Understanding Trinity had been a challenge for ages and now I have come to the conclusion that comprehension of Trinity surpasses human understanding. However my understanding about Trinty tells me the Jesus is the physical entity of Lord Almighty. Lord God is spirit and HE sends His spirit as Holy Spirit to assist us to grow more in Jesus.

I am struggling to make 2 plus 2 as 4, as we know that Jesus said many times about God as His Father. Then even God said about Jesus when Jesus was being baptised by John the Baptist, "You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased.”

Therefore how do I bring together Son of God attribute and physical manifestation of God for Jesus?

Im not quite understanding the question. You said 2 + 2 = 4 and there is no 4 in the trinity. There are only 3. How to reconcile Jesus is that as man he was devine from the beginning. That set him apart from man and also allowed him to inheirit the throne of god. The holy spirit is for the entity inside us all. The spark of god as he is our creator. Jesus came to this earth as devine and to live for the examples that he had preached. Therefore providing a conduit for our salvation. Something before we didn't have. Jesus sits at the right hand of the father and also is the commanding general in the end of times. His role as savior is an integral part of man and God relationships. The holy spirit is the deliverer. The conduit which knowlage and strength of spirit may pass. And God is above all else. And that is the trinity as I know it.

---[---[---[

It's incomprehensible for several reasons. For one thing, God is God and we're not; our creator is likely to be beyond our understanding. For another, we're finite beings, whereas the God described in the Bible isn't. The finite is going to have no end of trouble grasping the infinite.

We do know that the Father is called God, the Son is called God, and the Holy Spirit is called God. Yet there's one God. That's as far as I can go with it, but for me it's enough.

Hello Triund

It is incomprehensible because it is not true, simple as that.

It is simply a false teaching that used to be easy for people to accept because they were kept in the dark as to what the Bible said.

Now that we have access to the Bible without fear of being set on fire, religions have to try very hard to use philosophy to make the false teachings fir in with the Bible.

Trust God, Triund, and trust your own commonsense.

There is a Father and there is a Son and there is a Spirit and all are one in that they work together as one and are one as husband and wife are also one and even the apostles are one.

It is very easy to understand until you try and fit the pagan triune god into the equation

"pagan"??

Yes pagan, as in dating back to the city of Babylon where many false teachings and practices are common today, such as worshipping triads of gods.

Im not quite understanding the question. You said 2 + 2 = 4 and there is no 4 in the trinity. There are only 3. ....

lol... lol... nice joke... And you know I used 2 + 2 = 4 as an analogy. Thanks for your input.

Yes pagan, as in dating back to the city of Babylon where many false teachings and practices are common today, such as worshipping triads of gods.

You're joking, right?

dwashbur

I doubt he is joking. Part of the fun of being a Catholic is we can adopt pagan rituals and images, give them christyian names or meanings and hey presto they are now Christian symbols and rituals, no matter how much God used to detest the rituals or images or teachings.

That is one of the perks of being Catholic; we can do what we like.

You're joking, right?

Hi Dwashbur,

It is actually true. The trinity as a coherent philosophical/religious idea was the synthesis of three Greek philosophical traditions (there were of course others of the time who contributed to the idea).

Plato and his theory of the forms was an important contributor for many reasons. He was probably the first identity theorist. Identity theory today is still important to the Trinity.

The Stoics talked about dynamic reason to explain how God exists. I think the term 'logos' is still sometimes used today when talking about Jesus/God.

Aristotle's contribution was also very significant, especially his idea of the unmoved mover.

Discovering the origins of a belief has nothing to do with the truth/falsity of that belief.

Regards

Tut

Hi Dwashbur,

It is actually true. The trinity as a coherent philosophical/religious idea was the synthesis of three Greek philosophical traditions (there were of course others of the time who contributed to the idea).

Plato and his theory of the forms was an important contributor for many reasons. He was probably the first identity theorist. Identity theory today is still important to the Trinity.

The Stoics talked about dynamic reason to explain how God exists. I think the term 'logos' is still sometimes used today when talking about Jesus/God.

Aristotle's contribution was also very significant, especially his idea of the unmoved mover.

Discovering the origins of a belief has nothing to do with the truth/falsity of that belief.

Regards

Tut

So let's get this straight. The early Israelites knew about this specific Babylonian myth but only adopted part of it, the part where there's one God and he empowers various people by means of his Spirit; from there, the early Christians, none of whom were particularly educated, managed to synthesize Platonian and Aristotelian philosophy, not to mention Seneca and the other stoics, in such a way that it somehow came out a triune God consisting of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Uh-huh. Sure.

So let's get this straight. The early Israelites knew about this specific Babylonian myth but only adopted part of it, the part where there's one God and he empowers various people by means of his Spirit; from there, the early Christians, none of whom were particularly educated, managed to synthesize Platonian and Aristotelian philosophy, not to mention Seneca and the other stoics, in such a way that it somehow came out a triune God consisting of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Uh-huh. Sure.

Sorry D I probably mislead you with the post cut out. I should have been more selective. I really don't know much about Babylonian Gods and what knowledge, if any the early Israelites had of them.

If we are taking about this time then I guess this would have been at least 500 years before Plato. Prior to this there would have been no knowledge of any type of identity theory. Given this, any Babylonian myth would have nothing to do with the Trinity.


Regards

Tut

dwashbur

I doubt he is joking. Part of the fun of being a Catholic is we can adopt pagan rituals and images, give them christyian names or meanings and hey presto they are now Christian symbols and rituals, no matter how much God used to detest the rituals or images or teachings.

That is one of the perks of being Catholic; we can do what we like.

Newton;

I'm not laughing either.

This isn’t true; it seems to me that you’re mocking Catholics?

JoeT

Triund,
Try thinking about the trinity this way.
First of all Jesus is the incarnate WORD of God, The word of the Father and the Holy Spirit and therefore eternal as they are.
All three are separate persons in one being of God.
That's very similar to the way you are.
You and all of us are trinities made up of Body, Mind, and Spirit.
All three work together in different ways to make you who you are.
Each as its own functions but works together with the others.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Think of it any way you like Triund, as long as you can get your head around it you will be fine.

There are tons of philosophical discussions you can have to try and squeeze the Triune god into the Bible, but it does not make it so.

In a book with so many words in it it would be amazing if you could not squeeze any idea you like into many parts of it.

My spirit does not speak to my body and my soul does not go for a walk about without my body.

There is a father and a son and a spirit, all three are separate and all three are individual.

The Israelites never considered them to be one and the same and neither did Jesus or the apostles.

Hence the idea was not introduced to Christians for hundreds of years.

Think of it anyway you like Triund, that is the only way you will be able to come to terms with it.

Quote from a well known religious encyclopedia -
“The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”

Quote from The New Encyclopaedia Britannica -
“Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”

Hence the reason why this doctrine is so confusing... it is not a biblical teaching.

Jesus clearly taught that he was the Son of God, not God himself, inferior, not equal to his Father. (Matt 26:39; John 14:28; 1 Cor 15:27,28)
Even after his ascension to heaven, Jesus was seen by Stephen through holy spirit "standing at God's right hand". (Act 7:55,56) This reveals that Jesus did not become God again once in heaven but is a distinct individual to God himself.

That said, Satan is blinding the minds of the unbelievers (2 Cor 4:4), so the trinity doctrine will be here to stay until the end (Matt 24;14), then God will once and for all vindicate his holy name and right all the wrongs on earth, which includes eliminating all false doctrines. (Psa 145:20; Matt 6:9,10) Then there will definitely be no confusion!

*Takes deep breath and prepares for backlash*

There's a big difference between saying something wasn't codified in an official fashion until the fourth century, and saying it didn't exist until the fourth century. Jesus himself expounded the idea in the Great Commission when he told his followers to baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; Paul sets it out clearly in his benediction at the end of 2 Corinthians; Peter plainly says that lying to the Holy Spirit is lying to God in Acts 5; Jesus claims to be God in John 10 - the Jews accuse him of just this and he doesn't contradict them - and the list goes on and on. Thomas calls Jesus "My Lord and My God" and Jesus doesn't correct him. Yes, the doctrine as a doctrine was codified in the fourth century, in response to the Arian controversy. But to try and say it didn't exist before that flies in the face of the evidence.

I have no problem in understanding The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. My understanding for That is very clear and simple. God, Jesus and Holy Spirit are one, can not fit into my finite understanding. May be as the time passes by Lord God would reveal what is the true picture and helps us understand the thing. The reason I was trying to understand it was sometimes people pose the question that if Jesus were God, then who was looking after the universe when Jesus was on the earth.

I am thankful to you all for inputs you give on my questions and doubts. I love this community where people come from different denominations and share their understanding on a topic. This makes a reader to know other perspectives too. This site is a big learning experience.

Jesus claims to be God in John 10 - the Jews accuse him of just this and he doesn't contradict them -

I don't have the time today to mention all scriptures but singling this one out, John 10:30 - the comment Jesus makes "I and the Father are one" could lead some to think he meant "I and the Father are the same person" but if you look at John 17:21 Jesus prayed for his followers "That they all be one" then in vs 22 added "that they may be one even as we are one." He used the same Greek word (hen) for "one" in all these verses. Jesus disciples did not all become part of the trinity but rather a oneness in unity and purpose as are Jesus and his Father.

I don't have the time today to mention all scriptures but singling this one out, John 10:30 - the comment Jesus makes "I and the Father are one" could lead some to think he meant "I and the Father are the same person" but if you look at John 17:21 Jesus prayed for his followers "That they all be one" then in vs 22 added "that they may be one even as we are one." He used the same Greek word (hen) for "one" in all these verses. Jesus disciples did not all become part of the trinity but rather a oneness in unity and purpose as are Jesus and his Father.

Cop-out. I specifically noted that the Jews accused Jesus of making himself God, and he didn't correct them. He also didn't correct Thomas when he called him "my God." The meaning of John 10:30 doesn't hinge on the word "one," which, just like the English word, can be used in myriad ways. It hinges on the context, and the context in both cases is clear.

Moparbyfar,
Very well said.
I pray that we all become one with God both here abd here after.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

>” the context in both cases is clear.”<
Mmm, so clear no Christian can understand it.

>” I specifically noted that the Jews accused Jesus of making himself God”<
Mmm, and you are happy to make the same mistake.

Did you ever wonder if it were wise to follow in the footsteps of the jews accusing Jesus of anything?

Not a very convincing argument to try and prove a teaching that is not in the Bible.

And Jesus had no need to correct Thomas, no one said Jesus is not a god. But the Bible does not say Jesus is God the son.
The Bible does not say Jesus is the Father.
The Bible does not say Jesus is the only true God.
The Bible does not say Jesus is greater than God.
The Bible does not say God can do nothing without Jesus.
The Bible does not say Jesus sent God.
The Bible does not say God obeys Jesus.
The Bible does not say God learned obedience.
The Bible does not say God is in subjection to Jesus.
The Bible does not say etc etc etc.

The Bible does mention the Father the son and the holy spirit; does the Bible mention Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Is this proof that they are now the same person?

The Bible has many sentences and out of the thousands of pages of writings, there are maybe a dozen passages that could be suggested to support such a silly idea.

You say it yourself, ‘the word “one” can be used in a myriad of ways’ and you prefer to use it as ‘proof’ that Jesus is in fact his own father.

>” I love this community where people come from different denominations and share their understanding on a topic”<
Ah, that is the difference.

This is a Catholic site and others may post their opinion as long as it does not stray too far from Catholicism or pose questions that Catholics cannot possibly answer.

...

This is a Catholic site and others may post their opinion as long as it does not stray too far from Catholicism or pose questions that Catholics cannot possibly answer.

I beg to differ from you on the ownership of this site.

This is for all the members of this site - If this is true that this site is for Catholics, then I apologies for not reading the fine print before joining this forum. Whereas iI always took this site as a platform where all brothers and sisters in Christ could come and support and help fellow-beings to grow in Christ. Never ever thought of being a Catholic or Protestant, being a Methodist or a Baptist flashe d across my mind. I always thought that people come to this platform after crossing over the boundaries of denominations. Please make me clear if this site has its foundation on denominations. God be with you all.

[QUOTE/].....

If this is true that this site is for Catholics, then I apologies for not reading the fine print before joining this forum. Whereas iI always took this site as a platform where all brothers and sisters in Christ could come and support and help fellow-beings to grow in Christ.

And I missed the fine print where it said this site is a "platform where all brothers and sisters in Christ could come and support and help their fellow-beings to grow in Christ".

This site is not a place to proselytize, it is a Q&A site that has no religious test in order to ask or reply to questions.

>” the context in both cases is clear.”<
Mmm, so clear no Christian can understand it.

>” I specifically noted that the Jews accused Jesus of making himself God”<
Mmm, and you are happy to make the same mistake.

Did you ever wonder if it were wise to follow in the footsteps of the jews accusing Jesus of anything?

Since you decline to address the rest of my comment, I won't bother repeating it. Most everyone should be able to see that you're dodging the real issue in that passage, so I'm going to leave it at that.


Not a very convincing argument to try and prove a teaching that is not in the Bible.

Circular reasoning. Whether it's in the Bible or not is the question.


And Jesus had no need to correct Thomas, no one said Jesus is not a god.

I have no idea what "a god" means. How many gods do you have? The Bible says there's one, and he exists in a triune form.


But the Bible does not say Jesus is God the son.
The Bible does not say Jesus is the Father.
The Bible does not say Jesus is the only true God.
The Bible does not say Jesus is greater than God.
The Bible does not say God can do nothing without Jesus.
The Bible does not say Jesus sent God.
The Bible does not say God obeys Jesus.
The Bible does not say God learned obedience.
The Bible does not say God is in subjection to Jesus.
The Bible does not say etc etc etc.

More cop-outs. Nobody has ever claimed any of this. Nobody has ever claimed there isn't order within the trinity, that each of the persons of the trinity doesn't have different functions. But that's very different than saying they're three distinct beings. Again I have to ask how many gods you have. If you have more than one, you can't claim to be a Christian.


The Bible does mention the Father the son and the holy spirit; does the Bible mention Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Is this proof that they are now the same person?

Wow. That's desperation to the nth degree. This is so far beyond lame I can't even come up with a word for it, and I know 9 languages.


The Bible has many sentences and out of the thousands of pages of writings, there are maybe a dozen passages that could be suggested to support such a silly idea.

I stand corrected. This is even more lame. "there are maybe a dozen passages" that mention a lot of things. Exactly how desperate are you?


You say it yourself, ‘the word “one” can be used in a myriad of ways’ and you prefer to use it as ‘proof’ that Jesus is in fact his own father.

Once again, you're dodging what I actually wrote. Until you address it all, we have nothing to talk about. And the idea that I somehow am trying to say "Jesus is in fact his own father" is such a gross misrepresentation I won't even bother. It just shows how weak your arguments are that you have to resort to such twisting of people's words, even when you know it's false twisting.


>” I love this community where people come from different denominations and share their understanding on a topic”<
Ah, that is the difference.

This is a Catholic site and others may post their opinion as long as it does not stray too far from Catholicism or pose questions that Catholics cannot possibly answer.

Oh, this is too much. Hey, WG, Classyt, Joe, and all the rest of you folks, did you know we're actually Catholics?? So now the desperation descends into sniping, name-calling and guilt by apparent association. I think we're done here.

This is definitely not a Catholic site although some of the mods are, leading some to assume that their opinions may be overlooked or "over ruled" but generally speaking no matter what denomination we are, we all have a say. Respect SHOULD go a long way here guys.

Revelation 19:13 He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God.
The name of the Son of God is the Word and He was in the beginning with God and He was God.
In the beginning was the Son of God and the Son of God was with God and the Son of God was God. Don't make it complicated because it is not. God's Son could not be anything less than God Himself because God said that everything reproduces to its own kind and that is good.So if a human being gives birth to another human being and a cat gives birth to another cat, then God gives birth to another God.
Do we then have two Gods?Absolutely not because it is written about two persons
Genesis 2:24...and they shall become one flesh. although being two different persons.It is not the number of personalities that matters but the unification of our will that makes us one.
After all the word used in Hebrew for one is echad which means a united one.
There is no Triune God as many today believe. There is only one true God who sometime before time was created gave birth to another being, His Son the Word and God's Son cannot be anything less than God Himself. No, the Son is not the Father and the Father is not the Son.This is why He gave us families so that we could understand how He acts.Am I my son?No I am not although we are both human beings, but I gave birth to him and that makes me greater than him because he came out of me and he obeys me.
The devil know the connection between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and that's why he always uses three different evil personalities even to the very end as written in Revelation.
This is the statement of the Greek Orthodox faith which I find very accurate...
I Believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, And of all things visible and invisible :


And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, Begotten of the Father before all centuries, Light out of Light, Very God out of Very God, Begotten, non made, Being of one substance with the Father, By whom all things were made : Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, And was made man, And was crusified also for us under Pontius Pilate.

He suffered and was buried, And the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, And ascended into heaven, And sitteth on the right hand of the father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the living and the dead : Whose kingdom shall have no end.


And in the Holy Ghost, The Lord and giver of life, Who proceedeth from the Father, Who spoke by the Prophets.


And in one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one Baprtism for the remission of sins. And I look for the Resurrection of the dead, And the life of the world to come. Amen.

adam7gur,
Yes very good the word of God is eternal just like the Father and Holy Spirit.
Peace and kindness.
Fred

Oh, this is too much. Hey, WG, Classyt, Joe, and all the rest of you folks, did you know we're actually Catholics????????? So now the desperation descends into sniping, name-calling and guilt by apparent association. I think we're done here.

Didn't I tell you I was a closet Catholic?. My bad guys. (grumpy JoeT and Fred... don't leave the faith just yet.. I was only kidding.) I'm still the pretrib rapture believer, dispensationalist, fundementalist I've always been... :D) I have just learned to respect ALL those who own the name of the LORD Jesus Christ as their Savior and GOD.

The trouble "I Newton" has is he is anti catholic, does not view them as Christians and does most of his posts with Anti catholic themes if not outright hatred toward them.

This is not allowed as it would against Methodist, Lutherans, Mormons or anyone else that has equal rights to their faith on our boards.

He has not learned to discuss issues without name calling or avoiding the issues.

He has been officially warned and wants to attack rather than follow the rules.

He can not attack Catholics on this the Christian board any more than a person can attack Muslims on the Islamic board.

I'm still the pretrib rapture believer, dispensationalist, fundementalist I've always been....
And I'm the liberal former evangelical Missouri-Synod Lutheran preacher's kid/school teacher who wasn't allowed to date any of the cute Catholic boys in high school and who is still trying to figure out what the Catholics believe and why.

This is definitely not a Catholic site although some of the mods are
Not to worry. I'm keeping my Protestant eye on them.

classyT,
In this case we are in the same class.
That is...
A friend of Jesus is a friend of mine.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Adam,


[snip]
There is no Triune God as many today believe. There is only one true God who sometime before time was created gave birth to another being, His Son the Word and God's Son cannot be anything less than God Himself.

I don't think I've ever heard this idea before; to the best of my knowledge the common belief has always been that the one God, in three persons, is eternal in his triune nature. I'm not familiar with the proposition that the Father gave birth to the Son in this manner. Can you expand on your comments a little? This is interesting.

[snip]

dwashbur,
I believe that several denominations do not believe in the Trinity.
I'll wait until adam7gur answers to see what he has to say.
Of the 30,000 different denominations you can imagine what so of the belief might be.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

dwashbur,
I believe that several denominations do not believe in the Trinity.
I'll wait until adam7gur answers to see what he has to say.
Of the 30,000 different denominations you can imagine what so of the belief might be.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I'm aware that some denominations don't. What I haven't heard before is the suggestion that the Father gave birth to the Son.

Adam,



I don't think I've ever heard this idea before; to the best of my knowledge the common belief has always been that the one God, in three persons, is eternal in his triune nature. I'm not familiar with the proposition that the Father gave birth to the Son in this manner. Can you expand on your comments a little? This is interesting.

[snip]

Let me ask this! When was the Son of God born? No doubt God has a Son and if He has a Son then at some point the Son was born somehow. When was that?
It is written that the name of the Son is the Word and it is written that in the beginning was the Word, so what is this beginning? It is simply the beginning of everything and in that beginning was the Word, so God's Son was born before the beginning of everything as it is written that everything was made by the Word and for the Word and nothing that is made is made without the Word. So God's Son, the Word was born before time was created because the Word created time and that makes the Word, God's only begotten,out of time, eternal.
I do not agree with the concept of all persons coexisting.I believe that there was a time before time when God was all alone when there was nothing else but Him.He was alone and silent, this source of Life was alone and silent and at one point He spoke, His voice was heard and the Word was born. Why did God name His Son the Word? Why not something else like the Power? Because His Son is the actual manifestation of God speaking.Imagine this never ending source of Life exploding from within and sparkling Life through His Word. He spoke and His Son,the Word was born.
This explains why the Son says that the Father is greater than Him and this is not a statement that comes out of respect, this is the actual truth. The Son could never be without the Father, but the Father was before the Son.
Even in nature a son comes after the father even though the son is being kept in the father's bosom through his sperm that gives life.

I'm aware that some denominations don't. What I haven't heard before is the suggestion that the Father gave birth to the Son.

What is the one thing that makes someone a father or a son if not the fact that the first gave birth to the second?

What is the one thing that makes someone a father or a son if not the fact that the first gave birth to the second?
Did your father give birth to you?

Did your father give birth to you?

Yes he did.

Wondergirl, were you born without a father?

To humanise the birth experience of the Word is disrespectful.

God gave birth to the Word in that he created him.

This is a site moderated by Catholics and anyone who asks the tough questions is branded anti-Catholic so they can feel justified in deleting posted questions.

Protestants are welcome to post as long as they can be kept in line.

Legitimate questions that are put to catholics are locked very quick in deed.

Adam7gur is right

Jesus is a god

The Father is the only true God because he created Jesus and gives Jesus life.

Jesus is a god because he is of the same substance as the Father.

But that does not make him equal to the Father.

Yes there is an order in the... trinity as washbur says, and that is because The Father is Greater than The Son because the Father is the true God... The Father is the Son's God.. . The Son is Never the Father's God.

This is al very simple unless you try and squeeze the pagan triune god into the equation.

I dodge no issue.

It is my questions thare are deleted.

classyT,
In this case we are in the same class.
That is.....
A friend of Jesus is a freind of mine.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Check it out FRED!! You are now a CHRISTIANITY EXPERT!. how COOL is that? (course you are wrong a lot :D) But CONGRATS... whoo and the hoo for you.

Let me ask this! When was the Son of God born? No doubt God has a Son and if He has a Son then at some point the Son was born somehow. When was that?
It is written that the name of the Son is the Word and it is written that in the beginning was the Word, so what is this beginning? It is simply the beginning of everything and in that beginning was the Word, so God's Son was born before the beginning of everything as it is written that everything was made by the Word and for the Word and nothing that is made is made without the Word. So God's Son, the Word was born before time was created because the Word created time and that makes the Word, God's only begotten,out of time, eternal.
I do not agree with the concept of all persons coexisting.I believe that there was a time before time when God was all alone when there was nothing else but Him.He was alone and silent, this source of Life was alone and silent and at one point He spoke, His voice was heard and the Word was born. Why did God name His Son the Word? Why not something else like the Power? Because His Son is the actual manifestation of God speaking.Imagine this never ending source of Life exploding from within and sparkling Life through His Word. He spoke and His Son,the Word was born.
This explains why the Son says that the Father is greater than Him and this is not a statement that comes out of respect, this is the actual truth. The Son could never be without the Father, but the Father was before the Son.
Even in nature a son comes after the father even though the son is being kept in the father's bosom through his sperm that gives life.


Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

John 1:1
In the beginning was whe Word and the Word was with God and the Word WAS God. John 1:14.And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us

This is what he told the Jews who questioned him John 8:58
Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I Am!" And incidentally they totally got what he was saying... they picked up stones to kill him for saying he was GOD.

The Lord Jesus Christ is the one who spoke this world into existence. ( Let US make man in OUR own imagine) He always was,always will be... he IS God. He was NEVER created. He said himself he is the ALPHA and the OMEGA. I don't say I understand it.. I just believe it.

God in three persons... blessed trinity. Father, Son, Holy Spirit. All equal.

Well, I must admit, I did not know the Bible account stated that "they totally got what he was saying."

I find it interesting how we Catholics look at what enemies of Jesus deduced and argue that they were right.

Why is it we Catholics like what the Sanhedrin and Jews that wanted to kill Jesus believed?

Here is a little secret, the Bible does not say they were right.

I am not overly interested in rushing in to make the same mistakes as the Jews... are you?

Jesu said "US" and "OUR" so he was not alone.

Was he speaking to God, or was he speaking to all the angels?

This is no way near 'proof' of a Triune god.

>he IS God. He was NEVER created<
So you say, but the Bible never says is God and it says he was begotten, so your opinion is contrary to the Bible.

>He said himself he is the ALPHA and the OMEGA. I don't say I understand it.. I just believe it. <
Saying he is the first and the last does not mean he is in fact God.

The best scripture you have is John 1:1 which contradicts itself straight away anyway, so it is not reliable.

Adam7's explanation is easy to understand because it is real
You do not understand your explanation because it is fake.

It is so fake there is no point in discussing it, none of you understand it, none of you can agree completely on what it is, and none of you can understand how Jesus is in subjection to God, is begotten, talks to God, etc etc etc

The belief is based purely on ancient pagan teachings that have been squeezed into the Bible where only a dozen or so scriptures can be twisted to support the idea.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

John 1:1
In the beginning was whe Word and the Word was with God and the Word WAS God. John 1:14.And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us

This is what he told the Jews who questioned him John 8:58
Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I Am!" And incidently they totally got what he was saying...they picked up stones to kill him for saying he was GOD.

The Lord Jesus Christ is the one who spoke this world into existance. ( Let US make man in OUR own imagine) He always was,always will be....he IS God. He was NEVER created. He said himself he is the ALPHA and the OMEGA. I don't say I understand it..i just believe it.

God in three persons...blessed trinity. Father, Son, Holy Spirit. all equal.

I never said that the Word was created, I said that He was born, begotten, the only begotten Son of God.If the Father and the Son are totally equal why did the Son say that His Father is greater than Him? Why is the Son praying to the Father and why is not the Father praying to the Son if they are equal in that sense?Yes He was killed because He made Himself equal to God and in that sense He is equal to God because the Son of God cannot be anything less than a God, but He is a God only because the Father begotten Him and that happened way before the incarnation of the Son. He was not created like you and I , but He was begotten by God and only God Himself.
So you think that God is the sum of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit like 1+1+1=1? To me it is more like that the Father is the source of every number let's say and every number that comes out of Him has his substance so in that sense they are equal,but the source of anything is greater than any kind of amount that comes out of that source.
What is a river without its spring? Yes the river and its spring are of the same substance but which comes first? Is it the river that gives life to the spring or is it the other way around? The Father is the Spring of Life and His Son is the River of Life.
This is not hard to understand although I know that it is hard to let go of what we think we know even though we cannot explain it. When you know, you believe and when you believe you can explain. How can you believe something that you do not know and how can you say that you believe something when you cannot explain it?
In the name of Jesus Christ, the great I AM, may we come to the fullness of His knowledge, Amen!

The agument is pointless.

They will not listen to reason because to them, God is mysterious.

They do not know what he is, they do not understand what he is.

They will reply to you that when Jesus said the father is greater than I he was on earth at a time when he was actually lower than his father.

BUT they will completely ignore the fact that they say that Jesus saying "the Father and I are one" is proof they are the same, (ignoring that Jesus was on earth at the time)

They do not care what the Bible says Adam. They only care what their churches tell them. If the church is contrary to the Bible, they choose the church over the Bible.

With reasoning like that, they will not learn.

They know it is not true, because they are completely confused by it, but there is no way in the world they will even want to admit it to themselves in the fear that they are somehow denying God.

They will completely ignore thousands of scriptures that show the triune god to be false while focusing only on the dozen or so scriptures that support such an idea.

Remember Adam, they believe that if they take on the view or rituals of other religions, it is then a Christian ritual because the power of God clenses the ritual.

You cannot argue with that kind of logic Adam.

These are people who are taught that God accepts them no matter what they do or think or what religion they follow.

They think God does not care if they know who or what he is.

They think God does not care if they think it is right or wrong to kill.

They think God does not care if they bow down and do acts of worship to statues or not.

Or if they pray to dead people.

Or if they give each other lofty titles forbidden in the Bible

Or if they think there are other ways other than Jesus for salvation.

Their belief is not logical and so will never respond to logic Adam.

They believe the Bible is too hard to understand and so need to pay someone money to tell them what it means.

They believe God moves in mysterious ways.

Hence, they will believe anything.

Yes he did.
No, he didn't. Your father did not give birth to you. Your mother gave birth to you. Your father needed a woman in order to create you. God chose Mary as the mother for His Son.

What is the one thing that makes someone a father or a son if not the fact that the first gave birth to the second?

I see what you're saying. My big problem with it is that it's way too anthropomorphic (basically, creating God in our own image). The terms "father" and "son" within the godhead are terms of position and function, not necessarily of essence.

The agument is pointless.

They will not listen to reason because to them, God is mysterious.

They do not know what he is, they do not understand what he is.

They will reply to you that when Jesus said the father is greater than I he was on earth at a time when he was actually lower than his father.

BUT they will completely ignore the fact that they say that Jesus saying "the Father and I are one" is proof they are the same, (ignoring that Jesus was on earth at the time)

They do not care waht the Bible says Adam. They only care what their churches tell them. If the church is contrary to the Bible, they choose the church over the Bible.

With reasoning like that, they will not learn.

They know it is not true, because they are completely confused by it, but there is no way in the world they will even want to admit it to themselves in the fear that they are somehow denying God.

They will completely ignore thousands of scriptures that show the triune god to be false while focusing only on the dozen or so scriptures that support such an idea.

Remember Adam, they believe that if they take on the view or rituals of other religions, it is then a Christian ritual because the power of God clenses the ritual.

You cannot argue with that kind of logic Adam.

These are people who are taught that God accepts them no matter what they do or think or what religion they follow.

They think God does not care if they know who or what he is.

They think God does not care if they think it is right or wrong to kill.

They think God does not care if they bow down and do acts of worship to statues or not.

Or if they pray to dead people.

Or if they give eachother lofty titles forbidden in the Bible

Or if they think there are other ways other than Jesus for salvation.

Their belief is not logical and so will never respond to logic Adam.

They believe the Bible is too hard to understand and so need to pay someone money to tell them what it means.

They believe God moves in mysterious ways.

Hence, they will believe anything.

I find it really sad how much you don't know and how much your leaving out to understand. Maybe some day you can figure it all out for us. But for now you need to start studying A lot more to even get a glimpse as to where things are and where they are headed.

No, he didn't. Your father did not give birth to you. Your mother gave birth to you. Your father needed a woman in order to create you. God chose Mary as the mother for His Son.

Well this is the point, God's Son was before His incarnation.He was even before Mary was taking her form in her mother's body. Actually it was God's Son who gave life to Mary because everything was made by the Word and for the Word and the name of the Son of God is the Word of God. His incarnation is not the moment that He was born.He did not come to existence at that point, He was in the beginning with God and He was God.
Don't you know that both man and woman are made in His image?So where does a woman's ability to give birth come from if not from the very character of God?Why do you find it hard to understand that the Father could give birth then to His Son?

I see what you're saying. My big problem with it is that it's way too anthropomorphic (basically, creating God in our own image). The terms "father" and "son" within the godhead are terms of position and function, not necessarily of essence.

There is nothing in the human nature except sin that is strange to God's character.
Hebrews 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
When you read those words coming out of the mouth of God what do you sense? Are those words to describe a position or a function or are they to describe the very close relationship between those two persons? This is a way for a father to speak about his son and if you are a father you know how it feels. To understand what I am trying to say think of how repulsive someone feels when he says to his son you are not my son, and now think how much love is hidden behind the words Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee, and I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son!

I see what you're saying. My big problem with it is that it's way too anthropomorphic (basically, creating God in our own image). The terms "father" and "son" within the godhead are terms of position and function, not necessarily of essence.

Hi dwash,

Yes, this is pretty much the problem with this theory, Applying causation to a non material entity creates many problems.

If anything exists it is necessary that something exists. Something potentially existing does not mean that it actually exists. If we are all the product of being 'created' by God rather than 'created' by both parents then we have a problem of potentiality and actuality.

Actuality in this world is explained by cause and effect. Our mothers actually give birth to us. It is possible to argue that our fathers potentially give birth to us. However this line of reasoning forces us to say that future generations actually exist.

Regards

Tut

Califdadof3
>I find it really sad how much you don't know and how much your leaving out to understand. Maybe some day you can figure it all out for us. But for now you need to start studying A lot more to even get a glimpse as to where things are and where they are headed.<

So you say, yet you do not understand your triune god, you do not understand how saints hear prayers, you do not understand the Lord’s Prayer, you do not understand how it is okay to call priests by the title ‘father’, etc etc.

If you are Catholic, your church claims to be the authority on Christianity, yet explains nothing.

All it does is tells you what it teaches but does not say how the teaching agrees with the Bible. It will mention small pieces of scripture and then carry on with pages of philosophy.

All it offers is “but”.

Yes God is one, BUT he is three (and this is not in the Bible)
Yes Jesus is the only way to salvation, BUT so is Mary (not in the Bible)
No you should not bow to images, BUT you can if it helps you concentrate (not in the Bible)
No you should not kill another person and especially not a brother, BUT if your brother lives in a country that your government does not agree with and goes to war against, you should certainly kill your brother (not in the Bible)
No you should not call priests by the title ‘father’, BUT it is okay if it is done out of respect (not in the Bible)

I could go on and on, but it will not make any difference; because I ask such questions that will not be answered except for the odd pages and pages of philosophical religious ranting, I will be labelled anti-Catholic so it makes it easy for some to sleep at night.

And then they say ‘I’ do not know much.



And back on the subject, I wonder how it is some people think God could not create Jesus.

Do they think it is impossible for God to do this, or is it because it goes against what they have been told?

Jesus was the first of all creation.

Before Jesus, Yahweh was alone.

Then Jesus, with the power given to him from his father Yahweh, created all other things.

Yahweh is the only true God.

Jesus is obviously a god, who receives his power from HIS God, Yahweh.

Does anyone deny that Jesus is A god?

Most go even further and say he is not just A god, he is THE God.

He may well be part of the God 'family' but Yahweh he obviously is not.

Are there other gods? Does Yahweh even allow us to have other gods?

Did Yahweh give the title of gods to mere humans?

If even God Yahweh and Jesus can say that mere men are gods, why is it so hard for some people to accpet that Jesus is a god?

Because it is absolutely unacceptable in the relm of their pagan triune god.

But it is black and white in the Bible.

Yes God is one, BUT he is three (and this is not in the Bible)
Yes Jesus is the only way to salvation, BUT so is Mary (not in the Bible)
No you should not bow to images, BUT you can if it helps you concentrate (not in the Bible)
No you should not kill another person and especially not a brother, BUT if your brother lives in a country that your government does not agree with and goes to war against, you should certainly kill your brother (not in the Bible)
No you should not call priests by the title 'father', BUT it is okay if it is done out of respect (not in the Bible)
What are earth are you reading or hearing, and who is filling your head with these ideas? (P.S. I'm Protestant. Catholics AND Protestants don't believe the above.)

Newton what you don't understand is what your spewing as truth isn't. Can you point to where it might say that if someone were to pray to Mary that she is the way to the light?

No, That wasn't in anything I was taught. Where are you getting your ideas from? Im sure you just can't be making things up.

There is nothing in the human nature except sin that is strange to God's character.
Hebrews 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
When you read those words coming out of the mouth of God what do you sense? Are those words to describe a position or a function or are they to describe the very close relationship between those two persons? [snip]

Neither; in context, they describe the Incarnation. So that verse has nothing to do with their pre-incarnate relationship.

And back on the subject, I wonder how it is some people think God could not create Jesus.

Do they think it is impossible for God to do this, or is it because it goes against what they have been told?

Jesus was the first of all creation.

Before Jesus, Yahweh was alone.

Then Jesus, with the power given to him from his father Yahweh, created all other things.

Yahweh is the only true God.

Jesus is obviously a god, who receives his power from HIS God, Yahweh.

Does anyone deny that Jesus is A god?

Most go even further and say he is not just A god, he is THE God.

He may well be part of the God 'family' but Yahweh he obviously is not.

Are there other gods? Does Yahweh even allow us to have other gods?

Did Yahweh give the title of gods to mere humans?

If even God Yahweh and Jesus can say that mere men are gods, why is it so hard for some people to accpet that Jesus is a god?

Because it is absolutely unacceptable in the relm of their pagan triune god.

But it is black and white in the Bible.





Hi Mr. Newton,

I am just wondering if this philosophy/theology is part of any particular religious denomination?


Regards

Tut

I do believe that the son of God was born of the virgin Mary.
Before that he was known as the WORD of God.
As the bible tells us the Word became flesh in the form of Jesus the son of God.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Just a point of clarification. A couple of people might think that the doctrine of the Trinity is to be understood as some type of mathematical relationship, usually expressed along the lines of 1+1+1=

Rather, it is to be understood as an investigation into the nature of substance. The study of the various categories which, on the face of it appear distinct are actually one and the same.

Relationship does come into it, but today the talk is more about internal and external consistency of objects.

Tut

today the talk is more about internal and external consistency of objects.
Who says that?

TUT317,
I do agree with most ofn what you said but I do have trouble with what you said thus, "today the talk is more about internal and external consistency of objects."
I have no idea what you are saying.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Who says that?




Sorry Fred and Wondergirl, it's not talked about in theology. I should restrict my comments to theology. I will try and do so in the future.

Regards

Tut

The Catholic Church is an ‘agreeable – but’ religion.

Yes God is one, BUT he is three (and this is not in the Bible)
Yes Jesus is the only way to salvation, BUT so is Mary (not in the Bible)
No you should not bow to images, BUT you can if it helps you concentrate (not in the Bible)
No you should not kill another person and especially not a brother, BUT if your brother lives in a country that your government does not agree with and goes to war against, you should certainly kill your brother (not in the Bible)
No you should not call priests by the title ‘father’, BUT it is okay if it is done out of respect (not in the Bible)

Wondergirl said
>Catholics AND Protestants don't believe the above<

What part do they not believe wondergirl?
That God is 3 in 1 ?
Salvation can be gained through Mary?
It is okay to bow to images?
It is okay to kill a fellow Catholic if you are at war with their country?
It is okay to call your priest father?

Which one exactly of the above do we Catholics not believe wondergirl?

Tut said
>I am just wondering if this philosophy/theology is part of any particular religious denomination?<

To which are you referring?

The fact that Jesus was the first of God’s creation, or that Jesus IS God?

Tut said
>I am just wondering if this philosophy/theology is part of any particular religious denomination?<

To which are you referring?

The fact that Jesus was the first of God’s creation, or that Jesus IS God?

Hello Mr. Newton,

I'm not sure. But I know for sure that you are not Catholic and I am absolutely sure you are not Anglican. Are you some other institutionalised religion.

Usually theology is the product of some type religious tradition.

Regards


Tut

This is a question I usually avoid as much as possible as it strats the abuse and spin off conversations that bog discussions down.

I was actually baptised Church of England for some strange reason, as the rest of my entire family are Catholic, and then of course I was raised Catholic and I do not even think I have set fut in a church of England church, but I could be wrong.

My problem started when I began studying the Bible and asking questions.

Rather than amswers and support from anyone at all I received looks down noses, abuse and bannishment from family gatherings.

What is really upsetting is none of them know anything of the Bible, they are just doing what Fr Slime Bag is telling them to do.

They have never bothered to pick up a Bible, my parents and Grand parents tell me they were alwys encouraged neve to bother with the Bible as it just causes problems.

So, virtually none of my family and friends know anything and yet they make out I am the one in the wrong for studying the Bible and have the nerve to question what our family has done for years.

Do my beliefs differ from other Catholics? You bet. I am not at all impressed with the conduct of the church fathers and how we are to just do as they tell us.

And I am really not impressed that they offer no teaching of the Bible at all except what the church says.

"My problem started when I began studying the Bible and asking questions".

Fair enough, I don't see a problem with this. Now I can see where you are coming from.

Regards

Tut

And I am really not impressed that they offer no teaching of the Bible at all except what the church says.
Your study of the Bible is personal and totally independent from any church body or religious group?

I do not know if any church uses the King James Bible and the Strong's Concordance as their primary study guide, but as far as I know... no.

The Bible is too hard for me to read cover to cover, (Though I have now done it 3 times) so I started studying it by subject, I would look up all the words I thoght might be related to marriage and went to every scri[ture in the Bible that cobered the subject so as to gain a full understanding on what God requires on that matter.

I then studied every single subject I could think of.

I do like any encyclopedias I can get my hands on, so I can get a view on what they say on particualar subjects.

I only really started to learn amazing things when I started studying just the Bible.

I now have a passionate dislike for any organised religion.

You cannot trust anyone. You have to be on the watch to find out what it is they are truly after. Is it money, power, prestige, position, political, etc.

As you can imagine, all religious people do not appreciate my comments, and because I am, or used to be Catholic, they are the main ones I talk to.

It's a bit hard talking to Protestants when I do not fully understand what they do.

Well, I must admit, I did not know the Bible account stated that "they totally got what he was saying."

I find it interesting how we Catholics look at what enemies of Jesus deduced and argue that they were right.

Why is it we Catholics like what the Sanhedrin and Jews that wanted to kill Jesus believed?

Here is a little secret, the Bible does not say they were right.

I am not overly interested in rushing in to make the same mistakes as the Jews ... are you?

Jesu said "US" and "OUR" so he was not alone.

Was he speaking to God, or was he speaking to all the angels?

This is no way near 'proof' of a Triune god.

>he IS God. He was NEVER created<
So you say, but the Bible never says is God and it says he was begotten, so your opinion is contrary to the Bible.

>He said himself he is the ALPHA and the OMEGA. I don't say I understand it..i just believe it. <
Saying he is the first and the last does not mean he is in fact God.

The best scripture you have is John 1:1 which contradicts itself straight away anyway, so it is not reliable.

Adam7's explanation is easy to understand because it is real
You do not understand your explanation because it is fake.

It is so fake there is no point in discussing it, none of you understand it, none of you can agree completely on what it is, and none of you can understand how Jesus is in subjection to God, is begotten, talks to God, etc etc etc

The belief is based purely on ancient pagan teachings that have been squeezed into the Bible where only a dozen or so scriptures can be twisted to support the idea.

I Newton,

I never once said the bible stated : "they totally got what he was saying."

When Jesus was speaking to these Jews and they were questioning how he could possibly know ABRAHAM... he said plain and simply: " Before Abraham was...I AM". It was their REACTION to this bold statement that sent them into a rage because the very next verse says that they picked up stones to stone him. Therefore, we can use our brains and figure it out. Jesus claims he knew abraham... these Jews question how?? And he tells them : before Abraham was even born.. I AM. The very next verse says: Then they took up stones to cast at him. John 5:59 It ain't rocket science.. they totally GOT what Jesus had said. I'm sorry if you don't.

While Jesus was on this earth, he was fully man, and fully God. He was our model. The bible says this: Phillipians 2: 5 Let this mind be in YOU which was also in Christ Jesus: ( Paul then goes on to explain what this mind is) verse 6. Who ( Jesus) being in the form of God (he is God)thought it NOT robbery to be equal with God: verse 7 BUT made himself of no reputation and took upon himsefl the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men. 8. and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obdedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore GOD also hath highly exalted him and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jeuss every knee should bow of things in heaven, and things in earth and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is LORD, to the glory of the Father.

Why didn't Jesus think it was NOT robbery to be equal with God.( psst I'll give you a hint)... Because He was the person in the God head. The Father, Son, Holy spirit.

The reason he prayed to the Father, and obeyed the Father while he was a man on this earth is because THAT was his mission. He became a servant and died to save mankind. He was our model.

But he most definitely is equal with God the Father... and one day EVERY tongue will confess and every Knee will bow to Him... WHY? Because he is GOD.

As far as PROOF of anything... I have none. Other than the bible which is my ONLY authority. I have faith and I believe every word in it. If it contradicts itself then we are all sunk. For what should we even know what to believe? If some of it is untrue. It takes comparing scripture with scripture, it takes the Holy spriit and rightly dividing the word of truth to understand it. And if you need me to back my last paragraph up with the bible.. I can do that to. And that is all I have to say about THAT Mr. I Newton. :)

I do not know if any church uses the King James Bible and the Strong's Concordance as their primary study guide, but as far as I know ... no.



You say that like it's a bad thing.

If that's all you use, then the things you've presented are perfect examples of how not to use a concordance.

>I never once said the bible stated : "they totally got what he was saying."<
No you did not, but you make the assumption so positively that the Jews who tried to kill Jesus were right, and I was simply pointing out that the Bible assumes nothing of the sort.

>John 5:59 … he said plain and simply: " Before Abraham was...I AM". It was their REACTION to this bold statement that sent them into a rage … we can use our brains … It ain't rocket science.. they totally GOT what Jesus had said. I'm sorry if you don't.<
Yes, so you say.

I looked for John 5:59 and could not find it, so I looked at all of John 5. Let us look at what I did find, shall we.

John 5:16 And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.
(Were the Jews right here too, did Jesus break the Sabbath?)

Was it as you said the fact that he said he was before Abaraham that made them angry? Not at all; it was for breaking the Sabbath. And if you want to follow in their understanding, you too must believe that Jesus broke the Sabbath.

Did Jesus correct them about breaking the Sabbath? By your reasoning then, the murderous Jews were right.

John 5:17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
(Did Jesus say he was God?)

John 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
(The murderous Jews who decided that Jesus broke the Sabbath certainly decided that Jesus was saying he was equal to God, and you do the same thing)

And you even go one step further than the murderous Jews, you claim that not only is he equal to God, you say he IS God.

Let’s imagine for a moment that Jesus was equal to God, there is still a big difference between being equal and being one and the same. You must be using a great deal of brain power on this one.

John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
(The Son can do nothing but what he SEES the Father do. How much brain power does it take to think that this means Jesus IS God?)

Just stop for a moment and think a bit.

Do you still hold fast that the murderous Jews were right?
Do you still hold fast to even going further than the Jews and claim it is easy to see that Jesus IS God?

Okay, let’s continue

John 5:20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.
(The Father loves the Son and SHOWS him what he is doing – Still think this proves Jesus IS God?)

John 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
(The Father GIVES life to the Son – Still think this proves Jesus IS God?)

John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
(Jesus can do nothing on his own, he does what he is told, and does not do what HE wants but what his Father wants – Still think this means Jesus IS God?)

John 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
(If Jesus was God he would be baring witness of himself so his witness would not be true)

So the Trinity is not true. In Jesus’ own words if he were God his witness would not be true because he would be witnessing about himself.

John 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape
(If Jesus WAS God, they would have heard his voice and seen his shape)

John 5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
(You believe your church, you do not believe the writings)

God gave Jesus life
God tells Jesus what to do
Jesus obeys God
Jesus can do nothing without God
God is Jesus’ Father
Jesus is God’s son
God highly exulted Jesus when he was in heaven after he was on earth, so was no longer a man.
God gave Jesus a name higher than anyone else in heaven, when he was in heaven after he was on earth, so was no longer a man.
God gave Jesus the Revelation, when he was in heaven after he was on earth, so was no longer a man.

And after all this, what is your stand?
> But he most definitely is equal with God the Father... and one day EVERY tongue will confess and every Knee will bow to Him... WHY? Because he is GOD. <

You must have to use a great deal of brain power to believe what your church tells you.

>As far as PROOF of anything... I have none. Other than the bible which is my ONLY authority.<
That is very interesting.

>And if you need me to back my last paragraph up with the bible.. I can do that to. And that is all I have to say about THAT Mr. I Newton<
Good for you Classy T

Keep up the good work.

So the Trinity is not true. In Jesus' own words if he were God his witness would not be true because he would be witnessing about himself.
The Trinity is a central doctrine of Christianity. In order for humankind to be rescued from eternal damnation, God had to put his divinity alongside humanity so that Jesus could be born as True God and True Man, live a perfect life, and die on the cross as our substitute. His Resurrection was the exclamation point at the end of the redemption story.

God gave Jesus life
God tells Jesus what to do
Jesus obeys God
Jesus can do nothing without God
God is Jesus' Father
Jesus is God's son
Yes, Jesus who was born in Bethlehem of a human mother. Yes, Jesus who put his divinity alongside being human.

God highly exulted Jesus when he was in heaven after he was on earth, so was no longer a man.
God gave Jesus a name higher than anyone else in heaven, when he was in heaven after he was on earth, so was no longer a man.
God gave Jesus the Revelation, when he was in heaven after he was on earth, so was no longer a man.
After the Resurrection, Jesus triumphantly reclaimed His position in Heaven, His position as one of the Trinity, His position as God.

I don't think we were ever expected to understand the complex relationships of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit or why they are both separate entities and one at the same time and I think it is too simplistic to say Jesus is the physical manifestation. Jesus existed alongside the Father from the beginning and took human form, I think this is perhaps the hardest part to understand.

I don"t think we were ever expected to understand the complex relationships of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit or why they are both seperate entities and one at the same time and I think it is too simplistic to say Jesus is the physical manifestation. Jesus existed alongside the Father from the beginning and took human form, I think this is perhaps the hardest part to understand.
It's called a mystery. No one has ever been able to adequately understand or explain it. Some have said the Trinity is like an apple -- the core, the flesh, and the skin -- three separate things with different purposes but all identifiable as "apple." Others have said the Trinity is like a woman who can have three functions as a daughter, a wife, and a mother, but still be only one person.

And one does not have to "know" or worry about it, if we accept Christ as our Savior, know he died for our sins. Then we are saved. Too often we get so caught up in the meaning of one word, or as we have seen in the last pages, taking one verse out of context and confusing meanings often of translations.

The Bible is clear that Jesus was the Son of God, and that there was a Father ( Jesus prayed to him) And that Jesus sent his spirit to the early church. So the bible gives us all the main players. It is how they fit together exactly is what we don't know. My opinion it is beyond our ability to understand and accept. Man has always been bad about this, they try to force things to fit within their level of understanding.

That is why the visions of John or others has been issues to me, since they have to try and explain with their education level and with the knowledge of that day, what they are seeing.

It's called a mystery. No one has ever been able to adequately understand or explain it. Some have said the Trinity is like an apple -- the core, the flesh, and the skin -- three separate things with diferent purposes but all identifiable as "apple." Others have said the Trinity is like a woman who can have three functions as a daughter, a wife, and a mother, but still be only one person.

I pointed out to I Newton several times that Jesus didn't contradict the people when they accused him of calling himself God, but Newton refuses to address that fact. Instead he chooses to sidestep and go back to name-calling ("murderous Jews" to give just one example).

If Almighty God, creator of the universe, was fully comprehensible by our finite minds, he wouldn't be worthy of the title, much less of our worship. The fact that we can't grasp his nature shouldn't come as any surprise; it's sort of in the job description. The analogies WG gave are good as far as they go; another one I've seen is an egg, which consists of shell, white and yolk yet it's one egg. But all analogies break down at some point. It makes more sense, if we are being honest with ourselves and our human frailty, to admit we can't understand it. But it's something God has revealed about himself, so why not acknowledge it?

TUT317,
You have made an excellent point.
I best like the one that is each of us are a trinity on one person of body mind and spirit.
Each has its own functions but relies on the others to be one complete being.
But like you say that is somewhat good but still inadequate in comparison to God's Trinity.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

We can all come up with wonderful philosophical explanations of how an egg has three parts etc. but that does not mean anything at all.

The reason all you people are having so much trouble understanding the reality of Yahweh and Jesus is pure and simply because you cannot reasonably explain how your god fits into John 5

You have such strong faith that what you have been told is true while what you read cannot possibly be true.

Wodergirl said
>The Trinity is a central doctrine of Christianity.<
Yes it is, but it was not taught by Moses or Jesus.

>Yes, Jesus who was born in Bethlehem of a human mother<
Yet you ignore that Jesus is in subjection to Yahweh while he is in heaven, AFTER he was on earth. So he logically is not God Yahweh.

>After the Resurrection, Jesus triumphantly reclaimed His position in Heaven, His position as one of the Trinity, His position as God.<
So you say, yet the Bible says nothing of the sort. They are words YOU have put in there, which is also against Jesus command not to ad to the books.

Paraclete said
>I don"t think we were ever expected to understand the complex relationships of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.<
On the contrary, Jesus said he has fully explained his Father Yahweh and even the use of Father and Son says more about the true relationship. Even if Jesus were equal to Yahweh and yet not God the relationship would be Brother, not Father and Son.

>Jesus existed alongside the Father from the beginning and took human form, I think this is perhaps the hardest part to understand.<
Nothing hard about it at all.

Jesus is God Yahweh’s Son.
Jesus learns from his Father Yahweh over Billions of years being with him.
Yahweh places Jesus life into a human woman.
Jesus is killed and returns to heaven where he remain in subjection to his Father Yahweh

What is so hard? Unless of course you want to go against the Bible and try and believe that Jesus is his own father.

Wondergirl said
>It's called a mystery.<
Mmmm, is it now?

See if you can see what is called a mystery in the Bible.
I say your Triune god is a mystery, but Yahweh God is definitely no mystery.

>No one has ever been able to adequately understand or explain it.<
Because it is not true.

On the other hand, the truth will set you free.
The truth is easy to understand.
The truth is Timmothy knew the scriptures from childhood.
The truth is easy for even a child to understand.
Out of the mouth of babes … the truth

Only false teachings are hard to squeeze into the Bible.

Fr Chuck said
>And one does not have to "know" or worry about it.<
And yet the Trinity is supposed to be the … what was it … “central doctrine of Christianity”

No one has yet mentioned John 5. No one has tried to explain how the Triune God was suppose to fit into John 5 … A scripture that quoted not by me, but by Class T, so you cannot blame me.

>The Bible is clear that Jesus was the Son of God, and that there was a Father<
Yes, and no where does it say that Jesus was the Father.

>Man has always been bad about this, they try to force things to fit within their level of understanding.<
No force required, unless you try and force a false teaching into what is clearly a simple issue. THAT is what makes it hard for all of you.

Dwashbur said
>I pointed out to I Newton several times that Jesus didn't contradict the people when they accused him of calling himself God, but Newton refuses to address that fact. Instead he chooses to sidestep and go back to name-calling ("murderous Jews" to give just one example).<

Let’s look at the first part of your statement dwashbur:

Did you read the post that Classy made about John 5?

Are you still holding fast to your idea that Jesus did not contradict them?
Are you still holding fast to your idea that the Jews, sorry, murderous Jews were right?

Now to the second part of your statement:

I refused to address the fact … in what way may I ask? Have you bothered to read the posts?

Are you offended by me calling the Jews that wanted to murder Jesus as … murderous?

How is it you would like me to describe these men?

We know you would like to say that they were right; they were right in concluding that Jesus was saying he was in fact God.

Would you like to explain to us how the events of John 5 support your idea that it is perfectly clear that Jesus stated he is in fact God Yahweh and that the Jews were right in their deductions?

This discussion is quite stupid.

You people quoted John 5 as proof that Jesus said he was Yahweh.

I wrote John 5 on the post for you all.

None of you have even tried to explain how John 5 is worthy of your support behind it backing up your claim that Jesus is his own Father.

And of course I will go down as the bad goy in this discussion, probably get deleted, or in the least get the thread locked.

Have I avoided any issue?

Have ANY of you explained John 5, which YOU sited as proof?

Which is correct John 5, or your religions?

Is John 5 in complete agreement with your religion’s idea that Jesus is his own Father?

Why not?

Think about it.

I NEWTON,

I put the wrong chapter and verse down... my bad it was a typo.

John 8:58 Before Abraham was, I am. And then verse 59 the Jews picked up rocks to stone him... Check it out when you have time.

I already feel I explained John 5.

1 John 4:14 states: The Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.

Jesus had a mission. He was to come here and redeem mankind. Notice it doesn't say the Father created the son so he could be the savior of the world. Notice it doesn't say the Father MADE the son so he could be the savior of the world. It says HE SENT HIM. :

Check it out once more for good measure:

Phillipians 2: 5 Let this mind be in YOU which was also in Christ Jesus: verse 6. Who being in the FORM of GOD thought it NOT robbery to be equal with God: verse 7 BUT made himself of no reputation and TOOK UPON HIMSELF the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men. 8. and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obdedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore GOD also hath highly exalted him and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jeuss every knee should bow of things in heaven, and things in earth and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is LORD, to the glory of the Father.

This is what Paul is saying point blank, flat out... He is telling us to have the same attitude that Jesus had. And then he explains what that mind or attitude was... Humble, obedient servant...

Although Jesus was in the form of God and equal with God he DID NOT take advantage of this equality. INSTEAD HE ( JESUS) gave up His DIVINE right and took the humble position of a human being. He THEN CHOSE to humble himself by becoming obedient to the point of death on the Cross. FOR THIS REASON God has HIGHLY EXALTED HIM and has given in a Name above EVERY NAME and one day EVERYONE will bow to JESUS and EVERYONE will confess that HE IS LORD.

This explains exactly why Jesus said what he did in John 5.

I NEWTON.I don't have a religion I have a relationship with my Lord and Savior and I do NOT avoid issues.
Just sos you know. :)

It's called a mystery. No one has ever been able to adequately understand or explain it. Some have said the Trinity is like an apple -- the core, the flesh, and the skin -- three separate things with diferent purposes but all identifiable as "apple." Others have said the Trinity is like a woman who can have three functions as a daughter, a wife, and a mother, but still be only one person.




I don't think the Trinity is to be understood as three parts of one thing e.g.. and apple or egg. I suggested earlier it was not really to be understood as 1+1+1=

Apparently theologians do use a principle know as,'Identity of Indiscernibles' when explaining the Trinity.This principle was but forward by Leibnitz, but was not intended as an explanation for the Trinity.

The following might be a good starting point.

The Identity of Indiscernibles states that no two objects can have the same description. If two objects are indistinguishable because they have all their properties in common they are really the one object.

In other words if x is the Son and y is the Father, then Oneness is true; provided X is identical to y. If something is true of the Son and not true of the Father then the Son is not identical to the Father. Oneness becomes false.

I would go along with x and y being identical. Therefore, I think Oneness is true.


Perhaps a good starting point?

Tut

I don't think the Trinity is to be understood as three parts of one thing e.g.. and apple or egg. I suggested earlier it was not really to be understood as 1+1+1=
I agree, and I do not believe it can be understood at all in this life. That's why I said "some" and "others" put the Trinity in human terms to help with human understanding and give an appreciation of the complexity of "trinity-ness."

Apparently theologians do use a principle know as the 'Identity of Indiscernibles' when explaining the Trinity.This principle was but forward by Leibnitz, but was not intended as an explanation for the Trinity.
Theology and philosophy don't mix well. No, the Identity of Indiscernibles is not a good starting point. Its Constitution Model is the only solution that seems to fits simply because of the notion of "relative sameness": It is possible that there are x, y, z, F, G, and H such that x is an F, y is an F, z is an F, x is a G, y is a G, z is a G, x is an H, y is an H, and z is an H, yet x is the same F as y, but x is not the same G as y, and so on. Since God is not material, this relative-sameness solution can only be an analogy.

Classy T said
>I put the wrong chapter and verse down... my bad it was a typo.<
Everyone makes mistakes. But that does not make John 5 wrong.

How do you explain John 5

>I already feel I explained John 5. <
You already feel you explained John 5??

How so?

>1 John 4:14 states: The Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.<
Mmm, the Father sent the Son. Not the Father sent himself. How does this prove that Jesus is his own father?

>Notice it doesn't say the Father created the son so he could be the savior of the world. <
Who said it would? Has anyone here said anything like that? No one is saying like that at all. Jesus was not created to be the saviour. But you are saying Jesus is his own father.

>It says HE SENT HIM.<
Mmmm; he sent him. Obviously not the same person.

> Phillipians 2: 5 Let this mind be in YOU which was also in Christ Jesus: verse 6. Who being in the FORM of GOD thought it NOT robbery to be equal with God:<

For some reason you like this verse. You keep bring it up, yet you cannot explain John 5 and how your ideas fit in with it.

Okay, let’s look at Philippians 2:6

Shall we go by the Kings James Version?
“Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:”

Is it as hard hitting as John 5?

Mmm, shall we consider the New Interlinear Version?
“Who, being in very nature* God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,”

Does that help you?

Shall we consider the English Standard Version
“who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,”

Does that one help you?

Shall we consider the New American Standard Bible
“who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,”

Does that one help you?

Shall we consider the Revised Standard Version
“who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,”

This one?

What about the American Standard Version
“who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,”

Want me to stop?

With so many different translations and each one having their own slant on their interpretation, I don’t take much stock in individual words or picking out individual words from just one translation that I happen to like.

We all remember the Trinitarians little insertion of “The Father the Son and the Holy Ghost and these three are one.”

Funny how Trinitarians don’t like to remember their little hijacking of the Bible on that one.

>He is telling us to have the same attitude that Jesus had. And then he explains what that mind or attitude was... Humble, obedient servant... <

And that has relevance with arguing that Jesus is his own father … how?

>although Jesus was in the form of God and equal with God he DID NOT take advantage of this equality. <
Which is your opinion.

>INSTEAD HE ( JESUS) gave up His DIVINE right and took the humble position of a human being. <
Absolutely. But Jesus was not his own father. His divinity was that of the Son of God, the first of all creation, in subjection ONLY to God Yahweh himself. He humbled himself to become lower than the angels so as to live on the earth among humans, as a human being.

>FOR THIS REASON God has HIGHLY EXALTED HIM and has given in a Name above EVERY NAME<
Yes, God Yahweh highly exalted his son Jesus and God Yahweh gave his son a name or a position above every other name.

Proof that Yahweh and Jesus are two very separate and non-equal entities.

>This explains exactly why Jesus said what he did in John 5.<
Mmm, so THAT is your proof that Jesus is his own father?

How on earth, in anyone’s stretch of their imagination does that show in any way shape or form that Jesus is Yahweh?

>I do NOT avoid issues.<

Then tell us how John 5 shows Jesus is Yahweh.

Tut317 said
>I don't think the Trinity is to be understood as three parts of one thing e.g.. and apple or egg. I suggested earlier it was not really to be understood as 1+1+1=<

No one can decide on what it is supposed to be.

>In other words if x is the Son and y is the Father, then Oneness is true; provided X is identical to y. If something is true of the Son and not true of the Father then the Son is not identical to the Father. Oneness becomes false.<

The Son is in subjection to the Father, so they are not identical.
The Father is greater than the Son, so they are not identical.
The Father highly exalted the Son, so they are not identical.
The Father gave the Son a name that is above every other name, so they are not identical.
The Father sent the Son, so they are not identical.
The Father tells the Son what to do, so they are not identical.
The Father taught the Son, so they are not identical.
The Son obeys the Father, so they are not identical.
The Son is merely the reflection of his Father’s glory, so they are not identical.
The Son has no power of his own but only what the Father gives him, so they are no identical.

The faith that Trinitarians have is not faith in God, but faith in their church; faith that their church, although it does not make any sense at all, is telling them the truth.

Their faith is that although their church teachings are not in plain agreement with the Bible, their church is, in someway, in agreement with the Bible.

This is the faith Trinitarians have.

Theology and philosophy don't mix well. No, the Identity of Indiscernibles is not a good starting point. Its Constitution Model is the only solution that seems to fits simply because of the notion of "relative sameness": It is possible that there are x, y, z, F, G, and H such that x is an F, y is an F, z is an F, x is a G, y is a G, z is a G, x is an H, y is an H, and z is an H, yet x is the same F as y, but x is not the same G as y, and so on. Since God is not material, this relative-sameness solution can only be an analogy.


Hi Wondergirl,


I would want to argue for 'absolute identity'. Now this is subject too much debate as to whether such a thing is possible. However, I see the important point being the following:

If we don't use theology/philosophy to try and explain the Trinity then people can rightly point out the weakness of our arguments. They can say that all we are saying in relation to the Trinity is that 1+1+1=1 or that the Trinity is like and egg or an apple. This is the same argument as 1+1+1=1. Quite rightly they would say these arguments don't make much sense.


Regards

Tut

If we don't use theology/philosophy to try and explain the Trinity
That's why I said the Trinity is a mystery and can't be explained -- either by theology or by philosophy.

Classy T said

>1 John 4:14 states: The Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.<
Mmm, the Father sent the Son. Not the Father sent himself. How does this prove that Jesus is his own father?

>Notice it doesn't say the Father created the son so he could be the savior of the world. <
Who said it would? Has anyone here said anything like that? No one is saying like that at all. Jesus was not created to be the saviour. But you are saying Jesus is his own father.

You keep making this bogus claim even though NOBODY here has even come close to saying such a thing. It's a straw man, and a poorly constructed one at that. I don't know why you persist in misrepresenting us like this, but it's both annoying and counterproductive. You know that nobody makes the claim, which means you are deliberately falsifying our words. You may think you have the right to do that, but here's a news flash: you don't.


>It says HE SENT HIM.<
Mmmm; he sent him. Obviously not the same person.


Hail, master of the obvious (with apologies to Dominar Rygel XVI).


> Phillipians 2: 5 Let this mind be in YOU which was also in Christ Jesus: verse 6. Who being in the FORM of GOD thought it NOT robbery to be equal with God:<

For some reason you like this verse. You keep bring it up, yet you cannot explain John 5 and how your ideas fit in with it.

Okay, let’s look at Philippians 2:6

Shall we go by the Kings James Version?
“Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:”

Is it as hard hitting as John 5?

More so. It plainly says that Jesus was in very nature God, but voluntarily gave that all up in order to become like us.

I've snipped the various renderings, because apparently somebody can't seem to grasp the fact that they all say the same thing, just in slightly different terms. Rather than actually deal with the passage, citing several different translations is somehow supposed to explain it away.


With so many different translations and each one having their own slant on their interpretation, I don’t take much stock in individual words or picking out individual words from just one translation that I happen to like.

http://www.nwdiveclub.com/images/smilies/rofl.gif

I'm not going to bother answering any more. It's plenty clear what is going on here, and I for one have better things to do.

That's why I said the Trinity is a mystery and can't be explained -- either by theology or by philosophy.


Hi Wondergirl,

Person(s) here are saying that we cannot have a 3 in 1. Their explanation seems to be simple. They/he says that God(s) are at least two distinct entities.

The counter argument seems to be this:

It is possible to have a 3 in 1 with the proviso that we accept that it cannot be explained.

This does not seem to be much of a counter argument.


Regards

Tut

I Newton,

You want to understand a spirtual concept with your own logic. It appears you want to stay in John chapter 5 without comparing all other scriptures with it to make sure you are understanding it properly. John chapter 5 fits perfect with everything the bible has to say about the Lord Jesus Christ.. if you are willing to take a look at all scripture and decern it not with logic but with the Spirit of God.

God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons all in one. I don't understand it with my MIND. BUT believe it by Faith and because it is taught clearly in the bible. Take a look at the baptism of the Lord... God the Son is being baptized, God the Holy Spirited came down upon him like a Dove... and God the Father said clearly for all to here... This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased. It is but one beautiful picture of the TRINITY.

Lets take a look a what the Bible says about a person who isn't spirtual and tries to understand a spiritual matter... shall we?

1 Corinthians 2:14
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
NIV

MMMM? Don't get that version lets try: New living version

But people who aren't spiritual can't receive these truths from God's Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them and they can't understand it, for only those who are spiritual can understand what the Spirit means.

Mmmmm? Still not driving my point home? How's about this one

International standard version:
A person who isn't spiritual doesn't accept the things of God's Spirit, for they are nonsense to him. He can't understand them because they are spiritually evaluated.

I think you see where I am going here... maybe you need to get a little more Holy spirit in you and a little less I NEWTON. I'm just saying... :)

Sorry guys but Fr Church seems to having a little dummy spit and going on a little power trip with deleting any of my posts that embarrass him and his religion.

It is a little hard to keep posting and he just keeps deleting.

Have fun winning the argument with each other with trying to get your stories right.

I NEWTON,

This thread isn't about WINNING... it isn't about getting "stories right". It isn't about YOU at all.

It is about understanding a spirtual truth.

Psssst... ( We've all had a post deleted every now and again... get over it.)

I Newton,
You have made good point and made the well.
Thanks.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

classyT,
Very well said and you are right.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I Newton,
Sorry but I agree with classyT, she is right about the Trinity.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Yes, Jesus is his own father

I Newton,
Sorry but I do not understand what you are saying.
Jesus was and is the eternal WORD of God the Father and Holy Spirit.
God the Father is the father of Jesus the man, not the word.
I hope you can understand that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I Newton,
Sorry but I do not understand what you are saying.
Jesus was and is the eternal WORD of God the Father and Holy Spirit.
God the Father is the father of Jesus the man, not the word.
I hope you can understand that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Don't confuse him Fred he has enough trouble with three in one

Mmm, yes I do.

My wife and I are one, but I am not her and she is not me and we are not equal.

Sorry, I am just too stupid

Mmm, yes I do.

My wife and I are one, but I am not her and she is not me and we are not equal.

Sorry, I am just too stupid

You're not stupid, Newton, just honest. Nobody understands the Trinity, yet many will try to explain it.

WHAT? This thread is STILL open! :D:D

Hi Mo

Silly isn't it?

It seems it is true, Jesus is his own father.

Just don't try and use the Bible as an authority to prove it.

You have to have faith in the church.

Hi Mo

Silly isn't it?

It seems it is true, Jesus is his own father.

Just don't try and use the Bible as an authority to prove it.

You have to have faith in the church.


Hi Mr.Newton,

What I am going to suggest has little to do with church or religion. Rather it is an important distinction.

If you hold that Jesus can't be his own Father then in relation to the material world you are correct. As you suggest in terms of cause and effect this is a silly idea.

Given this you are putting forward a Nominalist position. Nominalism denies the existence of universals or other abstract entities, e.g.. God.

Most people who believe in God can be described as Realists. What I am suggesting is that you can't be a Realist and a Nominalist at the same time.

Regards

Tut

Yes, Jesus is his own father

And I bet YOU are your own grandpa! :D ( it is a song Jerry Garcia wrote, funny and I use to sing it to my kids when they were little) In case you thought I'd gone a little BARMY on you. ;)

WHAT?? This thread is STILL open!! :D:D

Yes Chuck hasn't canned it yet but give him time, Newton is getting close to the point

psssst, the difference is the posts that Friar Chuck deletes are posts that prove you worng and he is not able to answer



With all due respect I Newton, you haven't proved squat. You will not compare scripture with scripture.

Check it out:

2 Peter 1:20 First, you must understand this: No prophecy in Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation.

Camp out in John 5 if you want to... but you need to check out EVERYTHING the Lord Jesus says and does AND everything the Bible has to say about him and his rightful place in the Godhead.

Your claim that I am saying that Jesus is his own Father is ridiculous at best. This is what the Apostle Paul warns : check it out 2 Timothy 2:16 But avoid irreverent babble,.

That is what I'm going to do... avoid irreverent babble... good luck I NEWTON... and remember:

1 Corinthians 2:14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Wonderful folks, thanks to all. After having so much discussion and so many posts, one thing has been reaffirmed that we humans have very finite understanding. We try our the best to understand things about Lord God but always fall short of understanding HIS plans and HIS creation. We have no explanation for why the most of disciples of Jesus were killed and why could HE not protect them whom HE cherry picked to fish sinners and spread HIS Word.

I am not a judge but I found the explanation put forward by Adam in this thread was the best. He put in simple words alongwith the lines from the Bible and it fully makes sense and not difficult to understand that Jesus begotten and not made. How did that happen, how did Lord God produce Jesus, we humans can never understand. For us any living thing is reproduced by sexual activity whether it is flora or fauna. We can understand the birth of Jesus by mother Mary, HIS development in her womb, but how was HE put in the womb, is again beyond our comprehension. Therefore I strongly advocate that Let God be God. Ecclesiastes 7:29 says, "I did learn one thing: We were completely honest when God created us, but now we have twisted minds". Something worth pondering on.

If I am not wrong, the problem with our understanding is that we always try to rationalize a happening and when we do not find a scientific reason for it, we come up with opinions and conclusions which could be abomination to the Lord. But if we leave the hold on our own comprehension and let HIM take control of our minds, HE would give answers to many of our questions. And the way to lose our control on our minds is when we ask Lord God to send Holy Spirit to us. I have no any experience about speaking in different tongues, but I am told that it is Holy Spirit which prays to Lord God on your behalf. Many folks on this site have the gift of speaking in different tongues. They can enlighten us more on that.

Jesus is the physical manifestation of God. That's the reason why people see Jesus and HE is talking to them. References are in the Bible. Even in today's time men and woman do see Him and HE does talk to whomever HE wants to save. Here again it would be futile to inquire why HE touched A and not B, because it is HIS sovereignty and HE can love whomever HE may. However it is still not HIS character that HE should worry about 99 sheep and let the 100th be lost.

I do not have much information about other denominations. Therefore I do not know what denominations talk about Trinity. I attend Angilcan Church but never had any talk there about Trinity. I put this question in this thread because I was trying to get an explanation about how to tell a non-Christian that Jesus is Son of God and Jesus is one with God. I am very thankful to all for your inputs.

True, it is only repeating now

CLOSED

I Newton,
Please believe me, Jesus is not His own Father.
Jesus the man is Fathered by the Father true BUT...
Jesus being also the eternal Word of God in that case has no father for He is eternal and infinite as are the Holy Spirit and God the father.
I hope that is not too confusing for you.
Peace and kindness,
Fred