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 Trinity is not real, nor is it logical!!!!!!!!

page: 6
4
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by oliveoil
As far as all of us being of spirit Yes.



since your "spirit" disagrees with the scriptures, you'll have to forgive me for not wanting any
Are we not created in the image of God?
Whats your take according to scripture is a spirit?



then stop reducing him to a blasphemer by calling him god.


Simple question. Who is he if he is not God?And if your answer is the son of God, Wouldn't he share the same attributes as God, This being infinite.

[edit on 4-1-2010 by oliveoil]




posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   
so wait,,, is anone that actually posts on here an actual Jehovas Witness?



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by l neXus l
so wait,,, is anone that actually posts on here an actual Jehovas Witness?


Im a Christian.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   
all you have to do is say you accept jesus and your saved? or do you actually have to act on his teachings?



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by l neXus l
all you have to do is say you accept jesus and your saved? or do you actually have to act on his teachings?



If you adhere to Jesus than its obvious you would adhere to his teaching.If not you would be a hypocrite, and saved you would not be.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   
good answer master yoda



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by l neXus l
so wait,,, is anone that actually posts on here an actual Jehovas Witness?


Now back to your question. Why should this matter in the scheme of things?
And yes, I do believe there are JW or at least those who follow JW doctrine posting on your thread.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   
it doesnt matter, personally i think it all comes down to the fact that, if you are good, and faithful to what you strongly believe, as long as it is in accordince to the bible and god, then you will be saved



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by l neXus l
it doesnt matter, personally i think it all comes down to the fact that, if you are good, and faithful to what you strongly believe, as long as it is in accordince to the bible and god, then you will be saved


And thanks to JESUS who DIED on the CROSS we are all able to do this.

[edit on 4-1-2010 by oliveoil]



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   
jesus must have felt so much pain, to feel the sins of every single person on the earth,



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
Are we not created in the image of God?


yes, we have god's attributes.

we can love,
we have a sense of justice,
we are able to think.

this does not mean we ARE god. we are an image of god.

just as a photo is not you but rather an image of you.


Whats your take according to scripture is a spirit?


do you want me to do both topics at the same time? i can if you like



then stop reducing him to a blasphemer by calling him god.


Simple question. Who is he if he is not God?And if your answer is the son of God, Wouldn't he share the same attributes as God, This being infinite.


jesus himself said he was the son of god. even demons and satan himself called him the son of god.

as for his attributes...

col 1:[14] In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
[15] Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

are you suggesting that this scripture make jesus infinite?

gen 1:[27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

so i guess you are saying that we are all infinite because we are all the image of god...

and yet we are not infinite are we. we are limited.

jesus was limited too

jesus for one thing was not as "good" as his father
luke 18:[19] And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

jesus does not know everything
Mark 5:30 “At once Jesus realized that power had gone out from him. He turned around in the crowd and asked, ‘Who touched my clothes?’”

Mark 13:32 “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the son, but only the Father.”

jesus learned
Luke 2:52: “And Jesus increased in wisdom.”

Heb. 5:8 “Although he was a son, he learned obedience…”

jesus was not beyond tempting (god is)
Heb. 4:15 “tempted in every way—just as we are”

James 1:13 “for God cannot be tempted by evil”

jesus was not "infinite."



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by downisreallyup
 

1) The Word MADE all things
2) The Word became flesh (Son of Man) dwelt among us
3) Jesus (Son of God) became flesh (Son of Man)
4) The Word is the Son

Please, do not confuse the words CREATED and MADE. They are not the same thing, and the first two chapters of Genesis make this clear. The Father (infinite) created, the Son (beginning of finite) Made... pretty basic really.

The Jews had a specific expectation of what the Messiah was, when Jesus was doing his ministry on earth. I think that John 1 was meant to counteract that belief system, the one about who they were calling The Word, before John used that term.
The Jews believed, as reflected in the old rabbinic writings from that time, that The Word was a being who stood before God and was the glory of God. I think that John is saying that whatever this glory was, it was still God, and that the Messiah was not a god like being come down from heaven, but was a person of flesh who had the glory of God working in him. The glory was still God. But that glory normally reserved for only God, in a way was lent to a man, for the purpose of God having a Messiah who was filled with the attribute of God to do things by command of his voice.
I am no expert in Greek but you can look at it in a bare, uninterpreted form, by following these links and see that there is a lot of interpretation involved, and at an early date by people who translated it into the Latin, and then passed down to us in that form. Our modern translation reflects the thinking of these people back in the Dark Ages.
dev.bible.org...
and
dev.bible.org...
All things came into being by the word, and there is not mention of making or creating, as can be seen in the Greek, here:
dev.bible.org...
1) all things came about by the word
2) it does not describe how the word became flesh, other than that He dwelt among flesh.
3) Jesus was born flesh and was flesh all along, at least until the ascension.
4) The word had a glory as the son of God and we witnessed it because it was acting through a man, Jesus.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   
thats a pretty cool idea, MR bibal scholar



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by downisreallyup
 

1) The Word MADE all things
2) The Word became flesh (Son of Man) dwelt among us
3) Jesus (Son of God) became flesh (Son of Man)
4) The Word is the Son

Please, do not confuse the words CREATED and MADE. They are not the same thing, and the first two chapters of Genesis make this clear. The Father (infinite) created, the Son (beginning of finite) Made... pretty basic really.

The Jews had a specific expectation of what the Messiah was, when Jesus was doing his ministry on earth. I think that John 1 was meant to counteract that belief system, the one about who they were calling The Word, before John used that term.
The Jews believed, as reflected in the old rabbinic writings from that time, that The Word was a being who stood before God and was the glory of God. I think that John is saying that whatever this glory was, it was still God, and that the Messiah was not a god like being come down from heaven, but was a person of flesh who had the glory of God working in him. The glory was still God. But that glory normally reserved for only God, in a way was lent to a man, for the purpose of God having a Messiah who was filled with the attribute of God to do things by command of his voice.
I am no expert in Greek but you can look at it in a bare, uninterpreted form, by following these links and see that there is a lot of interpretation involved, and at an early date by people who translated it into the Latin, and then passed down to us in that form. Our modern translation reflects the thinking of these people back in the Dark Ages.
dev.bible.org...
and
dev.bible.org...
All things came into being by the word, and there is not mention of making or creating, as can be seen in the Greek, here:
dev.bible.org...
1) all things came about by the word
2) it does not describe how the word became flesh, other than that He dwelt among flesh.
3) Jesus was born flesh and was flesh all along, at least until the ascension.
4) The word had a glory as the son of God and we witnessed it because it was acting through a man, Jesus.



First of all, I appreciate your information on this. I think you are basically correct, except that Jesus was not just the "Son of Man," but was also the "Son of God." So, this glory, which is another way of saying "emanation," is indeed who Jesus was and is. God the Father cannot be seen or detected directly, since he is infinite, and by definition, infinity has no boundaries or limitations so that we could make any distinction. Only the Son can be seen, either in mortal form (Son of Man), or immortal form (Son of God). You said that Jesus was flesh all along, and yet at the mount of transfiguration he did change... I believe into the immortal heavenly form.

Also, I'm not sure why you said "and there is not mention of making or creating." I was not engaging in debate over John 1. I was talking about the subject of creation as a whole. The reason I am addressing the creation vs. formation issue is because it helps to illustrate the difference between how the Father works and how the Son/Spirit works.

The primary text on creation, to which all others make direct or indirect reference is in Genesis 1 and 2. There, you WILL find reference to creating and making. In John 1:3 we find the Greek word "ginomai" (pronounced ghin-om-ahee) which means: "to become, to come into existence, to arise or appear in history, to be made." It is verse 3 that I was referring to when I mentioned "making."

This thread is about the tri-unity aspect of God, and I see that a JW cult member has derailed the thread to get into a fruitless argument about John 1:1. To put that to bed, and for the benefit of those JW members who have been deceived, here is a little bit of information I wrote on this awhile back. If you take the time to look into what I am saying here, you will see that it is correct:



If the phrase “Theos Ane Ho Logos” means “the Word was a god”, then John was saying that Jesus was a FALSE god. He was a Jewish-Christian monotheist. He believed there was only ONE true God. When the Bible calls someone a god, it is indicating that the person is either the ONE TRUE God, or a false god. If the Watchtower is advocating that Jesus was a god, and that this doesn’t mean FALSE god, then it is advocating polytheism, and violating the very thing it is supposed to be witnessing about. Since John wouldn’t say Jesus was a false god, he was saying that Jesus was the same as the one true God. Both the Father and the Word are the ONE GOD.

In the Emphatic Diaglott the more accurate interlinear translation is preferred to the freer translation on the right hand column, made by Benjamin Wilson. In the Kingdom Interlinear Translation (KIT) the freer Watchtower translation says “was a god”, and the more accurate interlinear translation says “god was the Word.” In the greek, there is no difference in the capitalization for the word Theos or Theon. In the early greek manuscripts, only captial letters called UNCIALS were used. Any capitalization has been added by the translators based on their theological bias. There is no difference in semantic meaning between THEOS or THEON. This is merely the way greek indicates the particular grammatical usage of the word. In John 3:16, the word for God is THEOS. This is the same word used in the phrase under consideration.


If anyone is interested, I have a 26 page document I put together on the fallacy of the Jehovah Witness cult. I got tired of them coming to my door and trying to get me into their cult, so I put together some powerful ammunition that I used to introduce serious doubts into some of their members. Eventually they sent one of their "big gun" elders to come and deal with me, but he could not stand up against the truth either, so in the end, my house was flagged in their "no visit" list and I never saw them again.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   
do you have that document? send it to my email or personal message me
mrexile@live.com



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by downisreallyup
This thread is about the tri-unity aspect of God, and I see that a JW cult member has derailed the thread to get into a fruitless argument about John 1:1.


the only one who is derailing anything is you by turning this into another JW bash thread.

moreover you doing so against a person who is not a JW, but merely agrees with them.

what it looks like to me is that you cant answer my arguments. so you are focusing on john 1:1 because its the closest thing you have to proving jesus' divinity. and to help your side of the debate you are using diversion tactics by bashing JW's

all so you and others in this thread can avoid having to account for the many scriptures that pick apart this trinity doctrine.



If the phrase “Theos Ane Ho Logos” means “the Word was a god”, then John was saying that Jesus was a FALSE god. He was a Jewish-Christian monotheist. He believed there was only ONE true God. When the Bible calls someone a god, it is indicating that the person is either the ONE TRUE God, or a false god.If the Watchtower is advocating that Jesus was a god, and that this doesn’t mean FALSE god, then it is advocating polytheism, and violating the very thing it is supposed to be witnessing about. Since John wouldn’t say Jesus was a false god, he was saying that Jesus was the same as the one true God. Both the Father and the Word are the ONE GOD.


so your claim starts with an assumption.

"When the Bible calls someone a god, it is indicating that the person is either the ONE TRUE God, or a false god"

which is wrong btw. remember when jesus was about to be stoned and he quoted from psalms? he was quoting from psalms 82

[1] God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
[2] How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
[3] Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
[4] Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
[5] They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
[6] I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
[7] But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
[8] Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

this is GOD referring to MEN as GODS and NOT as false gods.

so your entire claim that JW's think john was calling jesus a false god is FALSE.

god CAN be used in the context of "mighty one" which is what it happens to mean.


If anyone is interested, I have a 26 page document I put together on the fallacy of the Jehovah Witness cult. I got tired of them coming to my door and trying to get me into their cult, so I put together some powerful ammunition that I used to introduce serious doubts into some of their members. Eventually they sent one of their "big gun" elders to come and deal with me, but he could not stand up against the truth either, so in the end, my house was flagged in their "no visit" list and I never saw them again.


i think the real reason you are on the "no visit" list is because of a scriptural principle.

matt 7:[6] Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

its ironic that you turn away the only christians that truely follows christs command.

matt 28:[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 Jan, 4 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


Okay... whatever. Like I said, I have an entire paper that blows away every fallacy of the Watchtower Society. And for those who want to see it, I will send it to them.

And as far as JW's being the only ones who follow Christ's teachings, that is laughable and just another example of the mind-control programming that is perpetrated upon unsuspecting victims of the Watchtower cult.

This, by the way, is the assessment made by all of Christiandom concerning the Jehovah's Witness organization. Just the fact that their name uses the wrong pronunciation for the Tetragrammaton (YHVH) is proof enough that they are grossly in error. There is NO "J" sound in Hebrew, and the vowels used in that errant pronunciation come from the word Adonai and have no resemblance to how the name is actually pronounced.

Additionally, in the document I mentioned, I have taken their own literature that they hand out called "What Jehovah's Witnesses believe" and given solid proof against each and every point... evidence from the Bible and evidence from their own Watchtower issues. And in this paper, I provide pages of scripture proving that the New Testament presents Jesus as equal to God, containing all the fullness of God. It is irrefutable.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by downisreallyup
 

. . .except that Jesus was not just the "Son of Man," but was also the "Son of God." So, this glory, which is another way of saying "emanation," is indeed who Jesus was and is. God the Father cannot be seen or detected directly, since he is infinite, and by definition, infinity has no boundaries or limitations so that we could make any distinction. Only the Son can be seen, either in mortal form (Son of Man), or immortal form (Son of God). You said that Jesus was flesh all along, and yet at the mount of transfiguration he did change... I believe into the immortal heavenly form.

I think "Son of God" is like a ranking, and "glory" is a status, with the degree of which determining the ranking, at least in this context.
John is saying whatever is the highest rank of anything, up to the point of being God, was revealed to us to the fullest extent that we could recognize, even the Son of God.
Jesus did say he was the Son of God and that is to say that there is no one higher than him, ever on earth and for that matter, in heaven either.
Now there may have been a Son of God at some point in history, but if so, he has stepped down from that position to make way for the elect of God. Through that election, we are to become Sons of God ourselves. It is a great and glorious thing, what has been laid in store for us and not something to be taken lightly or ignored because it is the method of our very salvation.


[edit on 4-1-2010 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by downisreallyup
 

. . .except that Jesus was not just the "Son of Man," but was also the "Son of God." So, this glory, which is another way of saying "emanation," is indeed who Jesus was and is. God the Father cannot be seen or detected directly, since he is infinite, and by definition, infinity has no boundaries or limitations so that we could make any distinction. Only the Son can be seen, either in mortal form (Son of Man), or immortal form (Son of God). You said that Jesus was flesh all along, and yet at the mount of transfiguration he did change... I believe into the immortal heavenly form.

I think "Son of God" is like a ranking, and "glory" is a status, with the degree of which determining the ranking, at least in this context.
John is saying whatever is the highest rank of anything, up to the point of being God, was revealed to us to the fullest extent that we could recognize, even the Son of God.
Jesus did say he was the Son of God and that is to say that there is no one higher than him, ever on earth and for that matter, in heaven either.
Now there may have been a Son of God at some point in history, but if so, he has stepped down from that position to make way for the elect of God. Through that election, we are to become Sons of God ourselves. It is a great and glorious thing, what has been laid in store for us and not something to be taken lightly or ignored because it is the method of our very salvation.


[edit on 4-1-2010 by jmdewey60]


Well, I do not believe that Jesus as the Son of God stepped down at all. He is the "first born of many brethren." He does not need to step down to allow us to stand next to him. He will always be preeminent, but that does not take away from us also sharing in the divinity of God.

Angels are also referred to as "sons of God" as I'm sure you know. Remember the "Sons of God" who saw that the daughters of men were beautiful and then took them as wives? The Hebrew term B'nai Elohim is used in various places and means "Sons oF God."

Jesus is the first BEGOTTEN or BORN son of God, as he was born in a human womb. That makes him extra special.

But really, it is so very tiring trying to come to 100% agreement with any Christian. I have tried for over 30 years and it's practically impossible. Every Christian thinks he/she has all the answers, and none of us do, though we like to believe that we do. So, instead of everyone learning from one another, we just argue, fight, and divide... the very thing the Devil wants to see, for "a house divided against itself cannot stand."



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by l neXus l
 


I started a thread like six months ago alleging that Christianity was in fact not a monotheistic religion, thus pagan, due to this very point! Since Christians insist that there is only one true God, and yet also insist that there are the three distinct entities within said God, it must go something like this:



I absolutely agree that this defies logic, but you will never convince the faithful otherwise... too risky to think for one's self on such matter, don't you know...

(Thanks for giving me an opportunity to use that cartoon again!)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join