Preserved Topic: problem with god (Page 3 of 4)

You asked me about John at the foot of the cross. Why would Jesus say this to John if Jewish law was as you point out?

In the verses I quoted above, Jesus points out that his actual brothers and sisters are not his true family but rather his true family are those who do the will of God. It also says that His own brothers at the time were not believing in Him. So Jesus making sure His dear mother was taken care of by a true brother makes very much sense to me.

I agree that adelphos can be used generically just like the word brother is used that way in English. You don't have to point out cases where it is used that way because I am not disputing that at all. But I do want to ask you why the New Testament verses didn't use the words for relatives or cousins if that is what they were?

quote:

---

Even Elizabeth your relative (greek Anepsios) is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. --Luke 1:36

My fellow prisoner Aristarchus sends you his greetings, as does Mark, the cousin (greek Suggenes) of Barnabas. (You have received instructions about him; if he comes to you, welcome him.) --Colossians 4:10

---

You see the problem I'm having? If the same authors that used the word for Jesus' brothers also used the word for cousins, why didn't they just say it like it was?

There is no mention of Mary and Joseph having children other than all the verses I have already quoted above. But I have more to say about this when I wrap this post up.

The Protoevangelium of James seems to support what I said about the Greek Orthodox church believing Joseph already had children. Is that your view too? Were they cousins, half-siblings, or other? And the dating was probably 150 or so? We do know that there are early writings that have a more legendary approach to stories about Jesus but they were not deemed worthy of the canon. I actually think there's a good reason for that. If your own church didn't include it in the canon, who am I to argue its wisdom?

It seems to me that heos is used quite similarly to the English word until. I only brought that up because if you don't have an agenda for having the scripture point to the doctrine of Mary's perpetual verginity, then there would be no reason to believe that Mary and Joseph didn't lead a normal married life after the birth of Jesus. And I think it is quite reasonable to read that verse the way I suggested... if you're not trying to justify another doctrine outside of the New Testament, which I'm not.

Ok, now for the bottom line. Please read this next bit very carefully because it is important.

I do not accept that your church possesses the authority it claims. Therefore, I look to the earliest writings we have describing the early church as the model for the Christianity I practice. You, my dear Jade, are bound to the teachings of your church and therefore read the New Testament according to its teachings.

I can see *zero* evidence of the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity in the New Testament. That is why I do not accept it and that is why I will read the verses referring to Jesus' siblings in the most plain interpretation possible which is that they were what they were called, namely His brothers and sisters.

Let me conclude with this. I do not care either way whether Mary and Joseph had children together. It has *nothing* to do with the theology in the New Testament which I adhere to. As with so many teachings of your church which I regard as tangential to the doctrine of the early church, I can't see a huge problem believing them as long as they are not abused. But unfortunately history, as I read it, leaves me disappointed in that regard.

Whoaha! Isn't that actually blasphemous, in certain belief circles? I know that some christian religions hold the Virgin Mary as a truth...wow, I'm really interested to see where this is leading...

As for these old texts, that didn't make it into the New Testament...how many are there, and what do they say? I mean, if the 'truth' isn't revealed in the New Testament, shouldn't one search for it elsewhere (especially if there are other sources)?

Now, I know this brings up the spectre of reliablility...but the New Testament was gathered and put together by a group of men, anyway...which leaves the spectre of reliability open, IMHO. Man is, after all, fallable.

I'm really interested in jades reply to this...and any others...man, this thread is a great read. Keep it up!

Web

The books that the protestant reformers took out: Tobit, Judith, Books of Maccabees, Book of Wisdom, Sirach(beautiful book), Baruch, Additional parts of book of Esther and Daniel. I might add that Martin Luther himself rejected the apostolicity of Hebrews, James, Jude & Revelations because he felt it went against Paul's teachings. He deemed it his supreme authority to change the canon of the bible after 1100 yrs. And he did some editing in the new testament. So to have a King James version, would mean you don't hold the oldest writings included. If you want to read up on the early christian writings under this title or early church fathers, check the web.


Bugs, the early church has always figured Joseph was a widow and had other children. Plus we believe Mary & Joseph gave their lives totally to Jesus and remained celibate after the birth. Their marriage was not like any other marriage. Since they were like superspiritual, earthly desires did not affect them. They were totally submissive and obediant. Do you think Joseph would ever want to touch Mary after she delivered a God, a human God? We are limited in our way of understanding how God operates in the supernatural mystical way. They were very holy holy people. Think about this, if she had other children that would mean they would be blood related to Jesus. And I don't feel that God would want anyone else having the same blood as the Son as far as blood line. We must remember Jesus did not have a biological father, so he only carried Marys DNA. In the Eucharistic miracles (host that bleed and turn into real flesh) and the weeping madonnas when they test the blood, it is the blood of a woman.


According to angel Garbiel in his greeting to Mary "Hail, Mary full of Grace" Mary was without sin. She was FULL, meaning lacking in nothing as far as grace. Are we full of grace? We are given grace freely from God. But she was totally perfected in Grace in order for God to overshadow her. Now she could of said "No" since she had free will. But she said "Yes". Because she said yes you have a savior today. Look up the translation for the original word for "Hail". It was only used for royality (prophetic) in those times.

Lets set aside the question of church authority because this can cloud the christian to christian approach to what we are try to understand. In order to understand the NT you have to read the OT because there is lots of revealing in this. We know how the NT fulfills the OT. There is lots of typology (prefigurement of a person, place or thing.) We know throughout OT history God made bonding convenants with his people. In the convenant with his people the Isralites it was done thru Moses. on Mt. Sinai. If your familliar with Genesis, Exodus,Leveticus, Numbers, check out how holy Mt. Siani was. Only Moses could climb it and the other Isralites could not come near it. Why? It was just too holy. Even the ground near the burning bush was so holy, Moses had to take off his shoes. Read how after God gave Moses the ten commandments how he wanted them encased. So much work and detail was given to the construction of the Ark of the Covenant. It had to have exact measurments and detail and was to be housed in the holy of holies.
No one could enter without permission or they would die. One person could only enter once a year. Traveling thru the desert, if the Ark looked like it were to fall, no one could touch it or they would die. The Isralites fought many wars to get to the promise land with the help of the Ark because it had the power to level mountians. And this was the sign of God's covenant with his people so it was sacred to them. It represented a visible God to them.

Now in the NT who is the type to fulfill the Ark of the Covenant?
It was Mary. She did not bring the laws written in stone, she brought the lawgiver himself, God. And because of this we believe she is more powerful that the Ark was. God being so holy entered into the womb of Mary, so she could give God to us. I am sure she radiated her whole life on earth and still does today from the holiness of it all. In the Ark carried thru the desert was the commandments, Aarons staff and a cup of manna. These are symbolic for us today. The typology in that the commandments being the laws of the church, the staff, Christ being the leader of the church and the bread being the bread of life in the mystic way. We see in the OT how God wanted the Ark perfected & in the NT how God perfected the mother of his son.

I am sure to honor & venerate Jesus's mom would make him so happy in his glory. Because when you do that you glorify him. I am sure he dearly loves his mother and honored the 4th commandment as a Jew. Since we are called to imitate christ, we are called to give honor where it is due, to the Mother of the Savior.

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 04-03-2003).]

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 04-03-2003).]

Nowhere in the bible are we told to venerate or worship Mary... Mary also went on to have other children and hence did not remain a perpetual virgin. Mary was never and is not the mother of God. She was the mother of Jesus.. who is not god but Gods son. That concept is a trinitarian doctrine which has no foundation in the bible at all.

But I forget this thread is not necesarily a persuit of truth but rather one man intelectualy bulying the opinion of another... pure democracy...

...xpi...

"nuff said"

original word hail:

Strong's Number: 5463
caivrw

1. to rejoice, be glad
2. to rejoice exceedingly
3. to be well, thrive
4. in salutations, hail!
5. at the beginning of letters: to give one greeting, salute

quote:

---

Think about this, if she had other children that would mean they would be blood related to Jesus. And I don't feel that God would want anyone else having the same blood as the Son as far as blood line.

---

the only reference we have that i know of with regard to jesus and a blood line is that he was decended from david, a very relevant fact in the prophecy of him being the messiah. if anything that would seem to contradict the negative picture you paint of jesus' sharing a bloodline.

quote:

---

Since they were like superspiritual, earthly desires did not affect them.

---

forgive me if i'm wrong, but that would seem to be a rather opinion-filled statement. even jesus was tempted which would indicate he had earthly desires, even if he didn't act on them, true?

bugs has pointed out some of the other references, in particular with regards to james, that i was going to mention.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

is this true?

quote:

---

The books that the protestant reformers took out: Tobit, Judith, Books of Maccabees, Book of Wisdom, Sirach(beautiful book), Baruch, Additional parts of book of Esther and Daniel.

---

i'm not sure about all these books, but i do know that Esther is in the original bible.. does the christian bible not include her story?

where in the OT (as you call it) does it say anything about the Ark?

quote:

---

We see in the OT how God wanted the Ark perfected & in the NT how God perfected the mother of his son.

---

X, Are you positing that you don't believe Jesus was God? And I don't classify this as bullying just discussing faith.

Look in Luke 1:5 thru 56

In this chapter the angel said " you will concieve a son and shall name him Jesus, he will be great and called son of the most high and God will give him the throne of David his father and he will rule the house of Jacob forever and his kingdom will have no end. The child will be called holy, the son of God" When Mary went to visit Elizabeth her relative, when Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting she was filled with the holy spirit and being with child also (John the Baptist) cried out in a loud voice, "Most blessed are you among women & blessed is the fruit of your womb" and John the Baptist leapt in Elizabeth's womb also because even in the womb he knew Mary carried God and at this time Jesus (God) santified John in the womb of Elizabeth. In Luke 1-15 "and he (John) shall be filled with the holy ghost (cleansed from original sin) even in his mothers womb. Look what Elizabeth says too " she proclaims that the mother of my lord (What lord is this?) should come to me. Plus its all over in scripture that Jesus is God. When he was berating the Jewish leaders at the synagouge for trying to trick him, he gets angry and tells them that he would not return to the temple until they learned to cry " blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord for I and my father are one in the same" Also look what he reveals to Peter when Jesus asked him "Who do you say that I am" And Peter replys "the son of the living God" because the holy spirit revealed that to Peter also. And I never said you had to venerate Mary, but I would assume since you know she is the mother of jesus you would think that maybe you would hold her in high esteem. If the mother of the president was in the same room with you, would you show her great honor and give the right protocol, because her son holds the highest office in the land or maybe her son might save us from terrorist. Mary's son Jesus saves us from final damnation.

How about when Abraham was going to sacrifice his son as God was testing Abrahams faith and God knew how much Abraham loved his son and was just about going to kill him when an angel interviened. God blessed Abraham after this as a reward. As we all know. In the NT God asks Mary to do the same thing, but this time no Angel interviened. Did Mary love her son any less? Because she gave up her son for the salvation of mankind why could God not bless her too?
Even Jesus in the NT refers to Abraham as "father" Why can't Mary be referred to as "mother" in the NT?

I was meaning on the "Hail" in the original wording text was meant to describe royality like "Hail Cesar" for instance and since this wording was used by the angel Gabriel it could imply power and rule. In regard to the blood line, David was not God, but a prefigurment of rule on the kingdom that was to come. David did not have a blood like Jesus though. It was the human blood of God henceforth that could not be transmitted to kin or offspring. I agree with you on Jesus being from the line of David. Since it was only Mary's blood that Jesus had, how could it mix with any other bloodtype. That would mean biological brothers and sisters would have some God in them thru Mary in they having the same bloodtype of God and have the same royal blood type as David the king too. Do you think this could happen? In the temptation of Christ, even though he had the will to sin he didn't. I agree he could be tempted and as I see in the desert before his ministry, he overcame temptation. So couldn't you say that the earthly parents resisted temptation also?

VR
I know of Esther in the new american bible and there are all kinds of different christian bibles out there and I am sure that book is in some of them. Esther does have alot of prefigurment of Mary in it, especially Chapter 4.

And if you want to read up on Exodus in the construction of the Ark look or start in Exodus if you start reading Chapter 25 on.

Xpirex,

You are completely welcome to offer your opinions here and I am hoping to learn more about your views but you seem reluctant to explain them in more detail. Please don't hold back. Your last post has me very interested when you said:

quote:

---

She was the mother of Jesus.. who is not god but Gods son. That concept is a trinitarian doctrine which has no foundation in the bible at all.

---

I explained about 3/4 down in this tread plenty of foundation for the deity of Jesus. Can you please tell me why you say there is none? Basically, I am really hoping you will begin to back up the things you're saying. I am still waiting to hear what the heck you meant about prophetic significance in this tread too. It's kind of hard to take you seriously if you just drop in a comment here and there without information to explain it. Thanks in advance

quote:

---

But I forget this thread is not necesarily a persuit of truth but rather one man intelectualy bulying the opinion of another...

---

I don't understand where this came from. What bullying? If you are seeing this, perhaps you can point it out? Are you reading the same post I am?

[edit] Jade I'll be responding to your stuff soon too. I just wanted to join you in supporting one of the things we both share, namely service to the Big 3 in 1 [/edit]

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 04-04-2003).]

jade - as i've no copy of the bible, i'll have to get back to you on that...

VR

Its all over the web too if you want to try that approach in reasearch on the Ark of the Covenant. Although the Old Testament gives great detail and the history better explained.

LOL, not sure what i was thinking of.. yes, the Ark is in the original bible
still, i don't see the connection with mary.

I always wondered why when I was small did Mary have the title of the New Ark in reference to the OT Arks and I didn't understand until I starting digging in the OT as an adult. I was presenting a view but can see where it would not make sense to someone else.

Bugimus forgive me, you are right I need to spend more time and give reasons for the points of view I expressed .. and I will, just been in a mad rush lately, I apologise. Back soon.

...xpi...

"nuff said"

Feel free to electrocute me if this posting is way too big...but the topic merits it... I found a wonderful source for this material and used it unashamedly....

The Trinity Doctrine
This study is about the trinity doctrine, which turns out to be a case study for two other important topics: how the Holy Scriptures interpret themselves & how doctrines of men crept into Christianity after the Apostles died.

Its History

First, it should be noted when the trinity doctrine was introduced to Christianity. And I challenge anyone reading this to look through their encyclopedias to verify what I've already done extensive research on and what I am sharing with you now.

Encarta Encyclopedia:
Trinity (theology), in Christian theology, doctrine that God exists as three persons-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-who are united in one substance or being. The doctrine is not taught explicitly in the New Testament, where the word God almost invariably refers to the Father; but already Jesus Christ, the Son, is seen as standing in a unique relation to the Father, while the Holy Spirit is also emerging as a distinct divine person. "Trinity (theology)," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2000. © 1993-1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits that the trinity doctrine was nonexistent in the original first century church. And they should know, they were the first "Christian" church (the Church of Rome) to make the doctrine official before they literally force fed it to the rest of Christendom. Then they did the same thing with other illegitimate doctrines.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia 1967:
"The formulation 'one God in three persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century."

Catholic Encyclopedia 1991:
"The term 'Trinity' does not appear in scripture"
"(The Doctrine of the Trinity) - hammered out over the course of three centuries of doctrinal controversy against modalism and subordinationism"

The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism 1995:
". . . scholars generally agree that there is no doctrine of the trinity as such in either the Old Testament or the New Testament."


However, before it became official with the Church of Rome, how far does it go back? It's roots are in paganism, as plurality of gods and triune godheads are traceable right back to the beginning of recorded history and even earlier as the book of Genesis reveals. The pre-christianized version of the doctrine goes way back to the time of Nimrod and the Tower of Babel. But, the first "Christianized" version only became prevalent after all twelve Apostles died! There was a movement afoot between the 2nd & 3rd centuries AD generated by the Gnostics who were basically gentiles incorporating pagan mysticism into a Christian-like framework. See Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2000:

Gnosticism, esoteric religious movement that flourished during the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD and presented a major challenge to orthodox Christianity. Most Gnostic sects professed Christianity, but their beliefs sharply diverged from those of the majority of Christians in the early church (see Heresy)."Gnosticism," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2000. © 1993-1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Paul the Apostle warned the churches which he established even through tears that doctrines of men & of devils would creep into the churches.

Acts 20:29-31
For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

He also warned them saying that just as the serpent beguiled Eve, they too would eventually succumb to Satan's trickery. He said they would easily accept a different Christ and a different gospel (2 Cor 11:2-4). He called it the "Mystery of Iniquity," which was already at work while he yet lived (2 Thes 2:7), but foretold that the son of perdition would come (2 Thes 2:3 & 8) and thrive only after he that prevents him is taken out of the way, namely himself. I know he was speaking of himself as being the one that prevents this evil one from coming because Paul said, "Don't you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? And now you know what prevents him... (2 Thes 2:5-6)" He prevented this antichrist from coming by his words of warning which was God's Word, a double edge sword (Eph 6:17)! Likewise, the other Apostles would also be preventative medicine against such false doctrines, needless to say. Moses made a strikingly similar comment as Paul did:

Deut 31:27
For I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck: behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against Yahweh; how much more after my death?

This wicked one, Paul described as claiming himself to be God himself (2 Thes 2:4)! Of course the word for "God" in this verse is the Greek, "theos" which could also mean "a god or magistrate," but in this particular context it means the God because he states that he is sitting in the Temple of God, claiming to be God. Also, in this very context, Paul was speaking concerning the coming of Messiah and our gathering unto him (2 Thes 2:1), and began by warning them not to be shaken by reports that Messiah is at hand (had already come)..."Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed...(2 Thes 2:3)." So, what we have here in these verses is a false Messiah claiming to be God, which is basically what I'm proving that the trinity doctrine is all about. Read on...

Now the Gnostics accelerated their strange theories about Messiah in the 2nd century just after the the last Apostle died, John. Paul had already been long dead by then. They were spreading doctrines like: Messiah didn't really suffer, he wasn't really in the flesh, but an illusion or apparition, and finally that he was God.

By the 4th century, 325 AD, the Roman Emperor at that time, Constantine was thoroughly indoctrinated by these wackos and summoned a council of Bishops to meet at Rome in what is known as the Council of Nicea or the Nicene Council where he intimidated the majority of the Bishops to sign a creed stating the official Roman Church's position that "Jesus" is God the Creator, from everlasting to everlasting, the Eternal.

Now, if that was already an original doctrine of Christianity from earliest times, why the sudden need in 325 AD to put it in writing and have several Bishops from all over to sign it? A few of them even refused to sign it and were immediately excommunicated from the church! And for the next several centuries those that did not agree with this creed, or any other that they dictated, were called "heretics." They were persecuted, tortured and murdered in many cruel ways if they didn't recant. By the way, Constantine himself murdered his son and current wife for allegedly having an affair. John the Apostle said that no murderer can inherit eternal life. This was long after he claimed conversion to Christianity. Although, the "Christianity" that he greatly helped to transform bore little resemblance to the Christianity the Apostles taught, before they were "taken out of the way."



Does it Square with Scripture?

Do the Scriptures support this doctrine? Well, there are about three or four verses which Trinitarians point out which is suppose to "prove" the theory that "Jesus" is God. By the way, that rendition of Yeshua's name, "Jesus" probably came from "Je-zeus" the paganized version of his name to keep their god Zeus in remembrance as it means God-Zeus (instead of Yah saves the real meaning of Yeshua). Anyway, there are the same tired old three or four verses (which on the surface appear to be contradicting the majority of verses to the contrary) apparently suggesting that Yeshua is God the Creator. However, in order to be taken even remotely serious (when they contradict the majority of airtight verses to the contrary), they better be airtight themselves. But, they aren't. They are only airtight when the intended meaning is read & understood accurately. But when used to prove that Yeshua is God the Creator, their translation or interpretation of them have so many holes that they sink like stones! And I'll point out those holes in a moment.

So, which are the majority airtight verses that contradict their so-called "proof texts?" There are too many to list. By the way, there are about 72 verses throughout Scripture that say in no uncertain terms that Messiah is the Son of God. There are no verses that say in point blank terms that Messiah is God. That is a fact. I am proving that right here on this page. If you love Yahweh enough, you will be honest enough to stick around and weigh the evidence, and your mind will be changed by the truth (if you believed contrary to the truth). There are seven other facts accompanied with their verses, which any one of them alone proves that Yeshua is not Yahweh, but listed together, they really blow the whole trinity theory out of the water. There are more but we'll do the following seven.

Fact One: For starters how about: "...Nevertheless, not my will, but thine, be done (Matt 26:39, Mark 14:36 & Luke 22:42)?" How can ONE God have two wills? He can't unless he has a multiple personality disorder, but, the Scriptures say that God is perfect. Besides, why would Messiah need to pray at all if he is God. He would pray to himself???


Of course, Trinitarians make excuses for this doctrinal inconsistency. And they all recite the same speech that they themselves have heard before, only the speech doesn't come from the Bible, it comes from men. "You see," they say, "he was all man, yet, he was all God. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak." And they continue, "The Spirit is his God nature, and the flesh is his human nature, and they were at variance with each other." The Spirit is already supposed to be one third of the trinity. God the Father is one third, where is Yeshua the man third? His flesh is not the last part of the trinity? In order for the trinity to be true, Messiah's flesh had to be God as well. But, there above explanation admits that his flesh couldn't be God. So, already they admit that it isn't a trinity. At best it is only two sided, like a coin, Father and Spirit. But, I can prove that the Father IS Spirit (John 4:24). So, that puts Yahweh our Father back at being ONE! So, they practically admit that Messiah isn't God, but they think it actually helps their argument. And by the same token as their above argument, they would have to be God too, since they think the holy spirit in them is God. So, they must be all God and all man as well. No? And their "water, steam and ice' analogy that comes from men, not the Bible, contradicts their above argument as well if you think it through. There is just no logic on their side at all.

Messiah said, "not my will, but thine, be done." And he prayed those same words at least three times, and three Gospels are witnesses to it, so there's no mistaking that he said it and that he meant it. Prior to that occasion, Yeshua taught that he did not do his own will, but his Father's will that sent him: "For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me (John 6:38, see also John 5:30)." He did not want to do what His Father wanted him to do, but he did it anyway. What do you call that? Obedience. And that brings us to Fact Two:

Philipians 2:8
And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

If Messiah was the Creator God (to whom Trinitarians actually pray), how could he need to pray to someone else, "not my will, but thine, be done;" and how could he need to be "obedient" to someone else if Messiah was the highest authority?

The above shows that Yeshua has in own will, yet, he was obedient to his Father's will. That's two facts that contradict the trinity doctrine. Here's Fact Three:

Mark 13:32
"But of that day and hour no one knows, not the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

Those were Messiah's own words. So, Messiah Yeshua of Nazareth, the Son of the living God does not know everything that Yahweh, his Father knows. Can we all agree that the Creator God knows everything? If He knows everything, why would Yeshua say that the Son doesn't know what the Father knows? Would God say, "...no one knows, not the angels.., nor God, but only God"? Is this how the "Word" - which in the Greek is "logos," where we get our word "logic" from and means virtually the same thing - would this same Word of God be this illogical? No, it wouldn't. Stop trying to twist your brain into a pretzel to make the trinity work. It's really very simple in fact. All you have to do is let go of your prejudices, your brainwashed indoctrinazations and realize finally the simple truth: Yeshua of Nazareth is the Messiah the Son of the living God!

Fact Four:

1 Cor 15:27
For "He has put all things under his feet." But when He says "all things are put under him," it is evident that He who put all things under him is excepted.

Trinitarians must surely have to avert their eyes at that one and try to forget it. I bet they cringe at a lot of Scripture that contradicts their long held and most cherished false doctrines, but, they'd never admit it.

Why would Paul feel the need to add that sentence, or to explain that point? It's obvious. His point wasn't to prove that Yeshua isn't God, because there was no doctrine taught at that time that Yeshua was God. He just didn't want them to think that God included Himself as being put under Messiah's feet, that's all. He had to make that point clear, because God knows that people are a little slow sometimes. I'm glad he felt the need to explain that because that is one more verse that proves that Messiah is not Yahweh, the God of Israel.

The last three are quick and easy as is often the case with truth; "Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein (Mark 10:15)." Yeshua our Lord stated on several occasions that - Fact Five: He did not speak his own words, but, the words of Him who sent him, the Father's words (John 12:49-50). And - Fact Six: That he didn't do his own works but the works of Him that sent him. The Father did the signs & wonders (John 5:17, 9:4, 14:10). And - Fact Seven: Two testified that he is the Messiah. Yeshua was one and the Father with signs and wonders was the other one (John 5:31-21, 10:25).


Too Many Holes
in the Trinity "Proof Texts"

Let's put aside the 72 verses that all say that the Messiah is Yahweh's Son for now. And let us focus on the four or so verses or texts that Trinitarians use to "prove" that Yeshua (Jesus) is God (the Creator). The objective is three pronged (no pun intended). First, to demonstrate that these verses do not in fact prove that Yeshua is Yahweh. Second, to demonstrate how Scripture interprets itself. Third, to allow Scripture itself to show us what the real points that these texts are really trying to make. We'll start with the most frequently used text and end with the most obscure one.

John 1:1

The first is John 1:1&2 used in conjunction with John 1:14. Here is how it appears in the New King James:

John 1:1-2
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.

Then in verse 14 it says that the word became flesh. So, they conclude that Yeshua must be God even though it clearly states in that same verse that he is the only begotten of the Father, and four verses away in verse 18 it clearly states that no man has seen God at any time! So, if the Bible is not to contradict, there must be an error in the translation of verse one. With an objective honest look at it, it is very easy to find two possible mistakes in the rendering of this verse into English. The easiest to spot possibility is found in the definition of "theos" and in the scribes of King James own initiative to capitalize what ever words they elect to capitalize. Let me explain:

In the original Hebrew & Greek, there were no capital letters. All letters appeared the same. The Greek word for "God" in those verses is "theos," meaning: God, a god, gods, object of worship, and magistrate. The word "theos" is the same word used every time "God" appears in your Bible; it is also the same word used every time "gods" or "a god" appears in your Bible. Also, the Greek put an extra word in front of just the first & third appearance of "theos" in this text, and NOT the second! That word is a Greek word with just two letters, "ho." It is the equivalent of our "THE." It was written like that originally because John the Apostle was distinguishing between the first & third "theos" (verses 1 & 2) and the second "theos" (in verse 1). Therefore, a completely legitimate translation of John 1:1 & 2 can be rendered more accurately this way:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with THE God, and the Word was a god. The same was in the beginning with THE God.

OR:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. The same was in the beginning with God.

The verse wouldn't make grammatical sense otherwise. How can someone be with someone else and also BE that someone else?

Two areas of Scripture help to shed a great deal of light on the above verses. The first is John 10:33b-36:

...Because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God [a god - theos].
Yeshua answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods [theos]? If he called them gods [theos], unto whom the Word of God [theos] came, and the Scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father has sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest: because I said, I am the Son of God [theos]?

See? Right there Messiah said that if they are gods [theos], then the Son of God [Son of THE Theos] is a god [theos] also. I'll say it again: Yeshua just said in the above verses that the Son of God is a god in the same sense that the law said that "ye are gods!" That confirms that the above translation is Scripturally accurate. That leads right to the next verse that I would like to bring to your attention:


John 3:6
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

There it is again. If the Spirit in the above verse is God (Yahweh), that which is born of Him is spirit with a lower case "s." This time the King James has it right, with the capital "S" in the right place, and the lower case "s" in the right place. That follows the same exact rule as in John 1:1&2, as if he had said, "That which is born of God is a god." Or, that which is born of Theos is theos. Or, he that was with God, is himself a god. I don't need to belabor the point.

The second possible and completely legitimate translation is the one that I favor most due to its less esoteric nature and its not veering off of its contextual theme and point. And it's theme and point it that the word is OF God. Let me explain:

I discovered, using my Englishman's Greek New Testament that the article "of" is seldom or never used in the ancient original Greek, at least not as we use the word. Nor is it used at all in modern Greek. How do I know? When I compared John 1:1 & 2 to the 1st Epistle of John chapter 1 in Greek (and there are plenty of similarities there which prove that the same John wrote both) I discovered that in verse 2:5 the "of" in "love of God" was not included in the Greek! It had "THE theos" or "ho theos" with the same spelling of theos as the 1st & 3rd usage of theos in the Gospel of John, but no "of." I said to myself, "Hmmm. That is curious... What if I applied that same logic of adding an "of" where the Greek didn't have it in order to make the English more comprehensible in John 1?" God knows, it doesn't make sense as the Trinitarians translated it. And frankly, my earlier explanation, although sound in logic, doesn't seem to flow the way John would have spoken in real life. I mean, why would he feel the need to make a loud point like that, that "the Word was a god" in the middle of explaining that God's plan of creation and eternal life was all thought out and finalized as His "Word" before the universe was created? That was the main point. Not that the Word was a god. Although true, that statement seems too bulky and cumbersome to inject there where it would detract from the main point. And it does detract. People are so hung up on that one half of a sentence that they miss the whole point of the first two verses!. So, just like the translators had to do there in 1 John 2:5, and, as I discovered, in most, if not all other instances in the New Testament where an "of" was imperative to make sense to the English readers, I inserted it where it would bring sense and flow and no distractions to the main point, and sound like a normal person speaking. Whereas before, it made John come off sounding like some mystical esoteric speaker of cryptic paradoxes, now, however, he sounds like he is actually making sense:

"In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God, and the Word was of God. He was in the beginning with God."

It flows, it makes perfect sense. It is legal and consistent with the way the translators translated the rest of the New Testament. It is grammatically correct. It is consistent with the way normal people speak and make their points. It is much more likely that John the Apostle spoke those words fluidly and even poetically. There is no ambiguity there, or dubious double meanings. It's pure and simple the way humans were designed to speak and read language.

Plus: He was saying that the Word was with God from the very beginning, and that the Word came from God. Just like in Revelation where the same John states that Messiah's name is "the Word OF God!" Not God of God. Or, a god of God (although true)! But, simply the Word of God. How simple. How true! And we were predestined as was Messiah in Yahweh's foreknowledge before the universe was even created (but that's too much to get into right now).

I asked the owner of a Greek auto body shop about this, and he said that he reads anything but the Bible. I told him my dilemma, and he tried to read it, but, he said it was ancient Greek and that no one can read that anymore. It's like comparing apples with oranges, he said. Then I asked him about "of" and he said that there is no word in Greek for the English "of," that they don't speak that way. Like instead of saying, "Jack of Spades, " they say something like, "Spade's Jack." So, in modern Greek there is no "of," and I doubt the ancient had it either. The guy did say sometimes they use a word where we might use "of" but he says it means the equivalent to our "'s." The English scribes had to insert "of" every time it was needed in the New Testament in order for the texts to make sense to the English reader. My assertion is that they neglected to supply the "of" in John 1:2 because of their Trinitarian agenda!

Besides all this, "the Word became flesh" (verse 14) doesn't mean that some spirit-man materialized like some Star Trek episode! 1 John 1:1 & 2 interprets for us (so that we don't have to interpret it ourselves) "becoming flesh" literally means "manifestation" of that "Word of life which was with the Father." And we know from eye witnesses that Yeshua said himself that he did not speak his own words nor do his own works, but as he hears of the Father, that, he speaks, and what he sees his Father do, he does also. No one has seen God at any time, but the Son which is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him. Messiah had all the fullness of God in him bodily. He was so obedient that when people looked at him, it was like seeing the Father; as Messiah was his perfect representative here on earth. He manifested the Word of life perfectly in his obedience. That is our model. If we can be that obedient, people will see Yahweh by looking out our deeds and hearing our words. Intense!

1 John 1:1-4
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life -- the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us -- that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Yeshua Messiah.

Remember, no man has seen God at any time, John 1:18!

So, the Trinitarian can try to use John 1:1 to "prove" that Yeshua is God, but one can plainly see if he is honest, that it doesn't hold up that way. However, the point of that verse is meant to go with the rest of the verses in the context, making the point that all things are of God and that he planned it all before creation!


"By" Him were All Things Created

While we are in the area of this verse already, Trinitarians point to verse 3 of John 1 to show that Messiah is THE Creator (that verse is similar to Colosians 1:16-17), that "by" him (Messiah) were all things created. This is a word study, the Greek word "by" needs to be looked at.

In John 1:3, the word which our English versions have as "by" really means "through" according to the Strong's Hebrew & Greek Concordance:

The Greek Pronunciation Guide: dia {dee-ah'}
Definition: a primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; through, the ground or reason by which something is or is not done.

The "Word" in John 1 is the Greek word "logos" which literally means "reason" and "logic". "Logos" is where we get our word "logic" from. So, in the context of the first few verses of John 1, the whole point is that Yahweh, God the Creator had with Him before all things were created a plan. He had with Him before all things, reason and logic and wisdom (see Proverbs 8:22-31). Everything was created through that channel of reason, according to that master plan, the Word. Messiah manifested that wisdom which is also called the Word.

This holds true to other texts stating that things were done or created "through" or "by" Messiah. Did Messiah exist in physical or spiritual form before he was born to Mary? No more so than we were, as the Scriptures say in several places: Messiah was predestinated before the world was formed, as were we.

Acts 2:23:
Him [Messiah], being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death.

Romans 8:29-30:
For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

Ephesians 1:4-5:
...just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy
and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by
Yeshua Messiah to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will.

1 Corinthians 2:7
But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory.

So then, why would God say that He created everything "through" His Son who was in his foreknowledge? The simple answer is this: God would not have created a single thing without having the plan of salvation firmly in place, for what sense would it be to create a universe for fellowship with mankind if the whole thing would fall from grace and be damned for eternity? Therefore, everything was created through the master plan of salvation through faith in the Son of God.



His Name Shall be Called

The first thing one should know when looking at references like these that Trinitarians love to quote (as they leave out facts that would detract from their position) is the never mentioned little fact that the first English translation of the Bible was around the year 1600. It was ordered by King James and it was carried out by Trinitarian scribes long after the Roman Catholic Church ordered all "heretics" put to death if they did not recant their "heresy." They called "heresy" anything that went against Catholic doctrine. The trinity was one such doctrine. I do not want to get into the gory details of that. Why is this important to the following verse in question? Because of the scribes inconsistency...

They translated Isaiah 9:6 this way:

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

YET, they translated Isaiah 8:3 this way,

"And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said Yahweh to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz."

Why would they leave "Mahershalalhashbaz" in Hebrew, when they did not treat 9:6 the same way? "Mahershalalhashbaz" when translated is: "In making speed to the spoil he hastened the prey." That is a name, a long name. It is so long that it is actually a full sentence! The question then becomes: just because his name is called "In making speed to the spoil he hastened the prey," does that make the child automatically one that quickly chases spoil and hastens prey? No. When reading in context, we see that Yahweh was making a symbolic prophecy about the politics of Damascus and Samaria using the child's name.

Similarly, the name "John" means "God is gracious." Does that mean that everyone that is named "John" is God in the flesh walking around being gracious? Of course not. Many, many people's names in the Bible have meanings like "Yah (God's name shortened) is just," or "Yahweh saves" and so forth. A huge amount of Hebrew names are basically named after God. Doesn't make all those that are named like that God. Someone named "Rose" doesn't mean she is literally a flower. The only reason why people don't know how common it was to named something like "God is the mighty and everlasting Father" is because the scribes left their names in Hebrew, that is unless it suits their agenda by translating it. The above name may have been slightly edited also. Some have the name you sited as: "Wonderful in Counsel is the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace." That would seem more likely anyway when compared to: "In making speed to the spoil he hastened the prey," because both would be in a logical sentence form, not all cryptically chopped up.

Also worth noting is the phrase, "his name shall be called." In 8:3 it says, "Call his name." Virtually the same thing. What it does not say is, "For unto us a child is born... and he IS... The mighty God..." It says, "his name shall be called" which is the same as saying, "his name means..."



My Lord and my God

John 20:27-29:
Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

This section is called The Holes in the Trinitarian"Proof Text." In light of the seven facts that prove that Yeshua can not be Yahweh, this Trinitarian"Proof Text" must have some kind of hole if the Holy Scriptures are to be a consistent and true. As promised, here is that hole:

Matthew 16:23:
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

So, if John 20:28 proves that Yeshua is Yahweh, then Matt 16:23 proves that Peter is Satan.

I don't need to add anything more to this, but I just want to show that there are actually two holes in this so called "proof text." A) "Answered and said unto him" and "said unto him," in Biblical usage obviously means: in response, and not necessarily directed personally at him. Understanding the importance of Biblical usage is imperative to understanding the Holy Scriptures as a whole. Can we agree that when trying to understand the Scriptures, it is not important how our present day society uses words and phrases, but how the Scriptures use them? B) The Greek "theos" for "God" in John 20:28 can also be translated "godly," and that phrase, "my Lord and my God" is an Eastern expression called "hendiadys" which uses two nouns to make make one descriptive point, with one or both nouns used as an adjective. In this phrase, he may actually be saying, "my godly Lord." Having said that, it is my personal opinion that Thomas was just acknowledging that Yeshua is his "Lord" and that Yahweh is his "God." He was addressing BOTH the Father and the Son. The way it was recorded for us in the Gospel of John uses the same style of writing as in Matthew 16:23. So, if Trinitarians try to use that to prove that Yeshua is Yahweh, then they MUST also have to believe that Peter is Satan! Obviously both conclusions are ridiculous.

(end of source material)


"nuff said"

[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 04-07-2003).]

quote:

---

Whereas before, it made John come off sounding like some mystical esoteric speaker of cryptic paradoxes, now, however, he sounds like he is actually making sense:

---

i forget the date, but Harpers (literary magazine) devoted a whole issue to jesus as god several years ago. one of the points made was that when paul was in rome, he met with the mithraic priests (yes, i misspelled that name before ) and the two religions were combined as their god, mythra(s) was of the "dying and reborn" tradition. they were able to tell the roman soldiers/centurians (who were most of their believers) that mythras had been reborn and had died - that jesus was the word (their teachings) made flesh. so that may account for the mystical tone...

sidenote: a second point which stayed with me, is that the mithraic priests had a compound which was their center of affairs and living quarters for their priests. that compound still exists, only today it is known as the vatican and the priesthood there are spiritual descendants of those early mithraic priests.

i checked the magazine's site, but they don't have online archives back that far

Xpirex, you didn't just use it unashamedly, you copied and pasted the whole darn page! You can post the link next time and then use quotes to highlight the good bits

I read through it entirely during lunch today and I would love to offer some analysis, if I find some time. But I really need to know just how much of that you actually have examined for yourself? Are you affiliated with the author in any way? Just curious.

X
Thanks for your long post. I guess it all boils down on how we interpret scripture wording.

Where you post on the heresies, I can agree that the early christan church had to address all sorts of movements within and outside the church. And the reason they did was to take a stand and clarify for the believers so they could understand. They took issue and agreed with some and reformed. Therefore thats why the councils met. In the case of the Council of Nicea, I believe they also addressed Arianism along with Gnosticism. And agreed that both movements went against the beliefs of the christian church on the trinity at the time and issued a creed called the Nicean Creed that is still said in the churchs today.

But I wanted to post scripture if you take heed to the bible so you can see where it reveals Jesus is God. Even though they are 3 separate persons, they are one God. No human will understand this mystery because I don't think it can be revealed to us yet.

So, see if you can comment on some to enighten on where you don't agree,

Exodus 3:13 And God said to Moses, I AM THAT AM: and he said. "Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel. I AM hath sent me unto you"
(Children of Israel also refers to us today)

Matt 4:7 Jesus said to the devil: " It is writtien again, thou shall not tempt the Lord thy God (the devil was tempting Jesus himself)"

Mark 9:37 " Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: an whosoever shall receive me receiveth not me, but him that sent
me."

John 5:26 "For as the Father hath life in himself: so hath he given to the son to have life in himself"

John 7:29 "But I know him: for I AM from him and he hath sent me."

John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I AM ye shall die in your sins" (Refers to God at Mt. Siani when Moses asked who God who was, God replied " I AM")

John 8:28 Then Jesus said to them, When ye have lifted up the Son of Man, then shall ye know that I AM and I do nothing of myself; but as my father hath taught me, I speak these things"

John 8:58 Jesus said unto, them. Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I AM.

John 10:30-33 I and my fathers are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him, Jesus answered them. "many good works have I showed you from my father, for which of those works do ye stone me" The jews answered him , saying, "For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that you thou, being a man, makest thyself God"

John 10:38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works; that ye may know, and believe that the Father is in me, and I in him"

John 12-44-45 Jesus cried and said, " He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. And he that seeth him that sent me"

John 13:19 "Now I tell you before it come, that when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I AM"

John 14:7-10 "If ye had known me, ye should have know my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it suffieth us. Jesus said unto him, "have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? He that that seen me hath seen the Father, and how sayest thou " Now show us the Father? Believest thou not that I AM in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works"

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Isaiah 6:1-5 In the year that King Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphims; each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. And one cried unto another, and said Holy, Holy, Holy the Lord of Host: the whole earth is full of his glory. And the post of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke. Then said I Woe is me for I am undone, because I a man of unclean lips and I dwell in the midst of a pople of unclean lips, for mine eyes have seen the King, the lord of host.

John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him My Lord and my God"

Acts 20:28 "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood"

Romans 9:5"Whose the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen Christ, who is God over all"

Philippians 2:5-6 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Jesus Christ: who being in the form of God, thought is not robbery, is equal to God.

Colossians 1-18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead: that in all things he might have preemience. For it pleased the father that in him should all fullness dwell.

Colossians 2:9-10 For in him dwelleth all the fulllness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power.

John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true in his son Jesus christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

Isaiah 42:5 Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee in the womb, I the Lord that maketh all"

Hebrews 2:10 For it became him, for whom all things and by whom all things,...

Corth 8:6 But to us, one God the father of whom all things, and we in him and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom all things, and we by him.

Ephesians 3:9 God, who created all things by Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 1:2 Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds

John 5:23 That all men should honour the son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

Matt 28:18 Jesus said, " All power is given unto me in heaven and earth"

Isaiah: 9:6 the govermant shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, the everlasting father, the Prince of Peace"

Romans 11:33 "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowlege of God! how unsearchable his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord or who hath been his counseller?"

Colosssians 2:3 In whom(Jesus) are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge

Matt: 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I (Jesus) have commanded you: and lo I am with you always unto the end of the world.

Psalm 44:21 Shall not God search this out? for he knoweth the secrets of the heart & Psalm 147:5 Great is our Lord and of great power, his understanding is infinite.

Mark 16: And Jesus said "I AM and ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven"



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 04-09-2003).]

Jade - the vast majority of the quotes you posted seem to rather clearly say that god *sent* jesus, or god *taught* jesus, or that by accepting jesus you accept god, or other similarly oriented concepts.

I don't see anything to say that jesus *is* god...can you point out which ones you are saying are proof of some osrt of jesus being god?

DL my dear, are you not seeing? Can you like let yourself tap into a possible 4th dimension and see beyond the veil. It is so much more sweeter on the other side.

Haven't you ever had a spiritual encounter like a ghost, spirit, or experienced some dejavu and if you have, can you explain it?
In your life, is there something that has happened to you that you cannot explain. Me, a God fearing person, believe I have some kind of entity in my house. I don't know why its there, but
it truly exist. So I know there is a whole other realm out there.
That being said, isn't it possible to believe that there could be a spiritual realm out there that has guidance, and dominion?

You point out a verse and we will go from there.

Whether you are atheist or theist, I would think it would not be too difficult to demonstrate that the New Testament, as written, claims Jesus to be God. I've already posted the verses in another thread and I've relinked them just a few posts above. Xpirex, other than copying & pasting verbatim an entire page, at least addressed all but one of the verses I posted.

I think the page he posted had a lot of volume yet it fell short of debunking the "proof texts". I also think I found an enormous discrepancy on the site from which he got that article but I need to hear from him first to see how much he is attached to the teachings found there before I comment further.

Jade,

quote:

---

I don't see anything to say that jesus *is* god...can you point out which ones you are saying are proof of some osrt of jesus being god?

---

If you can't point them out then please just say so. There is no harm in admitting you don't know. You can always say you don't know and then go dig up the answers but simply dodging a perfectly honest inquiry doesn't help you or us.

Bug

Whats your problem? Are you having a bad day.

I can't prove that Jesus is God? No one can. I know that Jesus is God by faith & scripture helps to shed light on the point. To me all the scriptures I posted do. I was merely asking DL to point out one to me that he would be more interested in discussing.

I wasn't evading.



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 04-09-2003).]

Jade this

quote:

---

Haven't you ever had a spiritual encounter like a ghost, spirit, or experienced some dejavu and if you have, can you explain it?

---

has happened to me, many times...and many cultures (including those of my people) have been explaining them much earlier than yours...

But of course, you don't believe in that...

And I guess that is the point, isn't it? It all comes down to what you believe...this is the essential 'question' of belief.

As for explaining such occurances...there are as many explainations, as cultures...

However, Science does give us a tool, that no belief system does...the ability to prove, and factually base such explainations on. That is the power of science. Just because there are still unknowns out there, doesn't mean they are unexplainable. If this was true, there wouldn't be any religion, and this thread would be moot. Life would also be pretty boring, with every thing explained, and known.

As for DL, well, he's asking you for concrete information...you see things through the 'glasses' of your faith. Maybe you should take them off for a minute, and consider DLs position. And then, try to explain it, so he can then make a decision, based on just that. Because what you are basically saying is 'Without my faith, you cannot understand me'. And that will not convince anyone, nor is it a positive way to do so. You say 'Come to me'...well, why don't you try 'going to him', instead? After all, he is awaiting answers from you, and not vice versa.

*Pictures God as being bored out of his mind* 'I think I'll bug Moses today...'

Web

I do believe in the spritual world with good and bad spirits. And that,for some reason they communicate with us and science does not have to prove it. This is faith.

As for DL, he does not want to make a decision. He has his view and opinions in life. He is not asking me questions to understand me or my faith. He wants to prove me wrong. He is content the way he is.

What he sees, I don't see. What I see, he doesn't see. So where do we go from there. Nowhere.

He chooses not to see a light, so the light with not reveal itself to him. DL may never want to see the light in his lifetime. I would want everyone to believe in God, no matter what religion or I wouldn't be a Christian. I can't force God on anyone. All I can do is hope and pray for all.

No jade, your conclusion is not sound. DL is not trying to disprove you. he is making the case that your...arguments, if you will, or answers, for lack of a better term, don't stand up. This is much more dangerous than trying to disprove you...it's an assualt on your credibility. I personally know, that were you to make an effort, he would at least try to understand...not necessarily agree, but understand as long as it is well thought out, and makes sense!

You say he hasn't made a decision? I find that not only hard to believe, but laughable. You obviously have let your emotions blind you. Some of the discussions here between DL and Bugs are legendary...and they have quite the respect for one another...because of how they present the information, and their convictions behind what they say...they both walk, what they talk.

By putting him in a place in your closet, you are doing both DL, and yourself, a disfavor, IMHO. But that is your choice.

I have tangled with DL before, as well. He can be a fearsome opponent, but only when you don't have your shit straight. Don't expect him to pull punches, because you can't formulate what you believe precisely. He doesn't want to hear the repeating of scriptures, or the words from others. He wants to here your genuine opinions, straight from the heart, and be prepared to back them up. In other words, can you think for yourself? How did you come to the conclusion of your faith? What motivates you, to be the way your are? Why do you believe, the way you do? Can you communicate this, in your own words? Are you a thinking being, or are you blindly following?

It's about who you are, and what you are. If you believe as you say you do, then you shouldn't be ashamed to admit and defend it. In other words, back up what you say, with your own words and experiences, not the words and experiences of others.

'Walk the walk, if you are going to talk the talk.' Be a real person. Stick to your guns.

Jade, I am so sick of your piss poor attitude.

You posted a point.

I asked a question.

I know..I should know better than to think that you could actually *answer* an objective question by now. I know you prefer to simply insult me as a way out.

But I can't help it. You post things that don't make sense, so I ask for an explanation. Is that so difficult for you?

As for my view of spirituality - my dear, you have no clue. You rely on books and priests to give you your spirituality. I draw mine straight from the source.

Your inability to accept that is *your* limitation, *your* veil. Not mine.

.

My question still stands, and it's a very valid one.

The verses I'm reading in your post say that god sent/taught jesus, that by accpeting jesus you accpet god, but not that jesus *is* god.

Explain.




[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 04-10-2003).]

...Sigh...

...xpi...

[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 04-10-2003).]

Er Jade I just can't digest any of that... it defies all logic in my eyes.

Bigamus: Yes the posting was big but I feel it was required and thankyou though I will link in future.
Yes I read all of that text, in fact for about 20 years I have been researching such things. I spent 4 years as a minister (of sorts) and was trainng to be a missionary (of sorts) at one point. But after a very bad and painful and traumatic experience with organised religion and its adherants I have sadly remained solo in my spiritual quests. I have read the bible about 23 times now and used to study the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. No I am not aquainted with the author and organiser of the posted material but I did request permission. Things we think or say are rarely original and I feel no shame in using it as it was very thorough and detailed, complete and I feel rather irrefutable. I don't claim to adhere to any other views of the author and apart from that analysis of the false trinity teaching I have stated nothing else as to where I am coming from.

Whatever we believe, I think that a spirit of peace, love and humility are always good lubricants in any interaction.

... Hey I am in the Asylum with the rest of you...


...xpi...

"nuff said"

[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 04-10-2003).]

Jade, let's back up just a bit. I was having quite a good day, thanks for asking

Perhaps you misunderstood that there are verses in the NT that clearly indicate that the authors believed Jesus Christ was not just the Son of God, but God too. Not all of the verses you quoted point directly to that. This is what DL-44 was asking you to be more specific about.

Does that make sense? It seems so clear to me I was just hoping you would show him the verses he asked about. That's all.

And I wanted to clear up one more thing. When you said that I didn't come to your defense, I originally thought you were serious. Later you said you were just kidding about that. Well, it's always a good idea to use these so we all know that you're kidding. Believe me, we've had some miscommunications around here where a simple little smiley could have helped avert.

But then again some of our most famous fights have also been some of the most entertaining.


Xpirex, I am perfectly fine with you citing that material, I was just offering a suggestion on how to keep the thread more readable by limiting the actual amount of text posted. Links to pages can really help in that regard.

I absolutely agree with

quote:

---

Whatever we believe, I think that a spirit of peace, love and humility are always good lubricants in any interaction.

---

I would agree with you that the doctrine of the Trinity was never mentioned in the bible. Where we disagree is that I see very strong indications of Christ's deity as well as the Holy Spirit's in the very same bible. I don't actually have any stock in the doctrine of the Trinity other than that I find it's most basic assertions backed up with scripture.

The source material seemed to leave out one of the most striking instances of Christ claiming Godhood. There are many verses that say people worshiped Jesus. Worship is reserved for God alone, so why would Jesus allow them to do this?

But my personal favorite indication is this one:

The Jews answered him, "Aren't we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?"
"I am not possessed by a demon," said Jesus, "but I honor my Father and you dishonor me. 50I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. I tell you the truth, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death."
At this the Jews exclaimed, "Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that if anyone keeps your word, he will never taste death. Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?"
Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."
"You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds. --John 8:48-58

Jesus not only stated that He pre-existed Abraham but He used the title of God the Father in the words "I Am". You can see this here:

God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'" --Exodus 3:14

You can be assured that there was no doubt to Jesus' audience that He had just claimed to be God because according to Jewish law to do that was a death sentence and that is why they tried to stone Him right then and there.

bugs - wow.

it's so cool that you quoted that passage - i just led a study on john 5-9 last night - and gee whiz there are some powerful statements in there.

he really gets those pharisees riled up in those passages.

anyways... back to your regularly scheduled conversing...

quote:

---

Exodus 3:13 And God said to Moses, I AM THAT AM: and he said. "Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel. I AM hath sent me unto you"
(Children of Israel also refers to us today)

---

no. the children of israel = the people of the book = jewish people. you, jade, are a christian. you believe in the trinity. you are not one of the children of israel. -- just had to insert that little point

Web.

I take note of your opinion of me. And please don't make this a DL & me thing again. Did I miss reading a charter where it says we had to understand each other on this site or to conform to another way of ones thinking. I thought we were posting opinions and views.
i do notice in certain idologies there are certain few who stick together like a fraternity. And lo and behold if you get too close to the waters, the shark will bite.
Fearsome opponet, Where! And I am glad that Bugs and DL respect each other. Good. Great! I for one lose my respect for someone if they have to use sewage words to express a point.

If you are into current events here, there is Catholic bias. Your the one who is blind. I don't think anyone on this thread wants to know why or how I tick. Credibility? Who on this thread has more credibiity than another? This is all about expressionsim.
First I am told to feel free to use scripture and then don't use it because its empty words. My scripture was in reference to Xs post and because he used scripture I used it too. I did not refute what he posted. Gosh! Can I please everybody all of the time?

DL.

In reference to your question on Father taught Jesus, not stating Jesus is God, I see it revealed in all the scriptures. Forgive me in my assumption if all could see. I assume too much. I will give you what I know to be true for me the way I see it and this is not a repsonse from a text or anything. It may not be to your understanding because alot of faith is involved and faith is somthing that cannot be proven. So I will have to start from the beginning in reference to the trinity.
Bear with me if its a tad long.

The supreme higher being God is all intelligence in its fullness. Supreme conscienousness in all phases of existance outward in inward in that God works in all because he is. All knowlelge in its fullness regarding life in the complexities are in this essence. Meaning the laws of the universe and of nature. In the esscence of God is a working divine family. Separate entities, but all the same. They all complete each other. This area is a divine mystery. Not comprehendable to you or me. This divinety of God is complete perfected love. Each entity perfectly loves itself and the separate divine persons. Because of the great love of in itself it wants to share itself so it can magnify itself not adding to its greatness, because God lacks nothing in greatness.
So the greatness of Good decides to extend itself and creates all things. In the creation of mankind, is where God extends itself in its image, its light. The light of knowledge of itself. This light can only be transmitted by God itself. In order for God to know us as we are he and he to us it has to become one with us. And it does so with great love, so we can know God, love God and serve God in this world, so we know how to do so in the next world God has planned for us. So God empties the second person of itself which is the Son through the workings of all three persons, itself, the son and the spirit. He becomes flesh for us to see, so we can know who the first person is. God acquires a dimension. And God the Word is saying I am going to assume flesh so you can love me. And God is asking? Can you love me back?

Now you can think of God being a huge power box of electricity that gives light and he can only give life and light to the world with a conduit or extension cord pluggged into the earth. So all of us have access to electricity if we want it and some of us don't want to turn on the switch and remain in darkness. The conduit or source being the second person of itself, Jesus the son, who is the light of the world. Now thru this extension cord God the father is feeding itself in knowlege to his other sons and daughers, mankind thru the divine son, itself. By acquiring a human nature the second person becomes a son just like us to share in Gods divinity. Thats why we are able to see the light. All this light reflected back thru the son magnifys the Father, the first person. And thur this magnified back in a way of God blessing more to the world. So what is revealed to us as brothers by being taught by Jesus is God.

The more of Gods light in the world the stronger God is in this material world thru our will to do good and avoid evil. The more darkness the more tragic occurances. So lots of people don't want to turn the lights on because they like to be in the dark r maybe don't know how to turn the light on. Thur the second person of the trintiy Jesus the son, God is only teaching us or revealing to us what God wants us to know of itself, meaning we a limited in our intelligence and understanding as of now. Because to know all would be like God and that is for us to know when we meet God in his total fullness.



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 04-10-2003).]

Jade, this

quote:

---

Web.

I take note of your opinion of me. And please don't make this a DL & me thing again. Did I miss reading a charter where it says we had to understand each other on this site or to conform to another way of ones thinking. I thought we were posting opinions and views.
i do notice in certain idologies there are certain few who stick together like a fraternity. And lo and behold if you get too close to the waters, the shark will bite.
Fearsome opponet, Where! And I am glad that Bugs and DL respect each other. Good. Great! I for one lose my respect for someone if they have to use sewage words to express a point.

If you are into current events here, there is Catholic bias. Your the one who is blind. I don't think anyone on this thread wants to know why or how I tick. Credibility? Who on this thread has more credibiity than another? This is all about expressionsim.
First I am told to feel free to use scripture and then don't use it because its empty words. My scripture was in reference to Xs post and because he used scripture I used it too. I did not refute what he posted. Gosh! Can I please everybody all of the time?

---

is totally uncalled for, and I must say, you have done both me, and yourself a disfavor. Along with your insults, I hear a tone of superiority in your post...and that is typical of what I have encountered in Catholics. Now, first of all, I never attacked you, so I'm quite confused on why you feel you have to defend yourself against me. I attempted to reason with you, yes, and tried to build a bridge between you and DL...but you burned that down. At least DL was willing to cross it...says a lot about you, doesn't it? Second, what I meant with the scriptures (you could of just asked me to clarify if you didn't uderstand what I meant) is that putting them in context is fine - as long as you back that up with your own words, thoughts, etc. (see Bugs posts). However, just posting scriptures, and saying 'There! You see?'. Ahhh...no. One thing that has become clear in this thread, is that the Bible can be interpreted many diferent ways...so what appears to be 'truth' to you, may appear different to someone else.

Also, before your last post, I really never had an opinon of you - why should I? I was interested in the information on Angels...but a personal opinion of you? Nope. However, your totally overreacting, defensive remarks clearly do serve the point of defining you in some ways. I begin to see DLs points a bit more clearly. In other words, I find your reaction seemingly negative...and I'm not sure why that is.

Maybe you can't handle honesty? Maybe you thought I was somehow being mean, or attacking you? I just don't know. If I gave you that impression, then I apologize, that was not my intent.

*whew* try to build bridges...I think I'll go back to just watching this one...some religious people are just not to be reasoned with, I guess.

Mr. Web
Oh! Is that what you were trying to do? Build a bridge. I think me and DL were bridging before. Maybe you misunderstand me. I dont want to seem negative. I am not superior. I am a very humble person and I always think of myself as servant. If I misunderstood you in the post, since we can't verbalize to each other, I am sorry. Your points do matter as they all do. I did give you my view of angels before on how I see them.

New thread?

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

velvet rose,

The way I see it is this way:

I think the children of Israel prefigures us as people.
In a sense like history repeating itself in the spiritual.
We are Gods people too in that we are going thur the
same things today in our journey like the 40 year
journey of the Isralites. We have an intercessor who
reveals who God is, we know the way, we struggle,
we fall, but eventually see God if we are faithfull like
the Israelites who get to the Promise Land. And our
promise land being heaven

Ok.

For starters - thank you for explaining, Jade.

secondly, you seem to have a big chip on your shoulder about your religion, and it is quite obviously something that you brought here with you and not something that was acquired here.

You say there is a big split here based on ideology? Have you not listened to anything here? Very few of us here actually agree on much of *anything* quite frankly. And those of use who agree on one issue often disagree on the next. Bugs, Reitsma, and Fig tend to be on the same page when it comes to religion, but that's about as big as that group gets

But agreeing or disagreeing is *completely* irellevant. If I did not want to understand where yo were coming from, I wouldn't ask. If I wanted to 'prove you wrong' I wouldn't ask, I would state, and I would simply insult you.

Hmm. Kind of like your attitude has been towards me...don't you think?

.

Now, regarding this:

quote:

---

some of us don't want to turn on the switch and remain in darkness

---

There is a very fatal flaw in that manner of thinking, IMO. Yes, I could very easily block out reality and instead flip this switch...you call it light that pushes away the darkness, I call it light that blinds you from reality. There is light all around already, and there is beauty and goodness in the shadows as well.

=)

quote:

---

There is a very fatal flaw in that manner of thinking, IMO. Yes, I could very easily block out reality and instead flip this switch...you call it light that pushes away the darkness, I call it light that blinds you from reality. There is light all around already, and there is beauty and goodness in the shadows as well.

---

What's reality? This dream I'm seeing every time I wake up? So it's consistent, but if u get to the very bottom of it, Descartes' cogito ergo sum is about as much reality as u can be sure of. Anything else, is real if u believe in it. so I think if one believes in god - god is just as real for them as science is real for the nonbelievers.

DL
Please enlighten me on the beauty & goodness of the shadows as you know them?

OOOhhh, that was a good question...

*gets out popcorn*

quote:

---

Bugs, Reitsma, and Fig tend to be on the same page when it comes to religion, but that's about as big as that group gets .

---

we let suho, eyezaer, jk, and a few others in the clubhouse too but they usually forget the secret password and suho never gets the handshake right

*grabs a handful of WS's popcorn*

chris