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.

 

Sometimes I wonder about the Trinitarian view.

page: 13
4
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2013 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by truejew
 

No, יהוה was only used by Jews after they were perverted by Babylon.
The evidence is right there in the Old Testament. Someone who had the power, or just the physical ability, to edit the Bible, did, to create a 'name' for God where none existed previously.

יהוה is used in witchcraft.
That is indisputable.
The angel told Moses, "I Am", as a way of not giving a name that Pharaoh could use to cast spells.
Real Israelites would know who was meant when the angel said that he was the god of their Fathers, who went by the generic name, God, just like the Christian God does today.




posted on May, 2 2013 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Wow what an insult/error to equate the Father with Satan, because that is who Jesus was referring to, Satan.

Well you two are more lost as to the true nature of God than most, I feel sorry for you.
I see it is no use tying to to convince you otherwise. I don't doubt your sincerity, but it is at the same level as Saul's, before he became Paul. Which means there is always hope
.
edit on 2-5-2013 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Wow what an insult/error to equate the Father with Satan, because that is who Jesus was referring to, Satan.

Well you two are more lost as to the true nature of God than most, I feel sorry for you.
I see it is no use tying to to convince you otherwise. I don't doubt your sincerity, but it is at the same level as Saul's, before he became Paul. Which means there is always hope
.
edit on 2-5-2013 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



You are twisting what I am saying. I never said anything about the Father being satan. By saying that the Father is not YHWH, I am actually saying the opposite, that the Father is God.

In fact it is those who deny EhYeh who equate the Father with satan.


1 John 4:2-3 KJV
[2] Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: [3] And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Those who say it was YHWH delivers who came in the flesh and not EhJeh delivers have the spirit of antichrist.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   
I've been praying about this and low & behold this showed up on my return and as well as MY answer and it's been debated on here for awhile now, the trinity has been around since the old testament.

Genesis 1:26 (4000 B.C.): "And God said, Let us make man in our image..

Isaiah 6:8

New International Version (NIV)

8 Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”

And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

Isaiah 41:21-24

New International Version (NIV)

21 “Present your case,” says the Lord.
“Set forth your arguments,” says Jacob’s King.
22 “Tell us, you idols,
what is going to happen.
Tell us what the former things were,
so that we may consider them
and know their final outcome.
Or declare to us the things to come,
23 tell us what the future holds,
so we may know that you are gods.
Do something, whether good or bad,
so that we will be dismayed and filled with fear.
24 But you are less than nothing
and your works are utterly worthless;
whoever chooses you is detestable.

Exodus 33:14

New International Version (NIV)

14 The Lord replied, “My Presence will go with you, and I will give you rest.”

The word Elohim is many a times for “God”; Adonai is used hundreds of times for “Lord”; both of these words are plural nouns in Hebrew.

In Genisis 1:1-3 it mentions God creating all things with his words and his spirit and we both know who the word is.

Isaiah 42:1

English Standard Version (ESV)
The Lord's Chosen Servant

42 Behold my servant, whom I uphold,
my chosen, in whom my soul delights;
I have put my Spirit upon him;
he will bring forth justice to the nations.

These are but a few and you can planly see the Christ and the holy spirit already existed.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 

Wow what an insult/error to equate the Father with Satan, because that is who Jesus was referring to, Satan.
He didn't say, "Satan". You may make that jump of logic but that is all it is. Jesus said, "the devil", whatever that means.
Earlier, in John 6, the writer has Jesus saying, "Didn't I choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is the devil?”
Did he mean that Judas was in fact Satan in disguise? He meant that Judas was capable of creating and carrying out evil schemes.
At one point in the conversation in John 8, the 'Jews' said, "we have one Father: God."
further on, Jesus tells them that they do not know God, who Jesus is saying is his Father.
So there is a contrast being made between the God the Jews were claiming, and the God that Jesus was claiming.
In the middle of that exchange is when Jesus throws in the 'devil' word.
A devil could mean what I was earlier calling a "demon-god".



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by truejew
 


I was addressing multiple posts and this statement.



I believe in the entity pointed out by Jesus and who he called his Father.
Jesus told the Jews that their Father was a murderer.


Your guys think this "Father" is some mountain demon god represented with a name that is found in Psalms 83:18.
Jesus is clearly referring to Satan the Devil, when he addressed the Jewish clergy of his day.

Who do you think helped the Israelites escape Egypt and take over the promised land ?
Or is that part of the bible all a myth and a legend from your POV ?

I think I get why you two believe what you do, you have no ability to comprehend or accept God's actions and decree's in the Old Testament. And you have no ability to see what changed once Jesus came to the earth, the massive leeway that allowed the same God of the Hebrews towards all humans from that point forward. You have no ability to reconcile the God of Abraham with the God of first century Christians when they are are one in the same.

It's like you have painted yourselves into psychological corner spiritually and ideologically, you can't accept the reality of what happened in the Old Testament, so you searched for another way, and this is what you came up with to justify your own POV/spiritual world view. Your indoctrination is based on imperfect flawed emotional human reasoning that disagrees so strongly with the way God handled matters during the time of the Hebrews, you have read and researched theories that make sense to you, and now support them and advocate them.

But that's ok you are allowed to do that, you have free will, but the reality is, it makes you more agnostic than Christian. Because over the years I have talked to many agnostics and that is exactly how many of them think, the ones who have read the Hebrew scriptures anyway. They are agnostic because they can't comprehend God's actions during the time of the Israelites, and this creates doubt and an agnostic spiritual world view and perspective.

A common comment from them is "I really like Jesus, but that God in the Old Testament, not so much".

Sound familiar ?


edit on 2-5-2013 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 

I think I get why you two believe what you do, you have no ability to comprehend or accept God's actions and decree's in the Old Testament.
I did, and used to defend the Old Testament god on the religion forums, up until about two years ago.
So my attitude is not a result of not being able to understand all the concepts used to rationalize the disparity between the two testaments.
I now realize that the reason that I accepted those arguments was that I had been brainwashed into it by a cult.

And you have no ability to see what changed once Jesus came to the earth, the massive leeway that allowed the same God of the Hebrews towards all humans from that point forward.
The difference was that the Old Testament is a product of the Late Bronze Age, and Jesus introduced the modern, real God not encumbered by all the mythology that no longer has a place in the world.
Obviously there had always been a real God, but that does not mean that anyone understood what that meant.

You have no ability to reconcile the God of Abraham with the God of first century Christians when they are are one in the same.
You believe that because you belonged to a cult that made a special point of trying to convince people of that.
Paul, in the New Testament, mentions Abraham and God but in a way to make a point with people familiar with the Old Testament and that story.
There may have been a real person named Abraham but I seriously doubt it. I don't feel obligated to bind myself forever with some fictional character in a book to be able to identify God.

It's like you have painted yourselves into psychological corner spiritually and ideologically, you can't accept the reality of what happened in the Old Testament, so you searched for another way, and this is what you came up with to justify your own POV/spiritual world view.
I was painted into a corner by my cult brainwashing, to defend indefensible actions being depicted in a nationalistic archaic book where genocide of your competition was considered proper religion.
I realize now that these stories don't even have any historical evidence to support them and are likely just fantasy to make their God seem great, but in a way that today makes Him seem just evil.

Your indoctrination is based on imperfect flawed emotional human reasoning that disagrees so strongly with the way God handled matters during the time of the Hebrews, you have read and researched theories that make sense to you, and now support them and advocate them.
My indoctrination had me believing like apparently you do, having come out of very similar cults. The difference is that I recognize it for what it is, and you still seem to holding to the remnants of that indoctrination.
edit on 2-5-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Interesting, your perspective changes, and now everybody else spiritual POV is "brainwashed and from a cult".
Do you really think true Christians are just learning this type of thing so late into the timeline of the last days ?

And your version of the "Good News" of the Kingdom is the least known of any, this equals a fail right there.
It has certainly not been declared in all the earth as per Matthew 24:14, nor will it ever be.

Sorry, it is what it is.


edit on 2-5-2013 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 

And your version of the "Good News" of the Kingdom is the least known of any, this equals a fail right there.
I don't know what you are trying to get at.
Right now, what I am trying to get to is what I call normal Christianity.
Are you saying that normal Christianity is accepting Judaism, because that is how you sound to me?
If Judaism was OK, why did Jesus have to come.
Do you believe it was just to "pay" for your sins, something the New Testament never says?



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllGloryIsGods
I wonder if when we all stand before God will he say "You really wasted your time debating this nonsense?".

I am a firm believer that Yeshua and Yahweh are two separate entities. One cannot be his own son. The Bible clearly separates them by name. So my belief will never change and this thread is not to try and change others opinions. I just had this thought today and sometimes I wonder what God thinks about this. Whether its completely silly to debate it. Or would worshiping Yeshua be considered worshiping a false idol?


[ apart from the fact that i cringe reading 'yhwh'and 'yeshua'- but thats another topic ]

isnt 'male and female ' created as He ?
male-female- and the Spirit flowing back and forth between them.

female inside male and male inside Him

bless



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


I have not said the things you seem to think I said.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


It isn't about accepting modern Judaism, it is about accepting that Jesus was a Jew, and Hebrew scriptures were accurate in prophesying his arrival. It's about accepting that when the Jews were good God blessed them, when they were bad He punished them. It's about acknowledging history that even non-religious historians and archeologists agree on that support the bible accounts. This for example.



The Bible Handbook by Henry H. Halley, notes that at Megiddo, archaeologists found the ruins of a temple of Ashtoreth, goddess-wife of Baal. He writes: “Just a few steps from this temple was a cemetery, where many jars were found, containing remains of infants who had been sacrificed in this temple . . . Prophets of Baal and Ashtoreth were official murderers of little children.” “Another horrible practice was [what] they called ‘foundation sacrifices.’ When a house was to be built, a child would be sacrificed, and its body built into the wall.”
Halley comments: “The worship of Baal, Ashtoreth, and other Canaanite gods consisted in the most extravagant orgies; their temples were centers of vice. . . . Canaanites worshiped, by immoral indulgence, . . . and then, by murdering their first-born children, as a sacrifice to these same gods. It seems that, in large measure, the land of Canaan had become a sort of Sodom and Gomorrah on a national scale. . . . Did a civilization of such abominable filth and brutality have any right longer to exist? . . . Archaeologists who dig in the ruins of Canaanite cities wonder that God did not destroy them sooner than He did.”


It is points like that show us God's sees all and is always justified, we only may be able to learn about something later and then understand it fully.
It's amazing to encounter people who think they have evolved a higher form of justice than God, and they accomplished this in just few decades, amazing arrogance.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 



Your guys think this "Father" is some mountain demon god represented with a name that is found in Psalms 83:18.


You're confusing the two different positions. Dewey doesn't like the Old Testament, truejew doesn't like the name "Yahweh" -- his church teaches that the only name of God is Jesus, pronounced the English "gee-zus", no matter how it is spelled, and that has always been God's name. Some brainbox Pentecostal figured that one out back in the early 1900s, and it matters to him because they think that if you don't say God's name "gee-zus" correctly when addressing him, he will ignore you.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


I must ask you again to stop spreading false things about what we teach and to be more respectful in your posts.
edit on 2-5-2013 by truejew because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 

. . . at Megiddo, archaeologists found the ruins of a temple of Ashtoreth . . .
You are quoting a very old Bible commentary that the Jehovah's Witnesses have a field day with to try to justify genocide in the Old Testament and to defend the cult's namesake.
It is talking about a dig that Gottlieb Schumacher did from 1903-1905 at Tell el-Mutesellim, where he dug a trench through the center of the mound to see how many habitation layers it had.
That much is factual but I don't know what all the rest of what is in that book is about.
But this is just a pathetic attempt at moral relativism.
Let's say a girl under pressure from people trying to pin something on David Koresh claims that he touched her or whatever, that somehow justifies killing 90 people to take him out, including a lot of children who the authorities would have been protecting by getting Koresh out of the compound.

It isn't about accepting modern Judaism, it is about accepting that Jesus was a Jew,
It says in the New Testament that Jesus was of the tribe of Judah. Jesus in the Gospels is identified by the Samaritan woman as a person who was associated with that tribe. The Gospel of John, in that same book, uses the term, "Jews" to identify the leaders of the temple.

and Hebrew scriptures were accurate in prophesying his arrival.
The prophet Malachi is partially quoted at the beginning of Mark, that said that the Lord was coming. I don't see that as validating everything else in the Old Testament.

It's about accepting that when the Jews were good God blessed them, when they were bad He punished them.
Of course that is the theme once they had kings, according to the stories. They had to have explanations for the setbacks that they experienced over time, with the Babylonian exile standing out.

It's about acknowledging history that even non-religious historians and archeologists agree on that support the bible accounts.
Not that I am aware of, other than claims some people make about three different stele that look like they might be referring to Israel or David.
edit on 2-5-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen
 


I must ask you again to stop spreading false things about what we teach

What's false in what I wrote? I hardly believe that you're backpeddling on the whole "the eternal name of God is 'gee-zus'" thing, and that's all I referenced.

Oh, and if you're taking offense at "brainbox", it a British colloquial term for "very clever person", it isn't an insult.
edit on 2-5-2013 by adjensen because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen
 


What's false in what I wrote? I hardly believe that you're backpeddling on the whole "the eternal name of God is 'gee-zus'" thing, and that's all I referenced.


We teach that it is the name that is important, not that it must be pronounced perfectly as you claim.


Originally posted by adjensen

Oh, and if you're taking offense at "brainbox", it a British colloquial term for "very clever person", it isn't an insult.
edit on 2-5-2013 by adjensen because: (no reason given)


It was obvious you were using it as an insult.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 




try to justify genocide in the Old Testament


Based on your adamant disbelief that God would order the genocide against wicked people including their children in the old Testament........

I am curious how you feel about the genocide that will come from Jesus Christ authorized by his Dad to the people of this planet at Armageddon ? Can you reconcile that ? Or do you just ignore that part of the bible too ?



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen
 


What's false in what I wrote? I hardly believe that you're backpeddling on the whole "the eternal name of God is 'gee-zus'" thing, and that's all I referenced.


We teach that it is the name that is important, not that it must be pronounced perfectly as you claim.

How close do you have to be? Reckart implies that if you use the foreign equivalent of Jesus, such as the Spanish "yay-sue", it won't work, but if that's not right (as it obviously isn't) then it doesn't seem like pronunciation would matter one iota.



Originally posted by adjensen

Oh, and if you're taking offense at "brainbox", it a British colloquial term for "very clever person", it isn't an insult.
edit on 2-5-2013 by adjensen because: (no reason given)


It was obvious you were using it as an insult.

There ya go with your mental telepathy and assumptions again. As I said, it is a colloquial term that I use occasionally and it isn't an insult.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 





Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
I too agree with the OP

I also agree with the common ground stance you talk about with those with sincere beliefs of other Christian ideological dogma.


Thanks.

What I was trying to point out is that coming to believe in Jesus, one spiritually recognizes God the Father speaking through Jesus. So whether a believer see Jesus as God, or only as the Son of God… it is the recognizing of God the Father in him, which is universally true for both groups, and that’s what I think counts in God eyes.

Not that there isn’t a real truth there to be found, which I believe I, yourself, and the OP have found…




Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
However, Saul of Tarsus was also very sincere, but he was also wrong too, seeing that level of sincerity of faith, Jesus acted to give him a personal conversion and it is the only known real case in history that we know happened.


Well, I know that the Trinity doctrine went through a series of changes and adaptations, from its original conception. So there can be no way, that that later Trinitarian understanding, could have been taught in Paul’s time. And in fact, it’s highly debatable that any form of Trinity, was ever taught by Paul at all.

Anyway, I’m not sure what aspect you say Paul got wrong etc…perhaps you can expand on that, in your next reply…




Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Part of that knowledge is the understanding of Jesus relationship with his Father, and contrary to what some are posting in this thread, that Father is not some demon mountain god.

Do you really think that those posting in this thread that categorize the Almighty God as such have his approval?


Firstly, I haven’t read all the other posts in this thread, regarding this “demon mountain god”…discussion… so I don’t know what their perspective is yet.

All I can do is give you my own perspective, which is pretty unique…

Jesus states in John 7:38 “that those who believe in him as the scriptures have said, will receive rivers of living water…i.e. the receiving of the Holy Spirit…

The question those posters need to ask themselves, is what scriptures, is Jesus referring too? I don’t think Jesus can be referring to the NT, because it wasn’t written down yet, so IMO he must be referring to the OT scriptures of the Prophets. And there are clear prophetic words written in the OT scriptures, declaring who the Son of God is etc…

Also Jesus clearly states, that Abraham would be glad to see his day…which brings in a clear connection to the Abrahamic God, and Jesus himself…

However, my own unique perspective is that I don’t trust all of the prophets, except the ones that Jesus quotes, like Hosea, Isaiah, Psalms and Daniel etc…I also think that certain prophets were not always following the one true God, like their father Abraham, but were instead following the Father of Lies.

I also believe that Jesus was most likely an Essene; The Essenes had a number of arguments and disagreements with the Sadducees and Pharisees, claiming that they were following the traditions of men, and that many of the things they were following/teaching, were not from the One true God etc…This is an aspect which is often echoed, in many of Jesus interactions, with the Pharisees.

This is the reason why I believe Jesus states that the Pharisees were following their Father the Devil, i.e. the Father of lies and killing righteous prophets from God etc because they were no longer following, the one true God of their forefathers…i.e. of Abraham…

This goes much deeper and further back in the time in the OT IMO, than just the time Jesus was speaking about those things. Especially when one considers the Laws of God. Such Laws, as killing people who don’t honor their parents, or stoning people to death etc… I believe came from men and not from the one true God… these were the things which the Essenes took issue with the Pharisees, and so did Jesus. In fact, this is the very reason Jesus was prophesied to come, so that man could separate between what was Gods Laws (The Ten commandments) and what were men’s (traditions added by men) Laws…


- JC

edit on 2-5-2013 by Joecroft because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join