Christian thinking. The word does not exist in the accepted books of the current New Testament. It is something alluded to in concept by the reiteration of the 2nd and 3rd century AD Catholic formula: “Father, Son and Holy Ghost.” This is found, amazingly, in the end of Matthew where Jesus gives them his final instruction before ascending into heaven, and, lo and behold, the latter day Catholic benediction follows (Matthew 28): “And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
However, in the book of Acts of the Apostles, penned by Luke who was an actual eyewitness to the early events of the Apostolic Age, the Apostles only baptized in the name of Jesus. (Acts 2:38) “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” This is true also of Paul, who in his epistles makes no references to the concept of trinity. These are just a couple of examples of where actual application in the apostolic age shows that a supposed earlier (from their point of view) instruction (such as in Matthew 28) did not occur.
The introductions and benedictions of the letters of Ignatius (circa 107 AD) and Polycarp (circa 130 AD) maintain the same formula as in all apostolic New Testament letters except inverting the precedence, now with Jesus Christ coming first instead of God the Father. This noteworthy change helps textual and Biblical students to date certain New Testament era writings, plus New Testament apocryphal writings. There is still no such mention of the “Holy Ghost” in any of the benedictions and salutations. Jews never regarded God’s own spirit as a separate entity. Just when that little ditty was added to Matthew no one knows, but it had to be toward the latter part of the 2nd century, if not later.
As the church became an almost wholly Gentile institution there were clear problems encountered between the Jewish origin of the religion and the Greek Gnostic rationalizing that was entering the church. Many Greeks could not believe that corrupt flesh could be one with the Spirit of God, and therefore they rationalized a whole slough of ideas to make the Messiah conform to their Greek background and prejudices. Docetism was born to show Jesus was not born. Then there was Valentinus who even saw fit by esoteric means to describe Jesus’ pure digestive system. Fragment E of the Epistle to Agathapous reads: “He was continent, enduring all things. Jesus digested divinity; he ate and drank in a special way, without excreting his solids. He had such a great capacity for continence that the nourishment within him was not corrupted, for he did not experience corruption.”
Already by the time of Cerinthus (circa late 1st century) there was an ongoing attempt to rationalize the divinity of Jesus, especially in light of the firm scriptural stance on “One God.” Coupled with Greek Stoic and Gnostic contempt for the flesh, several peculiar divisions between God and Jesus were proposed.
One was from the Naassene Gnostics who thrived during the time of Trajan and Hadrian. They clearly possessed the Gospel of John, which in its early days was first used exclusively by Gnostics because it was so Gnostic, often engaging, oratorical, and mystically Greek. Hippolytus describes their unusual views of a Triethism— the earliest term discovered referring to a Trinity.
It is Christian counter-philosophy to explain to Greeks the actual unity of God while at the same time trumping Cerinthian Gnosticism, and explaining why Jesus is God but that he is also Jesus. It may not be accurate, and should not be regarded as holy oracle, but it was explaining to Greeks the things of Hebrew writings they never had and Hebrew prophecy they had no cultural way of understanding. This must be remembered at all times by Jews and modern Christians— Gentiles back then had little knowledge of Scripture or Hebrew culture. They would naturally try and rationalize what they were being told. That neither makes their rationalizations heresy or the counter explanations by the church holy writ. Church leaders were trying to put Judaism and Christianity into Greek thought.
This, however, opens the door on the problem today: that Jews are told that Trinity is holy oracle when it is not. It was passing counter philosophy to stop the separation that Gnostics were proposing. The Gnostics themselves were grappling with trying to understand how Jesus can be God if there is but one God. The omnipresence and omnipotence of God was not understood.
The excessive overkill to link God to Jesus as the Christ, while yet not being able to explain how they are still separate, eventually had the Spirit added to it. The concept of Trinity was eventually ingrained until it became an article of faith, though it is proclaimed to be a mystery how God can be one but there are three entities to him. Many examples are used, like an egg or an apple; but none of those preachers trying to rationalize it know they are close to Naassene rationalizations for a Triethism. It is incomprehensible because it is irrational and opposed to the word of God. God is one and unique.
The sad result of not remaining firmly based in Scripture was to create a Trinity, 3 in one, working in tandem. There were many examples of this in Roman religion, such as the Capitoline Triad of Jupiter, Juno and Minerva. Trinity is a less “Gnostic” Naassene Tritheism, one meant in all good Christian Greek philosophizing to destroy it and show that all things are represented by the Christian trinity that is united in Christ. However laudable and understandable it was back then, it clung to a church that outlived the Gnostics, outlived Greek philosophy, and outlived the concept of gods being represented in varied forms to express incarnations of their various attributes. It is simply time that the church realizes it must outlive some of its counter rationalizing and realize it must stop calling some of this holy word.
Just some more JW gobly gook!
lol…I might agree with you on other things….but this is from decidedly NON JW theologists….check the linkQuote (WorshippingJesus @ June 20 2008,10:17) Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 20 2008,09:56) Hi WJ,
Really?
He did not claim to be an ultimate source of anything.
He ascribed all powers and teachings to His Father God.
NHYou know the Unitarians like GB and Mandy and Gm have you on this.
Can you give me a verse pre-incarnation where Yeshua ascribed all powers and teachings to his Father, like when he “Laid the foundations of the World”?
You use your preexisting theology when it is to your advantage against the Unitarians and then abondon that to speak of Yeshua's words post Phil 2. when trying to reduce Yeshua to less than God in nature.
Laughable!
Hi brother WJ,
You have put right questions to Nick, he is no where. Infact I give more weightage to Trinity than Arianism which created more confusion in history even today.Quote (dirtyknections @ June 20 2008,13:54) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 20 2008,13:44) Quote (dirtyknections @ June 20 2008,12:59) Why, for thousands of years, did none of God's prophets teach his people about the Trinity? At the least, would Jesus not use his ability as the Great Teacher to make the Trinity clear to his followers? Would God inspire hundreds of pages of Scripture and yet not use any of this instruction to teach the Trinity if it were the “central doctrine” of faith? http://www.nabion.org/html/trinity.html..
Trinity is the only Gnostic concept to have ever remained and taken root in mainstream Christian thinking. The word does not exist in the accepted books of the current New Testament. It is something alluded to in concept by the reiteration of the 2nd and 3rd century AD Catholic formula: “Father, Son and Holy Ghost.” This is found, amazingly, in the end of Matthew where Jesus gives them his final instruction before ascending into heaven, and, lo and behold, the latter day Catholic benediction follows (Matthew 28): “And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
However, in the book of Acts of the Apostles, penned by Luke who was an actual eyewitness to the early events of the Apostolic Age, the Apostles only baptized in the name of Jesus. (Acts 2:38) “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” This is true also of Paul, who in his epistles makes no references to the concept of trinity. These are just a couple of examples of where actual application in the apostolic age shows that a supposed earlier (from their point of view) instruction (such as in Matthew 28) did not occur.
The introductions and benedictions of the letters of Ignatius (circa 107 AD) and Polycarp (circa 130 AD) maintain the same formula as in all apostolic New Testament letters except inverting the precedence, now with Jesus Christ coming first instead of God the Father. This noteworthy change helps textual and Biblical students to date certain New Testament era writings, plus New Testament apocryphal writings. There is still no such mention of the “Holy Ghost” in any of the benedictions and salutations. Jews never regarded God’s own spirit as a separate entity. Just when that little ditty was added to Matthew no one knows, but it had to be toward the latter part of the 2nd century, if not later.
As the church became an almost wholly Gentile institution there were clear problems encountered between the Jewish origin of the religion and the Greek Gnostic rationalizing that was entering the church. Many Greeks could not believe that corrupt flesh could be one with the Spirit of God, and therefore they rationalized a whole slough of ideas to make the Messiah conform to their Greek background and prejudices. Docetism was born to show Jesus was not born. Then there was Valentinus who even saw fit by esoteric means to describe Jesus’ pure digestive system. Fragment E of the Epistle to Agathapous reads: “He was continent, enduring all things. Jesus digested divinity; he ate and drank in a special way, without excreting his solids. He had such a great capacity for continence that the nourishment within him was not corrupted, for he did not experience corruption.”
Already by the time of Cerinthus (circa late 1st century) there was an ongoing attempt to rationalize the divinity of Jesus, especially in light of the firm scriptural stance on “One God.” Coupled with Greek Stoic and Gnostic contempt for the flesh, several peculiar divisions between God and Jesus were proposed.
One was from the Naassene Gnostics who thrived during the time of Trajan and Hadrian. They clearly possessed the Gospel of John, which in its early days was first used exclusively by Gnostics because it was so Gnostic, often engaging, oratorical, and mystically Greek. Hippolytus describes their unusual views of a Triethism— the earliest term discovered referring to a Trinity.
It is Christian counter-philosophy to explain to Greeks the actual unity of God while at the same time trumping Cerinthian Gnosticism, and explaining why Jesus is God but that he is also Jesus. It may not be accurate, and should not be regarded as holy oracle, but it was explaining to Greeks the things of Hebrew writings they never had and Hebrew prophecy they had no cultural way of understanding. This must be remembered at all times by Jews and modern Christians— Gentiles back then had little knowledge of Scripture or Hebrew culture. They would naturally try and rationalize what they were being told. That neither makes their rationalizations heresy or the counter explanations by the church holy writ. Church leaders were trying to put Judaism and Christianity into Greek thought.
This, however, opens the door on the problem today: that Jews are told that Trinity is holy oracle when it is not. It was passing counter philosophy to stop the separation that Gnostics were proposing. The Gnostics themselves were grappling with trying to understand how Jesus can be God if there is but one God. The omnipresence and omnipotence of God was not understood.
The excessive overkill to link God to Jesus as the Christ, while yet not being able to explain how they are still separate, eventually had the Spirit added to it. The concept of Trinity was eventually ingrained until it became an article of faith, though it is proclaimed to be a mystery how God can be one but there are three entities to him. Many examples are used, like an egg or an apple; but none of those preachers trying to rationalize it know they are close to Naassene rationalizations for a Triethism. It is incomprehensible because it is irrational and opposed to the word of God. God is one and unique.
The sad result of not remaining firmly based in Scripture was to create a Trinity, 3 in one, working in tandem. There were many examples of this in Roman religion, such as the Capitoline Triad of Jupiter, Juno and Minerva. Trinity is a less “Gnostic” Naassene Tritheism, one meant in all good Christian Greek philosophizing to destroy it and show that all things are represented by the Christian trinity that is united in Christ. However laudable and understandable it was back then, it clung to a church that outlived the Gnostics, outlived Greek philosophy, and outlived the concept of gods being represented in varied forms to express incarnations of their various attributes. It is simply time that the church realizes it must outlive some of its counter rationalizing and realize it must stop calling some of this holy word.
Just some more JW gobly gook!
lol…I might agree with you on other things….but this is from decidedly NON JW theologists….check the link
DkOppologetic at best. Still JW gobly gook becasue it is Ari
anistic teaching. No scriptures mentioned that claim Yeshuas deity.The JWs are modern day Arians yoiu know. I will give them credit though, at least they go as far as claiming Yeshua as “a god”.
Few Henotheist dare call Yeshua “a god” for they would have to say he is their “god”. However they always allude to it when it is convenient.
LU is one of the exceptions that agree with the JWs in just about everything that I can tell. She says Yeshua is a born God and calls him a begotten God, which is blatant Polythesim IMO.
Hi DK,
Doesn't JW's and Arianism teach that the Firstborn of all creation was created? I believe He was begotten, so that doesn't line up with Arianism. Don't JW's teach not to celebrate birthdays, have blood transfusions, participate in war, or even vote? I maybe wrong but I think that JW's believe that only members of that church will be saved. I don't believe any of those things. So, I do not fit in either of those camps although I believe some of the same things. I agree with you on many things. Also, I think that polytheism would declare more than one God, and that they be equal. I don't claim that either. I wrote you this because WJ continues to want to label me and mislead but I want you to know where I stand.I appreciate your insights.
LUQuote (Lightenup @ June 21 2008,01:37) Hi DK,
Doesn't JW's and Arianism teach that the Firstborn of all creation was created? I believe He was begotten, so that doesn't line up with Arianism. Don't JW's teach not to celebrate birthdays, have blood transfusions, participate in war, or even vote? I maybe wrong but I think that JW's believe that only members of that church will be saved. I don't believe any of those things. So, I do not fit in either of those camps although I believe some of the same things. I agree with you on many things. Also, I think that polytheism would declare more than one God, and that they be equal. I don't claim that either. I wrote you this because WJ continues to want to label me and mislead but I want you to know where I stand.I appreciate your insights.
LU
LUOK. Thank you for setting me straight. So you believe in many things they do and not most things.
However you line up with them on the important things, like Yeshua is “a god” regardless of his origin, created or born, no difference found in scriptures. There is only one found in scriptures that was not born but created, that is Adam.
So if Yeshua is the second Adam then the evidence would lean to him being created like Adam rather than born if you take your view that Yeshua had a begining.
You believe in the Holy Spirit is an “it” or “thing” an amorphous power or force.
As far as Polytheism, the definition makes no distinction between equality.
Polytheism
noun
Definition:
belief in several deities: the worship of or belief in more than one deity, especially several deities
Source.——————————————-
• noun the belief in or worship of more than one god.
— DERIVATIVES polytheist noun polytheistic adjective.
— ORIGIN from Greek polutheos ‘of many gods’.
Source.——————————————-
noun
Etymology: French polytheisme, from Late Greek polytheos polytheistic, from Greek, of many gods, from poly- + theos god
Date: 1613
: belief in or worship of more than one god
Source.——————————————-
There are many more here… Polytheism.
Quote (gollamudi @ June 21 2008,02:18) Hi WJ,
Nice posts on questioning the so called monotheism of DK, LU, T8 and Nick.
Hi GMThanks!
Quote (Lightenup @ June 21 2008,01:37) Hi DK,
Doesn't JW's and Arianism teach that the Firstborn of all creation was created? I believe He was begotten, so that doesn't line up with Arianism. Don't JW's teach not to celebrate birthdays, have blood transfusions, participate in war, or even vote? I maybe wrong but I think that JW's believe that only members of that church will be saved. I don't believe any of those things. So, I do not fit in either of those camps although I believe some of the same things. I agree with you on many things. Also, I think that polytheism would declare more than one God, and that they be equal. I don't claim that either. I wrote you this because WJ continues to want to label me and mislead but I want you to know where I stand.I appreciate your insights.
LU
yes..JW do teach Jesus was created by being begottenJW= no birthdays, blood transfusions, war, or voting
JW= as far as who will be saved…they will not come out and say it because of not wanting to alienate people…BUT that is what the average JW is taught to believe.
I don't necessarily believe those things though
Quote (dirtyknections @ June 20 2008,10:42) Quote (Lightenup @ June 21 2008,01:37) Hi DK,
Doesn't JW's and Arianism teach that the Firstborn of all creation was created? I believe He was begotten, so that doesn't line up with Arianism. Don't JW's teach not to celebrate birthdays, have blood transfusions, participate in war, or even vote? I maybe wrong but I think that JW's believe that only members of that church will be saved. I don't believe any of those things. So, I do not fit in either of those camps although I believe some of the same things. I agree with you on many things. Also, I think that polytheism would declare more than one God, and that they be equal. I don't claim that either. I wrote you this because WJ continues to want to label me and mislead but I want you to know where I stand.I appreciate your insights.
LU
yes..JW do teach Jesus was created by being begottenJW= no birthdays, blood transfusions, war, or voting
JW= as far as who will be saved…they will not come out and say it because of not wanting to alienate people…BUT that is what the average JW is taught to believe.
I don't necessarily believe those things though
Hi DK,
Do you think that the Son of God was born or created? To me there is a big difference. I believe that something begats another of its kind. In other words, God doesn't beget trees, God begets God. God creates trees. God doesn't beget humans, God created humans.LU
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
