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.

 

A Word of the Lord For His Bride in This Hour...

page: 10
15
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by cloudyday
 

How do you define "equal"?

That's Athanasius' terminology, so ask him.
I go with the Arian concept where the Father is greater than the Son, like Jesus said.


Here is a good description of the problems created by the ideas of Arius. This was written by Eusebius of Nicomedia to Emperor Constantine.

That God was not always the Father, but that there was a period when he was not the Father; that the Word of God was not from eternity, but was made out of nothing; for that the ever-existing God (‘the I AM’—the eternal One) made him who did not previously exist, out of nothing; wherefore there was a time when he did not exist, inasmuch as the Son is a creature and a work. That he is neither like the Father as it regards his essence, nor is by nature either the Father’s true Word, or true Wisdom, but indeed one of his works and creatures, being erroneously called Word and Wisdom, since he was himself made of God’s own Word and the Wisdom which is in God, whereby God both made all things and him also. Wherefore he is as to his nature mutable and susceptible of change, as all other rational creatures are: hence the Word is alien to and other than the essence of God; and the Father is inexplicable by the Son, and invisible to him, for neither does the Word perfectly and accurately know the Father, neither can he distinctly see him. The Son knows not the nature of his own essence: for he was made on our account, in order that God might create us by him, as by an instrument; nor would he ever have existed, unless God had wished to create us.

Arianism




posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Hydroman
 



That's what I said.


No, you're maintaining that God sacrificed Himself to Himself. Instead of saying the Father sent the Son to atone for the sins of His children. The only "sacrifice" was the Son leaving His Majesty behind to take the form of a human to atone for the sins of all humans and to experience all the pain and suffering we do to identify with us in out pain. The sacrifice was not his death, but His birth. So instead of when we pray to Him telling Him we hurt he doesn't say "I understand your pain", He can say, "Yes, they hurt me too."



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Hydroman
 



And, the father part of himself sent the son part of himself to sacrifice the son part of himself to the father part of himself. It's exactly what you guys are saying but won't admit to for some reason. He sacrificed himself to himself.


See ^.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by the2ofusr1
I don't think man is capable of fully defining God .He is indescribable ..Like the most beautiful thing you could ever imagine and so much more ..we put Him in terms like a family ..one family 3 members ..1 member goes away but they are still 1 family with 3 members ..Given that we have descriptions in human terms that tell us about the Son ,how he talked ,how He acted ,and what He said about His Father ,we know so little about how great They are ..peace
With 3 members in 1 family, you have three distinct individuals. All 3 have different personalities, different ideas, different beliefs, different hopes, different dreams, different goals. Is this how the biblical god is?


In that scenario an outsider would call that group of folks "THEM". We cal the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit "HIM".



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 



It is not uncommon to see messianic jews and christians worshipping in the same church.


We have two at our church.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ironclad
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


YOu know what peeves me about christians (as specially harcore ones?


I'm sure you'll tell us. Let me guess, you just like the apostate lukewarm hypocritical ones correct?


Not the fact that they will stand there in a coffe shop and belch out phrase after phrase form the bibe (trying to convert you), while your trying to relax and have a cup of coffee.


A real Christian would befriend you, see if he could do something to bless you and share his testimony. Christ came to serve people before He ever told people who He was.


Not that they will knock on your door at 6.00am in the morning to give you the good word and ask you to considre joining the flock.


That's like the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses, we aren't that team. lol


Not that theybabble on endlessly about how real their god is and that thye don't need proof he is real and neither do "YOU", just accept the good book as the proof..


I've never claimed that. I know He is real, anyone who has had a revelation of Jesus doesn't need for the world to believe first before we believe. Pray you can get the same revelation of Him.


What really peeves me about christians is that they waste half their day praying on their knees, when they could be doing something productive... OMG!! Moring noon and night..lol


That doesn't sound like a very productive Christian, not a profitable servant. Sounds like someone who is hiding their light under a bushel.


Got nothing against God personally, just his fan club I cannot stand..


And you have that God-given free will to do so. Jesus said the world would hate us for His testimony, you're just fulfilling prophecy.


edit on 25-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
No, you're maintaining that God sacrificed Himself to Himself. Instead of saying the Father sent the Son to atone for the sins of His children. The only "sacrifice" was the Son leaving His Majesty behind to take the form of a human to atone for the sins of all humans and to experience all the pain and suffering we do to identify with us in out pain. The sacrifice was not his death, but His birth. So instead of when we pray to Him telling Him we hurt he doesn't say "I understand your pain", He can say, "Yes, they hurt me too."


So first you deny the fact that God didn't send himself to himself right here.

reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Then right here you agree with Hydro when he's been saying the exact same thing. Instead of saying God sent himself to himself, Hydro says The Father sent his Son down to be sacrificed to his Father. Really, it's the same thing since you both believe that each figure of the Triune are three equal "persons".

That's what I got from that quote since it's a one word answer.

Does this picture sum it up nicely?





posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." ~ 1 Corinthians 2:14



(i don't know why I'm trying to explain the Trinity to an unbeliever without the Holy Spirit)



My Q:

This all sounds like utter foolishness correct?



edit on 25-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

The Arian concept was universally rejected at Nicaea as heresy.

Obviously not, otherwise that decision would have made it into the canon, which it did not.
There was a split, then there were measures taken against Arius to weaken his support, then it was taken up at a later council, where by that point, enough of his supporters, and Arius himself, had been eliminated to where it did pass and became canon.
Bottom line, by acts of violence against the adherents to the traditional view of the trinity brought about the version we have today. So feel all smug that you side with murderers, which goes right along with your support of Zionism which murders people on a routine basis and steals other people's lands over their dead bodies.
edit on 25-4-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



Obviously not, otherwise that decision would have made it into the canon, which it did not.


Only inspired scripture made it into the Biblical canon. The criteria was only for people who met Jesus, or were eyewitnesses to Jesus. Those dudes were LONG dead by 325 AD. We do have plenty of written accounts for what transpired at Nicaea. The entire council was mainly convened to address the Arian heresy and to nail down a date for Easter. Only 1 dude voted in agreement with Arius, and it was a dude he brought with him to the council.


Bottom line, by acts of violence against the adherents to the traditional view of the trinity brought about the version we have today. So feel all smug that you side with murderers, which goes right along with your support of Zionism which murders people on a routine basis and steals other people's lands over their dead bodies.


Great revisionism. Even Arians reject that extreme view.


For about two months, the two sides argued and debated,[34] with each appealing to Scripture to justify their respective positions. According to many accounts, debate became so heated that at one point, Arius was slapped in the face by Nicholas of Myra, who would later be canonized.[35]


Council of Nicea

Arius was slapped, big deal, he needed to have some sense knocked into him for listening to the Gnostics at Alexandria.


edit on 25-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Hydroman
 

Ok, God is one. So all three parts make up the one, same exact being?

It's a convention.

3. General agreement on or acceptance of certain practices or attitudes: By convention, north is at the top of most maps.
4. A practice or procedure widely observed in a group, especially to facilitate social interaction; a custom: the convention of shaking hands.
5. A widely used and accepted device or technique, as in drama, literature, or painting: the theatrical convention of the aside.
www.thefreedictionary.com...
The Greeks used the same convention, where they said, "God", when the unmentioned understanding was that obviously there were many gods but they time to time had meetings at Olympus to come to agreements on things to where they could make proclamations "with a single voice".

edit on 25-4-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Hydroman
 

. . . this triune God was sending a part of himself down to earth to be sacrificed to another part of himself . . .
God handed over Jesus to the enemy.
The sacrifice to God was the loss of his son.
The sacrifice to Jesus was the personal suffering and humiliation and death.
The enemy, sin and death, had their way with him.
The result of this sacrifice was God judging sin, and Jesus' victory over death.
edit on 25-4-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

3 persons, One God. Him not Them.

"Him", to me, would be God, the Father of Jesus.
"God" could mean all three, but saying, "Him" would not be technically correct.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 

Yeshua is God.

You are apparently promoting a non-Christian religion, seeing how Christians believe in Jesus.
This comes from the New Testament which calls Jesus, Jesus.
I believe you get your believes from a subversive group which has as its goal the destruction of Christianity by several means, as demonstrated in your post. 1 promoting the belief that Jesus is a distinct person, and 2, that you present a substitute, antichrist name to replace the biblical Christ.
When Jesus says he is the I Am, he is taking the role formerly played by an angel who was afterwards known as, YHWH. Jesus took that title for himself, but without the proper name which the Jews had made into a personal name, but retained the original concept from which the name was fabricated.

Philippians 2: 5-11

5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Jesus was "in the form" of god. Which would means that he was a god. He did not see equality with the person we know as God, something to be grasped. This means he did not supplant God, though it was in his power to do so, but looking at himself when he was alive on this planet as an otherwise normal human being, he decided to look to the God above him, in order to do His will as a faithful servant.
edit on 25-4-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 

He is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. People get so confused over this trinity stuff. Yeshua was the first and original comforter, this means he is the Holy Spirit.
I think what you are saying is confusing, by definition.

Verb 1. confuse - mistake one thing for another;
www.thefreedictionary.com...
What this practice, that you are the missionary of, is doing is breaking down the distinction between God the Father, and the Son, to prepare people's minds for the elimination of Jesus as in individual, altogether, so as to pave the way of the acceptance of a Judaic form of monotheism, and the eventual elimination of Christianity (not to become Jews, ourselves, but the slaves of the Jews, and to become followers of the inferior, made for gentiles, set of rules called the noahide laws, where only the "true"Jews are allowed to be taught real Judaism).

John 14
7“If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.”
8 Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.”
9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
Right here Yeshua is saying he is the Father and he is telling Thomas and Philip that he is looking at the Father. Until Yeshua no man had seen the Father.
First of all, you are substituting in your antichrist mane, following the practice of your anti-Christian cult to destroy the person of Jesus and his very name as an offensive thing to you.
Second, Jesus never said that they had spiritually seen the Father. He said, "you would have seen the Father". If he meant it the way you are trying to describe, he never would have worded it the way he did. He obviously did not mean it literally.

The entire theme of the OT and NT is to establish Yeshua is God. That he is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Just dump the trinity stuff and you will be less confused. People take such an easy concept to grasp and make it harder than what it really is.
I would disagree, and say that the purpose of NT books like John and Mark was to establish that Jesus is the name of God, and he is the Lord, in an OT way of thinking of The Lord as carrying the name of God as being called the I Am.
edit on 25-4-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 

It is not uncommon to see messianic jews and christians worshipping in the same church.

There really isn't any such thing.
"Jew" is like a trademarked name, so people can't just appropriate it as they wish, to describe themselves, and somehow magically make it true. Just like a group of people can not steal land in Palestine and call themselves Israel, and magically make themselves Israel that it talks about in the Bible.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by cloudyday
 

Here is a good description of the problems created by the ideas of Arius. This was written by Eusebius of Nicomedia to Emperor Constantine.
Eusebius was what you could call a "suck-up" to people in position of power and did what was right and profitable to himself.
Do you actually understand what he is saying in the quote?
What he is saying is that if Jesus was actually a literal "son" then that would mean that he was begotten. And if Jesus (or rather the pre-incarnate Jesus, who Eusebius is calling The Son) was begotten, then that means that God, the Father, had changed. Meaning that God was not a father, then God was a father. This would mean that God was capable of change, something that according to their definition of God, was not allowable.
The insanity of it is that they therefore make the son and the father equal so that one always existed along with the other (contradicting the very terms, father and son), while obviously the one was fully capable of change, coming to earth as a baby, born of a woman.
Arguing by use of actual logic back then could, and frequently did, result in being burnt at the stake or some other form of execution. Proper argumentation back then was to quote someone who had previously been given the seal of approval by some later authority. This is the same principle which got Galileo in hot water with the church, later on.
edit on 25-4-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

That's like the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses, we aren't that team. lol

Do you have a habit of addressing yourself in the second person?



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Only inspired scripture made it into the Biblical canon.
You need to find out what the term, canon, means.
You have a profound ignorance of Arius and the issues involving him, and the historical events surrounding the controversy.
edit on 25-4-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Only inspired scripture made it into the Biblical canon.
You need to find out what the term, canon, means.
You have a profound ignorance of Arius and the issues involving him, and the historical events surrounding the controversy.


It can mean several things. And even though I didn't live in 325 AD or go to the Council, we have a boatload of written works from those who did attend.

Read some quotes.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join