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.

 

What is the Mystery of the Trinity…?

page: 11
7
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2018 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
Now you're contradicting yourself because you said that LORD in all capital letters represented the Father God.

Nope. I simply use the Greek term, "adonai" instead of English LORD. Why? Because Abraham simply talk to GOD/LORD through the three angels disguised as men. Abraham did not actually see God in his true form. Had Abraham actually see God, he would die instantly. No one has ever see God and live. John did not lie about this.



originally posted by: Deetermined
Besides, the three "men" accompanied the LORD to visit Abraham, but stayed behind for a time while the three men moved on to Sodom.

Genesis 18:1-3, 22, 33

1 And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;

2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,

3 And said, My LORD, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:

22 And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD.

33 And the LORD went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place.


See? Abraham did not describe the appearance of God. Why? Because He saw men. Not God. As I wrote earlier, Abraham call the men as God simply because he knew he was communicating with God through these three men.

If you compare with Exodus, you will see God does not like any men at all. But even Moses could not see God's face and Moses was under God's feet, which imply God is huge.


edit on 4-8-2018 by EasternShadow because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 4 2018 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: EasternShadow

If you're going to continue to repeat yourself, I will too...

For some reason, your brain can't wrap around the fact that Abraham being able to see the LORD is because the LORD is Jesus. Otherwise known as Jehovah, the Angel of the LORD, and everything else that represents God in the physical.

Remember, God is an invisible Spirit and Jesus was, throughout the Old and New Testament, his physical representation throughout history. This is why the Bible is capable of claiming that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit make up ONE.



posted on Aug, 4 2018 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: EasternShadow


See? Abraham did not describe the appearance of God. Why? Because He saw men. Not God. As I wrote earlier, Abraham call the men as God simply because he knew he was communicating with God through these three men.


You need to read those verses I posted again. The three "men" stood beside the LORD, they didn't represent the LORD. The three men traveled on to Sodom while Abraham stayed behind with the LORD and they communed with one another before the LORD went his way...

Genesis 18:1-2

18 And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;

2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,

"Him" in verse 2 isn't Abraham, it's the LORD. If the three men were already standing by Abraham, he wouldn't need to run to meet them.

Genesis 18:22

22 And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD.

Genesis 18:33

33 And the LORD went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place.




edit on 4-8-2018 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2018 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: EasternShadow


Now consider this, if Jesus in the bosom of the Father, the begotten son, then he had a beginning and not eternal. Since Jesus himself a creation of a creator god, then Jesus is not the god of Israelites.


We've already shown how Jesus was in the beginning with God and is the one who created everything, so why are we backtracking here?

John 1:1-3, 10-11, 14

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.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

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.


First of all, Is this word of God imply the triune God? Is this word of God imply that the father God co-exist with the son God? If Jesus was co exist with the father since the beginning, then he is not the begotten son of the father God, because the father has to exist first before the son. Therefore, this passage is in conflict with father-son relationship.

Secondly, how do you write or utter a word without a body and vocal sound? Can energy make a word on itself? Word was men invention through letters and pronounciation. Plant and animals don't create word. How is men invention of word suddenly become the cause of God's existence since the beginning? What is the first word that become God? Don't you see this is simply gnostic ideology to worship knowledge? Jesus clearly did not teach this. Neither did John the Apostle. Whoever wrote this is someone coming from Greek's school of philosophy, instead of a scholar from Judaism school. Someone of Origen's and Erasmus level of thinking, and completely unknown to the Torah or Talmud teaching, the source of Jesus teaching.



posted on Aug, 4 2018 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: EasternShadow

If you're going to continue to repeat yourself, I will too...

For some reason, your brain can't wrap around the fact that Abraham being able to see the LORD is because the LORD is Jesus. Otherwise known as Jehovah, the Angel of the LORD, and everything else that represents God in the physical.



Abraham saw the three men. That is what is written in the Bible. Abraham call them LORD doesn't mean GOD is the three men. It is simply mean Abraham recognize God manifest himself in the body of this men. It is the same thing when Philip was asking to show God. Philip did not see God literally. He saw Jesus. Otherwise he would not have ask Jesus to show him God.

The point is, the passages about Abraham and Philip seeing God, is just parables and should not be taken literally.

So no. There is no evidence from this verses that Jesus is God.


originally posted by: Deetermined
Remember, God is an invisible Spirit and Jesus was, throughout the Old and New Testament, his physical representation throughout history. This is why the Bible is capable of claiming that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit make up ONE.


Being the father and Holy Spirit does not make God 2 different persons as implied by trinitity. The Logic is God hold the title of Father because he is the creator. He is the Holy Spirit because he is not made of flesh. It is really simple. There is no mystery in that. The only mystery is created by trinitarian to force in Jesus as God, which conflict with many Bible verses and Jesus own sayings.
edit on 4-8-2018 by EasternShadow because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2018 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: EasternShadow


First of all, Is this word of God imply the triune God? Is this word of God imply that the father God co-exist with the son God? If Jesus was co exist with the father since the beginning, then he is not the begotten son of the father God, because the father has to exist first before the son. Therefore, this passage is in conflict with father-son relationship.


Just because the father has to come before a son in our existence, what makes you think that has to be so in God's? Jesus declaring himself as God's son was the closest thing he could declare for humans to come close to understanding. The truth is, the God Father/Son relationship is a unique one of it's own that will be handed down to us once we get to Heaven. I hesitate to post the verse below because it's one that requires a lot of thinking and explanation for those who don't read it carefully, word for word...

1 Corinthians 15:24-28

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that GOD MAY BE ALL IN ALL.



posted on Aug, 4 2018 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: EasternShadow


Secondly, how do you write or utter a word without a body and vocal sound? Can energy make a word on itself? Word was men invention through letters and pronounciation. Plant and animals don't create word. How is men invention of word suddenly become the cause of God's existence since the beginning? What is the first word that become God? Don't you see this is simply gnostic ideology to worship knowledge? Jesus clearly did not teach this. Neither did John the Apostle. Whoever wrote this is someone coming from Greek's school of philosophy, instead of a scholar from Judaism school. Someone of Origen's and Erasmus level of thinking, and completely unknown to the Torah or Talmud teaching, the source of Jesus teaching.


Jesus is the Word of God and His Voice. Jesus is the physical representation of God in all ways. Many believe that God/Jesus spoke this world into existence, just like when He said, "Let there be light".

Man didn't invent words. God gave man knowledge to be able to use them and the physical ability to be able to speak and write them.



posted on Aug, 4 2018 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: EasternShadow


Being the father and Holy Spirit does not make God 2 different persons as implied by trinity.


Now you're starting to confuse yourself because the "Trinity" doesn't imply that God is 2 or 3 different persons, but that they are all aspects of ONE God.


The Logic is God hold the title of Father because he is the creator. He is the Holy Spirit because he is not made of flesh. It is really simple.


Then you're confirming that Jesus is the Father, because the Bible already told us in the verses I posted for you that Jesus was the Creator. He was in the world and he created the world, just like it says. (John 1)

Jesus is also the Holy Spirit. He told his disciples that the Holy Spirit would come to them as the "Comforter" and then Jesus turns right around and tells them that He IS that Comforter. (John 14:18)

Jesus is the Son, the Word and the flesh. He is the physical manifestation of everything related to God. (John 1)



posted on Aug, 4 2018 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: EasternShadow

Just because the father has to come before a son in our existence, what makes you think that has to be so in God's?

We understand things the way we define them in our own word. If we define "father" as male parent to an offspring, then that is what we know about the father. Otherwise we would not call him father. In the Bible, Jesus clearly wanted us to be in relationship with His Father. Nowhere did Jesus ever indicated that He is the Father. Instead he is claiming that he is the son. This is evident throughout Jesus' baptism by John The Baptist, indicating the father and the son are separate beings. Why would the event took place if Jesus is the father, the son and the holy spirit? Why would God need to be baptised when God is pure from sin? Why would God need to be three persons when he demanded he is the only one God?


originally posted by: Deetermined
Jesus declaring himself as God's son was the closest thing he could declare for humans to come close to understanding.

Therefore, We should threat Jesus as such. The son of God. No less no more. You don't want to answer things you don't understand right in the face of God at Judgement Day.


originally posted by: Deetermined
The truth is, the God Father/Son relationship is a unique one of it's own that will be handed down to us once we get to Heaven.

God father/son relationship is always unique. The same unique relationship with God father/each one of us. We were born with unique personalities, indicating we have unique relationship with our father in heaven. No one child is the same in the eye of parents, especially God. Jesus only show us the way to father. Without Jesus, we could reach the father. But if Jesus himself is the father, the son and the holy spirit, then how can we reach the father?



originally posted by: Deetermined
I hesitate to post the verse below because it's one that requires a lot of thinking and explanation for those who don't read it carefully, word for word...

1 Corinthians 15:24-28

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that GOD MAY BE ALL IN ALL.


Read back line 28, it said, "Son also himself be subject unto him." How is this line suppose to be logical if the son is equal to the father?



posted on Aug, 4 2018 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: EasternShadow


We understand things the way we define them in our own word. If we define "father" as male parent to an offspring, then that is what we know about the father. Otherwise we would not call him father. In the Bible, Jesus clearly wanted us to be in relationship with His Father. Nowhere did Jesus ever indicated that He is the Father.


Sure, just forget that Jesus told everyone that he knew Abraham right before they started throwing stones at him. Not to mention every other verse that has been posted here proving otherwise.


Instead he is claiming that he is the son. This is evident throughout Jesus' baptism by John The Baptist, indicating the father and the son are separate beings. Why would the event took place if Jesus is the father, the son and the holy spirit? Why would God need to be baptised when God is pure from sin? Why would God need to be three persons when he demanded he is the only one God?


Jesus used the baptism to teach his disciples how they would be renewed through the Holy Spirit. Jesus didn't NEED to be baptized, he was using it as a demonstration and offered himself up as a role model to demonstrate visually how the renewing of the Holy Spirit worked. You have to remember also, that Jesus taught them to baptize everyone in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They all worked together as ONE to reconcile people back to God. No where ever did Jesus tell his disciples to baptize people only in the name of the Father.



posted on Aug, 4 2018 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: EasternShadow


Read back line 28, it said, "Son also himself be subject unto him." How is this line suppose to be logical if the son is equal to the father?


I don't have the patience to explain this in detail, so I'll let Bible Study Tools do it for me...


24. Then--after that: next in the succession of "orders" or "ranks."
the end--the general resurrection, and final judgment and consummation ( Matthew 25:46 ). delivered up . . . kingdom to . . . Father--(Compare John 13:3 ). Seeming at variance with Daniel 7:14 , "His dominion is an everlasting dominion which shall not pass away." Really, His giving up of the mediatorial kingdom to the Father, when the end for which the mediatorial economy was established has been accomplished, is altogether in harmony with its continuing everlastingly. The change which shall then take place, shall be in the manner of administration, not in the kingdom itself; God shall then come into direct connection with the earth, instead of mediatorially, when Christ shall have fully and finally removed everything that severs asunder the holy God and a sinful earth ( Colossians 1:20 ). The glory of God is the final end of Christ's mediatorial office ( Philippians 2:10 Philippians 2:11 ). His co-equality with the Father is independent of the latter, and prior to it, and shall, therefore, continue when its function shall have ceased. His manhood, too, shall everlastingly continue, though, as now, subordinate to the Father. The throne of the Lamb (but no longer mediatorial) as well as of God, shall be in the heavenly city ( Revelation 22:3 ; compare Revelation 3:21 ). The unity of the Godhead, and the unity of the Church, shall be simultaneously manifested at Christ's second coming. Compare Zephaniah 3:9 , Zechariah 14:9 , John 17:21-24 . The oldest manuscripts for "shall have delivered up," read, "delivereth up," which suits the sense better. It is "when He shall have put down all rule," that "He delivereth up the kingdom to the Father." shall have put down all rule--the effect produced during the millennary reign of Himself and His saints ( Psalms 110:1 , 8:6 , 2:6-9 ), to which passages Paul refers, resting his argument on the two words, "all" and "until," of the Psalmist: a proof of verbal inspiration of Scripture (compare Revelation 2:26 Revelation 2:27 ). Meanwhile, He "rules in the midst of His enemies" ( Psalms 110:2 ). He is styled "the King" when He takes His great power ( Matthew 25:34 , Revelation 11:15 Revelation 11:17 ). The Greek for "put down" is, "done away with," or "brought to naught." "All" must be subject to Him, whether openly opposed powers, as Satan and his angels, or kings and angelic principalities ( Ephesians 1:21 ).

25. must--because Scripture foretells it.
till--There will be no further need of His mediatorial kingdom, its object having been realized.
enemies under his feet--( Luke 19:27 , Ephesians 1:22 ).

26. shall be--Greek, "is done away with" ( Revelation 20:14 ; compare Revelation 1:18 ). It is to believers especially this applies ( 1 Corinthians 15:55-57 ); even in the case of unbelievers, death is done away with by the general resurrection. Satan brought in sin, and sin brought in death! So they shall be destroyed (rendered utterly powerless) in the same order ( 1 Corinthians 15:56 , Hebrews 2:14 , Revelation 19:20 , Revelation 20:10 Revelation 20:14 ).

27. all things--including death (compare Ephesians 1:22 , Philippians 3:21 , Hebrews 2:8 , 1 Peter 3:22 ). It is said, "hath put," for what God has said is the same as if it were already done, so sure is it. Paul here quotes Psalms 8:6 in proof of his previous declaration, "For (it is written), 'He hath put all things under His feet.'"
under his feet--as His footstool ( Psalms 110:1 ). In perfect and lasting subjection.
when he--namely, God, who by His Spirit inspired the Psalmist.

28. Son . . . himself . . . subject--not as the creatures are, but as a Son voluntarily subordinate to, though co-equal with, the Father. In the mediatorial kingdom, the Son had been, in a manner, distinct from the Father. Now, His kingdom shall merge in the Father's, with whom He is one; not that there is thus any derogation from His honor; for the Father Himself wills "that all should honor the Son, as they honor the Father" ( John 5:22 John 5:23 , Hebrews 1:6 ).
God . . . all in all--as Christ is all in all ( Colossians 3:11 ; compare Zechariah 14:9 ). Then, and not till then, "all things," without the least infringement of the divine prerogative, shall be subject to the Son, and the Son subordinate to the Father, while co-equally sharing His glory. Contrast Psalms 10:4 , 14:1 . Even the saints do not fully realize God as their "all" ( Psalms 73:25 ) now, through desiring it; then each shall feel, God is all to me.


www.biblestudytools.com...





edit on 4-8-2018 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2018 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: EasternShadow
Now you're starting to confuse yourself because the "Trinity" doesn't imply that God is 2 or 3 different persons, but that they are all aspects of ONE God.

How is father-son is the aspect of God? God is the son of what?



originally posted by: Deetermined
Then you're confirming that Jesus is the Father, because the Bible already told us in the verses I posted for you that Jesus was the Creator. He was in the world and he created the world, just like it says. (John 1)

Nope. The Bible told us Jesus is the son of God. There is only one God, and He has given out His name to Moses at Mount Sinai. His rightful name is YHWH. It is YHWH who created the world, who appear before Moses to tell the Israelites, the name of true God is YHWH.

Jesus was a name given to human man, born by Mary to carry the burden of the world and to be sacrificed when the time is due. God declared this man as His son through baptism by John the Baptist.


originally posted by: Deetermined
Jesus is also the Holy Spirit. He told his disciples that the Holy Spirit would come to them as the "Comforter" and then Jesus turns right around and tells them that He IS that Comforter. (John 14:18)

Nope. He did not say he IS that comforter. You added that yourself to John 14:18. He said he will come back for them, but did he? All the apostles were already dead now.




originally posted by: Deetermined
Jesus is the Son, the Word and the flesh. He is the physical manifestation of everything related to God. (John 1)


Jesus is the Son, accepted by both Judaism and Islam as Messiah.

He is the Word according to John only. Mark, Matthew, Luke and Jesus himself did not say so. Neither the Gospel of Peter.

He is the physical manifestion of something related to God. Yet he is not everything. He wasn't there when Adam and Eve was thrown away from Eden. He wasn't there when Cain murdered Abel. He wasn't there when God flooded the world exterminating billion lives. He wasn't there when the Israelites genocide the Amalekites. How do I know he wasn't related? I know because If he was there he would have forgiven this people and billion of lives could be saved. He teaches to forgive the enemies, something that is lacking in the Old Testament.



posted on Aug, 4 2018 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: EasternShadow


Nope. He did not say he IS that comforter. You added that yourself to John 14:18. He said he will come back for them, but did he? All the apostles were already dead now.


Read that verse again. Jesus didn't say he would "come back FOR them". He said, "I will come to you".

John 14:18

18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

Then...

John 14:28

26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send IN MY NAME , he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

We've already established that the Bible is far from your level of understanding, but thanks for proving how such a topic has become such a "mystery" to those who don't follow it, as only His sheep are able to hear his voice.

The rest of your comments aren't even worth addressing for the second time as you're just repeating yourself at this point.

Good day!


edit on 4-8-2018 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2018 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: EasternShadow
Sure, just forget that Jesus told everyone that he knew Abraham right before they started throwing stones at him. Not to mention every other verse that has been posted here proving otherwise.

But did the Pharisees actually threw stones at Jesus? Nope. It is clear that this was just misunderstandings. No one was hurt by that incident. Otherwise, Jesus would have been dead much earlier for blasphemy.


originally posted by: Deetermined
Jesus used the baptism to teach his disciples how they would be renewed through the Holy Spirit. Jesus didn't NEED to be baptized, he was using it as a demonstration and offered himself up as a role model to demonstrate visually how the renewing of the Holy Spirit worked. You have to remember also, that Jesus taught them to baptize everyone in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They all worked together as ONE to reconcile people back to God. No where ever did Jesus tell his disciples to baptize people only in the name of the Father.

Andrew and Simon Peter did not become Jesus's disciples until the next day. Read John 1:1-45. Therefore your reasoning is illogical because no disciples were present at the time of Jesus Baptism.



posted on Aug, 4 2018 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: EasternShadow


Andrew and Simon Peter did not become Jesus's disciples until the next day. Read John 1:1-45. Therefore your reasoning is illogical because no disciples were present at the time of Jesus Baptism.


Really? That's your argument? Because Andrew and Simon Peter didn't become Jesus' disciples until the next day that Jesus' baptism demonstration didn't serve any future purpose? You're really starting to sound irrational. I suggest you take a break.

Jesus' future instruction to his disciples on baptism were...

Matthew 28:16-19

16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.

18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:



posted on Aug, 4 2018 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

You said the translation I gave was misleading in another part of your post, but every translation of Philipians 2:6 suggests Jesus is equal with God.

Here’s a list for comparison below…

Philippians 2:6 comparison verses


You do realize that you’re posting a watchtower bible translation i.e. the “New World Translation”, to help back up your case!

But anyway, even that NW translation that you posted, is still suggesting Jesus is equal with God…IMO




Originally posted by whereislogic
And here again we see Trinitarian bias show up in the translation (perhaps it's not entirely clear if it was on purpose or not), cause a more accurate rendering would be (NW):

6 who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. 7 No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and became human.* [Lit., “came to be in the likeness of men.”] 8 More than that, when he came as a man,* [Lit., “when he was found in appearance as a man.”] he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, yes, death on a torture stake.* [See Glossary].



The first Line “although he was existing in Gods form…” sets him up straight away to be God…And the next line “he gave no consideration to a seizure”…a seizure meaning something he took possession of…and then the next line explains what that seizure was “namely, That he should be equal to God.”

All the translations suggest the same thing…yet we both know and are in agreement, that Jesus himself, does not claim to be the Father elsewhere within the scriptures…

All the uses of the word God, in these types of verses and others just like them, are not inferring a separate being i.e. another God who was there with God in the beginning. They are actually inferring that Jesus is the Father God…The writers themselves are coming at it from a Trinitarian perspective…


To help further clarify what I mean, Paul also writes this in Colossians 2:9 below…which again suggests Jesus is equal with God…




Colossians 2:9
For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;


It’s says “All the Fullness”, which clearly infers a belief that the Father fully dwelled within Jesus. It also uses the term “Godhead”, which in Trinitarian language means the Trinity.


All the NW translation has done is replace “Godhead” with the word “quality”.

But it makes no difference to the interpretation…IMO because to have All the Fullness of the Divine, would still equate, to Jesus to being equal to God the Father.

It’s like you JWs are taking various verses that are written from a Trinitarian belief perspective, and are trying to change them, in order to make everything else fit their specific doctrines around Jesus.

Wouldn’t it be easier just to admit that Paul got it wrong…or that the Trinity has a much deeper meaning altogether…?

- JC



edit on 4-8-2018 by Joecroft because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2018 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
Read that verse again. Jesus didn't say he would "come back FOR them". He said, "I will come to you".

John 14:18

18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

Then...

John 14:28

26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send IN MY NAME , he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Jesus said, "HE shall teach you all things.." Not "I" as in John 14:18.
It is clear Jesus meant a different person.


originally posted by: Deetermined
We've already established that the Bible is far from your level of understanding, but thanks for proving how such a topic has become such a "mystery" to those who don't follow it, as only His sheep are able to hear his voice.

We also have establish how you dodge answering why John of Patmos contradicting himself with regard to Word of God, claiming no one knows except God.

You also completely ignore Jesus said, "My God" several times in Revelation, implying Jesus has a God, which is something completely ridiculous if Jesus is the only One God.

None of verses which you have provided, evidence that Jesus is God. Instead, Jesus and the Fathers are separate entity, contradicting trinitarian's claim of oneness God.



originally posted by: Deetermined
The rest of your comments aren't even worth addressing for the second time as you're just repeating yourself at this point.

Good day!

And yet I will repeat again, The father is not the son. The son is not the father. Trinitarian's concept of Triune God is not a Mystery but an attempt to cover up the fact that they are idolizing a man as equal to god. They know they are following Pagan's tradition, as always. But it is their choice and whatever faith they have is their own doing. I have no business to meddle in God's affair.

I pray to our father in heaven to bless you and forgive me for my weakness as a human being.



posted on Aug, 4 2018 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: EasternShadow

Bless you too, Eastern.

I must say, your beliefs appear to be all over the board (considering other threads) when it comes to God. What exactly have you been studying or practicing?



posted on Aug, 4 2018 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: EasternShadow


Andrew and Simon Peter did not become Jesus's disciples until the next day. Read John 1:1-45. Therefore your reasoning is illogical because no disciples were present at the time of Jesus Baptism.


Really? That's your argument? Because Andrew and Simon Peter didn't become Jesus' disciples until the next day that Jesus' baptism demonstration didn't serve any future purpose? You're really starting to sound irrational. I suggest you take a break.

Jesus' future instruction to his disciples on baptism were...

Matthew 28:16-19

16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.

18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:


You miss the point. I don't argue about training future disciples on baptism. I argue, Jesus personally did not need to be baptisted by John as He himself is God..



posted on Aug, 4 2018 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: lostinspace



Originally posted by lostinspace
“When you make the two into one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, and what is above like what is below, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make a pair of eyes in place of one eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter.”

There's a mystery for you! Who said it? And enter what?


It’s from the Gospel of Thomas…and Jesus said those words...IMO

It means to enter the Kingdom within yourself and to also realize that it’s outside of yourself too.

Making the two into one, means to make your Spirit be in alignment with your Soul.




That passage in the gospel of Thomas is explaining the nature of a pure spiritual creature. They don't have a sex, they don't have two eyes, they don't have two arms and two legs. Their insides are the same as their outsides. They are transparent (invisible to humans) forms of energy. They don't have internal organs and outer surface skin. When a human figures out how to become a spirit creature then they can enter the kingdom.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join