Seperating The Dogma from the Truth!

Zombrex

robindch wrote:

> The issue is what this rock refers to.

I described this some time back -- and was bollocked by Excelsior for excessive flirtation with "context" -- but "the rock" bit of this sentence is one of the few jokes in the entire bible. The Vulgate edition reads "Tu es petra, et super hanc petram, aedificabo ecclasiam meam...", while the original Greek has a parallel pun.

It's a pun on "Petrus" which means Peter and "petra" which means "rock". Changing names to make the pun work, in English, the joke reads something like "You are Con of Crete and with this concrete, I will build my church" (ha, ha). Note that the pun doesn't quite work in Latin, coz 'petrus' is masculine and 'petra' is feminine; doesn't work in Greek either for the same reason.

As with any part of the bible, people are free to read whatever they want to into it. But as far as I'm concerned, it's an opportunity for a lame joke.

You speak Greek .... is there anything you can't do!!

ISAW

wolfsbane wrote:

The last bit puzzles me. How can I be saved if I do not know I am a sinner, that God sent His Son to atone for the sins of all who trust in Him, that I cannot earn my salvation but must receive it freely by faith in Christ?

thats not what i stated.
Well I referred to not LITERALLY knowing the bible. I mean not ever having seen one single word of it. Say for example a mute illiterate Christian lands on an Island and teaches the locals by example.

But to take up yout point: How is an aborted foetus saved? How about a someone in India or communist china who dies without ever hearing of Christ?

You think this text establishes the papacy. But that has many problems, chief of which are the other Scripture texts that teach that Christ is the rock on which the Church is built.

I think it is EVIDENCE. But one can suggest Christ refers to "Peter" being a rock.

The issue is what this rock refers to. Some think it was Peter's confession that Jesus was the Christ; others that it is Christ Himself. That was the opinion of many of the Fathers, I far as I can recall.

But it COULD refer to Peter?

Next you have the problem of Peter's status in the New Testament church: he did not have papal power. He was openly rebuked by Paul on one occasion. His view was considered with all the rest in the Council of Jerusalem.

and you have several examples where Peter stands out a special.

Finally, the history of the papacy is not Christian at all. It is one of moral vileness, power-lust and heresy.

Not if Heresy is defined by the church and the Pope or Patriarch or whatever is the head!

thats you opinion. You suggest there was NO evidence to support a Pope. I only wanted to show you that at lease in some interpretations there was. Thats all.

ISAW

robindch wrote:

> The issue is what this rock refers to.

I described this some time back -- and was bollocked by Excelsior for excessive flirtation with "context" -- but "the rock" bit of this sentence is one of the few jokes in the entire bible. The Vulgate edition reads "Tu es petra, et super hanc petram, aedificabo ecclasiam meam...", while the original Greek has a parallel pun.

KE'PHA' IS ALWAYS USED TO TRANSLATE THE GREEK WORD LITHOS.

SHU'A IS THE MORE USUAL AND CORRECT SYRIAC WORD TO TRANSLATE THE GREEK WORD PETRA.

KE'PHA IS A MOVABLE STONE = LITHOS / PETROS.

SHU'A IS A MASSIVE ROCK = PETRA.

The Syriac word SHU`A' is NEVER used to translate the Greek word LITHOS. Because a LITHOS is NOT a large massive rock, but a SHU`A' is. The Syriac KE'PHA' is correctly used to translate the Greek words LITHOS and PETROS because these are movable stones.

9. The fact that the Greek text of the New Testament uses two separate Greek words in the passage [Matthew 16:18] indicates that any underlying Aramaic/Syriac original (if there was one, AND THIS IS FAR FROM PROVEN) also must have used two separate words.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp

In reality, what the missionary was telling me at this point was false. As Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant "small stone" and "large rock" in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant "rock." If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek lithos would have been used. The missionary’s argument didn’t work and showed a faulty knowledge of Greek. (For an Evangelical Protestant Greek scholar’s admission of this, see D. A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., 8:368).

"I say most of the New Testament was written in Greek, but not all. Many hold that Matthew was written in Aramaic—we know this from records kept by Eusebius of Caesarea—but it was translated into Greek early on, perhaps by Matthew himself. In any case the Aramaic original is lost (as are all the originals of the New Testament books), so all we have today is the Greek."

"We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels. Look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the cross, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ That isn’t Greek; it’s Aramaic, and it means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’

"What’s more," I said, "in Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form).

"And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’

"When you understand what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasn’t contrasting them. We see this vividly in some modern English translations, which render the verse this way: ‘You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’ In French one word, pierre, has always been used both for Simon’s new name and for the rock."

JimiTime

OK, I've taken on board what has been said about the trinity and hellfire on this thread, and also looked at other threads pertaining to these topics. I've looked at scripture and to be perfectly honest, I can safely say that they are absolutely doctrine's of man. I hope you can read on with an open mind. I do understand that most of you (christians, I mean) belong to a religious order of some sort so please don't rule out that you have been doctrinated. Someone like Wolfsbane, a pleasure to discuss things with, is obviously so learned in scripture, which is why i questioned myself genuinely about these things. If we first take the corruption of Christianity by the Catholic church. I think the protestant reformation was undoubtedly a magnificent happening. However, just as they left certain 'obvious' corruptions behind (mary worhip etc) you cannot rule out some that they kept. Using scriptural reasoning, I will discuss both the trinity and hellfire. Now I am no-longer looking to reason this topic, but rather speak in certainty that they are not truth, just so you know where we stand. Conclusions have been drawn.

1. The trinity. I previously stated that for every, 'pro-trinity scripture' there were at least 5 others against. The scriptures taken in context show that a 3 figure godhead is absolutely false. My first point:
A son does not come from nothing does he? If there is a father and a son, does anyone say that the son could have existed without first the father?
A son has authority over the servants of his fathers house, but does he have the same place as his father? or does his authority come from his father?

I have noted that everytime there is something inexplicable in this doctrine, the 'its a mystery' line gets played. Well God is a revealer of secrets not a hider of them! As far as the prophesy of Revelation is concerned, I can understand that some of these are hidden to us at this time, but it is obvious that we need not know them yet. Maybe there will arise a prophet before the end comes who will reveal these things through holy spirit. However, there is absolutely no benefit to us in having a God shrouded in mystery. In fact it insults both God and Christ to say such a thing! Christ revealed God to us. He made his name manifest! Ok that was the logical bit, on to scripture.

John 1.1 In the beginning the word was, and the word was with God and the word was god. 2. This one was in the beginning with God.
Keep this scripture in mind for the end. Here are other readings from John.

13.16 A slave is not greater than his master nor is the one sent greater than the one that sent him.

14.1 exercise faith in God, exercise faith in me also.

This is a good one:
14.28 If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going my way to The Father, because The Father is greater than I am.

17.1 Jesus raises his eyes to heaven and says 'Father, the hour has come, glorify your son that your son may glorify you.
So he is talking to the father, and in the same breath in verse 3 says:
17.3 Their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God and of the one who you sent forth.
So he calls The Father, 'God' in the same breath. He refers to The Father as God. Notice nowhere does The son refer to himself as 'God'!

Also in 17.11 jesus makes suplication to God, to make the apotles one, just as we are one. This exemplifies what christ means when talking about oneness. Its no mystery!

So I asked you to bear in mind the opening verse of John. One scripture pro trinity folk use as proof. Yet in the same book I have quoted 5 verses that do not signify this. How can this be? Well contextual translation of that opening scripture can have it translated as, 'and the word was 'a' god or godlike. The translation from greek has The Word (Logos in greek) having the qualities of God (Theos in greek) not actually being God. Now if you do not accept this explanation for John 1, look to the other scriptures that clearly show that The Father is Greater than The Son and ask yourself why am I still denying it.

2. Hellfire. Sheol (hebrew) and Hades (greek) refer to the grave. In Revelation it says that hades will give up its dead. Gehenna refers to the valley where all the unclean things, and carcasses and criminals seen unfit for buriel were thrown. Sulphur and brimstone were added to aid the burning. Gehenna was therefore used as a symbol of destruction. As for 'The lake of fire'. John tells us exactly what it means in Revelation, 'The second death'. He tells us plainly. He says the wicked and also Satan and his demons will be cast into it. Also, to elaborate on the sybolism of the lake of fire, it also says that both 'death and hades' will be cast into it. Does this seem a literal place?? is death and hades physical? No! It symbolises a final death, a death of which there is no return from! As for the torment for ever and ever, it is obvious that it is not literal! If hell exists, everyone lives forever. One group happy, one group tormented, but forever and ever none-the-less. The wages of sin is death. I have heard so many of you try say what 'hell' actually is. But like the trinity, there does not have to be mystery, if you just let go of the doctrine's that have brought reproach on both God and Jesus Christ for so long.

Finally, if what I say is true, what consequence does it have? it means that we still have salvation through Christ our Lord, however we do not worship a God that is mysterious to us, we worship the God 'revealed' to us by his 'son' Jesus Christ. If the trinity is true, Jesus came and confused, and made God mysterious. He tells us himself that he did the exact opposite. this point itself proves the trinity wrong. Also, there are so many that say that I can't have proper faith unless I believe the trinity. This type of doctrine shows itself false by statements like this!
If what I say is true regarding hell, what consequence does it have? It means that we still have salvation through Christ our Lord. However, we ackknowledge that the wages of sin is death! Where is is written that one could live without first Jesus paying our debt? I 'know' that God does not want his creation in 'torment' for ever and ever. Just as the law did not ask for the wicked to be imprisoned but rather destroyed. Why would he change his nature? Is he inconsistant?

I know that most of you will continue on your way believing what you already do, but I make no apology for taking the higher ground here. I hope that even one of you read and seek truth from God rather from your church.

Jimitime.

robindch

ISAW - Interesting quote lifted from http://www.gpcredding.org/petra.html -- naughty, naughty!

Anyhow, the word used in the text is πετρος (petros, the man) and πετρα (the rock) -- see the Koine greek here. Nothing there about lithos at all and the extrapolation back into Aramaic simply shows that the same pun works there too. It's difficult to carry a pun across languages, even if it's a lame one, as my legless effort showed, but kudos to them anyhow for trying!

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Wicknight doesn't approve of torturing them while in prision ....

Torture is one form of punishment; being imprisoned is another and extremely unpleasant. If it were not, prison would not be any deterent. So you agree to make life extremely unpleasant for some people.

Again, you have to look at what God is claimed to have actually done in the Old Testement. He didn't imprision, he killed. He rebuilitate, he destroyed.

God used various types of punishment: some to rehabilitate, some to utterly destroy.

So ultimately it comes down to what you believe is fair "justice".

Yes, that is the key.

If you think that it is fair for God to kill humanity because it has become violent, rather than any of the other options (He is God of course) then you won't find the Flood any worse than sentencing a muderer to 25 years in prision. If one the other hand you think that killing the entire population of the Earth as punishment is a form of genocide, especially when God could have done anything He like to rehabilitate the population, then it doesn't seem like justice at all, it seems like mass murder.

It all comes down to how one sees the degree of wickedness in the offender. God sees every sin as vile and requiring eternal destruction. Being sinners, we will have a softer line on it. But our hypocrisy shows: how well we excuse or minimise our own sins, but the sins of others - especially against us - are to be condemned in the strongest terms.

The fact of the matter, as displayed in the Old Testament as well as the New, is that God is long-suffering and merciful with sinners. But His patience runs out and justice is eventually enforced. He waited 120 years from the moment He declared the world to be full of violence and unremittingly wicked, until the Flood came. Noah preached to his fellowman, but they laughed at God's warnings. So it will be in the Last Day: when the preaching stops, the fire will fall.

A point Scofflaw makes quite a lot on the Atheist forum is that even if there is a God He would not worship Him, because if the events of the Old Testement were true the God is not deserving of worship. I would hold to that view point also.

You should consider that maybe you are not as morally upright as you need to be to sit in judgement of the God of the Bible. My life has certainly taught me how full of self I have been, even after I turned to God. My observation of others persuades me that I am no exception, but that all are sinners and that the unconverted are indeed slaves to their sinful natures.

wolfsbane

ISAW said:

thats not what i stated.
Well I referred to not LITERALLY knowing the bible. I mean not ever having seen one single word of it. Say for example a mute illiterate Christian lands on an Island and teaches the locals by example.

Ah, I see what you meant. Sorry to have misunderstood. Yes, one does not have to have the exact words of Scripture to be saved. But one does need the message, in whatever words that convey it.

But to take up yout point: How is an aborted foetus saved? How about a someone in India or communist china who dies without ever hearing of Christ?

Those who die without ever hearing the gospel go to hell. They are condemned for their sins, but not for the awful sin of rejecting the gospel. That's the case of those at the age of discernment. But for infants, the mentally incapacitated, etc., God is able to speak to their spirits directly. It is their bodies that are immature/disabled, not their spirits.

God cannot just pardon sinners, He has appointed the means: the atoning death of His Son Jesus, the bringing of the good news of pardon offered in Christ, repentance and faith by the sinner.

I think it is EVIDENCE. But one can suggest Christ refers to "Peter" being a rock.

I agree. Even if it were clear that Christ here referred to Peter, it would still not establish the papacy. For other Scriptures inform us that Christ is the great foundation of the Church:
1 Corinthians 3:11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

And that the apostles are the foundation:
Revelation 21:14 Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

And that all the apostles and prophets are the foundation:
Ephesians 2:19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord,

and you have several examples where Peter stands out a special.

Indeed, as does John, as does James, as does Paul. Special in their particular roles, none of which is as ruler over the whole Church. The only ruler over the whole Church is Christ:
Ephesians 1:22 And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, 23 which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

Not if Heresy is defined by the church and the Pope or Patriarch or whatever is the head!

Indeed. But thankfully it is the word of God that defines heresy, not the counsels of man.

thats you opinion. You suggest there was NO evidence to support a Pope. I only wanted to show you that at lease in some interpretations there was. Thats all.

As I've shown, that text cannot be interpreted to give a pope. It may refer to Peter, but the other Scriptures confine and determine the meaning in such a way as to make popery an impossible understanding.

JimiTime

wolfsbane wrote:

Those who die without ever hearing the gospel go to hell. They are condemned for their sins, but not for the awful sin of rejecting the gospel. That's the case of those at the age of discernment. But for infants, the mentally incapacitated, etc., God is able to speak to their spirits directly. It is their bodies that are immature/disabled, not their spirits.

God cannot just pardon sinners, He has appointed the means: the atoning death of His Son Jesus, the bringing of the good news of pardon offered in Christ, repentance and faith by the sinner.

Wolfsbane, you surprise me Such an absolute statement. 'those who don't hear the gospel go to hell Its just that their not condemned for the awful sin of rejecting it It doesn't really make much odds if they're going to your definition of hell either way does it??
Of what benefit is it to speculate over their judgement?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

Torture is one form of punishment; being imprisoned is another and extremely unpleasant. If it were not, prison would not be any deterent. So you agree to make life extremely unpleasant for some people.

Only to a point that is necessary. The purpose of putting some in prision is to remove them from society where they will do harm to others. There is little purpose to torturing someone beyond the lust for revenge.

wolfsbane wrote:

God used various types of punishment: some to rehabilitate, some to utterly destroy.

According to the Bible God uses immoral, unnecessary and cruel forms of punishment. Which was my original point. It is immoral. It doesn't matter if it is a prision guard, a soldier or a god doing it. The morality of an action is defined by the action, not the person or being carrying it out.

wolfsbane wrote:

God sees every sin as vile and requiring eternal destruction.

I know. That doesn't stop that being an immoral position to take. Especially considering God invented sin in the first place.

wolfsbane wrote:

The fact of the matter, as displayed in the Old Testament as well as the New, is that God is long-suffering and merciful with sinners.

God by definition can't suffer and your definition of what is "merciful" is quite a bit different to mine.

wolfsbane wrote:

But His patience runs out and justice is eventually enforced.

God doesn't have patience, He is aware of everything you will do from the moment of creation. God doesn't wait for you see the error of your ways, since God can tell what you will or will not do from day one.

wolfsbane wrote:

He waited 120 years from the moment He declared the world to be full of violence and unremittingly wicked, until the Flood came.

Like I said, God doesn't "wait" ... if He did He wouldn't be a god. Which makes the claim that his patience ran out even more nonsensical as a justification for His actions.

wolfsbane wrote:

You should consider that maybe you are not as morally upright as you need to be to sit in judgement of the God of the Bible.

While I certain would never claim to have perfect morality, even a simple reading of the Old Testement shows that most people in the modern world, including myself, would have much higher moral standards over what is acceptable and not acceptable in terms of punishment. Mass genocide is generally not considered an acceptable term of punishment. Neither is punishing the son for the sins of the father, or the harming an innocent as punishment for a guilty person. God does all these things in the Old Testement.

Medina

JimiTime wrote:

OK, I've taken on board what has been said about the trinity and hellfire on this thread, and also looked at other threads pertaining to these topics. I've looked at scripture and to be perfectly honest, I can safely say that they are absolutely doctrine's of man. I hope you can read on with an open mind. I do understand that most of you (christians, I mean) belong to a religious order of some sort so please don't rule out that you have been doctrinated. Someone like Wolfsbane, a pleasure to discuss things with, is obviously so learned in scripture, which is why i questioned myself genuinely about these things. If we first take the corruption of Christianity by the Catholic church. I think the protestant reformation was undoubtedly a magnificent happening. However, just as they left certain 'obvious' corruptions behind (mary worhip etc) you cannot rule out some that they kept. Using scriptural reasoning, I will discuss both the trinity and hellfire. Now I am no-longer looking to reason this topic, but rather speak in certainty that they are not truth, just so you know where we stand. Conclusions have been drawn.

1. The trinity. I previously stated that for every, 'pro-trinity scripture' there were at least 5 others against. The scriptures taken in context show that a 3 figure godhead is absolutely false. My first point:
A son does not come from nothing does he? If there is a father and a son, does anyone say that the son could have existed without first the father?
A son has authority over the servants of his fathers house, but does he have the same place as his father? or does his authority come from his father?

I have noted that everytime there is something inexplicable in this doctrine, the 'its a mystery' line gets played. Well God is a revealer of secrets not a hider of them! As far as the prophesy of Revelation is concerned, I can understand that some of these are hidden to us at this time, but it is obvious that we need not know them yet. Maybe there will arise a prophet before the end comes who will reveal these things through holy spirit. However, there is absolutely no benefit to us in having a God shrouded in mystery. In fact it insults both God and Christ to say such a thing! Christ revealed God to us. He made his name manifest! Ok that was the logical bit, on to scripture.

John 1.1 In the beginning the word was, and the word was with God and the word was god. 2. This one was in the beginning with God.
Keep this scripture in mind for the end. Here are other readings from John.

13.16 A slave is not greater than his master nor is the one sent greater than the one that sent him.

14.1 exercise faith in God, exercise faith in me also.

This is a good one:
14.28 If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going my way to The Father, because The Father is greater than I am.

17.1 Jesus raises his eyes to heaven and says 'Father, the hour has come, glorify your son that your son may glorify you.
So he is talking to the father, and in the same breath in verse 3 says:
17.3 Their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God and of the one who you sent forth.
So he calls The Father, 'God' in the same breath. He refers to The Father as God. Notice nowhere does The son refer to himself as 'God'!

Also in 17.11 jesus makes suplication to God, to make the apotles one, just as we are one. This exemplifies what christ means when talking about oneness. Its no mystery!

So I asked you to bear in mind the opening verse of John. One scripture pro trinity folk use as proof. Yet in the same book I have quoted 5 verses that do not signify this. How can this be? Well contextual translation of that opening scripture can have it translated as, 'and the word was 'a' god or godlike. The translation from greek has The Word (Logos in greek) having the qualities of God (Theos in greek) not actually being God. Now if you do not accept this explanation for John 1, look to the other scriptures that clearly show that The Father is Greater than The Son and ask yourself why am I still denying it.

2. Hellfire. Sheol (hebrew) and Hades (greek) refer to the grave. In Revelation it says that hades will give up its dead. Gehenna refers to the valley where all the unclean things, and carcasses and criminals seen unfit for buriel were thrown. Sulphur and brimstone were added to aid the burning. Gehenna was therefore used as a symbol of destruction. As for 'The lake of fire'. John tells us exactly what it means in Revelation, 'The second death'. He tells us plainly. He says the wicked and also Satan and his demons will be cast into it. Also, to elaborate on the sybolism of the lake of fire, it also says that both 'death and hades' will be cast into it. Does this seem a literal place?? is death and hades physical? No! It symbolises a final death, a death of which there is no return from! As for the torment for ever and ever, it is obvious that it is not literal! If hell exists, everyone lives forever. One group happy, one group tormented, but forever and ever none-the-less. The wages of sin is death. I have heard so many of you try say what 'hell' actually is. But like the trinity, there does not have to be mystery, if you just let go of the doctrine's that have brought reproach on both God and Jesus Christ for so long.

Finally, if what I say is true, what consequence does it have? however we do not worship a God that is mysterious to us, we worship the God 'revealed' to us by his 'son' Jesus Christ. If the trinity is true, Jesus came and confused, and made God mysterious. He tells us himself that he did the exact opposite. this point itself proves the trinity wrong. Also, there are so many that say that I can't have proper faith unless I believe the trinity. This type of doctrine shows itself false by statements like this!
If what I say is true regarding hell, what consequence does it have? It means that we still have salvation through Christ our Lord. However, we ackknowledge that the wages of sin is death! Where is is written that one could live without first Jesus paying our debt? I 'know' that God does not want his creation in 'torment' for ever and ever. Just as the law did not ask for the wicked to be imprisoned but rather destroyed. Why would he change his nature? Is he inconsistant?

I know that most of you will continue on your way believing what you already do, but I make no apology for taking the higher ground here. I hope that even one of you read and seek truth from God rather from your church.

Jimitime.

Hi Jimitime,
I didn't read all of this thread only the first and last page so forgive me kindly if I'm about to make you repeat yourself its a very long thread !

I am very interested to hear your conclusion on Jesus as the son of God / man. If I got you right, you're saying he was a man and he is not God?
I hope I got you.
That would be the conclusion I am slowly coming to myself as a result of Bible study and yes I think you are correct about the number of passages showing there is no Trinity. My mother is not happy :eek:

But I want to ask you something.

I'm confused by this sentence
it means that we still have salvation through Christ our Lord,

If Jesus is not God how can we achieve salvation through him?
Is salvation not granted by God alone?
Or are you saying we achieve salvation through his message?

JimiTime

Medina wrote:

Hi Jimitime,
I didn't read all of this thread only the first and last page so forgive me kindly if I'm about to make you repeat yourself its a very long thread !

I am very interested to hear your conclusion on Jesus as the son of God / man. If I got you right, you're saying he was a man and he is not God?
I hope I got you.
That would be the conclusion I am slowly coming to myself as a result of Bible study and yes I think you are correct about the number of passages showing there is no Trinity. My mother is not happy :eek:

But I want to ask you something.

I'm confused by this sentence
it means that we still have salvation through Christ our Lord,

If Jesus is not God how can we achieve salvation through him?
Is salvation not granted by God alone?
Or are you saying we achieve salvation through his message?

Hi Medina,
Just something to clarify about Jesus before answering your question. I did say he was not God, but I never said he was just a man neither. He was the only being directly created by God himself. All of Gods creation thereafter came through him. John 1.1 In the beginning the word was and the word was with God. Jesus being the Word. John continues, that all things came through him and without him nothing came. He is indeed of great power and authority, but is not God himself, for God is his Father.
He existed as a spirit in heaven before becoming manifest on earth as Jesus our Messiah.
Now, about your question of salvation through him. You are indeed perfectly correct. God grants salvation. Jesus was our means of salvation. I will ellaborate:

Adam was created with the pupose of living forever on a paradise earth in the abundance of Gods love he was to live. Adam however, even though he was created without blemish he sinned, and therefore inherritted death through sin. This sin was carried to all mankind and we were defiled before God. However, from the time that Adam sinned, God set about bringing to us a saviour, who would pay the debt of a perfect man. No-one had what it took to pay the debt, until Jesus came. A man without blemish, as Adam was at creation, and Jesus resisted the temptations of The Devil and remained without blemish until finally sacrificing himself on account of us. That is how we have salvation, 'through him'. It is given by God through Jesus, so that all those exercising faith in him will be saved.
Does this explain things to you with satisfaction?

Medina

Ok, see I have some problems with this Jimitime, I'm a bit sad now, I thought we were on the same path

Ok, lets work through this without getting worked up

JimiTime wrote:

He was the only being directly created by God himself.

Well Adam was created by God and in fact all the peoples of the earth prior to Jesus were created by God..because God creates everything.

If you mean He was the only 'begotten' being from God..which I suspect thats what you mean but you don't want to use that word as it causes a confusion...then all I can say to you is this...the word that is translated as 'begotten' does not exist in the Greek manuscripts. What exists there (I'll post it later I've forgotten how to spell it:) ) is a word which translated means 'only son'. That is why if you look through the RSV version of the Bible published 1952 which was worked on by over 50 eminent scholars, you will see that it 'begotten' is removed. This caused such a stir that it was replaced again in later versions. Its not even in the NIV..which if you inspect John 1 in the NIV version says 'The one and only' and is referenced to say 'Or the only begotten'. Since when did 'begotten' mean 'one'. This is the problem of translation.

JimiTime wrote:

All of Gods creation thereafter came through him

Can you support this from the Bible please? I think its important that we lose our opinions and base our arguments on factual evidence from the Bible.

If you are referring to the passage in John 1
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

then I ask you..where do you found your opinion that only things AFTER Jesus ' life were created by Him? This verse would imply that ALL things are made and will be made by him.

Also, this passage is a statement at the start of the gospel according to John, it is not something that Jesus himself said. Why would you believe the writer's opinion? Shouldn't it come from Jesus himself if you are to believe it?
You won't believe random things that I or Wicknight or Wolfsbane will tell you but you will stake your whole eternity on this random persons statement?

4The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[d] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

and meanders into the tale of John the Baptist. John the Baptist appears to confirm that Jesus is the Son of God. But now lets say what it says that John the Baptist said in Matthew. Please compare the two passages below. Remember that John was not imprisoned until after having baptized Jesus. So the second passage happened after the first.

Matthew 3 - John the Baptist speaking verse 7

7But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. 9And do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 10The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.

11"I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. 12His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire."

The Baptism of Jesus

13Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14But John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?"

15Jesus replied, "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness." Then John consented.

16As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."


Matthew 11

1After Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples, he went on from there to teach and preach in the towns of Galilee.[a]

2When John heard in prison what Christ was doing, he sent his disciples 3to ask him, "Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?"


John doesn't seem to know who Jesus is. So we can't interpret the first passage literally.

Also please notice: In Matthew 3:16, the writer describes the voice as though he heard it himself and so it seems reliable. In John 1:16 the words are included:
32Then John gave this testimony:

So did John hear this but no one else? Or did everyone hear it? Whats going on? Do you see that we can't trust these passages because the accounts are different. Why do you trust that Jesus is Lord of creation or whatever when there are so many passages which contradict this. I know there are verses which appear to support it, but aren't you picking and choosing? Shouldn't something be proven true to you? The evidence against is so mighty..much stronger than the evidence for.



Now, about your question of salvation through him. You are indeed perfectly correct. God grants salvation. Jesus was our means of salvation. I will ellaborate:

JimiTime wrote:

Adam was created with the pupose of living forever on a paradise earth in the abundance of Gods love he was to live.

This is unsupportable from the bible.

JimiTime wrote:

Adam however, even though he was created without blemish he sinned, and therefore inherritted death through sin. This sin was carried to all mankind and we were defiled before God.

Adam was created without sin he caused himself, as every child in the world is born. You have no proof that 'death' is the price of Originial Sin. Where did this notion even come from? There is no mention of an inherited sin either from the mouth of Jesus or from any words quoted from God's speech.
What exactly was the original sin? Adam did what every person does on this earth and will eventually do...make their first mistake.

JimiTime wrote:

However, from the time that Adam sinned, God set about bringing to us a saviour, who would pay the debt of a perfect man. No-one had what it took to pay the debt, until Jesus came.

You are underestimating God here. Be careful. God could have created someone at any time who 'had what it took'.You imply that others weren't as strong or something. I thought you think Jesus is divine?
How did Jesus repay the debt? By being flogged and crucified? Some people have suffered even worse deaths than that, do you think all their sins were wiped away by their suffering? Or their fellow mankind's if they had been the chosen one?

JimiTime wrote:

Jesus resisted the temptations of The Devil and remained without blemish until finally sacrificing himself on account of us.

The Devil did not try to tempt Jesus because he was divine.
The Devil was trying to figure out who he was, hence the question and request for proof 'If you are the Son of God'...and in fact Jesus evades the questions, doesn't even give them a clear answer.

There are serious flaws in the Bible, the main one being that it contradicts itself in many places. How do you justify the choices from it that you have made? Because you prefer it that way? Because it makes sense to you? How can you be sure its the Truth? I can be sure that if contradicts itself all over the place then it cannot be the Truth. Not all of it anyway, so why would I trust it.

MOGSA

The issue of the Trinity keeps going round and round for the wrong reasons again. Let us try to rationalise God’s Word on this to resolve this debate once and for all.

Firstly we must recognise that God has created a complete spiritual environment for us to be able to reconcile and communicate with Him so as to live within His Word. In the ‘Mark of God’ thread I set a couple of baselines. These included the following statement:

Change the way you think about the Bible
________________________________________
None of the Bible and very little in terms of witchcraft will mean much to you until you accept and rationalise that we, as humans, are spirits in a physical body, rather than the other way around. This is central to the whole theme in the Bible as well as who we are in this world.
And:
If you honestly can state to yourself that you don’t believe in witchcraft with all the empirical evidence around you, then you shouldn’t be debating on this board because you are without basic understanding of the issues involved on a Christian forum. Christianity is about spiritual life and how to live physically in the world within God’s Word:

John:15:19:

“If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.”

Of course there is a more definitive word from God:

‘For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.’

Agreed so far, Christians?

Two gods of concern
There are two gods that concern the Christian. One is the God of Abraham and the other, Satan, the god of this earth. There are zillions of other gods and many of them are noted on this forum and claimed to be followed by some. The key to understanding them is to know that Satan is father of them all, for they are all demons in varying shapes and power. Just recall the ‘miracle’ of Fatima and how the very elements, including the sun, were affected by Satan’s control. To the average person Satan has enormous, godlike power, while his lieutenants bind whole countries spiritually.

Satan provides his human followers with ‘spirit guides’ and legions of demons whereas the average person unconsciously has an average of 5 demons of various types and levels of power.
The main purpose of these lower level demons seems to be to spiritually block physical sensing (placing spiritual ‘scales’ over their eyes etc) of their presence and control the person accordingly as described several times in my other posts.

To perform magic, one invokes Satan’s power through various means, with varying results depending on the task at hand. As demonstrated in my recent locked thread, a ‘bride of Satan’ to be, qualifying for her right to become such as bride, passes her final examination by snatching several bullets out of the air as they are fired directly at her, handing them back to the man with the gun, only a few meters away. This is a chilling demonstration of Satan’s power over physical entities, confirming the existence of multi-dimensional facets of the spiritual world denied by the atheists.

Your spirit ‘vessel’
A human being has three essential entity dimensions: the ‘flesh’, the soul and the spirit. The spirit of a person can essentially be considered as a container, a vessel. One can try to empty your container but it will never be empty long thanks to the attention of Satan’s demons. The alternative is to fill it with the Holy Spirit whom I will define below.
The atheists will tell you that there is no spirit in a person. I, BrianCalgary, Wolfsbane, Excelsior and others on this forum as well as millions of other born-again Christians will witness just the opposite, not through delusions or thoughts in their head, but by experience and practical reality – encounters with God. So will the Satanists!

As Christians we recognise that God is our creator. He holds the universe in His hands yet he is ‘mindful of us’ and counts the hairs on our head. He is our Father, provider, protector and many other, limitless, good things. Jeremiah : 29:11:

For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end.

He is omnipotent and perfect – He cannot be approached by a sinful person. But He also knows that we are only human as He created us. He is also aware that Satan introduced sin into our lives.

All we need to do is to remember that we are wonderfully and ‘fearfully’ made by God! Just look at your biometrics such as fingerprints to know that you are unique in this world. Psalms:139:14:

‘I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.’

So the first issue is to recognise that God is omnipotent and therefore He can imbed his Holy Spirit in each born-again Christian because He has given us a spiritual dimension.

Are we also agreed up to this point, Christians? So stay with me with the next position please.

The following issues require that we don’t get hung up on things that originate from God’s too many dimensions that we haven’t a chance in heaven to understand.

Ecc:8:17:

Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea further; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it.

You could state that we are also part of God because He created us. Therefore we are all gods if you follow the logic. So is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit just one being?

Does it matter? I need to interface with God – that’s important – I cannot move mountains or perform miracles.
How this happens I will know and maybe understand when I reach the feet of Jesus as part of His spiritual Bride. What is also important is that God has provided the necessary interfaces.

In post#5 of the thread on the ‘Mark of God’ is another baseline:
Jesus also had to go away so that the ‘Comforter’ in the form of the Holy Spirit could indwell His people.
It’s like having Tiger Woods as a personal golf trainer: He would constantly guide us as to how we should bend our knees or address the ball. If, however, we had the ‘spirit’ of Tiger Woods in us, then we would play just like him.
By having the Spirit of God within us, we align ourselves naturally to God’s Will and methods. This is an improvement on having Jesus 24/7 on the outside of us, in the physical world. Now we have God’s Spirit indwelling us, ensuring we align with Him. We do as He wants us to do.

Jesus sent us the Comforter at Pentecost. Now our spirit ‘vessel’ is filled with the correct spirit – the Holy Spirit of God almighty and there is no longer room for demon spirits who flee at the presence of God’s Spirit.

John:14:16:

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

John:14:26:

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
John:15:26:
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

John:16:7:

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

All you have to do to receive the Holy Spirit is to ask God with the right ‘heart’ (your spirit). I explained in the same set of baselines how to pray and achieve the right ‘heart’ with God. You may have to undergo spiritual purification through ‘deliverance’ as also contained in posting #25 on the ‘Mark of God’ thread.

So far we have the Father to whom we address all our prayers and worship as well as the Holy Spirit who indwells us to maintain alignment supernaturally with our Father as well as to guide us in every day life – ‘not to get off the bus’ as Brian describes one such example.

I know that this also refers to another thread but Robindch suggests that the presence of the Holy Spirit and associated communications is all a figment of one’s imagination. Remember, God’s people are sound of mind. I know that the claims of Robindch are untrue and bred of satanic influence in his own life because:
 In my imagination, as an example, I get told to approach a person outside the local post office, that his name is ‘Joe’ and that he needs $20 for bus fare to get home
 I approach the person of the picture in my imagination and, surprise, he introduces himself as ‘Joe’. He also says he has a transport problem and is a bit desperate.
 He thanks me profusely. I tell him the story and to thank God instead.

I can have such imaginations several times a day but at least once a week, every week of my new-born life, where such supernatural imaginations occur.
When a young lady says that the gun jammed last night when she tried to shoot herself, this is a serious issue but the gun could have jammed under several conditions, not only supernaturally. When I pitch up only a few minutes before she is about to try again the next morning, that is supernatural intervention, especially because I had never met her before and was only being obedient to God’s message, sorry, imaginations.

So if these ‘promptings’ by the Holy Spirit were indeed only imaginations, then they would not be correlated by the physical encounters that always follow.

So Robindch, while your machinations cause your statements to be both frivolous and malicious, we, in our imaginations, deal with the physical well-being of God’s children even to the point of life and death – not imaginary, but real needs in every sense! Thanks only to the Holy Spirit of the most high God. Our sole contribution is that of being obedient and using God’s Word.

If I was the only one experiencing these imaginations then I guess I could claim some kind of exclusivity. There are thousands of born-again Christians across South Africa having similar experiences, almost daily. Brian is experiencing them in Canada, as well as my friends in New Zealand and the UK. If so many are experiencing imaginary messages that translate into physical encounters, then I have to say that you have to re-evaluate your take on these matters.
I believe we should reject your insinuations outright because they are contrary to practical experience of God around the world.

If God tells me in my imagination that you need to deal with generational curses in your own life (this appears to be also accompanied by a deep hurt when young – maybe early teen years?) before telling the born-again Christians what and how they experience in their lives, what should I do with this imaginary message just for you?

God’s morality checklists apply to those that scorn the Word of God. Proverbs, being part of this checklist, summarizes this well in 21:30:
There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD.

The Third element in God’s Spiritual Environment

Now lets investigate the third instrument that God has put in place to complete His spiritual environment for us – an intercessor to bridge the spiritual gap between us and God – Jesus Christ of Nazareth. If God will not/cannot encounter sinners then we need a go-between to facilitate communication.

Jesus, as per the various postings in the ‘Mark of God’ fulfilled a major project milestone when He established His Bride, thereby also initiating His role as intercessor as per prophecy.

On this forum there has been continual debate about whether Jesus was man or god during His life on earth. As with all manifestations of God in physical human form, He lived and appeared as a man, showing all the attributes of a human being.
Jesus had to be sacrificed for our sins as a man representing the ‘unblemished lamb’. Read the post on the Seven Seals in the ‘Mark of God’ series of baselines.
It is very clear that on earth He was man and, having fulfilled the project milestone, He returned to heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father.

Almost 700 years before the birth of Jesus, Isaiah prophecies the Word of God:
Isa:7:14:

‘Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.’

God says he will be ‘with us’ – Immanuel: ‘God with us’.

Jesus is born in the year prophesied by Daniel, fulfills God’s Word and goes to sit at the right hand of the Father. Is Jesus not part of the Trinity? Was he not ‘God with us’?

Jesus came to establish His Bride, His church as foretold in Isaiah and other OT references:

Isaiah:9:6 - 7:

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

In simple yes or no responses, did Jesus establish His church? So if the Christian church is established (regardless of 30 000+ versions), Jesus lives as the Son of God.

In return Jesus will provide you with the ‘mark of God’ when you become baptised in the Spirit. For your troubles Jesus is also your best of best friends and is available 24/7 for your convenience and needs. You will also learn new languages. It is quite incredible being present when an individual encounters God properly and starts manifesting in the Spirit with a full vocabulary of an ancient language without any prior knowledge – all in a few minutes.

Without the mark of God, the most frightening words anyone who has become a Christian in their own minds can fear, are those in Mathew: 7:20 - 23:

‘Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.’

In summary look upon the Trinity as the Godhead that acts like the executive committee of a very large organisation. One needs to align your purpose with that of your company and produce the work that they want you to do, not what you decide to do – if you want your paycheck that is.

God is the head of this trinity of executive directors – He is the managing director; He is also executive chairman as well as majority shareholder; all prayer should be directed at Him through Jesus Christ of Nazareth as the director of intercession. To come before Him, you need to be aligned with God’s purpose for you – your fruits must be acceptable to Him.

The Trinity – a three-being entity that will bless you by inviting you to the final feast in heaven.
Genesis:1:26:

‘And God said, Let us make man in our image ………’

You need each of them because of the different roles they play in your life.

Do not be confused – God the Father is God – the boss, no one else makes the decisions as Jesus confirmed when speaking about when the end of days will occur. Jesus is totally aligned to God’s purposes in terms of decisions, having received the keys to Heaven and earth and is seated at the right hand of the Father – a place reserved for only the most loyal and trusted of beings.
The Holy Spirit and the angels only act on the command of Jesus at least in terms of our lives. Once God has decided to give the go ahead, Jesus will remove the remaining seals of our bondage and ensure the conclusion of the greatest reality show on earth.
I look forward to sitting at the feet of Jesus on day as He gives me tasks to perform as He promised me very publicly in front of at least 50 witnesses.

You can try to debate that Jesus is the Son of God or that He is not God – Jesus said: “if you have seen me then you have seen the Father”. He is part of the trinity that makes up the Godhead.

The bottom line is that He is the only hope we have for eternal spiritual life and His spiritual abilities and therefore godly powers are so beyond us in terms of strength and multi-dimensions, that He is God to us. Once again the final configuration of the Godhead is not material to our cause.
Just consider the incredible power of Satan to alter the behaviour of the elements or the power he has to keep whole nations in bondage. Then consider too that Jesus vanquished him so easily.

God has provided spiritual instruments to enable us to both communicate with Him as well as to be guided and protected in our physical state. Praising and worshipping Him is little compensation compared to what He has done for us.

The Trinity is alive and well - thank God!

JimiTime

Medina wrote:

There are serious flaws in the Bible, the main one being that it contradicts itself in many places. How do you justify the choices from it that you have made? Because you prefer it that way? Because it makes sense to you? How can you be sure its the Truth? I can be sure that if contradicts itself all over the place then it cannot be the Truth. Not all of it anyway, so why would I trust it.

Ok Medina. Before I go into an answer. Are you a muslim? If you are, I'm not wasting my time.

wolfsbane

JimiTime said:

So I asked you to bear in mind the opening verse of John. One scripture pro trinity folk use as proof. Yet in the same book I have quoted 5 verses that do not signify this. How can this be?

This can be because Christ is both God and man. In leaving Heaven's glory, He humbled Himself and became a man, a servant of His Father. But He always remained the Son, always retained His Godhood. So we have texts where His subservience to the Father is clear; and we have texts where His equality with the Father is clear. To hold to an either/or position is not possible if the Scripture is to be true. Christ is both God and man.

The difficulties of explaining the deity texts are insurmountable. You end up having a created being being offered the same worship as the Father, being referred to by the same Scripture texts, possessing the same names, etc.

Well contextual translation of that opening scripture can have it translated as, 'and the word was 'a' god or godlike.

That is not a valid translation of the Greek. The only version to adopt it, to my knowledge, is the Jehovah Witness New World Translation. The Greek actually makes it clearer than our proper English versions: 'God was the Word'.

The translation from greek has The Word (Logos in greek) having the qualities of God (Theos in greek) not actually being God. Now if you do not accept this explanation for John 1, look to the other scriptures that clearly show that The Father is Greater than The Son and ask yourself why am I still denying it.

The Greek says nothing of the sort. What Greek authorities are you using?

As I pointed out above, the Deity and Humanity of Christ account for the Godhood/servanthood texts - how can you account for them?

As for 'The lake of fire'. John tells us exactly what it means in Revelation, 'The second death'. He tells us plainly. He says the wicked and also Satan and his demons will be cast into it. Also, to elaborate on the sybolism of the lake of fire, it also says that both 'death and hades' will be cast into it. Does this seem a literal place?? is death and hades physical? No!

Whether physical or not, it provides a state of existence for the wicked.

It symbolises a final death, a death of which there is no return from! As for the torment for ever and ever, it is obvious that it is not literal! If hell exists, everyone lives forever.

This is where you slip-up. You equate existence with life. But Christ speaks of eternal companionship with God as life, and eternal banishment from God as death. Both groups exist, but one is eternally living, the other eternally dying.

How do you explain eternal torment in a not literal way? Look at what the text actually says:
Revelation 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.”

Finally, if what I say is true, what consequence does it have? it means that we still have salvation through Christ our Lord, however we do not worship a God that is mysterious to us, we worship the God 'revealed' to us by his 'son' Jesus Christ.

The consequence is I am worshiping a creature rather than the Creator, and am thus guilty of idolatry. However, if you are wrong, then you are not worshipping God acceptably, for:
John 5:22 For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, 23 that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.

If the trinity is true, Jesus came and confused, and made God mysterious. He tells us himself that he did the exact opposite. this point itself proves the trinity wrong.

What's more mysterious: One God in Three Persons or One God and a created being who has all the attributes of God and demands men to believe in him?
John 6:35 And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.
and who identifies himself with YHWH:
John 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”
59 Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

I 'know' that God does not want his creation in 'torment' for ever and ever. Just as the law did not ask for the wicked to be imprisoned but rather destroyed. Why would he change his nature? Is he inconsistant?

You can only know what God has revealed to you, and that is in His Word. The texts declare the eternal torment of the wicked, however much the thought appalls us.

The law had various sanctions on sin - fines, beatings, death. To draw an analogy you must match the punishment to the state, i.e., physical death was the ultimate punishment possible in the physical world, but in the spiritual world death is not a physically unconscious state. Those who die physically are raised again to live or die spiritually:
Daniel 12:2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,
Some to everlasting life,
Some to shame and everlasting contempt.

wolfsbane

JimiTime said:

Wolfsbane, you surprise me Such an absolute statement. 'those who don't hear the gospel go to hell Its just that their not condemned for the awful sin of rejecting it It doesn't really make much odds if they're going to your definition of hell either way does it??
Of what benefit is it to speculate over their judgement?

No speculation involved, Jimi. Plain statement of Scripture:
Everyone is a condemned sinner: and faith is necessary for their salvation:
Romans 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law.

Romans 3:9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin. ...19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God....21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,...30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.

How do you think the heathen will be saved?

Medina

JimiTime wrote:

Ok Medina. Before I go into an answer. Are you a muslim? If you are, I'm not wasting my time.

I am not. Although 'Muslim' literally means ' "one who surrenders to God". I hope to achieve that someday as presently I am fighting myself

Medina

wolfsbane wrote:

This can be because Christ is both God and man. In leaving Heaven's glory, He humbled Himself and became a man, a servant of His Father. But He always remained the Son, always retained His Godhood. So we have texts where His subservience to the Father is clear; and we have texts where His equality with the Father is clear. To hold to an either/or position is not possible if the Scripture is to be true. Christ is both God and man.

It is not possible for God to be subserviant to Himself (since they all three together make one God according to the Trinity theory). They are not three individual Gods.

Are Jesus, God the Father and the Holy Spirit equal?
Do they require each other? Do they NEED each other for the whole to exist?
Did Jesus NEED the Holy Spirit?

He cannot have Needed the Holy Spirit if he had 'retained his Godhood'. And yet we find verses such as
Luke 4
16He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. 17The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
18"The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
19to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."[e]
20Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, 21and he began by saying to them, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."

This verse makes it clear that Jesus was anointed BY the Father. God cannot anoint Himself. And Jesus would not REQUIRE the Holy Spirit. Note also 'He has sent me'...God 'sent' Jesus..two different entities - not both God.


Luke 3
21Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,
22And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

Ok - Why was the Holy Ghost sent upon Jesus? Why would Jesus have needed the Holy Spirit if he had 'retained his Godhead'?

Why would one 'person' of the Trinity speak to another as an inequal? The Father is 'pleased' with the son..but yet they are the one God??


Luke 5
17One day as he was teaching, Pharisees and teachers of the law, who had come from every village of Galilee and from Judea and Jerusalem, were sitting there. And the power of the Lord was present for him to heal the sick.

If the 'power of the Lord' had not been present with Jesus he would not have been able to heal the sick. The power of the Lord is not Jesus himself here!


Matthew 4
1Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

Luke 4
1And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,

Again why Jesus need to be led by the Holy Spirit?

Luke 4
14And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about.


Again Jesus' power comes FROM the Holy Spirit not from within Himself!

Matthew 7
21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

So entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven is gained by 'doing the will of my Father', that will being explained by Jesus. Not be doing the will of Jesus..because Jesus' will matters not!

Matthew 5
(Jesus speaking) 44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Not 'I', not directly 'God' (so it does not include himself- if he knew he was part of a Trinity) but the Father. As in who God was to all of them at that time, one being in Heaven while Jesus was on earth.


Matthew 9
And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.
3And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth.
4And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?
5For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?
6But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.


Notice how when Son of Man is mentioned it always comes from the mouth of Jesus? When Son of God is mentioned it always comes from the mouth of someone else! Jesus admits that here on earth he has the power to forgive sins.

Compare same verse from Luke below
Note that having 'authority' is not the same as having 'power' as authority is given and power can come from within. So either the gospel writers are contradicting each other or Jesus meant that he was given the power by being given authority..which means he does not have this ability innate in himself. This would make more sense to me as Jesus' ministry did not start until after he had received the Holy Spirit by being baptized by John.

Luke 5
22Jesus knew what they were thinking and asked, "Why are you thinking these things in your hearts? 23Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'? 24But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...." He said to the paralyzed man, "I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home." 25Immediately he stood up in front of them, took what he had been lying on and went home praising God. 26Everyone was amazed and gave praise to God. They were filled with awe and said, "We have seen remarkable things today."


Luke 9
18Once when Jesus was praying in private and his disciples were with him, he asked them, "Who do the crowds say I am?"
19They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, that one of the prophets of long ago has come back to life."
20"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
Peter answered, "The Christ[a] of God." 21Jesus strictly warned them not to tell this to anyone. 22And he said, "The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life."

This 'a' beside 'The Christ of God' references a sentence which says 'or Son of God'. Now here we have a BIG problem. Christ means 'anointed one' and this is what Jesus himself said in Luke 4 above in the first passage I entered.
Son of God is a very different story as 'anointed' does not equal 'Son'.
How do you choose what to believe? Also considering so many times in the Bible other people are referred to as Son of God or Jesus speaks to others and calls them 'Son', yet we know he had no sons..then can we even interpret this literally as being the 'Son of God'? And if he is the Son of God then how can he be God? He is 'of God' .something outside of God..not God itself!Again note son of man reference from Jesus' mouth

Luke 4
12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.


Luke 12
8Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God:
9But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God.
10And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.

Now this verse is important because it shows the relationship between the self-proclaimed 'Son of Man', God and the 'Holy Ghost'

Whoever proclaims the gospel of Jesus before Men, Jesus the 'Son of Man' will 'confess' before the angels of God. Now what could this mean? I think the meaning is clear by the reading of the following sentences. Jesus is talking about the Judgement Day and who will be forgiven and who will not be forgiven. In this light, 'confess' would appear to be 'defend' or 'speak for'. So Jesus will interceed for this man before the angels of God. Why would he have to interceed for the man if he was God? Why wouldn't he just save them? Because the angels of God carry out God's will and will have been sent with a judgement on who to save. Jesus will account for these men to save them.

Also this verse shows that the 'Son of Man' and the 'Holy Ghost' are NOT equal. Because blaspheming against the Son of Man may be forgiven but against the Holy Ghose will NOT be forgiven..so do this is a graver sin. Why would it be if they are equal? They are not equal so that is why the difference in forgiveness.

Similar in Mark 2
Mark 3
28Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:
29But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.
30Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.


Luke 12
13And one of the company said unto him, Master, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me.
14And he said unto him, Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?

Is this not Jesus denying that he is a judge of others? It is.

Luke 10
21At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.

Even if we said that the Trinity was true and Jesus could praise his counterpart, why would his joy be dependent upon the Holy Spirit? Makes no sense. The Holy Spirit here is supporting Jesus, leading Jesus, giving him power/authority...that is because Jesus is not God or Godlike or divine.

Luke 2
52And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.

Jesus cannot grown in favour with himself (if he is part of God). God's favour was upon him, this shows he is not part of God.

Mark 6
2And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?
3Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
4But Jesus, said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.


Out of his own mouth..'a prophet' .

Again in Luke 4
Luke 4
22And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph's son?
23And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country.
24And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country.

Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

'Him who sent me'...God who sent Jesus...not God sending God. They are different!

JimiTime

wolfsbane wrote:

This can be because Christ is both God and man. In leaving Heaven's glory, He humbled Himself and became a man, a servant of His Father. But He always remained the Son, always retained His Godhood. So we have texts where His subservience to the Father is clear; and we have texts where His equality with the Father is clear. To hold to an either/or position is not possible if the Scripture is to be true. Christ is both God and man.

No. There is not clarity in Jesus being God. There is more clarity in Jesus being his Son and thus not his equal as I previously pointed out. Even when giving the model prayer, he did not say, God who arth in heaven. He said Father who art in heaven. We pray to God do we not? Or do you say we can pray to Jesus or the holy spirit separately too? The Father is God alone, this is clear. The Son has the qualities of his Father, but he came from the father. All scripture in context proves this. But even using the reasonings of pro-trinititarians and taking certain scriptures alone, it still can be shown that the Father is God and the son was created by The Father. Take Colossians 1.15. Pertaining to Jesus it is written: 'He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.' So it says he was the firstborn of all creation.

The difficulties of explaining the deity texts are insurmountable. You end up having a created being being offered the same worship as the Father, being referred to by the same Scripture texts, possessing the same names, etc.

Can you deny the wait of scriptural evidence against The Son being of equal authority as The Father? If I may once again repeat what I previously said.
If there is a father and a son, does anyone say that the son could exist without first the father? Once again I draw your attention to Colossians 1.15
'He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.'

That is not a valid translation of the Greek. The only version to adopt it, to my knowledge, is the Jehovah Witness New World Translation. The Greek actually makes it clearer than our proper English versions: 'God was the Word'.
The Greek says nothing of the sort. What Greek authorities are you using?

In Greek there is no indefinate article i.e. 'a' or 'the'. At various points in the Greek scriptures, where there is no indefinate article, 'a' is added because context suggests this. for example John 4.19 is: 'Sir, I percieve you are a prophet'. In Greek this would be, 'I percieve you are prophet', as there is no indefinate article. However uderstanding the context, the 'a' is added. This is common knowledge among Greek scholars. Now if you are pro-trinity, you wont have a problem leaving out the indefinate article, but it renders this scripture useless as proof of a trinity, as gramatically it could well be 'a' god. Most of Christendom believe in a triune godhead, so that is why they wont translate it with the indefinate article. You see my point? this scripture as proof of the trinity cannot stand up to scrutiny.

As I pointed out above, the Deity and Humanity of Christ account for the Godhood/servanthood texts - how can you account for them?

I'm not sure what you mean here, could you ellaborate please. Thanks.

This is where you slip-up. You equate existence with life. But Christ speaks of eternal companionship with God as life, and eternal banishment from God as death. Both groups exist, but one is eternally living, the other eternally dying.

Eternally dying? but never actually being dead. That still does not explain, the wages of sin is death, and apart from that, you are getting too philisophical about 'what is real life etc.' It does not have to be so complex.

How do you explain eternal torment in a not literal way? Look at what the text actually says:
Revelation 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.”

I am still at my spiritual infancy, and do not have a simple answer to this, I will work for one though. But answer me this, also in Revelation, Death and Hades are cast into the lake of fire also. How is this? Why does John call the lake of fire 'the second death' quite plainly? Is it that he swaps between symbolism and literalness?

The consequence is I am worshiping a creature rather than the Creator, and am thus guilty of idolatry. However, if you are wrong, then you are not worshipping God acceptably, for:
John 5:22 For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, 23 that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.

What worshipping a creature???? where did you get that from?? And for the record, I completely honour the Son and The Father who sent him. And also for the record, it says The Father sent him, which would signify authority over him.

What's more mysterious: One God in Three Persons or One God and a created being who has all the attributes of God and demands men to believe in him?

I can explain God and the Son with clarity using scripture. The trinity cannot. So its obvious whats mysterious.

You can only know what God has revealed to you, and that is in His Word. The texts declare the eternal torment of the wicked, however much the thought appalls us.

Yes we can only know what God has revealed to us, but no, the texts are not as cut and dry as you say they are. You are programmed to believe that this is what is meant, so you don't bother to look beyond it. Only when you look at it without being in a state of doctrination and with prayer will you see beyond what you do. If it is of any consequence, its only since doing this myself have I been able to see further than I ever have before.

Finally, In relation to your judgement on those who never hear of Christ. You say that they are bound for hell, which whatever way you look upon it is a judgement against their hearts of which you know nothing. I
f we take Romans 2.12. 'all those who sinned without law will also perish without law, but those who sinned under law will be judged by law. for the hearers of law will not be declared righteous, but the doers of law will. For whenever people of the nations that do not have law, do by nature the things of the law these people although not having law are a law to themselves. They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts while their concience is bearing witness with them and between their own thoughts are being accused or even excused. This will be in the day when God through Jesus Christ judges the secret things of mankind according to the good news i declare.'

ISAW

robindch wrote:

ISAW - Interesting quote lifted from http://www.gpcredding.org/petra.html -- naughty, naughty!

whats naughty about that?

Anyhow, the word used in the text is πετρος (petros, the man) and πετρα (the rock) -- see the Koine greek here. Nothing there about lithos at all and the extrapolation back into Aramaic simply shows that the same pun works there too. It's difficult to carry a pun across languages, even if it's a lame one, as my legless effort showed, but kudos to them anyhow for trying!

But note above the point:
"And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’

"When you understand what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasn’t contrasting them. We see this vividly in some modern English translations, which render the verse this way: ‘You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’ In French one word, pierre, has always been used both for Simon’s new name and for the rock."

ISAW

ISAW wrote:

whats naughty about that?



But note above the point:

Also
Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church. Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.

Source: http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

JimiTime

Medina wrote:

Well Adam was created by God and in fact all the peoples of the earth prior to Jesus were created by God..because God creates everything.

No. All things, including Adam were created by God, through his Son. Jesus was the human manifestation of Gods Son who had been in existence before the creation of the heavens and earth. The only thing created by God, not going through the Son, was the Son himself. So don't think that Jesus only came about in the year 0. Only The Son of God as a man.

If you mean He was the only 'begotten' being from God..which I suspect thats what you mean but you don't want to use that word as it causes a confusion...then all I can say to you is this...the word that is translated as 'begotten' does not exist in the Greek manuscripts. What exists there (I'll post it later I've forgotten how to spell it:) ) is a word which translated means 'only son'. That is why if you look through the RSV version of the Bible published 1952 which was worked on by over 50 eminent scholars, you will see that it 'begotten' is removed. This caused such a stir that it was replaced again in later versions. Its not even in the NIV..which if you inspect John 1 in the NIV version says 'The one and only' and is referenced to say 'Or the only begotten'. Since when did 'begotten' mean 'one'. This is the problem of translation.

You would say Adam was the Son of God would you not? In fact it says so in Luke when it gives Jesus' geneology. We are all children of God are we not? So why is Jesus the one and only? Because all creation came by The Father through The Son except The Son himself, who was the only being that came directly from The Father. And just to clarify again because I think you got mixed up in what I said last time. Jesus was the manifestation of Gods Son, who had been in existence in heaven from before the creation of earth. That is why John says that, 'In the beginning the Word was, and The Word was with God.

If you are referring to the passage in John 1
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

then I ask you..where do you found your opinion that only things AFTER Jesus ' life were created by Him? This verse would imply that ALL things are made and will be made by him.

I think you missed my point, hopefully i clarified it above, but I'll do so again just in case. Jesus existed in spirit form in heaven before creation happened. He was not known by the name Jesus until he took the form of a son of Man. So he was there at the beginning of creation with God as John said. Is this clear to you?

Also, this passage is a statement at the start of the gospel according to John, it is not something that Jesus himself said. Why would you believe the writer's opinion? Shouldn't it come from Jesus himself if you are to believe it?
You won't believe random things that I or Wicknight or Wolfsbane will tell you but you will stake your whole eternity on this random persons statement?

OK. So are you saying that you don't believe the testimonies of the gospel writers? The gospel writers quote Jesus saying that he was sent from the Father, and also refers to himself as the son in the gospels. If you are saying that the gospel is not reliable, then you must go your way and reason your conclusion. If you have been given your reasonings by a muslim, you must unlearn what you've been fed, for you've been given information with the sole purpose of converting you to the faith. This is not a healthy way to reason, and in most cases, your thought is led by the person talking to you. Coming from a catholic backround you are cannon fodder for anyone that has knowledge of your beliefs, as catholicism seems to stupify its people and keep them in ignorance. Actually thats what most religions do. I have experienced it myself, and was taken in by it once upon a time, not with islam, but another religious order. You begin to talk not with your own originality of reasoning, but rely on someone else to spoon-feed you your beliefs. Of course you never realise this has happened until you are free of it, which is why its such a danger.
If you are in the place of questioning your catholic teachings, I implore you not to look upon them as Christian, but rather as Roman Catholic, as most of their doctrine, and history, is far from harmony with Christs teachings. If I may be so bold, as to advise you to shut out those who are filling your head, and start on your own way, with honesty of heart. I started on this journey some months ago, and I feel like a new man. Eyes opened in many ways, but I'm still learning.

and meanders into the tale of John the Baptist. John the Baptist appears to confirm that Jesus is the Son of God. But now lets say what it says that John the Baptist said in Matthew. Please compare the two passages below. Remember that John was not imprisoned until after having baptized Jesus. So the second passage happened after the first.

Matthew 3 - John the Baptist speaking verse 7

11"I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. 12His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire."

The Baptism of Jesus

13Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14But John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?"

15Jesus replied, "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness." Then John consented.

16As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."


Matthew 11

1After Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples, he went on from there to teach and preach in the towns of Galilee.[a]

2When John heard in prison what Christ was doing, he sent his disciples 3to ask him, "Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?"


John doesn't seem to know who Jesus is. So we can't interpret the first passage literally.

Also please notice: In Matthew 3:16, the writer describes the voice as though he heard it himself and so it seems reliable. In John 1:16 the words are included:
32Then John gave this testimony:

So did John hear this but no one else? Or did everyone hear it? Whats going on? Do you see that we can't trust these passages because the accounts are different. Why do you trust that Jesus is Lord of creation or whatever when there are so many passages which contradict this. I know there are verses which appear to support it, but aren't you picking and choosing? Shouldn't something be proven true to you? The evidence against is so mighty..much stronger than the evidence for.

OK, this is a case-in-point. No passages contradict that Jesus was there before creation. Remember, God created....through The Son. The Son existed in spirit form before becoming man. As for the two passages. Here is one explaination. Most of the Jews were expecting the Messiah to deliver them from the Romans. they were expecting The messiah to come in all his glory and deliver them. 3 years Jesus' apostles were with him. day and night. Yet, until they recieved holy spirit after Jesus was risen, they never fully grasped what he was. They saw his wonderful works and signs, yet were still in amazement of him being raised up from the dead. Using your reasonings, (which if its not too offensive, are taken directly from the head of a muslim), The apostles being amazed and in Thomas' case not believing, at Jesus being alive 3 days after being impaled would show the gospel as contradictory, but it doesn't. What it shows, is that there was confusion. John the baptist having witnessed the baptism happenings knew this was the one he was paving the way for. However, he was stuck in his jailors cell, was not seeing the works been done, and the jews were not being delivered from the hand of Rome. So knowing that Jesus was from God, he asked 'was he the one to come or are we to expect another'. He didn't say, 'maybe this guy is not the real deal, he merely wanted clarity that he was The Messiah prophesised and that there was no other to come. If he didn't believe in Jesus, why would he ask him the question? For if he had doubts about him, why would he trust an answer from him. You must look beyond this passage and that passage, and look at everything in context, don't be railroaded into a line of thinking. Just as you said in another thread about picking this scripture, and that scripture to prove an idea you have is wrong. So too, don't take scriptres out of context.


You say that what I said of Adam is unsupported biblically. This is absolutely not the case. God saw his creation 'and it was good'. Adam was created to live forever, for God said that 'if you eat from the tree of good and bad, you will positively die'. It is through this act sin came into the world, and as it says in Romans, 'Death is the wages of sin'. Before this act no sin existed nor death.

Adam was created without sin he caused himself, as every child in the world is born. You have no proof that 'death' is the price of Originial Sin. Where did this notion even come from? There is no mention of an inherited sin either from the mouth of Jesus or from any words quoted from God's speech.
What exactly was the original sin? Adam did what every person does on this earth and will eventually do...make their first mistake.

Medina you are dangerously close to Islam here. You are not speaking your own words, but those that have been spoken to you by a muslim. I am not going to enter into a tug of war for you, only to give my testimony. Don't accept what people say, look at it yourself and don't let yourself even be given a hint as to what it means. Crafty are those who wish to plant thoughts in your head. only you can beat it with your own honesy of heart. Forget what Catholicism told you, and what muslims have told you. Seek accurate knowledge through prayer, and start your quest.

You are underestimating God here. Be careful. God could have created someone at any time who 'had what it took'.You imply that others weren't as strong or something. I thought you think Jesus is divine?
How did Jesus repay the debt? By being flogged and crucified? Some people have suffered even worse deaths than that, do you think all their sins were wiped away by their suffering? Or their fellow mankind's if they had been the chosen one?

I never underestimate God, so never imply that again. First of all, Adam was not like everyone else. He was created without sin and therefore without the burden of death. He did not 'just make a mistake'. He was told not to eat of the tree of good and bad, but completely betrayed that request. So why did he not just start again? Well I'm going to do you a favour Medina. Have a read for yourself, and see if you get the sense of it. You are obviously taking your spirituality very seriously, so I'm not going to give you my sense, but rather let you attain your own, as I am doing. This will take some time, but its worth every moment, as you can expel the whispers of others.

The Devil did not try to tempt Jesus because he was divine.
The Devil was trying to figure out who he was, hence the question and request for proof 'If you are the Son of God'...and in fact Jesus evades the questions, doesn't even give them a clear answer.

Absolutely mis-guided you are. The Devil wast rying to get Jesus to put God to the test, by asking him to throw himself off the cliffedge, thus breaking the commandment, 'You should not put God to the test'. He said pertaining to what was written in the hebrew texts, not a bone will be crushed in him, so he was saying that God would send an angel to catch him. As for conversing with the Devil, he was hardly going to have a chat about the good old days was he!

There are serious flaws in the Bible, the main one being that it contradicts itself in many places. How do you justify the choices from it that you have made? Because you prefer it that way? Because it makes sense to you? How can you be sure its the Truth? I can be sure that if contradicts itself all over the place then it cannot be the Truth. Not all of it anyway, so why would I trust it.

Why trust it? because it holds the testimonies of the life and death and raising up of our Lord and king Jesus Christ. Who's coming was prophesised from Genesis to the end of the hebrew scriptures. does any other book do this? the bible should be looked at as something of an insight into God. Don't read it as rules, regulations or batches of scripture to prove this or that. Read it as a whole to learn of Your heavenly Father, so that you do not have an intellectual knowledge of your creator but rather a genuine Love for him. Once again Medina, if there is one piece of advice to give, it is to go your way and open your heart and mind. Unlearn what you think you know and start again. Don't rush off in the direction someone who seems to have all the answers. Jesus himself said, 'The truth will be spoken from the mouths of babes' not from the scripes and wise men. 1 COR 8.1 We all know that we have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.

Everything I've said has been said for the benefit of you finding truth. I am sharing with you a path I am currently taking as a testimony for you to ponder. I pray you find truth. (and I do genuinely mean that)

Kamelot

Just accidentally saw a few posts here and I couldn't get this: Why are you accusing Medina of this & that, Muslim this, Muslim that, what if she's being honest in her quest for the Truth and what if, just what if God Himself is guiding her?
I'm not sure that that option can be excluded just like that. And who to trust these days? God is usually the only one people can trust.
Afte reading her posts I did get an impression that she's being sincere in finding the Truth and it seems that she took a bit different analysis of the Bible as the vast majority of either Bible scholars or ordinary Christians.

There's still a lot of valid questions unanswered. and it will be very interesting to see how it ends.

JimiTime

Kamelot wrote:

Just accidentally saw a few posts here and I couldn't get this: Why are you accusing Medina of this & that, Muslim this, Muslim that, what if she's being honest in her quest for the Truth and what if, just what if God Himself is guiding her?
I'm not sure that that option can be excluded just like that. And who to trust these days? God is usually the only one people can trust.
Afte reading her posts I did get an impression that she's being sincere in finding the Truth and it seems that she took a bit different analysis of the Bible as the vast majority of either Bible scholars or ordinary Christians.

There's still a lot of valid questions unanswered. and it will be very interesting to see how it ends.

I accuse Medina of nothing. she told me previously that she was between faiths and that Islam was looking attractive. This is why you will see references to Islam. You will also see references to catholocism. I don't rule out that God is guiding her neither, If you take in the jist of my last post, you will see that my advice is not to listen to others, but to find your own sense of it. I have given my testimonies of how I am on a similar journey. It seems that certain things have been 'pointed out' to her, rather than her actually discovering for herself. In my experience this is dangerous ground, as alot of people can 'point out' with an agenda to fulfill. These things will seem to make sense, but you don't realise that they have planted an idea in your head. My advice was simply to look into it yourself, without anyone giving 'their' sense of it, and with Gods guidance and honesty of heart Truth should be found.

Kamelot

JimiTime wrote:

I accuse Medina of nothing. she told me previously that she was between faiths and that Islam was looking attractive. This is why you will see references to Islam. You will also see references to catholocism. I don't rule out that God is guiding her neither, If you take in the jist of my last post, you will see that my advice is not to listen to others, but to find your own sense of it. I have given my testimonies of how I am on a similar journey. It seems that certain things have been 'pointed out' to her, rather than her actually discovering for herself. In my experience this is dangerous ground, as alot of people can 'point out' with an agenda to fulfill. These things will seem to make sense, but you don't realise that they have planted an idea in your head. My advice was simply to look into it yourself, without anyone giving 'their' sense of it, and with Gods guidance and honesty of heart Truth should be found.

I'm sorry JimiTime, but it is obvious from your posts that you suggesting not to talk to Muslims - they might mislead her.

It is also obvious that she has been discovering these things for some time now; if you read her last few posts, you will know what I mean.

I don't think anybody planted anything in her head, you fear of her embracing Islam is so evident. :cool:

I think everybody's entitled to follow what they think and feel is right, don't you?

Medina

Can we keep this thread on track please?

Lets not get into Islam vs. Christianity.

I know myself better than either of you.

Thanks

JimiTime

Kamelot wrote:

I'm sorry JimiTime, but it is obvious from your posts that you suggesting not to talk to Muslims - they might mislead her.

It is also obvious that she has been discovering these things for some time now; if you read her last few posts, you will know what I mean.

I don't think anybody planted anything in her head, you fear of her embracing Islam is so evident. :cool:

I think everybody's entitled to follow what they think and feel is right, don't you?

You are right, i don't think people should be advised by muslims. Nor do I think they should be advised by priests of catholocism. Or ministers of protestantism, or elders of Jehovahs Witnesses, or enagelists of Born Agains. I think if one is honest of heart, they should find things for themselves. I would say the same about embracing things that I've said. I have no fear of anybody embracing anything, for if there is a genuine search for truth that is something to be encouraged. Muslims don't seek truth, Catholics don't seek truth, evangelists don't seek truth, people seek truth. If you are tied to an unshiftable doctrine, i.e. Jesus is god, jesus is not god, or the quaran is the literal 'word of god' and not to be questioned. All of these things impair judgement.
So to be clear, my only concern is that people have planted ideas in her head. This happened to me with a Christian organisation. I didn't notice it was happening at the time, but it was. I thank God that I realised it, and set about putting it right. I hide nothing, I speak openly and honestly, my only agenda is that no-one is influenced negatively. So less of the, 'I'm afraid of someone converting to Islam' comments, for my concern is alot more honest and closer to heart than that. So let that be that, as the previous post said, let the thread get back on track.

Medina

Hi Jimitime
First of all I want to thank you for your sincere reply. I know you didn’t answer everything from my previous posts but as you said yourself, you on your own spiritual journey. I’m not really looking for answers, more for an honest acknowledgement that there are so many contradictions in the Bible. But I suppose one cannot do that until they have at least for themselves tried to find the answers.

Secondly, on the Muslim question.
I think you’re taking it a bit far. Give me some credit here, I’m not a sponge going around just absorbing what everyone tells me. You are right I cannot have anyone ‘spoon-feed’ me, which is why I am studying the Bible myself and all my posts and comments are as a result of my own study. My conscience is killing me at the moment because I don’t know whether I am insulting Jesus or defending him (as I reckon if he is not the Son of God then he is not happy with those claims).
I can tell you one thing I am definitely talking with my ‘own originality of reasoning’.
I have now begun to see my innocent acceptance if Roman Catholicism as a child and teenager as letting myself be ‘spoon-fed’ and now I do feel free of that. Basically what I wanted to be ‘devils advocate’ when reading the bible and let it either prove itself or not to me. At the moment I’m finding very little that makes me agree with the teachings of Roman Catholicism.

A point on Islam - I’m sure you and many others know I have a lot of contact with this religion. Islam like Roman Catholicism cannot just be dismissed. It also has to either prove itself or not to me. I think a lot of your comments Jimitime, while said with good intention and a wish not to see someone ‘brainwashed’ - are a little paranoid and extreme if you don’t mind me giving an honest reaction. I will do my examination of Islam after I finished studying the Bible. That may be in a year, two years, five years …whatever. The thing is that anyone of any religious background can open a person’s eyes to contradiction within the Bible. Of course you cannot just accept it at face value, you must be sure that they speak the truth and investigate such claims yourself. Have you studied Islam? For yourself? How can you judge that a point of view similar to an Islam belief is ‘dangerous’? You say ‘Don’t accept what people say, look at it yourself and don’t let yourself be given a hint as to what it means’. Unfortunately the Bible is proving itself untrustworthy to me, and I look to people such as yourself to provide a point of view which I may not have seen. I have been the dedicated devoted Catholic, and ignorance was bliss. Now I have started reading the Bible and I feel like they really pulled the wool over my eyes. I can’t believe I swallowed some of these things. The thing is I can’t figure out whether the Devil is pulling me astray or God is opening my eyes. Predicament with a capital ‘P’. My heart is telling me that the Bible is not trustworthy.

Also, I’m very sorry for saying that you underestimated God. I cannot know what is deep in your heart.


Now on to what you were saying;

Jimitime wrote:

All things including Adam were created by God through his Son. Jesus was the human manifestation of Gods Son who had been in existence before the creation of the Heavens and the earth.

See Jimitime I’m still not fully understanding what role you give Jesus. You have dismissed the idea of the Trinity or Jesus as God so we agree there for the time being.
To you Jesus is more than a Prophet, he is divine and

Jimitime wrote:

All things including Adam were created by God through his Son

So you’re saying that Jesus was instrumental to God and that he and God together created all things?
I have to admit I’m not a fan of the very ambiguous was both yourself and Roman Catholicism use the word ‘through’.
What does it actually mean ‘were created by God through His Son’?
You do seem to be putting Jesus on an equal platform with God by saying that God made everything ‘through’ Jesus. What was the Son needed for since God could have done it Himself? What role did Jesus have? I don’t understand this ‘through’ and its as unclear to me as RC saying that we are saved ‘through the blood of Jesus Christ’.

Going with your theory that Jesus is the Son then at least you recognise that the Son is a ‘created’ being.

Jimitime wrote:

The only thing created by God not going through the Son, was the Son himself

So God could create without a need for the Son since He created the Son. So why was the Son necessary? God didn’t need the Son.
Hmmm, I can sense someone is going to reply saying the ‘Son was made to save our souls’. But if that is the Truth, then why is the Son created before the world, why was he involved in the creation of the world? It seems to me you have him doing God’s role.

Jimitime wrote:

He was not known by the name Jesus until he took the form of a son of Man

Where does it mention anything that could possibly back this up in the book of Genesis?

I’m not saying your wrong, I just don’t understand it. It doesn’t make sense to me.

Lets move on

Jimitime wrote:

You would say Adam is the Son of God would you not?

.

Well no to be honest I wouldn’t. He was just the first man God created.

Jimitime wrote:

In fact it says in Luke when it gives Jesus’ genealogy.

The genealogies listed are not reliable , as in Matthew and Luke’s the genealogies do not match either in number of generations between Jesus and Abraham or in the actual names given. Another fallacy in the Bible so.

Jimitime wrote:

We are all children of God are we not? So why is Jesus the one and only? Because all creation came by The Father through the Son except the Son himself who was the only being that came directly from The Father

Yes we are all children of God. Again the ‘through the Son’ is vague and ambiguous. Can you explain in greater detail without the mystery what this means and how you arrived at this conclusion?

See to me it appears you are mixing up Father and God. Just because Jesus refers to God as ‘Father’ doesn’t mean he is the Son. You know this so I don’t know where you’re pulling your conclusions from? It appears to me your conclusion hinges on this passage:

John 1
The Word Became Flesh
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it.
6There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.
10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent,[c] nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[d] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
15John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' " 16From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. 17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,[e][f]who is at the Father's side, has made him known.
And here are the footnotes to that:
a. John 1:5 Or darkness, and the darkness has not overcome
b. John 1:9 Or This was the true light that gives light to every man who comes into the world
c. John 1:13 Greek of bloods
d. John 1:14 Or the Only Begotten
e. John 1:18 Or the Only Begotten
f. John 1:18 Some manuscripts but the only (or only begotten) Son

This passage is not referencing any Old Testament prophecies.
The passage does not come from Jesus’ mouth
The passage is written by an unknown author as John the disciple is not the author here.
I ask you why you believe this random statement and you say ;

Jimitime wrote:

Ok. So are you saying that you don’t believe the testimonies of the gospel writers? The gospel writers quote Jesus saying that he was sent from the Father, and also refers to himself as the son in the gospels …Why trust it? Because it holds the testimonies of the life and death and raising up of our Lord and king Jesus Christ.

This is the crucial bit where your theory is either proven or disproven. You believe your theory because of this passage and because you believe and trust in the testimonies of the gospel writers. You maybe just think that the RC church has interpreted and manipulated the information wrongly? Aren’t you yourself not freeing yourself from your preconditioning as a Christian? There are so many flaws , contradictions and also ignored passages in the Bible , and yet you choose to trust it. Why?

Anyway, ok you are right, I have to prove that the testimonies are untrustworthy.
Here are some reasons why I do not believe the testimonies are untrustworthy.
Back to John’s passage for one moment;
- 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
This line on its own would be confusing , how are we to know what the Word actually is?
- 2He was with God in the beginning.Now the Word is given a personification, and a sex. How does the writer know this information?
- 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it.
Again how does the writer know this information? It is the voice of the author here, not Jesus or God.
- 6There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.
I have already shown that though John the Baptist came to testify to the ‘Christ’ -(meaning ‘anointed one’ not Son of God- he proclaimed in John’s Gospel that Jesus was the Son of God-) John the Baptist himself later questioned if Jesus was the Christ. So the two accounts do not match. And John the Baptist had no reason to question Jesus if he already knew he was the Christ. Your reasoning that

Jimitime wrote:

‘he merely wanted clarity…If he didn’t believe in Jesus why would he ask him?

does not add up. The question is, If he did believe in Jesus why would he ask him, especially as he had pronounced his belief already before this in front of the masses according to John’s Gospel.

- 10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.
Again what does this mean ‘the world was made through him’? Your explanation is ‘all creation’, a priest’s explanation might be ‘life after death- that world’, I cannot find an explanation that can be supported from the Bible and therefore it appears to my pure conjecture on the part of the author.

- 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.
What is ‘his own’? His own type?..i.e. human or his own as in a king ruling over his people? Is Jesus the ultimate ruler? Is God’s creation superior to God?

- 12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent,[c] nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God. 14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[d] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
I believe ‘children born of God’ is referring to the soul and rebirth into eternal life. To my mind Jesus is a prophet with a message that has been distorted and that his message is clearly found in the Bible when he speaks himself. Reading the passages around his words, such as the passage above is where most of the conflict arises. The passage is written by an unknown author, whom we cannot verify, and we have no idea whether he really was there, and we have no idea, where he got the kind of information that is written in the passage above.

Other things I find fault /untrustworthy within the Bible are:
- The story of the birth of Jesus - John seems to have a lot of insightful information from an unknown source, but not the basic history of Jesus’ early life. Same applies to Mark. Matthew barely references it only Luke gives an in depth account (again how are we to be sure this is reliable?).
- The Family flight into Egypt- Only recorded in Matthew, Luke gives a different account of what the Family did after the birth.
- Only Matthew refers to massacre by Herod to wipe out all children under 2 in an attempt to kill Jesus early.
- The whole John the Baptist saga, the question he asks bothers me a lot, he wouldn’t have asked this if he really knew, and yet another gospel says he already knew and proclaimed it before being imprisoned.
- The fact that Jesus always refers to himself as the ‘Son of Man’. Never Son of God.
- The varying messing about with the bible particularly language..how ‘begotten not made’ made it into the creed when the word ‘begotten’ is nowhere to be found (in Greek) in the oldest manuscripts.
- The accounts of how the apostles were gathered. They differ in detail.
- The accounts of what happened at the tomb after Jesus had died and placed in it - every gospel is different in who and what was at the tomb and the events around the ‘resurrection’.
- The story of ‘doubting’ Thomas only appears in one Gospel - not all, and it is a particularly important passage.
- The fact that Jesus refers to God separately to himself.
- The fact that we do not know who the authors of the Gospels were, as they are not the original apostles.
- The fact that Jesus refers and implies that he himself is a prophet, but we think he is divine?

All these things are just scratching the surface, I have barely read more than 40 chapters overall of the Bible.
You have not quoted any passage which implies that Adam was created to live forever. Adam was created with the ability to sin. Do you think had he not eaten the apple that he and Eve would have stayed in the garden and procreated? Or do you think God would have created every individual?
And if Adam and Eve procreated, then eventually one of the children in the ancestral line would have sinned, had it not been Adam himself. Remember that God knew what Adam would choose before warning him off the fruit of the tree. God willingly created this man whom he knew would cause death to be a part of life.
Regarding the Hebrew texts prophesising that not a bone would be broken in the body of Jesus, we are taught that that verse referred to the fact that Jesus did not have his legs broken during the Crucifixion, like the two thieves did.
I do think the devil was wondering who Jesus was, and was doing it to find out and probably at the same time tempt him.

ISAW

JimiTime wrote:

You are right, i don't think people should be advised by muslims. Nor do I think they should be advised by priests of catholocism. Or ministers of protestantism, or elders of Jehovahs Witnesses, or enagelists of Born Agains. I think if one is honest of heart, they should find things for themselves.

So if you have a child in school then they shouldnt learn about algebrq from a teacher telling them "look this is what the Greeks did and this is how they came to this conclusion"? They should work out the theorems for themselves and "rediscover" what people may have spent a life time discovering.

I have no problem in people looking at what Jehovas Witnessess say or evangelicals or Born Agains. the question is "Does it stand up"? Indeed many of those questions are asked here.

I also think it is worth looking at the differences between a valid religion a sect and a cult.

Medina

ISAW wrote:

the question is "Does it stand up"? Indeed many of those questions are asked here..

See ISAW what would it take for you to decide something 'stands up'?

Why couldn't you just take that leap of faith you were describing here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=52320588#post52320588

and decide 'I'm going to believe this today?'

Also there's a big difference between algebra and religion.
There's a difference between someone proving something to you and someone giving you ideas with circumstantial evidence