21 Apr 11
Originally posted by menace71No I'm not Manny but I posted that mostly for you to think about and just have a decent responce to one way or the other. Nothing more but I am curious why you didn't respond to it at all?
Dude my thoughts really matter not to you. Your actually mocking me. 🙂
Manny
21 Apr 11
Originally posted by galveston75I said somewhere, maybe not on this thread, that the trinity
Well the problem with a belief in a trinity is that it is not at all Bible based, it was never believed by the early Christians nor the Jews before that and the trinity as has been discussed and shown by ample evidence that it has deep paganistic origins. That is a problem to God as he demands from us to be pure in our worship without any untruths or "le ...[text shortened]... worshipping him with truth.
And acrtually the JW's are not the only monotheistic religion.
doctine is more of a theory than fact. All the information that
is gathered from the Holy Bible about God is put together in
an effort to understand God. I don't think most Christians
believe it is completely accurate in explaining God, but I think
it the best attempt I have seen so far. I just don't like the
JW theory, it does not seem to fit as well with the information
as I understand it.
21 Apr 11
Originally posted by RJHindsI appreciate yout thoughts and your insight as we are always learning about God and th truth that is in the Bible. But I have to ask have you really researched the origins of the trinity beliefs and when it was adopted into Christainity? I think if you did this, if you haven't, and then if you were to really understand how serious God abhores paganistic teachings much less ones that have distorted the truth of him and his son, it might help to see why the trinity isn't a good thing.
I said somewhere, maybe not on this thread, that the trinity
doctine is more of a theory than fact. All the information that
is gathered from the Holy Bible about God is put together in
an effort to understand God. I don't think most Christians
believe it is completely accurate in explaining God, but I think
it the best attempt I have seen so far. I ...[text shortened]... like the
JW theory, it does not seem to fit as well with the information
as I understand it.
You seem like an honest hearted person so use that to find the truth of God. We actually don't have the option to find what might fit into what we want to believe, it has to fit with God.
21 Apr 11
Originally posted by galveston75No, I have not done any research on the origin of the trinity.
I appreciate yout thoughts and your insight as we are always learning about God and th truth that is in the Bible. But I have to ask have you really researched the origins of the trinity beliefs and when it was adopted into Christainity? I think if you did this, if you haven't, and then if you were to really understand how serious God abhores paganistic ...[text shortened]... have the option to find what might fit into what we want to believe, it has to fit with God.
But my understanding is that it came from the Athanasian Creed.
The trinity is a teaching that is a mystery just like the teaching
that the church is the body of Christ. (Eph. 5:32) The Athanasian
Creed does no say anything about a trinity, but it puts forward the
ideas expressed by my understanding of the trinity.
21 Apr 11
Originally posted by RJHindsIf you are interested you should check a few of these out. These are not from the Watchtower Society.
No, I have not done any research on the origin of the trinity.
But my understanding is that it came from the Athanasian Creed.
The trinity is a teaching that is a mystery just like the teaching
that the church is the body of Christ. (Eph. 5:32) The Athanasian
Creed does no say anything about a trinity, but it puts forward the
ideas expressed by my understanding of the trinity.
http://www.prudentialpublishing.info/trinity_doctrine_origins.htm
http://reluctant-messenger.com/Lost-Doctrines-Christianity009.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/greywlf/trinity.html
http://www.truegospelofjesus.org/articles/trinity.html
http://www.truegospelofjesus.org/articles/trinity.html
http://www.christadelphia.org/trinityhistory.htm
There are many, many other sites such as these.
From Wikipedia:
"The earliest known depiction of the Trinity, Dogmatic Sarcophagus, 350 A.D.[31] Vatican Museums."
Just a thought on the above.
Why did the first depiction of the Trinity not appear until 350 AD? If this is something Jesus taught, why did it take so long to happen?
The Bible says at Acts 20:29-30: (New Living Translation)
29 I know that false teachers, like vicious wolves, will come in among you after I leave, not sparing the flock. 30 Even some men from your own group will rise up and distort the truth in order to draw a following.
Could this trinity teaching be one of these distorted truth's? Maybe?
22 Apr 11
Originally posted by galveston75I read the first reference link you gave me to the book,
If you are interested you should check a few of these out. These are not from the Watchtower Society.
http://www.prudentialpublishing.info/trinity_doctrine_origins.htm
http://reluctant-messenger.com/Lost-Doctrines-Christianity009.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/greywlf/trinity.html
http://www.truegospelofjesus.org/articles/trinity.html
htt ...[text shortened]... draw a following.
Could this trinity teaching be one of these distorted truth's? Maybe?
"The Origins of Christianity and the Bible", by Andrew D. Benson.
I am not a fan of the Roman Catholic Church, but I thought Pope
Gregory did the right thing by ordering the destruction of the
pagan idols and keeping the temple buildings so that the Christians
would have a nice place to go worship. After all, I believe the church
was not very wealthy at that time. So rather than burden the members
with the cost of rebuiding perfectly good buildings, it made common
sense to convert them for Christian worship. The trinities the author
references are different from todays Christian idea of the trinity because
these pagans grouped three of their main gods together. The Christian
trinity is one God in three Persons. The idea of the modalists that the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were in reality one person does not fit the
Holy Bible description of God. The statement that Justin Martyr said
that Jesus is a second god, an angel beside the Father is not true.
Although Justin Martyr did say Jesus was called an angel; he explained that
this was because Christ, who wsa actually God, took on the appearance of
an angel in Old Testament times. Justin Martyr taugh that the prehuman
Jesus was God, not an Angel. Did you read the excerpt entitled, "How
Judaism Evolved Into Christianity". Mr. Benson is obvious bias against
Christianity and I would not recommend anyone buy his book. If believed,
it would most likely turn a person against Christianity. I don't think Mr.
Benson is a Christian. How could he be?
22 Apr 11
Originally posted by RJHindsLet me know what you think of the rest when you get a chance. But if you just research the internet or any other sources you'll find a lot of info on it's origin.
I read the first reference link you gave me to the book,
"The Origins of Christianity and the Bible", by Andrew D. Benson.
I am not a fan of the Roman Catholic Church, but I thought Pope
Gregory did the right thing by ordering the destruction of the
pagan idols and keeping the temple buildings so that the Christians
would have a nice place to go worsh ...[text shortened]... a person against Christianity. I don't think Mr.
Benson is a Christian. How could he be?
22 Apr 11
Originally posted by galveston75The wikipedia article is pretty good but it is obvious that the person
Let me know what you think of the rest when you get a chance. But if you just research the internet or any other sources you'll find a lot of info on it's origin.
that made the first depiction of the trinity did not understand the
Christian trinity. No one can depict the Christian trinity anyway
since there would be only Jesus. No one can see the Father and
the Holy Spirit. I understand you are a Jehovah's Witness. The
wikipedia article identify their belief about God as a form of Arianism.
I went to the link and here is basicly what you are suppose to believe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism
22 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75Who knows I get frustrated sometimes is all. I will acknowledge that the word trinity is not in the bible. This however does not negate the 3 natured way of God that He reveals about himself in the bible. This is not something that was just made up on a whim by the way.
No I'm not Manny but I posted that mostly for you to think about and just have a decent responce to one way or the other. Nothing more but I am curious why you didn't respond to it at all?
Jesus said and did things that were the prerogative of God and God alone.
Jesus forgave Sin
Jesus revealed the spirit of the law and showed authority over it.
Jesus raised people from the dead and healed others
Jesus showed authority over the angelic realm casting out demons
Jesus defied natural law like walking on water and calming storms
Jesus knew and could see what men were thinking and knew what was in their hearts
Jesus bore all of the sins for all of mankind for all time and paid that debt.
He rose again because death could not contain Him either.
To say He was an angel or what have you just does not line up or that he was a good teacher.
Manny
22 Apr 11
Originally posted by menace71No problem buddy, I have them too. I'll get back with you tomorrow.
Who knows I get frustrated sometimes is all. I will acknowledge that the word trinity is not in the bible. This however does not negate the 3 natured way of God that He reveals about himself in the bible. This is not something that was just made up on a whim by the way.
Jesus said and did things that were the prerogative of God and God alone.
Jesus f ...[text shortened]... y He was an angel or what have you just does not line up or that he was a good teacher.
Manny
22 Apr 11
Originally posted by RJHindsI'll check it out, thanks.
The wikipedia article is pretty good but it is obvious that the person
that made the first depiction of the trinity did not understand the
Christian trinity. No one can depict the Christian trinity anyway
since there would be only Jesus. No one can see the Father and
the Holy Spirit. I understand you are a Jehovah's Witness. The
wikipedia article id ...[text shortened]... and here is basicly what you are suppose to believe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism
22 Apr 11
Before I go any farther I'd still like a thought on just a few of these question I asked earlier. Thanks...
1) Why no mention of the Holy Spirit being a ruler of anykind and sitting on a throne in heaven as the other two are?
2) There is no mention of a command for us to pray thru anyone or anything else to God except thru God's son Jesus. If the Holy Spirit was a spirit being as Jesus is, why can't we pray thru the Holy Spirit to God also?
3) Jesus himself mentioned that the head of a women is the man. The head of the man is the Christ. The head of the Christ is God. Where does the Holy Spirit fit in here?
4) Jesus mentioned "that his Father is the only true God". Where is the Holy Spirit here? Why did Jesus not mention the Holy Spirit here?
5) Peter mentioned that "Blessed is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ". Where is the Holy Spirit here and why did Peter not mention it?
6) Why is the Holy Spirit never said to be a God in the Bible?
7) Why is one part of God called the "Father", another part called the "Son" but the other part is not given such a description as this?
22 Apr 11
Originally posted by galveston75Jesus said He would ask the Father to send us "another Helper".
Before I go any farther I'd still like a thought on just a few of these question I asked earlier. Thanks...
1) Why no mention of the Holy Spirit being a ruler of anykind and sitting on a throne in heaven as the other two are?
2) There is no mention of a command for us to pray thru anyone or anything else to God except thru God's son Jesus. If the ...[text shortened]... her part called the "Son" but the other part is not given such a description as this?
This "helper" is the "Holy Spirit" believed by Christians to be
the third person in the Godhead revealed to man.
The "Holy Person" must be a person because He has all the characteristics
of a person. But since your Jehovah's Witnesses Organization follow a
form of the old Arian doctrine, they have distorted the Holy Bible by
changing the translation of words as best they could and redefining
terms to fit this doctrine more closely and produced there New World
Translation. All Greek scholars agree that it is not an accurate
translation in many important places when it comes to Jesus and the
Holy Spirit.
And as for your claim that the Holy Spirit is never said to be a God in the Bible;
that is not true. Here is one example in Acts 5:3-4:
But Peter said, "Ananis, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit,
and to keep back some of the price of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why
is it that you have conceived of this deed in your heart? You have not lied to
men, but to God. (NASB)
The Holy Spirit is indeed called "God" in the Holy Bible.
22 Apr 11
Originally posted by RJHindsIs that really what this scripture is saying that the Holy Spirit and God are the same?
Jesus said He would ask the Father to send us "another Helper".
This "helper" is the "Holy Spirit" believed by Christians to be
the third person in the Godhead revealed to man.
The "Holy Person" must be a person because He has all the characteristics
of a person. But since your Jehovah's Witnesses Organization follow a
form of the old Arian doctrine, ...[text shortened]... men, but to God. (NASB)
The Holy Spirit is indeed called "God" in the Holy Bible.
Not really even though God works with or thru his "Spirit" or "Holy Spirit".
Let me ask you a question. Do you believe the scrpture that says "No man may see God and live?"
If you do then you would at least agree with the trinitys view of God in mind that there is at least some part of him we as humans cannot ever see according to scripture. Right? Isn't that what the scripture says in black and white.
Do you also remember in Genesis that it describes God's Spirit going to and fro over the surface of the earth and later that God also had a personal relationship with Adam in the garden and personally communicated with him on a daily basis?
But did Adam ever see God? Not according to scripture and if he had it would have killed Adam according to scripture. Right?
If your still with me on this, God according to scripture cannot show himself to humans because of his brillance and power as it would simply overwhelm us. So in order for God to do anything with humans he has to do something else. He has to use his spirit, power or dynamic energy to communicate, make things happen or affect us in anyway.
If God had shown himself to the humans that were around the time Jesus was baptized, it would have killed everyone within any distance. But the scripture says that "God's Spirit" came down like a dove for all to see.
So the point I'm trying to make is the "Holy Spirit" is no more then "God's Spirit". They are one in the same and it simply God's way of using his force or power to deal with things on the earth.
So since this Holy Spirit or power is what God uses to teach, educate, punish, direct, etc, etc, it has been described as a person and even having a personality as it does reflect God's own personality and can be lied to or abused as the scripture you quoted.
So would it not be fair to say that God's own spirit that he uses is "Holy" in comparison with many other spirit beings who's spirit or force is not holy?
Just think on this for awhile if I may ask............Steve.