The Bible: bunch of 'one liners' or ONE Big Picture?

Imagican · Oct 13, 2015

Job8 said:
What if God the Father told you that His Son is also God? Would you believe Him?
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail. (Hebrew 1, KJV).

I would also like to point out the irony of the scripture quoted above. It starts by indicating that God is calling His Son God. Yet in the third verse it states that Christ HAS 'a God' and then uses the term LORD to define Christ, not God.
So this has always led me to question the validity of the manner in which the scripture is worded. For we ALL KNOW that the Bible was 'translated' and that quite often there are arguments concerning the MANNER in which certain lines have been translated.
To me it seems like God is referring to HIMSELF when it states that His throne and Kingdom will last forever. But I have to agree that it doesn't really make sense in context. It APPEARS from the WAY it is worded that it is indeed referring to Christ as God. But then it doesn't make sense when we continue to read the rest of the scripture that follows. Why call Him God in the beginning and then change the title from God to Lord in the next verses.
But here's the important issue. One MORE important than the meaning of vague and confusing scripture: Not ONE in four Gospels. Not ONE in all the Epistles is Christ recorded as STATING: "I am God". Not ONE is there a reference to three persons making up ONE God.
Yet we DO have information offered that states that there is ONLY ONE God. And the words of Christ Himself STATING that He IS the Son of God, NOT 'God Himself'. Statements offering that His power came FROM God. That He was SENT by God and that the Father: God, is GREATER than the Son. We have instances where Christ is PRAYING to HIS GOD, not Himself. We have statements that God is the GOD OF Christ. But never a statement that God IS Christ or that Christ IS God. Except in vague and confusing scripture like the one you posted.
Blessings,
MEC

Imagican · Oct 13, 2015

What has been revealed to me through scripture and guidance of the Holy Spirit is that God IS the Father and Christ IS 'The Son' of God. The exact nature of the divinity of Christ compared to God has NEVER been revealed to me other than Christ is the Son of God and that God is the Father of Christ. Our God and THE God of Christ as well. It has NEVER been revealed to ME that Christ IS God Himself.
And ALL indications that I have found in the Bible are that the Son came AFTER the Father. the Father; GOD, was FIRST and then came the Son through the workings of the Father. And this would fit with the terms themselves: Father and Son. For a Son proceeds FROM a Father. An entity exists BEFORE a Son that BECOMES a Father at the creation or BIRTH of a Son. And if this is true, then 'trinity' is false. If Christ, the Son of God was a 'created entity'. If there was a 'time BEFORE' the Son, then the very concept of 'trinity' is completely DESTROYED.
Blessings,
MEC

DrBubbaLove · Oct 13, 2015

Imagican said:
And what if God told YOU that YOU are a 'god'? Wouldn't THAT destroy 'trinity' as well? For 'trinity' insists that there are BUT 'three that equal ONE'. So what if there are 'gods MANY'? MORE than three persons that equal ONE God?

Or how about this: what if ALL of God's creation are a PART of God? So instead of merely THREE persons as ONE God, there are BILLIONS upon TRILLIONS of items that make up our ONE God?

And that is the inherent problem with doctrine such as 'trinity'. It eliminates ALL other possibilities and forces one to focus on only ONE. And without any assurance through the BIBLE that it is TRUE. It is an ASSUMED concept taught or perpetuated by those that created it. And with the insistence that it can ONLY be found through divine revelation and even when found in such a manner it cannot be UNDERSTOOD. It STILL remains a 'mystery' even to those to whom it is divinely revealed. That's basically like the LEADERS of the 'church' that created it saying, 'TRUST ME. It's there you just can't SEE IT or UNDERSTAND IT".
I find such BLIND FAITH in the teachings of MEN to be highly suspect. Especially when I have found NO evidence of the concept in the BIBLE.
It is MY firm belief that if Jesus were God, instead of the Son of God, He would have made it PERFECTLY CLEAR by STATING such. He would not have left it up to MEN to GUESS at hundreds of years after His death. And He certainly wouldn't have revealed it to MEN that felt a need to torture and murder in order to institute the IDEA. I don't recall Christ teaching men to torture and murder other men in order to influence a belief in Him. As a matter of FACT, it would seem that anyone that would choose such a path would be forced to follow a DIFFERENT Christ than the one that taught peace and forgiveness to His followers.
So, 'what if'? What if that's exactly what the RCC did? Create a DIFFERENT Christ that they insisted IS God Himself. And were willing to destroy any and everyone that refuted their teachings. And 'what if'? What if ALL the major denominations are nothing other than 'offshoots' of the RCC? It would certainly go a long way in explaining THIS scripture:

Matthew 7. In which we are instructed that there would be those that would INSIST that they were 'good Christians' and point out ALL the wonderful things they did in His 'NAME'. Yet the response of Christ will be that He never even KNEW them. A plain and pure indication that they did NOT ever KNOW Him either. Just USING His name. An obvious reference to men following a FALSE Christ instead of the TRUE Christ. But convincing themselves that just USING His NAME was ENOUGH to KNOW Him.
And what about the event of the Anti Christ? How does one suppose that a WORLD full of TRUE followers is going to be led to worship Satan? Obvious the FALLING away isn't about a LACK of religion, but a teaching of FALSE religion. A falling away from the TRUTH. So that the ONLY way that the world could be convinced to worship Satan AS Christ would be for the world to be taught a DIFFERENT Christ than the TRUE Son of God.
So the vague scripture you quote has no ability to prove 'trinity'. It's simply able to convince YOU that 'trinity' exists. But calling Christ 'God' does NOT define nor defend 'trinity'. If Christ was 'created' then 'trinity' is FALSE. If Christ is NOT EQUAL to God in EVERY way, 'trinity' is FALSE. And the Bible offers PLENTY to show that Christ WAS created and that He is NOT equal to God. While He was empowered by His Father, He was certainly not EQUAL to His Father and STATED such OUTRIGHT. He offered that the Father is GREATER than the Son. That there are things UNKNOWN to the Son that ARE known by the Father. And the mere FACT that the Son was SENT by the Father SHOWS that the Father is GREATER than the Son.
So this FACT in and of itself destroys any possibility of 'trinity' being TRUTH. It is ONLY true in the hearts of those that have come to BELIEVE in it. But according to the Bible, 'trinity' doesn't even exist. At least not according to my interpretation.
Blessings,
MEC

The faith of Christians is never blind and that should not be what any Christian means by "faith" or having faith. Faith is a gift from God, and with it we can then trust in the things He has revealed to mankind about Himself and our reality. Without that gift of faith we would indeed be blind.
And our own reasoning should also tell us it is folly to suggest a finite man should be able to fully comprehend the Infinite, so even the greats philosophers like Plato, himself a pagan, recognized that there would have to be limits to human comprehension of any deity. Beyond those limits we speak of "mystery" but not in the sense of something yet to be discovered or a puzzle to which we have been clues, but rather something unfathomable by human minds. How Three are One Being with One Will and One Mind, yet still Three Persons would fall into area. It is beyond our possible realm of experience and hope to solve - at least in this life. Which is also why all our analogies,(3-leaf Clover, water, circles w/arrows...etc) while useful to represent our limited knowledge, fail to fully or in the detail of the analogy accurately portray the reality of a Trinity. Hope that helps.

DrBubbaLove · Oct 13, 2015

Imagican said:
What has been revealed to me through scripture and guidance of the Holy Spirit is that God IS the Father and Christ IS 'The Son' of God. The exact nature of the divinity of Christ compared to God has NEVER been revealed to me other than Christ is the Son of God and that God is the Father of Christ. Our God and THE God of Christ as well. It has NEVER been revealed to ME that Christ IS God Himself.
And ALL indications that I have found in the Bible are that the Son came AFTER the Father. the Father; GOD, was FIRST and then came the Son through the workings of the Father. And this would fit with the terms themselves: Father and Son. For a Son proceeds FROM a Father. An entity exists BEFORE a Son that BECOMES a Father at the creation or BIRTH of a Son. And if this is true, then 'trinity' is false. If Christ, the Son of God was a 'created entity'. If there was a 'time BEFORE' the Son, then the very concept of 'trinity' is completely DESTROYED.
Blessings,
MEC

So the suggestion is that the Spirit leads some people to one conclusion and we must trust those people's (insert men here) word that having such faith that this conclusion is true is not blind, while simultaneously saying several millennium of people who are equally claiming to be Spirit led and have been led in another direction are actually blindly putting their faith (trusting) in teaching of men. Interesting. So this post is essentially saying we should not trust what the poster(a man) is claiming to be the teachings of those men, but trust him (a man - the poster) that God led him to believe <insert whatever> to be true.

Without asserting a faith that is a gift from God and recognizing such faith should lead all to the Truth and not different positions, I fail to see how taking a position as the one espoused here amounts to anything more than the same false claim the poster is making about everyone else - essentially a blind faith that another poster was just ridiculed for by falsely claiming that they had "blind faith". Again faith is a gift from God, and it is only by that faith that we believe the Truth.

Job8 · Oct 13, 2015

Imagican said:
I would also like to point out the irony of the scripture quoted above.

There is no irony here whatsoever. We should approach this passage as a disclosure of the Mystery of God and the Godhead.

It starts by indicating that God is calling His Son God. Yet in the third verse it states that Christ HAS 'a God' and then uses the term LORD to define Christ, not God.

This is a part of the Mystery of God, that even though Christ is God, He calls the Father "my God", and this could be because God the Father is "the Head" of Christ (the authority over Christ). Also, Jesus is distinguished from the Father by the title "Lord", since the Father has given Christ total dominion over His Kingdom and His universe.

So this has always led me to question the validity of the manner in which the scripture is worded. For we ALL KNOW that the Bible was 'translated' and that quite often there are arguments concerning the MANNER in which certain lines have been translated.

Translation is not a factor, since you can go to an interlinear Greek New Testament and confirm that those are the words used.

To me it seems like God is referring to HIMSELF when it states that His throne and Kingdom will last forever. But I have to agree that it doesn't really make sense in context. It APPEARS from the WAY it is worded that it is indeed referring to Christ as God. But then it doesn't make sense when we continue to read the rest of the scripture that follows. Why call Him God in the beginning and then change the title from God to Lord in the next verses.

There would be many who would deny that Jesus is God (such as th Jehovah's Witnesses). Therefore it was necessary to identify Him as both God and Lord.

But here's the important issue. One MORE important than the meaning of vague and confusing scripture: Not ONE in four Gospels. Not ONE in all the Epistles is Christ recorded as STATING: "I am God". Not ONE is there a reference to three persons making up ONE God.

You are completely mistaken here. I will give you just one example, but you should go back through all the New Testament Scriptures to confirm this. Jesus said publicly "Before Abraham was, I AM". That should have been capitalized in the NT, since I AM is the name of the LORD God Almighty in the OT.

Yet we DO have information offered that states that there is ONLY ONE God. And the words of Christ Himself STATING that He IS the Son of God, NOT 'God Himself'.

Already disproved. See 1 Timothy 3:16 (KJV). To the Jews SON OF GOD = GOD. Scripture tells us that by calling Himself the Son of God, He was deemed to be blaspheming, "because He made Himself equal to God".

Statements offering that His power came FROM God. That He was SENT by God and that the Father: God, is GREATER than the Son. We have instances where Christ is PRAYING to HIS GOD, not Himself. We have statements that God is the GOD OF Christ. But never a statement that God IS Christ or that Christ IS God. Except in vague and confusing scripture like the one you posted.

While on earth as the Messiah, Christ voluntarily set aside His Divine prerogatives, and placed Himself under the Father. Therefore as the GOD-MAN He prayed to the Father and sought to do the will of the Father. Yet He was fully God. That is the Mystery of Godliness. Please note carefully (1 Tim 3:16): And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God [ Greek THEOS] was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. This has been changed in all the other modern versions, but the majority of manuscripts stand behind this reading.

So what does it mean that "God was manifest in the flesh"? It simply means that God the Word (God the Son, Christ) took human form through a supernatural conception in the womb of the virgin Mary. God became a Man, so that He would die as a Man for the sins of the whole world. God cannot die, but the Man Christ Jesus became the Lamb of God which took away the sin of the world.

Imagican · Oct 14, 2015

DrBubbaLove said:
So the suggestion is that the Spirit leads some people to one conclusion and we must trust those people's (insert men here) word that having such faith that this conclusion is true is not blind, while simultaneously saying several millennium of people who are equally claiming to be Spirit led and have been led in another direction are actually blindly putting their faith (trusting) in teaching of men. Interesting. So this post is essentially saying we should not trust what the poster(a man) is claiming to be the teachings of those men, but trust him (a man - the poster) that God led him to believe <insert whatever> to be true.

Without asserting a faith that is a gift from God and recognizing such faith should lead all to the Truth and not different positions, I fail to see how taking a position as the one espoused here amounts to anything more than the same false claim the poster is making about everyone else - essentially a blind faith that another poster was just ridiculed for by falsely claiming that they had "blind faith". Again faith is a gift from God, and it is only by that faith that we believe the Truth.

Nope. Let's start with this: it is MY opinion that there are MORE than ONE 'spirit'. So the idea that THE Spirit is able to lead different groups of people to DIFFERENT conclusions is ludicrous. That is, IF the ONE true Spirit leads individuals ONLY to TRUTH.
But it IS possible that there are and have been OTHER 'spirits'. And it would be THESE that have lead to DIFFERENT 'truths' to different people.
And it is not ME that I propose ANYONE follow. It is the Bible: God's Word that I would offer instead. Not the Bible as interpreted by MEN, but the Bible as one is led to understand by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But one must make SURE that they are being led by the PROPER 'spirit'. For there are many 'spirits' that are vying for the opportunity to lead men in THEIR direction instead of the truth.
It's pretty clear to me that the 'spirit' that guided those who created 'trinity' were NOT the Holy Spirit or the Spirit of Christ. For Christ would surely NOT have influenced these MEN to torture and murder those who refused to accept and follow THEIR teachings. For Christ taught forgiveness of one's own enemies. Surely torture and murder are NOT forms of forgiveness in ANYONE'S minds????
So that fact that there may have been millions or BILLIONS of people that have BELIEVED they were following in truth. Such numbers mean NOTHING in reality. For the TRUTH is that the majority of humans have continually chosen SELF over God or anything else in their lives since the beginning of time. So attempting to use numbers to indicate TRUTH is like trying to use maps to indicate the 'proper path'.
I am not here to destroy TRUE faith. But I'm also not here to promote man made RELIGIONS either. For the hearts of men are evil continually. And they more often would choose to make merchandise of their neighbor than share anything of consequence.
The concept of 'trinity' was created and instituted by the RCC. And their record speaks for itself. I shouldn't even have a need to point out their short comings. For they are obvious to anyone that does even a cursory study of this institution of MEN.
And it is THEIR assertion that one can ONLY find 'trinity' through divine revelation. I have received NO such divine revelation. In fact, if there has been ANY influence offered to me it is that 'trinity' does not exist except in the minds of those that choose to accept it. If it were even remotely accurate, it would have been offered by the apostles or Christ Himself. It wouldn't have taken MEN hundreds of years AFTER the death of Christ to 'find it' or 'create it'.
Since the beginning of God's introduction to mankind, He introduced Himself as ONE. No OTHER 'gods' beside Himself. Yet we KNOW that Christ now sits at the right hand of God. This alone proves that Christ is NOT God. For NO OTHER 'gods' exist BESIDE God. God IS 'The Father of Christ and the Father of man. God is THE God OF Christ as well as our God. This is what we are offered in the Bible. These are simple facts that the Bible states without confusion. In each of the epistles written by Paul, he offers recognition to GOD our Father and Christ our Lord. WHY? Why didn't Paul acknowledge that Christ WAS/IS God? Instead He offers that they are separate: God is the Father, Christ is the Son, our Lord. Pretty confusing if 'trinity' were to be TRUTH. Yet the obviousness is that the Bible REFUTES the concept. It does not defend nor define it.
So, NO. I encourage NO ONE to follow ME or what I believe. I simply point out the OBVIOUS. If one wants to find the TRUTH, I would suggest following the WORD of God as offered in the Bible and trust the Holy Spirit to guide them in TRUTH. And if men teach ANYTHING that is contradictory to the Word of God, refuse to even acknowledge it, much less, follow it.
Blessings,
MEC

Imagican · Oct 14, 2015

Job8 said:
There is no irony here whatsoever. We should approach this passage as a disclosure of the Mystery of God and the Godhead.

Really? According to WHO or WHAT? You? I'll pass. I don't believe that there would be words offered if they were meant to be a MYSTERY. Why even MENTION something that is incapable of being understood. That would be utter foolishness. And I do not believe God to be a fool.

This is a part of the Mystery of God, that even though Christ is God, He calls the Father "my God", and this could be because God the Father is "the Head" of Christ (the authority over Christ). Also, Jesus is distinguished from the Father by the title "Lord", since the Father has given Christ total dominion over His Kingdom and His universe.

Makes absolutely NO sense that God the Son would be praying to God the Father. If He was GOD, He would have NO reason to pray to ANYONE or ANYTHING. If He were God Himself He wouldn't need to ASK for anything either.

Translation is not a factor, since you can go to an interlinear Greek New Testament and confirm that those are the words used.

We have NO direct copies of the original manuscripts so we can NOT be assured of anything involving translation. We are forced to rely upon the Holy Spirit to GUIDE us in conviction.

There would be many who would deny that Jesus is God (such as th Jehovah's Witnesses). Therefore it was necessary to identify Him as both God and Lord.

Have been and still are. And WHY do you suppose that ANYONE would deny Christ was/is God if there were not information that indicates such? Why would ANYONE deny Christ being God Himself if there were ANY evidence it were so? I have YET to meet those of ANY denomination that are MORE devoted to God and Christ than the JWs. NO, I am NOT a JW. But I have spoken to them and they have been to my door spreading the 'good news'.

You are completely mistaken here. I will give you just one example, but you should go back through all the New Testament Scriptures to confirm this. Jesus said publicly "Before Abraham was, I AM". That should have been capitalized in the NT, since I AM is the name of the LORD God Almighty in the OT.

Funny that YOU believe that YOU KNOW better than those that translated the Bible. If it was SUPPOSE to be capitalized why do you believe that it's NOT? It was translated by 'trinitarians'. If they believed that it was an indication of Christ claiming to be the SAME 'I Am', it is without doubt that they WOULD have capitalized it. Yet they didn't. But YOU believe they should have. Hmmmmm..............

And let me offer this: I am a FIRM believer that 'before Abraham', Christ existed. I am a firm believer that Christ was instrumental in the very 'creation' of life on this planet.

Already disproved. See 1 Timothy 3:16 (KJV). To the Jews SON OF GOD = GOD. Scripture tells us that by calling Himself the Son of God, He was deemed to be blaspheming, "because He made Himself equal to God".

Nope. Don't agree. The Jews FALSELY accused Christ of making Himself EQUAL with God. But Christ make it perfectly clear that He is NOT equal to God. He STATED that the Father, (God), is GREATER than the Son. He stated that His power CAME from God. That the words he offered were GIVEN Him by God. And He asked while suffering upon the cross, "My God, my God, why hath THOU forsaken ME?" A pure indication that not only was Christ NOT God, there was a TIME when Christ was 'in the flesh' that the very 'Spirit of God' abandoned Him. A time when He was ONLY the Son and the Son ALONE.

While on earth as the Messiah, Christ voluntarily set aside His Divine prerogatives, and placed Himself under the Father. Therefore as the GOD-MAN He prayed to the Father and sought to do the will of the Father. Yet He was fully God. That is the Mystery of Godliness. Please note carefully (1 Tim 3:16): And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God [ Greek THEOS] was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. This has been changed in all the other modern versions, but the majority of manuscripts stand behind this reading.

First, ALL indications offered throughout the ENTIRE Bible indicate that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the flesh to SEE God and LIVE. So it's ludicrous to believe that God can TAKE ON the 'flesh'. If it is impossible for the flesh to even SEE God and live, then the obviousness is that for God to enter the flesh of a man would surely destroy him.

But there is the Spirit of God that is certainly able to effect or affect men. And it was that SAME Spirit that lit upon Christ upon His Baptism. Well, at least that is what the Bible SAYS. If Christ TRULY existed in the flesh, then He could NOT have been GOD Himself. Certainly if the flesh cannot even LOOK upon God without being destroyed, it cannot CONTAIN God Himself.

So what does it mean that "God was manifest in the flesh"? It simply means that God the Word (God the Son, Christ) took human form through a supernatural conception in the womb of the virgin Mary. God became a Man, so that He would die as a Man for the sins of the whole world. God cannot die, but the Man Christ Jesus became the Lamb of God which took away the sin of the world.

Read above. If NO MAN can EVER SEE God and LIVE, the obviousness is that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for the FLESH to contain God. Impossible for Christ to BE God in the flesh.

Blessings,
MEC

Imagican · Oct 14, 2015

Isn't it ironic? The majority of present day denominations accept practically NOTHING offered by the Catholic Church. No infant Baptism. No denial of clergy being married. No Eucharist. No calling clergy 'father'. No 'works' based salvation. Just about all that the Catholics hold dear in their faith, the other major denominations take no part in. Except 'trinity'. Recognition of all the 'things' that the Catholics believe that are contrary to the Bible, except 'trinity'. Isn't that ironic? For surely, no one would argue that 'trinity' is an RCC invention. Never taught by the apostles, never taught or even mentioned by Christ Himself. An obvious invention of men, yet embraced by almost every major denomination. WHY? Why would most of what the Catholic Church teaches be DENIED by the other major denominations yet 'trinity' be wholly accepted?
Jesus has told us WHO and WHAT He is: The Son of the living God. He has told us that the Father is greater than the Son. We are told that He now sits at the right hand of God. All indications are that He was 'created by God'. For a SON to exist, he is a result of conception. That means that a son comes FROM a father. The very terms father and son are indicative of one coming FROM the other. That means that ONE entity precedes the other. A father becomes a father when a son is created. 'Firstborn of every creature'. "The BEGINNING of the creation of God". These lines of scripture have a MEANING. They were not offered by chance or to cause confusion. They were offered so that we can KNOW the TRUTH.
Yet look how many refuse to accept such simple scripture because of a 'man made concept': 'trinity'. And look at ALL the scripture that 'trinity' makes impossible to accept or understand in a convoluted manner. No 'created Son'. No understanding of Father and Son. No proper understanding of the Son praying to His Father. And no TRUE understanding of the actual sacrifice. God SENT His OWN and ONLY Son to die for our sins. God did NOT die for our sins. He SENT His OWN Son to do so. But 'trinity' destroys the possibility of actually understanding the GIFT that has been offered. For to believe that it was GOD that died upon the cross is not only ludicrous, (God cannot DIE or He is NOT immortal), but takes away the importance of the gift that God offered.
So how is it that the denominations ignore or even ridicule most of the beliefs of the Catholics, but embrace 'trinity'? Even against everything offered in the Bible that refutes it? And I could spend DAYS quoting scripture that outright REFUTES the possibility of 'trinity'.
Blessings,
MEC

DrBubbaLove · Oct 15, 2015

Imagican said:
Nope. Let's start with this: it is MY opinion that there are MORE than ONE 'spirit'. So the idea that THE Spirit is able to lead different groups of people to DIFFERENT conclusions is ludicrous. That is, IF the ONE true Spirit leads individuals ONLY to TRUTH.
But it IS possible that there are and have been OTHER 'spirits'. And it would be THESE that have lead to DIFFERENT 'truths' to different people.
And it is not ME that I propose ANYONE follow. It is the Bible: God's Word that I would offer instead. Not the Bible as interpreted by MEN, but the Bible as one is led to understand by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But one must make SURE that they are being led by the PROPER 'spirit'. For there are many 'spirits' that are vying for the opportunity to lead men in THEIR direction instead of the truth.
It's pretty clear to me that the 'spirit' that guided those who created 'trinity' were NOT the Holy Spirit or the Spirit of Christ. For Christ would surely NOT have influenced these MEN to torture and murder those who refused to accept and follow THEIR teachings. For Christ taught forgiveness of one's own enemies. Surely torture and murder are NOT forms of forgiveness in ANYONE'S minds????
So that fact that there may have been millions or BILLIONS of people that have BELIEVED they were following in truth. Such numbers mean NOTHING in reality. For the TRUTH is that the majority of humans have continually chosen SELF over God or anything else in their lives since the beginning of time. So attempting to use numbers to indicate TRUTH is like trying to use maps to indicate the 'proper path'.
I am not here to destroy TRUE faith. But I'm also not here to promote man made RELIGIONS either. For the hearts of men are evil continually. And they more often would choose to make merchandise of their neighbor than share anything of consequence.
The concept of 'trinity' was created and instituted by the RCC. And their record speaks for itself. I shouldn't even have a need to point out their short comings. For they are obvious to anyone that does even a cursory study of this institution of MEN.
And it is THEIR assertion that one can ONLY find 'trinity' through divine revelation. I have received NO such divine revelation. In fact, if there has been ANY influence offered to me it is that 'trinity' does not exist except in the minds of those that choose to accept it. If it were even remotely accurate, it would have been offered by the apostles or Christ Himself. It wouldn't have taken MEN hundreds of years AFTER the death of Christ to 'find it' or 'create it'.
Since the beginning of God's introduction to mankind, He introduced Himself as ONE. No OTHER 'gods' beside Himself. Yet we KNOW that Christ now sits at the right hand of God. This alone proves that Christ is NOT God. For NO OTHER 'gods' exist BESIDE God. God IS 'The Father of Christ and the Father of man. God is THE God OF Christ as well as our God. This is what we are offered in the Bible. These are simple facts that the Bible states without confusion. In each of the epistles written by Paul, he offers recognition to GOD our Father and Christ our Lord. WHY? Why didn't Paul acknowledge that Christ WAS/IS God? Instead He offers that they are separate: God is the Father, Christ is the Son, our Lord. Pretty confusing if 'trinity' were to be TRUTH. Yet the obviousness is that the Bible REFUTES the concept. It does not defend nor define it.
So, NO. I encourage NO ONE to follow ME or what I believe. I simply point out the OBVIOUS. If one wants to find the TRUTH, I would suggest following the WORD of God as offered in the Bible and trust the Holy Spirit to guide them in TRUTH. And if men teach ANYTHING that is contradictory to the Word of God, refuse to even acknowledge it, much less, follow it.
Blessings,
MEC

Uhhhhh - for answers to a small part of this rant - see definition of protest. As much of this rant displays a great ignorance of Catholicism in general, a lot of the alleged rejections are overstated, or misrepresented and/or intentionally distorted. Obviously that someone would feel the need to do so represents a "teaching of a man" itself - which according to same poster and if we actually believed another false claim made, we could write off as that person's heart being continuously evil I suppose.

For the defense of every portion of the Trinity Doctrine see what the Apostles themselves wrote about in Scripture and what those who followed them wrote about it, as well as the extensive recorded history persevered by the Church for us of debates about various parts of it and the defenses against those rejecting or promoting alternative notions (both heresy). Those teachings and that history of defense of it are guided by the Holy Spirit. So unless one is going to claim the Holy Spirit is a man baby, suggest this be dialed back a bit.

DrBubbaLove · Oct 15, 2015

Imagican said:
Nope. Let's start with this: it is MY opinion that there are MORE than ONE 'spirit'. So the idea that THE Spirit is able to lead different groups of people to DIFFERENT conclusions is ludicrous. That is, IF the ONE true Spirit leads individuals ONLY to TRUTH.
But it IS possible that there are and have been OTHER 'spirits'. And it would be THESE that have lead to DIFFERENT 'truths' to different people.
And it is not ME that I propose ANYONE follow. It is the Bible: God's Word that I would offer instead. Not the Bible as interpreted by MEN, but the Bible as one is led to understand by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But one must make SURE that they are being led by the PROPER 'spirit'. For there are many 'spirits' that are vying for the opportunity to lead men in THEIR direction instead of the truth.
It's pretty clear to me that the 'spirit' that guided those who created 'trinity' were NOT the Holy Spirit or the Spirit of Christ. For Christ would surely NOT have influenced these MEN to torture and murder those who refused to accept and follow THEIR teachings. For Christ taught forgiveness of one's own enemies. Surely torture and murder are NOT forms of forgiveness in ANYONE'S minds????
So that fact that there may have been millions or BILLIONS of people that have BELIEVED they were following in truth. Such numbers mean NOTHING in reality. For the TRUTH is that the majority of humans have continually chosen SELF over God or anything else in their lives since the beginning of time. So attempting to use numbers to indicate TRUTH is like trying to use maps to indicate the 'proper path'.
I am not here to destroy TRUE faith. But I'm also not here to promote man made RELIGIONS either. For the hearts of men are evil continually. And they more often would choose to make merchandise of their neighbor than share anything of consequence.
The concept of 'trinity' was created and instituted by the RCC. And their record speaks for itself. I shouldn't even have a need to point out their short comings. For they are obvious to anyone that does even a cursory study of this institution of MEN.
And it is THEIR assertion that one can ONLY find 'trinity' through divine revelation. I have received NO such divine revelation. In fact, if there has been ANY influence offered to me it is that 'trinity' does not exist except in the minds of those that choose to accept it. If it were even remotely accurate, it would have been offered by the apostles or Christ Himself. It wouldn't have taken MEN hundreds of years AFTER the death of Christ to 'find it' or 'create it'.
Since the beginning of God's introduction to mankind, He introduced Himself as ONE. No OTHER 'gods' beside Himself. Yet we KNOW that Christ now sits at the right hand of God. This alone proves that Christ is NOT God. For NO OTHER 'gods' exist BESIDE God. God IS 'The Father of Christ and the Father of man. God is THE God OF Christ as well as our God. This is what we are offered in the Bible. These are simple facts that the Bible states without confusion. In each of the epistles written by Paul, he offers recognition to GOD our Father and Christ our Lord. WHY? Why didn't Paul acknowledge that Christ WAS/IS God? Instead He offers that they are separate: God is the Father, Christ is the Son, our Lord. Pretty confusing if 'trinity' were to be TRUTH. Yet the obviousness is that the Bible REFUTES the concept. It does not defend nor define it.
So, NO. I encourage NO ONE to follow ME or what I believe. I simply point out the OBVIOUS. If one wants to find the TRUTH, I would suggest following the WORD of God as offered in the Bible and trust the Holy Spirit to guide them in TRUTH. And if men teach ANYTHING that is contradictory to the Word of God, refuse to even acknowledge it, much less, follow it.
Blessings,
MEC

Since true faith comes not from within us but is a gift from God and is required to believe what He has revealed to mankind, I do not see how telling people to just have a "blind faith" that the Holy Spirit will guide them is helpful. Our faith as Christians is not blind and the acceptance as true of what is revealed to us to all (truth is truth) is directly proportional to the degree to which we receive that Gift of Faith from God, which is the meaning behind "help Thou my unbelief" said to the only One Who can give us more Faith. So some have more and others less, but all are Christian.

What is not true and NEVER has been is that a person should be able to just pick up a Bible with a "blind faith" that the Holy Ghost will guide them to an understanding of what should be believed as true. The Bible itself refutes that this is so and also never purports to be anything like a complete guide to being human. So no, what is claimed in the above reply is not just NOT OBVIOUS it is not true.

If the above quoted reply does not represent a person claiming to have a Spirit led truth that contradicts a position also held as a Spirit led truth, then am unclear why it was stated the way it was there or as done previously. Just because someone claims their view is Spirit led cannot mean it is necessarily anymore true than those Christians opposed to the expressed view who would undoubtedly make the same claim. One cannot walk such a claim back and suggest the Spirit certainly led one to the position expressed but may not lead others there. That suggests a duplicity on the part of the Spirit that neither side should accept.

For that matter if it were indeed true (and the claim is ridiculous) that the meaning of "the hearts of men are continually evil" means we can never trust what any man says - then why should anyone believe what any poster writes here is not a lie?

The very definition of heresy describes holding to a belief that is destructive to Christian faith, so am unclear how anyone could view promotion of a heresy (besides being a wanton disregard of the house rules here in these forums- which is also telling in itself regarding the spirit of such posts), as promoting Christian faith or promoting Truth.

Search

Search

The Bible: bunch of 'one liners' or ONE Big Picture?

Imagican

old dude

More options

Imagican

old dude

More options

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist

More options

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist

More options

Job8

Senior Member

More options

Imagican

old dude

More options

Imagican

old dude

More options

Imagican

old dude

More options

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist

More options

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist

More options

Similar threads