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.

 

Some Questions for Christians (and others)

page: 11
3
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2010 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 



This scripture all by itself defeats the Trinity.

Acts 2:1-4
1On the day of Pentecost all the believers were meeting together in one place.
2Suddenly, there was a sound from heaven like the roaring of a mighty windstorm, and it filled the house where they were sitting.
3Then, what looked like flames or tongues of fire appeared and settled on each of them.
4And everyone present was filled with the Holy Spirit and began speaking in other languages, as the Holy Spirit gave them this ability.


Could you please elaborate? I dont get how this defeats the Trinity.




posted on May, 2 2010 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by oliveoil
 


No it was the scripture above that, sorry for not being more clear.

Stephen is (1)filled with Holy Spirit And (2)he see's God and (3) he see's Jesus at his right hand.

It separates all three in one scripture.

Just to respond more on the Holy Spirit.

Genesis 1:2

2The earth was without form and an empty waste, and darkness was upon the face of the very great deep.
The Spirit of God was moving (hovering, brooding) over the face of the waters.


Another version of this scripture actually uses "God's active force".


Psalms 104:30 also ties God's Spirit to creation

You send forth Your Spirit, they are created;And You renew the face of the ground.


Do you think the Spirit of God and the Holy Spirit are different as well?



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 01:44 AM
link   
well no. the hole theology on the trinity is amazing and VERY complicated. i dont think i have herd anyone preach about it correctly.

ive come to understand.

God is the father (the creator of everything)
the spirit is Gods spirit (a person) (gods person) he can speak love and live in you.
Jesus is the Father in flesh. who came down from heaven to sacrifice himself for us. (Jesus is the word. (the good news)

John Chapter 1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

Its all very confusing and gives you brain constipation when you try to understand.

the key! everyone is

you cannot understand to believe it just cant happen

i found that to believe is to understand

just a little bit of wisdom for you there lol


God Bless you guys you are awesome and i love you all



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by the illuminator

Its all very confusing and gives you brain constipation when you try to understand.
i found that to believe is to understand


Unfortunately the first comment is true, but the second is also true. At least, willingness to believe goes a long way, just as unwillingness is an impossible barrier. The same is true in other areas.

It seems to me that you're understanding it.

One point of detail; preferable to say "God in flesh" rather than "Father in flesh". The second one is technically inaccurate. But I know exactly what you mean.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33

Stephen is (1)filled with Holy Spirit And (2)he see's God and (3) he see's Jesus at his right hand.

It separates all three in one scripture.


What you're describing is the "three" part of the Trinity.

We know that Father, Son, and Spirit, are distinct, which is why we have three different names.

The teaching of the Trinity is that they are distinct without being separate.
They are distinct, but also in union.

Quoting evidence that they are distinct does nothing to undermine the union.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 07:33 AM
link   
Has anyone thought about these verses?
John 10:33
The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

So the Jews said that Jesus who was a man was making Himself God. Jesus was saying it because the Jews said, "that thou". That's why they said it was blasphemy and wanted to stone Him.

Makes perfect sense that Jesus is God.
Only God Himself would come down in a man's body to redeem His creation. He would never pawn it off on someone else.

How about this:
1Timothy 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

How about this:
Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a Child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder: and his name will be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by texastig
Makes perfect sense that Jesus is God.
Only God Himself would come down in a man's body to redeem His creation. He would never pawn it off on someone else.
.


Exactly. That's a brilliant short summary of what St Anselm was saying nearly a thousand years ago.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 08:19 AM
link   
THE FOLLOWING TWO TERMS SHARE THE EXACT SAME LETTERS:
(THEY ARE ANAGMRAMS):

THE BOOK OF REVELATIONS
FAVOR THE NOTEBOOK'S LIES



[edit on 2-5-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 08:30 AM
link   
A Retelevise A Sin's Song
Genesiss' Revelations



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 





Quoting evidence that they are distinct does nothing to undermine the union.


OK.....LOL

It's at this point it's best to agree to disagree, I have enough scriptures to back my faith. I also understand how the ones that SEEM to back the trinity are to be taken in context of what the entire bible says.
I leave you with a list of famous people who did not believe in the trinity from there reading of the bible. These are the intelligent open minded people; and depending when they lived they never got bogged down with centuries of church dogma, they read the bible and figured out a basic truth on there own.

John Adams
Alexander Graham Bell
Neville Chamberlain
Charles Dickens
Thomas Jefferson
Paul Newman
Origen
Christopher Reeve
John Quincy Adams
Isaac Newton
Michael Servetus
Constantius II, Byzantine Emperor
Charles Taze Russell
Herbert W. Armstrong
James Madison
John Locke
Hermas
Arius
Tertullian
Thomas Paine



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Blue_Jay33, what about this verse:

1John 5:7
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
[
I leave you with a list of famous people who did not believe in the trinity from there reading of the bible. ...

Tertullian



Your inclusion of Tertullian in this list is decidedly false.

Has nobody told you that Tertullian invented the word Trinity?

He was the first one to use it in Latin, he almost certainly coined it himself. He was also the inventor of all the technical jargon used in Latin descriptions of the Trinity. "Tria personae in una substantia". and all that.

The suggestion that he did not believe in his own doctrine is almost libellous.

I would argue Origen and Hermas as well, but the inclusion of Tertullian is the one that is really absurd.

All right, I'm a reasonable man. I can't let you have Tertullian; but- for what it's worth- you can have the free gift of John Milton, OK?




[edit on 2-5-2010 by DISRAELI]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   
I agree Tertullian is right on the line, and it depends from which side you are looking at it
. A certain point of view that is at least partially supported.
And it was based on these comments I found while researching those names. I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt based on the bolded part of this quote.


The Son is distinct from the Father, and the Spirit from both the Father and the Son (Adv. Praxeam, xxv). "These three are one substance, not one person; and it is said, 'I and my Father are one' in respect not of the singularity of number but the unity of the substance." The very names "Father" and "Son" indicate the distinction of personality. The Father is one, the Son is one, and the Spirit is one (Adv. Praxeam, ix). As regards the question whether the Son was coeternal with the Father, many believe that Tertullian did not teach that. The Catholic Encyclopedia comments that for Tertullian, "There was a time when there was no Son and no sin, when God was neither Father nor Judge.". Similarly J.N.D. Kelly has stated: "Tertullian followed the Apologists in dating His “perfect generation” from His extrapolation for the work of creation; prior to that moment God could not strictly be said to have had a Son, while after it the term “Father”, which for earlier theologians generally connoted God as author of reality, began to acquire the specialized meaning of Father and Son.". As regards the subjects of subordination of the Son to the Father, the New Catholic Encyclopedia has commented: "In not a few areas of theology, Tertullian’s views are, of course, completely unacceptable. Thus, for example, his teaching on the Trinity reveals a subordination of Son to Father that in the later crass form of Arianism the Church rejected as heretical."



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
The Son is distinct from the Father, and the Spirit from both the Father and the Son (Adv. Praxeam, xxv). "These three are one substance, not one person; and it is said, 'I and my Father are one' in respect not of the singularity of number but the unity of the substance."


OK, if we can both agree to accept this formula, I'm content to leave it at that.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher
 


So does this mean that if you can rearrange the letters of a name in any language to mean something else, we should be worried? Search through enough languages, and you could probably make anything suddenly mean something else...



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by the illuminator
 



God is the father (the creator of everything)
the spirit is Gods spirit (a person) (gods person) he can speak love and live in you.
Jesus is the Father in flesh. who came down from heaven to sacrifice himself for us. (Jesus is the word. (the good news)

Almost. However, In Catholicism
God the Father = God.
God the son= God
God the holy Ghost or Holy Spirit = God
The Father,The Son,and The Holy Ghost are the three persons that are God. Each one has distinct divine attributes. the Father is creator the son is the redeemer,and the Holy Spirit is the Sanctifier. Each divinely appropriated.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 

preferable to say "God in flesh" rather than "Father in flesh". The second one is technically inaccurate.
You could argue in support of Illuminator's claim from the NIV reading;

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
that was what was witnessed of Jesus, the manifestation of the glory of God, being the One and Only, otherwise known as The Father.
The Father filled Jesus with His own divinity, thus making Jesus the revelation of God the Father, and it could then be rightly said that Jesus was The Father in the flesh.


[edit on 2-5-2010 by jmdewey60]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by texastig
 

So the Jews said that Jesus who was a man was making Himself God.
The Jews were expecting a Messiah who was so intimate with God that he practically was God, being the visible manifestation of God who was in fact standing before God, who was invisible. They were not so much against the idea of a godlike Messiah but against Jesus who seemed too ordinary for their liking.



[edit on 2-5-2010 by jmdewey60]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
[The Father filled Jesus with His own divinity, thus making Jesus the revelation of God the Father, and it could then be rightly said that Jesus was The Father in the flesh.


I must admit that this was a rather unexpected reaction, which has left me a little bemused.

I would not have been expecting anyone who sympathised with the Arians to agree that Jesus was "God in the flesh" in any sense.

Do you realise that you have accidentally slipped into the heresy of Patripassianism, which taught that the Father himself suffered on the cross in the body of Jesus? That's the reason why I was suggesting a mild correction in Illuminator's wording, which was orthodox apart from that.

I'm not sure that Arius himself would agree with Patripassianism, because the two tendancies of thought seem to work in opposite directions. You may want to rethink this point.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   
What we consider the material world is not material at all, not being of an actual substance, like tiny little pieces that make the whole. Quantum science can not fully explain this thing that our consciousness is experiencing because it is only energy and it does not even exist in time, properly, like we would imagine something that was solid would do.
The only way to explain our consciousness to to say that God somehow has a part in making what we perceive to exist.
So, Jesus on the cross could only have existed by God making it happen. Even the experience that Jesus was having, including the suffering, was something God would have been directly involved with. Like the sparrow that falls, God knows because that sparrow could not have even been alive, or go through the death process without the hand of God.
So God did not have to become something, or somehow change something about Himself, to suffer with Jesus, because there was no way that He could not have.


[edit on 2-5-2010 by jmdewey60]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join