It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Bible Is All About Jesus Christ Being Exalted.

page: 13
22
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2018 @ 06:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: whereislogic


Text Why are Trinitarians misrepresenting the history around their favored dogma? Why is this person who is criticial regarding this issue still calling it a "Christian" Trinity in the title of his video (I think he's an atheist) when the Pagan (Babylonian and Egyptian > Greek) roots of this doctrine are so well-evidenced in historical research and documentation including highly respected Encyclopedias such as the Encyclopaedia Britannica?

I don't think trinitarians do misrepresent The Most High God of Jesus.

Perhaps you misread my question, my question was:

Why are Trinitarians misrepresenting the history around their favored dogma?

As for example explained in more detail in that video that question was partly based on. My question was not why do Trinitarians "misrepresent The Most High God of Jesus". The question is specifically about some of the misrepresentations of the history around their favored dogma spoken of in that video. This also has to do with giving misleading information regarding the teachings of the Church Fathers and apologists, most of the ones of the 2nd and 3rd century actually being better described as Binitarians rather than Trinitarians and teaching something else than what Athanasius turned it into (see for example the semi-acknowledgement* of the fact I quoted earlier regarding the term "4th-century invention" from the New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Volume 14, page 299. *: They aren't clear that it's a fact/certainty/truth/reality, something that is true/certain/absolute/factual/conclusive/unambiguous/correct, without error; keyphrase they use: "in a sense, this is true", pfff, it's true in every sense what they're tentatively semi-acknowledging there with the awareness that most who would read that Encyclopedia are already sufficiently indoctrinated with Trinitarianism not to take note of what is mentioned there, not to register it and think it through what this means for the doctrine of the Trinity and its origin not being biblical but Pagan, the atheist professor asks a relevant question regarding the timeframe it took to develop the doctrine of the Trinity into the Athanasian Creed). Something more compatible with what you're arguing for, but Trinitarians won't even mention it when they go through the dogma and some of them will even misrepresent those conflicting and differing views those early philosophers who gave rise to the doctrine of the Trinity (Athansian Creed as discussed in the video made by the atheist professor) over multiple centuries in multiple stages were teaching. Some of which is also discussed in other videos and links used in my commentary. Here's more history that is being misrepresented by Trinitarians:

The Apologists​—Christian Defenders or Would-Be Philosophers?
The Church Fathers—Advocates of Bible Truth?
The Paradox of Tertullian
The Baptism of Clovis—1,500 Years of Catholicism in France

And more history that is twisted and misrepresented (as for example described in the video made by the atheist* that you possibly didn't watch, yet still felt the need or desire to respond to the related questions and commentary of mine) is in the video entitled "He is a liar! part 1 of 2".

*: I'm talking about the video erronuously entitled: "The Christian Trinity" (nothing "Christian" about the Trinity, call it what it is please if one is going to argue against it anyway, the Pagan concept of a Trinity, Triune God or Triad; don't give people the wrong impression, that's so typical again for an atheist and bible critic, just like his subtle implication that some bible verses could be contradictory, nope, only the Trinitarian interpretation or preferred rendering makes them contradictory, like John 1:1; Akragon is doing this as well, pretending or convincing himself that the book of John actually teaches Trinitarian or Binitarian concepts, which it doesn't. In order to cast doubt and vagueness/ambiguity over the clear teachings of the bible, making things more blurry and clouding it in a fog of darkness, as per the behaviour of Satan, a favorite technique of obscuration). The bible is clear on this subject, no ambiguity, no contradictions, no doubt as to what it teaches. It exposes the true nature and allegiance of Trinitarian and Binitarian theologians and philosophers both past and present (people like James White, Tertullian, Justin and Athanasius). As per for example John 8 that I've been quoting from ("You are from your Father the Devil..."', "This is why you do not listen, because you are not from God.", etc.).

It's still funny in an ironic way though, when Trinitarian scholars and theologians literally spell out "it's not a biblical doctrine" yet still manage to talk right past that issue as if it's not an issue for the doctrine of the Trinity (as long as you just read it into the bible, and by translating John 1:1c for example as "the Word was God" instead of "the Word was a god" or "the Word was godlike/divine", 2 very different statements, the latter 2 renderings carrying the same thought but quite different from the first rendering).

Cardinal John O’Connor stated about the Trinity: “We know that it is a very profound mystery, which we don’t begin to understand.” Why is the Trinity so difficult to understand?

The Illustrated Bible Dictionary gives one reason. Speaking of the Trinity, this publication admits: “It is not a biblical doctrine in the sense that any formulation of it can be found in the Bible.” Because the Trinity is “not a biblical doctrine,” Trinitarians have been desperately looking for Bible texts​—even twisting them—​to find support for their teaching.

Notice the phrase "in the sense" again just after the semi-acknowledgement that it's "not a biblical doctrine"? This is another publication from a different source, using the same cop-out phrase to distract and talk past the issue here: it's not a biblical doctrine in any sense, twist all you want after that semi-acknowledgement, it won't make it a biblical doctrine.

Source: Is Jesus God?

Many Greek scholars and Bible translators acknowledge that John 1:1 highlights, not the identity, but a quality of “the Word.” Says Bible translator William Barclay: “Because [the apostle John] has no definite article in front of theos it becomes a description . . . John is not here identifying the Word with God. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God.” Scholar Jason David BeDuhn likewise says: “In Greek, if you leave off the article from theos in a sentence like the one in John 1:1c, then your readers will assume you mean ‘a god.’ . . . Its absence makes theos quite different than the definite ho theos, as different as ‘a god’ is from ‘God’ in English.” BeDuhn adds: “In John 1:1, the Word is not the one-and-only God, but is a god, or divine being.” Or to put it in the words of Joseph Henry Thayer, a scholar who worked on the American Standard Version: “The Logos [or, Word] was divine, not the divine Being himself.”

edit on 3-2-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 3 2018 @ 08:28 AM
link   
We are talking here about hundreds (maybe even thousands, I can't count them, too many) verses that differentiate between God and Jesus as 2 individuals by the rational proper use of words such as "I", ""me", "you", "your", "my" and phrases about being sent and sending, making someone a little lower than angels and being made a little lower than angels, appointing and being appointed, anointing and being anointed, etc ("the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" to name another example from Eph 1:3 and somewhere at the start of 1 or 2 Peter; every time Jehovah is called by his name, all over 7000 times, every time Jesus is called by his name, every prophecy about Jesus in the Hebrew Scriptures, every statement about Jehovah God, including those only mentioning "God" that uses words such as "I", "me", "mine" in a singular sense, every statement about God being "one", the meaning of the Greek word "monos" discussed in the atheist professor's video under the phrase "the only true God" that Jesus used to refer to someone else he was praying to who he also described as "my God", clearly describing his God as another individual, and on and on and a clear biblical teaching that Jesus has a God without requiring any interpretation or use of philosophical language and argumentation, just accepting what it says just like the word "of" has logical implications in the phrase "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" logically excluding "our Lord Jesus Christ" from being that God, that individual described as such; otherwise you end up with a logical contradiction when that is being argued even when it's being argued on other occasions in the underlying Trinitarian and Binitarian dogma but contradicted in a direct response to any questions about this phrase to distract from the issue that this phrase contradicts Trinitarian and Binitarian dogma, as one can recognize if one doesn't fall for the twisting, red herrings, distractions and dodges away from a rational use of language and accepting what "of" logically implies: that Jesus has a God who isn't Jesus himself, even after Jesus' ascension to heaven that didn't change, as it was in the beginning before Jesus came to earth because Jehovah sent him and told him what to do and teach which Jesus obediently did; which obedience would mean nothing with a Trinitarian and Binitarian interpretation of the bible's teachings, it's negated, 'obedient to oneself'? How is that a good example of how to be a true Christian, a true servant of God, like Jesus?)

vs

a handful of verses that are being twisted and/or (sometimes deliberately) mistranslated by Trinitarian and Binitarian philosophers and the type of "teachers" described at 2 Timothy 4:3,4. Where one has to abandon any rational proper use of words (in favor of a more philosophical use of words like "substance" and "essence" but not just in that way) and reason if one wants to end up reading it into the bible. Or just add whole phrases like the phrase that was added in 1 John 5:7 in the KJV and then stay silent as the so-called King James Only Movement or those using the same or similar arguments spread and grow more numerous.

The question near the start of this video is very encouraging and relevant (all quotations are from the KJV except the last one, a bible that still includes the teachings of truth that Jesus taught, who will listen to him and believe his word over mine? Even though I'm not among the ones contradicting him, or regardless of whether or not I'm doing that in the opinion of others):

Trinity Doctrine, A False Teaching Of Man, Council of Nicaea
edit on 3-2-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2018 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: whereislogic

First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia


Much of the debate hinged on the difference between being "born" or "created" and being "begotten". Arians saw these as essentially the same; followers of Alexander did not. The exact meaning of many of the words used in the debates at Nicaea were still unclear to speakers of other languages. Greek words like "essence" (ousia), "substance" (hypostasis), "nature" (physis), "person" (prosopon) bore a variety of meanings drawn from pre-Christian philosophers,...


John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.


Source: Trinity: Reasoning (but of course primarily the dictonary being quoted there)

This issue is also raised in the presentation below which quotes the dictionary above; if you consider it in light of what's quoted from wikipedia and in the 2nd video regarding the words "essence", "substance", "nature" and "person" and the relevant bible quotations you may notice how it's relevant to your usage of "substance" (2:29 - 3:32, keypoint at 3:14):

I actually highly recommend the rest of that video as well as it quotes that dictionary in more detail and discusses related subjects including some of what I discussed so far in a different way. It also goes deeper into the behaviour described in the dictionary quoted above and phrases such as "not a biblical doctrine" and the topic of the Pagan origins of the doctrine of the Trinity and the history of its development. If you do that and get to 10:00 and in particular the quotation of Isaiah 45 at 10:40, another reading (with illustrations) of Isaiah 45 after his commentary may be beneficial (it also helps if you've already read some of the stuff about Babylon the Great that I shared and linked previously):

Pardon me for those who think I'm talking too much or perhaps feel the need to point that out for some reason, or something similar. Jeremiah 20:8-11:

8 For whenever I speak, I must cry out and proclaim,

“Violence and destruction!”

For me the word of Jehovah has been the cause of insults and jeering all day long.

9 So I said: “I am not going to make mention of him,

And I will speak no more in his name.”

But in my heart it became like a burning fire shut up in my bones,

And I was tired of holding it in;

I could no longer endure it.


10 For I heard many evil rumors;

Terror surrounded me.

“Denounce him; let us denounce him!”

Every man wishing me peace was watching for my downfall:

“Perhaps he will make a foolish mistake,

And we can prevail and take our revenge against him.”

edit on 3-2-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2018 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic


The question is specifically about some of the misrepresentations of the history around their favored dogma spoken of in that video.

I don't remember whether or not I have said this to you before but I do not favor videos. Very few videos do I regard as a proper discussion. Most all videos are other peoples opinions with out being responsible in debate. Also a proper debate is to make the questions as short as possible and to be on one point at a time.

This subject was the meaning of Holy Ghost (Spirit) as written in the KJV bible. I do not recall your answer as to what you regard as the Holy Ghost. I have posted my understanding and would like your understanding. That is the only way to discuss our differences. Chester John has expressed his belief many times in the past so with all due respect to Chester, let's simply discuss that one topic for now.

edit on 3-2-2018 by Seede because: forgot to show quotes



posted on Feb, 3 2018 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Seede

Well for 1950 years Paul was considered the author..

If I am correct the Bible even claims Paul is the author, but modern scholars have noted the DIFFERING DOGMAS and writing style. So it is pretty obvious the other 8 are forgeries.

Not the book revelationS..


Paul got all his information on jesus from visions (revelation)..

AKA the guy who wrote 26-60% of the NT never even met jesus..

People just trust that he really had visions..

The exact same level of evidence claimed by Joseph Smith, David Koresh, Jim Jones exc..



But to my original point..

Since revelation (visions) are an accepted way of receiving divine info. Jesus would not have needed to see Lucifer’s fall , to have seen Lucifer’s fall.

Jesus could have seen the fall in a vison.



posted on Feb, 3 2018 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox


Text AKA the guy who wrote 26-60% of the NT never even met jesus..

Perhaps not in the sense as you understand but In Acts 9:5,6 and Acts 22:14 it was Luke who wrote that Saul indeed did meet Jesus. Also Saul/Paul spent three years in Arabia before meeting any of the Apostles in Jerusalem Tradition references those three years as when Jesus taught Saul/Paul. As far as Paul being in a trance, It is ridiculous to assume Paul was in a trance for over three years each time he conversed with Jesus. The scriptures do say that Paul had visions but John also had visions and probably others as well. Visions can and have occurred many times in both OT and NT.



posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 02:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Seede

Acts prob wasn’t written by Luke.. no if Luke was a poor judean fisherman..

Luke and acts were written in Classical Greek, not the broken vernacular judean of a illiterate Jew..

We have no idea actually who wrote acts or Luke.. we do know that no one who met jesus first person had the ability to write sheakspear level Classical Greek..

If I’m right the author never claims to be Luke..

“The gospel of Luke “ was a title added later..


ALSO most of the people who actually met jesus , were dead 50 years after his death..

Period no one older than 20 when he lived was AND that is assuming they survived the Roman purges that killed tens of thousands of years..


Mark is the only book of the gospel with ANY chance of being from primary sources..

A lot of scholars think mattew and Luke used marks account to write their gospels.

Basically all critical (not apologetic) scholars agree John was the latest gospel with the smallest chance of not being a forgery..


Paul is no different that Joseph Smith or David koresh.. just some guy claiming visions..



posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox


Acts prob wasn’t written by Luke.. no if Luke was a poor judean fisherman.. Luke and acts were written in Classical Greek, not the broken vernacular judean of a illiterate Jew.. We have no idea actually who wrote acts or Luke.. we do know that no one who met jesus first person had the ability to write sheakspear level Classical Greek.. If I’m right the author never claims to be Luke..

Luke is accepted as the author of both the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts of the Apostles. literary critics do agree both works were by the same author. You can call him Pete or George but that does not take the message away from the author. It is true that the Greek used in these MSS were by a more educated individual than that of some other NT MSS and that only adds to the possibility that Luke is the author being that as a gentile physician he was more educated than the average citizen. That bolsters the evidence that he was indeed the man called Luke.

The most interesting thing that I find in your arguments is that of Koine Greek or classical Greek. What difference would this make to the interpreter? If a MSS was in Hebrew/Aramaic, Greek, Latin, or any other language, the translator who understands the languages can translate the languages into his/her mother tongue. The message would be the same to his/her tongue. Your reasoning is very silly to infer that that this would have anything to do with the message. The overall message would be the same regardless of the discovered MSS.

The Septuagint Torah was in use at this time to the Hellenist Greeks along with Hebrew/Aramaic Torah to the Hebrew of Hebrews Torah and the messages were not changed in the least. The DSS will verify this. So in that lite I doubt that of which you post. Most all of the NT is believed to have originally been in Hebrew/Aramaic but without the autographs no one can be sure of any word play or languages used. Being a gentile physician, I doubt that Luke was a poor Jew fisherman.



posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

I contend they do not.

I have yet to read or known of any god but the LORD who allowed Israel to pass on dry ground through the dead sea. I have not read or know of any other god but the Lord who stopped the waters of the Jordan and piled them as heap on one side the other they drained into the dead see.

I have not experienced any other God who indwelled me and has giving me salvation and a new life in Christ, as I have in Jesus Christ.

No other god is said in any writing I have had the opportunity to read, and they are numerous readings, to do these things, and no other god have ever set men free from a life style of sin as the Lord Jesus Christ, God almighty in the flesh, the Lord of Hosts, has done to millions of people in just my life time. Let alone over the last two thousand years.

No other religion boast of such except that of Judaism and Christianity.



posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

I didn't say Holy Spirit, I said Holy Ghost. So to me your point is moot as you make mine to be to you.



posted on Feb, 5 2018 @ 12:58 AM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

We do know that you are poorly read and skim what you do however. You know nothing of other faiths. You put your stock in the mythical preserved word of your deity which is a heavily edited Protestant text



posted on Feb, 5 2018 @ 01:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Akragon

I didn't say Holy Spirit, I said Holy Ghost. So to me your point is moot as you make mine to be to you.


same thing man...

gimmie a break...




posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 07:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
This subject was the meaning of Holy Ghost (Spirit) as written in the KJV bible. I do not recall your answer as to what you regard as the Holy Ghost. I have posted my understanding and would like your understanding.

Are you sure? Cause almost 2 years ago I responded to you with:

posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 07:10

a reply to: Seede

Those interested can likewise read the page for the word "Spirit" in relation to some of what you said about that word:

Spirit, Reasoning From the Scriptures

and alternate options (there may be overlapping information):

Spirit, Insight
...

The first link after listing all the different applications and meanings of the word spirit including in the phrase "(the) holy spirit", i.e. what I also regard as the holy spirit (I'll bold it further below, the shortest description), has the following question at the head of the first paragraph there:

What is the holy spirit?

And if you would really like my understanding you could also try being less reluctant to watch the videos I'm sharing, since it's in there as well, it's sort of getting in the way of any desire to figure out my understanding. In that thread I responded to you ("One myth leads to another") I also quoted the following from the 2nd link later on (allthough you may not have been around anymore at the time, I didn't get any more responses):

The Greek pneuʹma (spirit) comes from pneʹo, meaning “breathe or blow,” and the Hebrew ruʹach (spirit) is believed to come from a root having the same meaning. Ruʹach and pneuʹma, then, basically mean “breath” but have extended meanings beyond that basic sense. (Compare Hab 2:19; Re 13:15.) They can also mean wind; the vital force in living creatures; one’s spirit; spirit persons, including God and his angelic creatures; and God’s active force, or holy spirit. (Compare Koehler and Baumgartner’s Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, Leiden, 1958, pp. 877-879; Brown, Driver, and Briggs’ Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1980, pp. 924-926; Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by G. Friedrich, translated by G. Bromiley, 1971, Vol. VI, pp. 332-451.) All these meanings have something in common: They all refer to that which is invisible to human sight and which gives evidence of force in motion. Such invisible force is capable of producing visible effects.

I bolded the shortest description of what the holy spirit is, if you are truly interested in more details, I suggest the first link:

A comparison of Bible texts that refer to the holy spirit shows that it is spoken of as ‘filling’ people; they can be ‘baptized’ with it; and they can be “anointed” with it. (Luke 1:41; Matt. 3:11; Acts 10:38) None of these expressions would be appropriate if the holy spirit were a person.

Jesus also referred to the holy spirit as a “helper” (Greek, pa·raʹkle·tos), and he said that this helper would “teach,” “bear witness,” “speak,” and ‘hear.’ (John 14:16, 17, 26; 15:26; 16:13) It is not unusual in the Scriptures for something to be personified. For example, wisdom is said to have “children.” (Luke 7:35) Sin and death are spoken of as being kings. (Rom. 5:14, 21) While some texts say that the spirit “spoke,” other passages make clear that this was done through angels or humans. (Acts 4:24, 25; 28:25; Matt. 10:19, 20; compare Acts 20:23 with 21:10, 11.) At 1 John 5:6-8, not only the spirit but also “the water and the blood” are said to ‘bear witness.’ So, none of the expressions found in these texts in themselves prove that the holy spirit is a person.

The correct identification of the holy spirit must fit all the scriptures that refer to that spirit. With this viewpoint, it is logical to conclude that the holy spirit is the active force of God. It is not a person but is a powerful force that God causes to emanate from himself to accomplish his holy will.—Ps. 104:30; 2 Pet. 1:21; Acts 4:31.

See also pages 406, 407, under the heading “Trinity.”

What gives evidence that a person really has the holy spirit, or “the Holy Ghost” (KJ)?

Luke 4:18, 31-35: ...

Link to the page about the Trinity is already in this thread. It goes on for a while. It's much easier to observe the biblical evidence regarding what is being said there on the page were all the bible verses are linked.
edit on 6-2-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic


Are you sure? Cause almost 2 years ago I responded to you with:

Two years ago is not necessarily the same as today is it not? A lot can happen in two years. More knowledge can be acquired to add or change your understanding. You could even realize that you might be mistaken. As far as videos are concerned, videos are well intended but most always they include opinions not related to the subject and in many cases they take a lot of unnecessary time to view. In some cases videos can be helpful to show stats or formulas of sorts but in most cases cannot be referenced such as hard copies can be referenced.

Now I can agree with you in that the Holy Spirit is of God and not of the terrestrial substance but I can go no further than that simply because I don't really know what spirit is. All spirits can be of Gods permissive will but not necessarily be of God's perfect will. A holy spirit is just that in my understanding but to define Holy Spirit is not clear to my understanding. I can describe what I am taught but cannot verify that what I am taught is the perfect will of the Creator.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede
Perhaps the advice or recommended methodology of a 16th-century truth seeker might be of help in that regards.

Three 16th-Century Truth Seekers​—What Did They Find?

“WHAT is truth?” That was the question that Pontius Pilate, Roman governor of Judea in the first century, asked of Jesus, who was on trial before the governor. (John 18:38) Pilate, of course, was not really seeking the truth. If anything, his question revealed his skeptical or cynical attitude. Apparently, to Pilate truth was whatever a person might choose or was taught to believe; there was really no way to determine what is truth. Many today feel the same way.

Churchgoers in 16th-century Europe faced the dilemma of what to believe as truth. Raised to believe in the supremacy of the pope and in other teachings of the church, they were confronted with new ideas spread by the Reformation, which was sweeping through Europe at the time. What should they believe? How would they decide what is truth?

During that period, there were, among many others, three men who were determined to seek out the truth.* How did they go about identifying what was true and what was false? And what did they find? Let us see.

“LET THE BIBLE . . . ALWAYS RULE SUPREME”

Wolfgang Capito was a young man with deep religious convictions. A student of medicine, law, and theology, Capito became a parish priest in 1512 and then chaplain to the archbishop of Mainz.

At first, Capito tried to soften the zeal of Reformers who preached a message contrary to Catholic dogma. Soon, however, Capito himself began to advocate reform. What did he do? When confronted with various teachings, Capito believed that “the best source with which to judge their preaching was the Bible, for only it was certain,” writes historian James M. Kittelson. Capito thus concluded that the church teachings on transubstantiation and the veneration of saints were unscriptural. ...
...
Though some Reformers still promoted the Trinity doctrine, Capito’s writings, according to the book The Radical Reformation, reflect “reticence on the doctrine of the Trinity.” Why? Capito was impressed by the way that Spanish theologian Michael Servetus appealed to Bible texts to disprove the Trinity.*

Denial of the Trinity could bring fatal consequences, so Capito was cautious about declaring his feelings openly. However, his writings suggest that he had privately questioned the Trinity doctrine even before he met Servetus. A Catholic priest later wrote that Capito and his associates “proceeded to discuss in their private capacity, and without appeal,​—the profoundest mysteries of religion; [and] rejected that of the most Holy Trinity.” A century later, Capito was listed first among prominent anti-Trinitarian writers.

Capito believed that the Bible was the source of truth. “Let the Bible and the law of Christ always rule supreme in theology,” he stated. According to Dr. Kittelson, Capito “insisted that the chief failing of the scholastic theologians lay in their neglect of the Scriptures.”

This earnest desire to learn the truth from God’s Word was shared by Martin Cellarius (also known as Martin Borrhaus), a young man who stayed at the Capito home in 1526. ...
...
How could Cellarius distinguish mere human ideas from Scriptural truth?

According to the book Teaching the Reformation, Cellarius believed that true understanding results “from the assiduous reading of Scripture, from frequent comparison of Scripture with itself, and from prayer joined with repentance.” What did Cellarius find in his examination of the Bible?
...
Especially noteworthy were Cellarius’ brief remarks regarding the nature of Jesus Christ. Although he did not directly contradict the Trinity, Cellarius distinguished the “Heavenly Father” from “his Son Jesus Christ” and wrote that Jesus was one of many gods and sons of the almighty God.​—John 10:34, 35.

In his book Antitrinitarian Biography (1850), Robert Wallace noted that Cellarius’ writings did not follow the Trinitarian orthodoxy common in the 16th century.* [Regarding Cellarius’ use of the word “god” when applied to Christ, the book states: “It is printed deus, and not Deus, the latter being used only to designate the Supreme God.” Several scholars thus conclude that Cellarius must have rejected the Trinity. He has been described as one of God’s instruments “in inculcating a knowledge of the true God and of Christ.”
...
In about 1527, Wittenberg also became home to theologian Johannes Campanus, considered to be one of the greatest scholars of his day.
...
Campanus objected to the ideas of both transubstantiation and consubstantiation.
...
At the 1529 Marburg Colloquy, a meeting held to discuss these very questions, Campanus was not permitted to share what he had learned from the Scriptures. Thereafter, he was shunned by his fellow Reformers in Wittenberg.

The Reformers were especially upset by Campanus’ beliefs about the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit. In his 1532 book Restitution, Campanus taught that Jesus and his Father are two distinct persons. The Father and Son “are one,” he explained, only as a husband and wife are said to be “one flesh”​—united, yet still two persons. (John 10:30; Matthew 19:5) Campanus noted that the Scriptures use the same illustration to show that the Father has authority over the Son: “The head of a woman is the man; in turn, the head of the Christ is God.”​—1 Corinthians 11:3.

What about the holy spirit? Again, Campanus appealed to the Bible, writing: “With no Scripture may it be adduced that the Holy Spirit is the third person . . . The spirit of God is taken in an operative sense, in that He prepares and carries out all things through his spiritual power and activity.”​—Genesis 1:2.

Luther called Campanus a blasphemer and an adversary of God’s Son. Another Reformer called for Campanus’ execution. Yet, Campanus was undeterred. According to The Radical Reformation, “Campanus was convinced that the loss of this originally apostolic and biblical understanding of the Godhead and of man accounted for the fall of the Church.”

It was never Campanus’ intention to organize a religious group. He had sought in vain for truth, he said, “among the sects and all the heretics.” So he hoped that the Catholic Church, by means of a restitution, would reinstate true Christian teaching. Eventually, however, Catholic authorities arrested Campanus, and he may have spent upwards of 20 years in prison. Historians believe that he died in about 1575.

“MAKE SURE OF ALL THINGS”

Diligent study of the Bible enabled Capito, Cellarius, Campanus, and others to distinguish truth from error. Even though not all of the conclusions reached by these truth seekers were in full harmony with the Bible, these men humbly searched the Scriptures and treasured the truth that they learned.

The apostle Paul urged his fellow Christians: “Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21) ...



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Please your heretical JW teaching is always changing and morphing.

Good thing for us God is the same yesterday, today and forever, he is Jesus Christ the fullness of the Godhead bodily

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Important to take apart the sentences grammatically and you have the him in verse 9 is speaking of the closest relative noun which is Christ, that is Jesus Christ. The Godhead is the term used for the trinity (not found in scripture) as well as the word three used twice in 1 John 5:7

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word , and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
The Word is also found in context of both John Chapter One as being Jesus Christ.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God. . . John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
and also is Jesus in Revelation 19

Rev 19:11 ¶ And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
This is the pure word of God with no interpretation.

AWAKE and WATCHTOWER are not more authoritative than the preserved word of God as found in the AV Bible.

Until you accept that God is Jesus Christ, the WORD that was made flesh and is one with the Father and the Holy Ghost, and accept the Holy Ghost, sometimes referred to as the Holy Spirit, as a person and not some man made nonsense of being an influence, or a power or a some other nonsense that may reflect a partial truth about Him.

So peddle your nonsense on threads you start and openly start by stating that you are a JW and you are promoting the teaching of the JW's Watchtower/AWAKE magazines of what you put above the plain words of God found in the AV.


edit on 8-2-2018 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Awful close to some intolerant proselytizing here Chester old chap. You are in no place to question anotehrs faith. Given you believe you have access to the "preserved word of God" which would make ypu a protestant, which makes you a heritic in the eyes of the Catholic church.



posted on Feb, 9 2018 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic


The Reformers were especially upset by Campanus’ beliefs about the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit. In his 1532 book Restitution, Campanus taught that Jesus and his Father are two distinct persons. The Father and Son “are one,” he explained, only as a husband and wife are said to be “one flesh”​—united, yet still two persons. (John 10:30; Matthew 19:5) Campanus noted that the Scriptures use the same illustration to show that the Father has authority over the Son: “The head of a woman is the man; in turn, the head of the Christ is God.”​—1 Corinthians 11:3.

Actually I see nothing in the opinions of others such as Campanus when in fact i have the apostles letters as my source. Most all of those which I read who have differing opinions of the apostles teachings are not understanding the difference in the understanding that they are mixing celestial understanding with terrestrial understanding. One cannot mix the two when understanding the Apostle's true meaning.

A very good example of this is that when discussing the terrestrial Jesus it must always be with the understanding that you are referencing a terrestrial entity and not a celestial entity. We can somewhat understand a terrestrial entity in that of which we can associate by our terrestrial senses. Even at that there is a hidden portion of a terrestrial entity that we cannot understand and that is the spirit of life in the terrestrial entity.

In a celestial entity we have absolutely no understanding in either the spiritual image or the spiritual life. We understand that there is a spiritual body and a terrestrial body and we understand that the spiritual body has a life source and a terrestrial body also has a life source but we can go no further with this mystery than what is told by the teachings of the Apostles.

It is very silly to make a statement that the Father and the Son are one without clarifying exactly what the author is telling us. The Apostle is not telling us that that the terrestrial Jesus and the Celestial Father are one simply because we see that the terrestrial Jesus has perished and the Celestial Father has not perished. So what can we glean from this? Well, we understand that the spirit [life] of the terrestrial Jesus has survived and is restored with His celestial body. In this restoration, it is the celestial spirit of life that is restored as one and not the terrestrial flesh of Jesus that is restored as being one with His Father.

How then can we come to that conclusion? Did not the Apostles also teach us that the terrestrial universe will be completely dissolved one day? And did not the Apostles teach us that nothing terrestrial can enter the kingdom of heaven? Therefore, can Jesus and the Father be one in flesh or can the spirit of the Father and the spirit of the Son be one? One must keep this foremost in understanding Jesus and His Father.

The God of Jesus is not to our understanding. No one understands the spirit God or any of His spiritual world, either evil or good. God is mysterious in that we have and need no more understanding than what the apostles have given us. We actually do not need philospher's muddling the water of confusion when we have all that is needed in the scriptures.



posted on Feb, 9 2018 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede
Needs more bible quotations or references (especially after using the phrase "i have the apostles letters as my source."). Still a little sad nobody will answer my simplest of questions, not surprised though.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Seede
John 10:26-36

26 But you do not believe, because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them everlasting life, and they will by no means ever be destroyed, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 What my Father has given me is something greater than all other things, and no one can snatch them out of the hand of the Father. 30 I and the Father are one.”

31 Once again the Jews picked up stones to stone him. 32 Jesus replied to them: “I displayed to you many fine works from the Father. For which of those works are you stoning me?” 33 The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy; for you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” 34 Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’? 35 If he called ‘gods’ those against* [Or “to.”] whom the word of God came—and yet the scripture cannot be nullified— 36 do you say to me* [Or “of him.”] whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?


Who's the "I" in the quotation Jesus uses above after "written in your Law"? Who is "he" in the next sentence of Jesus? Is anyone here familiar with the concept of distinguishing between different individuals by the usages of "he", "you", "me", "him", "I", "your", etc.? The concepts of giving and receiving stuff, or a sender and someone who was sent? Why does Jesus not say at the end there that he is God but instead "I am God's Son"?

Ps.82:6

6 “I have said, ‘You are gods,* [Or “godlike ones.”]

All of you are sons of the Most High.
...
1 God takes his place in the divine assembly;* [Or “in the assembly of the Divine One.”]

In the middle of the gods* [Or “godlike ones.”] he judges:


Cellarius distinguished the “Heavenly Father” from “his Son Jesus Christ” and wrote that Jesus was one of many gods and sons of the almighty God.​—John 10:34, 35.

When I read "Cellarius’ brief remarks regarding the nature of Jesus Christ" I see that it matches the text that Jesus was quoting there (and he had no New World Translation), I find little to no matches with bible teachings in your commentary (and especially not your main point regarding: "In this restoration, it is the celestial spirit of life that is restored as one and not the terrestrial flesh of Jesus that is restored as being one with His Father." Which borrows from Pagan Greek philosophy concerning the immortality of the soul which you refer to as "celestial spirit of life", possibly implying that when Jesus said "I and the Father are one." when he was on earth in the flesh, or with a fleshly body, it doesn't really count cause he was in the flesh and apparently not yet 'restored' to being one with his Father if I'm understanding your logic and line of reasoning correctly, that only happened after his ascension?). A little more from before:

“Stephen, filled with the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at God’s right hand. ‘Look! I can see heaven thrown open,’ he said, ‘and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God.’”​—Acts 7:55, 56, The New Jerusalem Bible.

What did this vision reveal? Filled with God’s active force, Stephen saw Jesus “standing at God’s right hand.” Clearly, then, Jesus did not become God again after his resurrection to heaven but, rather, a distinct spiritual being [whereislogic: a god/heavenly being/spirit (being)].

That text also tells me much about "the Holy Spirit" that is incompatible with your teachings that either match or are very similar to Trinitarianism and Binitarianism. There also seems to be a touch of Modalism in there, Jesus existing in different modes, including modes where he isn't God Almighty and then switching back and forth between being one with God Almighty (interpreted to mean that he is God Almighty) when he was still in heaven existing as a distinct spirit(ual) being/a god, and not being one with God Almighty (interpreted to mean that he is not God Almighty then) when he is on earth in the flesh allowing him to say things like:

“If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going my way to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am.” (John 14:28) Jesus acknowledged that he and his Father are not equals.

“I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.” (John 20:17) Jesus did not speak of himself as God but spoke of God as a separate Person.

“I have not spoken out of my own impulse, but the Father himself who sent me has given me a commandment as to what to tell and what to speak.” (John 12:49) Jesus’ teachings did not come from him; they came from the Father.

How Should We “Answer Each Person”?

“Let your words always be gracious, . . . so that you will know how you should answer each person.”—COLOSSIANS 4:6.
...
Tactful questions can also help us to find out why a person believes what he does.
...
REASON ON WHAT THE SCRIPTURES SAY
...
Example 1: In our ministry, we meet someone who believes that Jesus is equal to God. What scriptures could we use to reason with the householder? We might ask him to read Jesus’ words at John 6:38: “I have come down from heaven to do, not my own will, but the will of him who sent me.” After reading that verse, we could ask the person: “If Jesus is God, who sent him down from heaven? Would that One not be greater than Jesus? After all, the sender is superior to the one who is sent.”

We could also read Philippians 2:9, where the apostle Paul describes what God did after Jesus died and was resurrected. The verse says that God assigned Jesus “to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name.” To help the person reason on that scripture, we might ask: “If Jesus was equal to God before he died and God later assigned him to a higher position, would that not put Jesus above God? Yet, how could anyone become superior to God?” This kind of reasoning may help sincere people who respect God’s Word to want to learn more.—Acts 17:11.

Too bad this particular article doesn't give any advice when nobody wants to answer your questions in a 'conversation' that isn't really much of a conversation, more of a one-way street (I answered your question or request concerning the holy spirit, I generally answer many questions I see, of course, I'm not Answer Man, can't get them all).

edit on 9-2-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2018 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic


Who's the "I" in the quotation Jesus uses above after "written in your Law"? Who is "he" in the next sentence of Jesus?


Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

Your question is who is the [I] in the verse --[Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. ?]

The answer is the Word of God -- [Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.]

The Word as yet had not come in the flesh of Jesus at this time of which Asaph is singing the psalm.

The same is true as John has said – [John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?] -- The [ I ] here in John 10:34 is that of Jesus who is the same I as in the song of Asaph, not in flesh but in Spirit as the Word had not yet come in the flesh.

Your answer is ---
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. -- [Not a god]
John 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

I hesitate to elaborate any further knowing that we can never agree upon the scriptures which your predecessors have rewritten.


edit on 9-2-2018 by Seede because: double sentence corrected

edit on 9-2-2018 by Seede because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-2-2018 by Seede because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
22
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join