A simple question with a simple answer.

[Imagican]

Let me offer this:

God once wanted to know if a man TRULY loved Him. So in order to PROVE his love, God commanded the man to sacrifice his SON. And the man went through all the motions pertaining to offering the PROOF God required up to the point of actually KILLING his SON. He was stopped at the very last moment. But that was enough, the man's WILLINGNESS to sacrifice his SON for the sake of his love for God to PROVE it.

Now, if God TRULY loves us, could He have offered ANY LESS? And what would be HARDER: to sacrifice ONESELF or one's SON? Which would show MORE love?

It is MY opinion that it would be EASIER for ME to sacrifice MYSELF than my SON. And it is my FIRM belief that this would be true for MOST men. And it is my FIRM belief that is no DIFFERENT with God. The problem with sacrificing HIMSELF is that God CANNOT DIE if He is immortal. Regardless of what one WANTS to believe, the FACT IS: something IMMORTAL cannot DIE or it is NOT immortal. PERIOD.

And the PROOF of my offering are the very words of Christ upon the CROSS: "My God, my God, why hath THOU FORSAKEN ME?". It couldn't be any CLEARLY that the MAN that was hanging on the cross was NOT GOD. That God had to utterly ABANDON His Son in order for His Son to 'take on' the 'sins of this world'. For God is NOT going to allow HIMSELF to be tainted with SIN. But His SON did so WILLINGLY. Innocently TOOK ON sin and DIED for it so that we don't have to face such a death.

When Christ was in the garden PRAYING that this burden be 'taken from Him', He was PRAYING to God, His Father. It was NOT GOD 'praying in the garden'. The idea is LUDICROUS. God did NOT 'send Himself' in the flesh. He sent HIS SON in the flesh.

And these aren't things that need GUESSWORK or 'mysteries created by men' to understand. They are offered as CLEARLY as they could be.

When Jesus Prayed, He didn't pray to ONE of the persons of God, He prayed directly to God. And if one reads MORE than the FIRST chapter of John, they can CLEARLY see Christ offering that the Father: GOD, is greater than the SON. That what the 'SON' offered was NOT HIS OWN. That ALL the power pertaining to the Son was GIVEN Him by GOD: His Father.

Why do you suppose that in the beginning of almost EVERY epistle it is offered that:

Ephesians 1

Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus: Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ

These words couldn't be offered MORE specifically. The God AND Father OF 'our Lord Jesus Christ.

From God OUR FATHER, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

No 'rocket science' needed to understand these words. And then couple these words with the words of Christ Himself: "I am the Son of God". It then becomes apparent that 'trinity' hold NO water in TRUTH.

Then move on to words offered such as "firstborn of EVERY creature" and 'the beginning of the creation of God' and we can SEE that 'trinity' has been nothing other than an attempt to create a 'god' out of Christ.

And how about this one:

Revelation 3:

12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

Now, how CRAZY would Christ be to talk about HIS God is HE WAS God??????? He doesn't say: 'my Father', it STATES: "MY God". Could it be offered any clearer?

So, if 'trinity' is NOT a mystery, and you understand it PERFECTLY, then explain how CHRIST has A GOD if He IS God. Tell us SIMPLY, how God HAS 'a God'.

Yet the Bible tells us that Christ now SITS at the right hand of God. And it also tells us that God has STATED that He is THE ONE AND ONLY 'true God'. NO OTHER Gods BESIDE Him. Yet Christ NOW SITS at His Right Hand.................

i find it to be utterly confusing how someone can READ the Bible and then ACCEPT 'trinity' without continually scratching their heads in UTTER CONFUSION. For the Bible offers MUCH that is utterly contradictory to 'trinity'. And we are WARNED through the Bible that there WOULD COME those that would alter the SIMPLICITY that IS Christ Jesus into something utterly confusing. Something CONTRARY to the TRUTH. And it would appear that it only took about four hundred years for this prophecy to manifest itself.

the SAME group of people that created 'trinity' are also the same that have FORBID 'priest to wed'. Call MEN 'father'. Bow to a MAN. Bow to statues and pray. Forbid the 'cup', charge the congregation to PRAY for them and the list goes on and on and on........... For over a thousand years they beat and tortured people into false confessions and then BURNED them alive. Sent soldiers to other countries to STEAL their gold. Forced other people through conquest to either accept THEIR God or be WORKED TO DEATH in silver and gold mines. Like I said, the list goes ON and ON and ON.................. And ALL these 'things' that are UTTERLY contrary to the message of God's Son they did in the "NAME" of their 'created Christ'. Their 'trinity'.

Now explain HOW one tortures and murders people in the NAME of the TRUE Christ? That's NOT possible. God wouldn't allow it nor would His Son if He has ANY power. So the ONLY way this is possible is if they were doing these things in the NAME of a "FALSE Christ".

Look, it is offered SO SIMPLY that a child can understand it: It isn't a matter of what you SAY that proves what you TRULY believe, it's a matter of what you DO. And we are TOLD to judge those that would speak of God or Christ BY THEIR FRUIT. For it is THROUGH their FRUIT that they PROVE themselves REGARDLESS of what they may SAY. And I would say that we have a pretty GOOD RECORD of the 'fruit' of those that created 'trinity'. And the entire time that they were torturing and murdering their opposition, they were DOING so in the NAME of Christ. Isn't it OBVIOUS that this is NOT possible? That it is IMPOSSIBLE to be a FOLLOWER of Christ WITHOUT following? And isn't it JUST as obvious that the means and methods practiced by those that 'created trinity' are utterly contrary to Christ Himself? For Christ's message was FORGIVENESS. How does one propose to be a follower of 'forgiveness' while they are torturing and murdering people?

I'm still waiting for you to repeat the question you say I haven't answered.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

I've got a question:

Who built the Pyramids?

The reason that I ask is to clearly show how easy it is to make an offering in understanding that goes BEYOND mere WORDS.

Most would offer that whoever was the LEADER of that nation at the time built the Pyramids. But in TRUTH, the workers actually DID the labor. So it is possible to say BOTH: Their Pharaoh built the Pyramids and the WORKERS built the Pyramids. Either statement is TRUE.

And it is JUST as possible to say that God is responsible for ALL creation or that His Son was responsible for creation. If 'creation' took place by the POWER of God THROUGH His Son, then they could BOTH be attributed 'creation' in the same manner I have previously explained.

Who saved Egypt from the seven years of famine? Pharaoh did. But so did Joseph. For it was THROUGH the POWER of Pharaoh placed in the HANDS of Joseph that they were spared starvation.

The Bible tells us that God is SPIRIT. PERIOD. NEVER are we offered any other description of His NATURE. He IS Spirit. And we MUST worship God in TRUTH and SPIRIT.

Yet Christ is NOT offered in that manner. As a matter of FACT, Christ is mentioned as the FIRSTBORN of EVERY 'creature'. The beginning of the creation of God. These words indicating that Christ's very NATURE was somehow DIFFERENT than God Himself. The "only begotten Son" is certainly offering a DIFFERENT nature than God Himself. Regardless of the RCC's attempt to alter the word 'begotten', what the Bible offers is pretty CLEAR. The word used in reference to Christ is NO DIFFERENT in it's offering in reference to Christ than ANY OTHER USE of it throughout the ENTIRE Bible.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I guess one could rationalize however one desires, but God clearly says no greater love than to give one's own life for another. Whether one thinks it easier to do that than send someone else is beside the point, I doubt either task is "easy". Whether it is easy or not was not the question. The question was which shows greater love.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Also to speak properly of what is crazy or not one cannot confound the teaching by being selective on which point to emphasize. Since in context, the Man Jesus is understood to be BOTH God and a real (read whole) man and has both a human will and (being God) the One Will - it would be proper for any man to speak to God in the manner in which He did. Not only proper for Him to do so, but setting an example for ALL mankind on how we are to relate to God. Nothing "crazy" about that at all.

 

[Imagican]

I guess one could rationalize however one desires, but God clearly says no greater love than to give one's own life for another. Whether one thinks it easier to do that than send someone else is beside the point, I doubt either task is "easy". Whether it is easy or not was not the question. The question was which shows greater love.

That is how YOU see it. I thought it was Christ, the Son of God that made this statement.

But I'll ask YOU directly. Which do YOU think shows more LOVE? Offering YOUR life for that of another? Or offering the life of your ONLY son for the sake of another?

GOD didn't require Abraham to sacrifice HIS OWN life in order to prove his love for God. He required Abraham to sacrifice the life of HIS SON.

If this is the ULTIMATE manner for one to PROVE their love for another, could God have offered ANY LESS?

The ONLY difference is that God spared the life of Abraham's son, yet was willing to ALLOW His ONLY Son to DIE.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

Also to speak properly of what is crazy or not one cannot confound the teaching by being selective on which point to emphasize. Since in context, the Man Jesus is understood to be BOTH God and a real (read whole) man and has both a human will and (being God) the One Will - it would be proper for any man to speak to God in the manner in which He did. Not only proper for Him to do so, but setting an example for ALL mankind on how we are to relate to God. Nothing "crazy" about that at all.

And that supposition forces one to talk around and around and around in circles that never actually ANSWERS anything.

Christ OPENLY stated that NOTHING He did was for HIS glory but for the GLORY of God. Hmmmm.............From YOUR perspective we have GOD saying that He did nothing for His own glory but for the glory of God??????

But then we can create that 'circle' to talk around by saying, "Oh, but at THAT moment He was not GOD. At THAT moment He was merely a MAN". If Christ was FULLY God/FULLY man, then He would have been FULLY GOD at ALL times and FULLY MAN at ALL TIMES.

What this concept means is: When one that believes in 'trinity' can't offer a reasonable answer, then resort to "Jesus Christ, PARTIALLY God/PARTIALLY man". And to me, that is about as inane as trying to believe that God died on the cross.

One simple answer can fulfill this question: "Has ANY MAN EVER SEEN GOD?" A simple answer to THIS simple question is all it takes to come to an understanding of WHO Christ was/IS. But it does take an HONEST answer. An answer NOT of one's OWN design, but an answer that we ARE offered DIRECTLY through scripture.

And once we COME to the proper answer to that question, then we can SEE what Christ MEANT when He stated that those that had seen HIM had SEEN the Father. It obviously doesn't MEAN that Christ was/IS 'The Father'. For 'trinity' doesn't even teach THAT. "Trinity" teaches that Father, Son and Spirit are THREE individual persons that make up ONE God. So Christ the Son is NOT 'the Father' even according to 'trinity'.

So, If Jesus Christ is NOT the Father, then when He stated that those that had seen Him had SEEN the Father, these words obviously mean something DIFFERENT than to be taken in a LITERAL fashion.

What it means is: those that had WITNESSED the ACTS of Christ. Those that had witnessed the words of Christ. These had SEEN that they were offered BY the Father, (God), THROUGH Christ. That Christ was a DIRECT representative OF the Father, (God).

Kind of like saying, "Those that have SEEN me have SEEN LOVE". You can't SEE Love. Just like NO man has EVER seen God. But what love IS can be 'seen' through the EXAMPLES given. By witnessing that which REPRESENTS love, one can then be said to have 'seen' it.

A man can neither LOOK honest nor LOOK like TRUTH, but through his ACTIONS we can surely SEE these attributes or the lack thereof.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[DrBubbaLove]

That is how YOU see it. I thought it was Christ, the Son of God that made this statement.

Why it is important to understand context -yes, He is God, in the Person we call Son of God, the Person Who became Man - who said that.

But I'll ask YOU directly. Which do YOU think shows more LOVE? Offering YOUR life for that of another? Or offering the life of your ONLY son for the sake of another?

I would agree with God, it shows more love to give one's own life than to offer the life or even allow/direct the life of another to be taken as a demonstration of one's love for the life being "saved". That does not mean it is any easier to send another.

GOD didn't require Abraham to sacrifice HIS OWN life in order to prove his love for God. He required Abraham to sacrifice the life of HIS SON.

I do not recall that being an example of a test of Love. I do recall many calling a test of Abraham faith, which is not the same as Love. And the analogy would be incomplete anyway as in that story the only life "saved" was Isaac - so Abraham could not be said to be demonstrating offering anything to save the life of another - there was no other life spared or said to be spared by the act he was willing to perform.

If this is the ULTIMATE manner for one to PROVE their love for another, could God have offered ANY LESS?

Again, I do not think God was testing the degree of Love Abraham had for Him - and there is something psychotic/creepy to me with saying a test of love would be one's willingness to offer the life of someone else. Honey I love you here is your ring and the head of the guy I killed to prove my love for you - nah - does not work for me.

The ONLY difference is that God spared the life of Abraham's son, yet was willing to ALLOW His ONLY Son to DIE.

Again, I have always understood this story as a test of Abraham's faith in God to provide for all his needs and his unconditional trust in God.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

And that supposition forces one to talk around and around and around in circles that never actually ANSWERS anything.

Christ OPENLY stated that NOTHING He did was for HIS glory but for the GLORY of God. Hmmmm.............From YOUR perspective we have GOD saying that He did nothing for His own glory but for the glory of God??????

In your view perhaps. In the orthodox view that was a statement of a human will - a Man. As such and in spite of that Man also being God, it was a proper statement for a man in a proper relationship with God to make. The circle is avoided as long as it is accepted that He is both fully God and fully a man - two wills, or rather a human will and the Divine Will - both able to express.

But then we can create that 'circle' to talk around by saying, "Oh, but at THAT moment He was not GOD. At THAT moment He was merely a MAN". If Christ was FULLY God/FULLY man, then He would have been FULLY GOD at ALL times and FULLY MAN at ALL TIMES.

Yes that last sentence is correct - which means both the Man and God are present at all times - both able to express themselves in that Man.

What this concept means is: When one that believes in 'trinity' can't offer a reasonable answer, then resort to "Jesus Christ, PARTIALLY God/PARTIALLY man". And to me, that is about as inane as trying to believe that God died on the cross.

A proper understanding of the teaching does not include God dying on the Cross. God cannot die, but a man can - and He is fully a man.

One simple answer can fulfill this question: "Has ANY MAN EVER SEEN GOD?" A simple answer to THIS simple question is all it takes to come to an understanding of WHO Christ was/IS. But it does take an HONEST answer. An answer NOT of one's OWN design, but an answer that we ARE offered DIRECTLY through scripture.

Actually the relevant scripture says:

"No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father."

So if I looked in scripture for an honest answer - it does not get any simpler than Saint John quoting a man called Jesus talking about Himself- that He had seen the Father.

And once we COME to the proper answer to that question, then we can SEE what Christ MEANT when He stated that those that had seen HIM had SEEN the Father. It obviously doesn't MEAN that Christ was/IS 'The Father'.

Well right and wrong - not seen the Father - but had "seen" God and here I think it is worth saying that "seen" in this context is not referring to sight - but rather knowledge of, as in deep knowledge/relationship/understanding. So if you "know/understand/believe in/love" me, you "know/understand/believe in/love" God.

For 'trinity' doesn't even teach THAT. "Trinity" teaches that Father, Son and Spirit are THREE individual persons that make up ONE God. So Christ the Son is NOT 'the Father' even according to 'trinity'.

Right and wrong again. Three Persons yes, but the idea of "individual" in our present usage suggests more to most of us than what the idea of a Trinity with Three Persons as properly taught in the Trinity Doctrine. Same with the usage of "make up" which generally suggests more than just the simple idea that the Three are One God - rather than "make up".

So, If Jesus Christ is NOT the Father, then when He stated that those that had seen Him had SEEN the Father, these words obviously mean something DIFFERENT than to be taken in a LITERAL fashion.

Well yes, just like in the movie AVATAR, the line "I see you" was not meant to be taken literally. - see comments above .

What it means is: those that had WITNESSED the ACTS of Christ. Those that had witnessed the words of Christ. These had SEEN that they were offered BY the Father, (God), THROUGH Christ. That Christ was a DIRECT representative OF the Father, (God).

That would be a difficult position to maintain in light of many of the "acts" described in scripture do not include any such acknowledgement, which is one reason people speculated about how He was able to do and say those things (with "Authority").

The "Authority" in question is without a doubt of Divine source. A man, or for that matter any "created" being, acting or talking in any manner where the "Authority" of those acts/Words can only be Divine would be committing a grave error(read sin) to do so WITHOUT giving such credit to the source of that Authority. Yet we have Jesus doing just that - which is why people exclaimed things along the lines - "who does He think He is?"

Kind of like saying, "Those that have SEEN me have SEEN LOVE". You can't SEE Love. Just like NO man has EVER seen God. But what love IS can be 'seen' through the EXAMPLES given. By witnessing that which REPRESENTS love, one can then be said to have 'seen' it.

A man can neither LOOK honest nor LOOK like TRUTH, but through his ACTIONS we can surely SEE these attributes or the lack thereof.

Blessings,

MEC

Think I agree with this last part except a man called Jesus is clearly quoted saying He had "seen" God - that is assuming one believes at least that the Father is understood to be God.

 

[Imagican]

Why it is important to understand context -yes, He is God, in the Person we call Son of God, the Person Who became Man - who said that.
I would agree with God, it shows more love to give one's own life than to offer the life or even allow/direct the life of another to be taken as a demonstration of one's love for the life being "saved". That does not mean it is any easier to send another.

I do not recall that being an example of a test of Love. I do recall many calling a test of Abraham faith, which is not the same as Love. And the analogy would be incomplete anyway as in that story the only life "saved" was Isaac - so Abraham could not be said to be demonstrating offering anything to save the life of another - there was no other life spared or said to be spared by the act he was willing to perform.
Again, I do not think God was testing the degree of Love Abraham had for Him - and there is something psychotic/creepy to me with saying a test of love would be one's willingness to offer the life of someone else. Honey I love you here is your ring and the head of the guy I killed to prove my love for you - nah - does not work for me.
Again, I have always understood this story as a test of Abraham's faith in God to provide for all his needs and his unconditional trust in God.

Doc, it boils down to sacrifice. One can ONLY sacrifice what one is ABLE to sacrifice. God CANNOT die. So God cannot sacrifice His LIFE. Impossible or He's NOT God.

So, perhaps where you falter is understanding true LOVE.

God offered that which was MOST dear to Him in order to demonstrate His love for mankind. That is what the bible STATES. It does NOT say that God OFFERED HIMSELF, it STATES that He offered His only begotten SON. So you see, you err in your attempt to alter the words we HAVE been offered for the sake of a 'doctrine' created by men that does not HEED the very words offered.

You have stated on numerous occasion now that God sacrificed HIMSELF. Yet that entire concept is utterly foreign to the Bible. Or better yet, if this is truly what you believe and you believe that the Bible is the source of your belief, then show us through SCRIPTURE that God died on the cross. Show us that God sacrificed HIMSELF through scripture.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

In your view perhaps. In the orthodox view that was a statement of a human will - a Man. As such and in spite of that Man also being God, it was a proper statement for a man in a proper relationship with God to make. The circle is avoided as long as it is accepted that He is both fully God and fully a man - two wills, or rather a human will and the Divine Will - both able to express.
Yes that last sentence is correct - which means both the Man and God are present at all times - both able to express themselves in that Man.

A proper understanding of the teaching does not include God dying on the Cross. God cannot die, but a man can - and He is fully a man.
Actually the relevant scripture says:

"No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father."

So if I looked in scripture for an honest answer - it does not get any simpler than Saint John quoting a man called Jesus talking about Himself- that He had seen the Father.


Well right and wrong - not seen the Father - but had "seen" God and here I think it is worth saying that "seen" in this context is not referring to sight - but rather knowledge of, as in deep knowledge/relationship/understanding. So if you "know/understand/believe in/love" me, you "know/understand/believe in/love" God.

Right and wrong again. Three Persons yes, but the idea of "individual" in our present usage suggests more to most of us than what the idea of a Trinity with Three Persons as properly taught in the Trinity Doctrine. Same with the usage of "make up" which generally suggests more than just the simple idea that the Three are One God - rather than "make up".

Well yes, just like in the movie AVATAR, the line "I see you" was not meant to be taken literally. - see comments above .
That would be a difficult position to maintain in light of many of the "acts" described in scripture do not include any such acknowledgement, which is one reason people speculated about how He was able to do and say the things (with "Authority").

The "Authority" in question is without a doubt of Divine source. A man, or for that matter any "created" being, acting or talking in any manner where the "Authority" of those acts/Words can only be Divine would be committing a grave error(read sin) to do so WITHOUT giving such credit to the source of that Authority. Yet we have Jesus doing just that - which is why people exclaimed things along the lines - "who does He think He is?"

Think I agree with this last part except a man called Jesus is clearly quoted saying He had "seen" God - that is assuming one believes at least that the Father is understood to be God.

Ok, since you are trying to turn this into speculation instead of FACT, let us turn to scripture again. In the OT, God, not 'the Father', clearly states that NO MAN will EVER see Him and Live. I'll quote it so there's no confusion:

Exodus 33:20 (KJV)
20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

Let us now accept what John offered in TRUTH:

John 1:18 (KJV)
18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

This does Not say, 'the Father', it plainly states: GOD.

Another simple question with a simple answer: "Doc, has ANY man EVER seen God and LIVED?"

Blessings,

MEC

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Doc, it boils down to sacrifice. One can ONLY sacrifice what one is ABLE to sacrifice. God CANNOT die. So God cannot sacrifice His LIFE. Impossible or He's NOT God.

So, perhaps where you falter is understanding true LOVE.

God offered that which was MOST dear to Him in order to demonstrate His love for mankind. That is what the bible STATES. It does NOT say that God OFFERED HIMSELF, it STATES that He offered His only begotten SON. So you see, you err in your attempt to alter the words we HAVE been offered for the sake of a 'doctrine' created by men that does not HEED the very words offered.

You have stated on numerous occasion now that God sacrificed HIMSELF. Yet that entire concept is utterly foreign to the Bible. Or better yet, if this is truly what you believe and you believe that the Bible is the source of your belief, then show us through SCRIPTURE that God died on the cross. Show us that God sacrificed HIMSELF through scripture.

Blessings,

MEC

The only way any of these comments could be twisted into a response to my reply is with a skewed understanding of what the Trinity Doctrine teaches, which is what I was trying to point out. He is both Man and God, so while God obviously cannot die - He does indeed sacrifice Himself because He BECAME Man and that Man He BECAME died as a sacrifice for all of us. It would only be by denying that Jesus is God that any of the above response would make sense.

God is Three, which is why it is also true to say He (the Father) gave us His Son. The only faltering here would be someone attempting to reply and speak of something they obviously neither believe or understand.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Ok, since you are trying to turn this into speculation instead of FACT, let us turn to scripture again. In the OT, God, not 'the Father', clearly states that NO MAN will EVER see Him and Live. I'll quote it so there's no confusion:

Exodus 33:20 (KJV)
20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

Let us now accept what John offered in TRUTH:

John 1:18 (KJV)
18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

This does Not say, 'the Father', it plainly states: GOD.

Another simple question with a simple answer: "Doc, has ANY man EVER seen God and LIVED?"

Blessings,

MEC

Speculation would be [something like] if I attempted to explain how a Divine Will and a human [will] coexist in one Man. My reply regarding what the Church teaches regarding Who Jesus is is clearly a fact and easily demonstrated since everything they teach about can be found online in the Catechism - so no need to attempt what appears to be deception by claiming my post is "speculation".

And my KJV version of Saint John's Gospel includes this quote from God Himself "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father." which is incompatible with any understanding of Who spoke those Words besides the one given/taught by the Church.

 

[he-man]

Speculation would be if I attempted to explain how a Divine Will and a human coexist in one Man. My reply regarding what the Church teaches regarding Who Jesus is is clearly a fact and easily demonstrated since everything they teach about can be found online in the Catechism - so no need to attempt what appears to be deception by claiming my post is "speculation"..

Never once, so far as we know, had Jesus spoken of or addressed God as a mighty King, never once had He named Him "Almighty"; for, although He acknowledged it, He had usually refrained from referring to the Father's omnipotence and majesty. The ending of the Lord's Prayer—"For thine is the Kingdom, the power, and the glory "—is only given in the Gospel of St. Luke, and is undoubtedly a later addition to the text. It was God's love, not His kingly puissance, which Jesus wished to stress; but paganism regarded its gods as potentates, and the Church followed its example, its ritual being based upon the ancient tradition of behaviour in the presence of an earthly King, and the priests approaching the throne of God with flattery upon their lips. Encyc. Brit., it ith ed., vol. xvii., p. 624. Apuleius, Metamorphoses, xi. i6.; The statues of Jupiter and Apollo became those of St. Peter and St. Paul; and the figures of Isis were turned into those of the Virgin Mary, while the Madonna-lilies are none other than the ancient sacred lotus-flowers of Isis and Astarte. Page 223-227 PAGANISM IN OUR CHRISTIANITY

 

[Der Alte]

Heman said . . . but paganism regarded its gods as potentates, and the Church followed its example, its ritual being based upon the ancient tradition of behaviour in the presence of an earthly King, and the priests approaching the throne of God with flattery upon their lips. Encyc. Brit., it ith ed., vol. xvii., p. 624. Apuleius, Metamorphoses, xi. i6.; The statues of Jupiter and Apollo became those of St. Peter and St. Paul; and the figures of Isis were turned into those of the Virgin Mary, while the Madonna-lilies are none other than the ancient sacred lotus-flowers of Isis and Astarte. Page 223-227 PAGANISM IN OUR CHRISTIANITY​

Absolutely unreliable source! Weigall was an Atheist who attacked everything about Christianity and Judaism.

1. 1. The Twelve Disciples Derived From Zodiac: p25
   2. The 27 books of the New Testament Canon is invalid: p37
   3. The name Mary is of pagan origin: p41
   4. The virgin birth is of pagan origin: p44,47,60
   5. The early life of Jesus is totally unknown: p49
   6. Jesus born in a stable and wrapped in swaddling clothing is of pagan origin: p52
   7. Miracles of Jesus are of pagan origin: p58
   8. Jesus' 40 day temptation in wilderness is of pagan origin: p61
   9. Earthquake at cross is false: p62
   10. Jesus Crucifixion was a Jewish human sacrifice of pagan origin: p69,76
   11. Jesus Side Pierced is of pagan origin: p83,84
   12. Jesus never actually died, two angels were only men: p93,94
   13. Ascension is of pagan origin: p100
   14. Jesus suffering to save us is of pagan origin: p106
   15. Jesus decent into Hades is of pagan origin: p113
   16. Jesus "hung on a tree" is of pagan origin: p118
   17. Jesus the "Rock of salvation" is of pagan origin: p129
   18. Jesus the "slain Lamb of God" is of pagan origin: p131,132
   19. "Washed in the Blood of the lamb" is of pagan origin: p132
   20. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are both of pagan origin: p134, p146,147
   21. Phrase "Soldiers of Christ" is of pagan origin: p135
   22. Jesus as "the Shepherd" is of pagan origin: p136
   23. Lords Supper is of pagan origin" p146,147
   24. The idea of "blood atonement for sins" is of pagan origin: p152,158
   25. Jesus "Begotten of God" is of pagan origin: p169
   26. Incarnate Logos of Jn 1:1 is of pagan origin, The "pre-existent angel" is a 4th century concept: p172,173-175
   27. The Trinity is of pagan origin: p182
   28. The "Lord's Day" (Sunday) is of Pagan Origin: p209,210-211
   29. Jewish Sabbath and the Sunday Lord's Day both of pagan origin: p136, p209,210-211

 

[Imagican]

Speculation would be [something like] if I attempted to explain how a Divine Will and a human [will] coexist in one Man. My reply regarding what the Church teaches regarding Who Jesus is is clearly a fact and easily demonstrated since everything they teach about can be found online in the Catechism - so no need to attempt what appears to be deception by claiming my post is "speculation".

And my KJV version of Saint John's Gospel includes this quote from God Himself "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father." which is incompatible with any understanding of Who spoke those Words besides the one given/taught by the Church.

There you go again. I offered scripture from the OT that, combined with what we are offered in the NT give us COMPLETE understanding of the issue.

No man shall EVER see my face and LIVE.

No man has EVER seen God at ANY time, the only begotten SON declares Him.

When we take the TWO, we FIND the TRUTH.

And LOOK what confusion ensues when one tries to answer MY questions according to 'trinity'. God became MAN and it was the MAN that died, not GOD. Are you truly unable to see how inane this sounds? If God BECAME 'man', then when MAN died, at what POINT was man NO LONGER God? And at what point did God BECOME man? For we have the words of Christ Himself, the moment before HIS death, "My God, my God, why hath THOU forsaken ME?" Obviously at the MOMENT these words were uttered Christ was NOT GOD. For how does God forsake HIMSELF?

But here's the PROBLEM that you run into with your 'trinity': If Jesus WAS God, then the scriptures of GOD and His Son SAYING that 'no man shall EVER SEE God and LIVE' are wrong. They MUST have some other MEANING, or: they UTTERLY refute 'trinity'. For there were THOUSANDS that literally SAW Christ. And it He WERE God, then that means that literally THOUSANDS 'saw' God.

But i do not BELIEVE this. I believe that those that 'saw' Christ witnessed the literal existence of God's ONLY begotten Son. A Son we KNOW, at least from the time of His Baptism, was filled with the SPIRIT of His Father up until the moment that he uttered His last words upon the cross. It was God's SON that became a man, not God Himself. At least that is what the bible SAYS. God sacrificed His only Begotten Son, not HIMSELF. And Christ, the only Begotten Son sacrificed HIMSELF. Gave His life for ours.

And Doc, the ONLY thing that I can fathom that 'trinity' accomplished was placing Christ in the SEAT of God. Not NEXT to God, but IN God's SEAT. Therefore, all that it truly accomplished was allowing those that accept it to worship Christ AS God. Yet we have instruction from Christ Himself STATING that all that He did and said was for the GLORY of God, NOT Himself. The words He offered were NOT His own. The things that He did were things that He had WITNESSED His Father, (God), do. And we have Christ, the SON, praying to His Father, (God), over and over and over again. Teaching US how to pray to His Father: God.

If Christ worthy of our worship? Is there deity contained within the entity that IS Christ Jesus? Absolutely. But it is my firm belief that we are perfectly capable of worshiping Christ as God's Son without trying to MAKE Christ: God Himself. For when you break it down, worship REALLY isn't anything but LOVE. For we follow Christ's commandments Through LOVE. And we follow God's Commandments THROUGH love. If that's not how we are expected to worship then I guess I'm really confused.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[he-man]

211[*]Jewish Sabbath and the Sunday Lord's Day both of pagan origin: p136, p209,210-211[/LIST][/SIZE][/FONT]
[/LIST]

Encyc. Brit., it ith ed., vol. xvii., p. 624. Apuleius, Metamorphoses, xi. i6.; The statues of Jupiter and Apollo became those of St. Peter and St. Paul; and the figures of Isis were turned into those of the Virgin Mary, while the Madonna-lilies are none other than the ancient sacred lotus-flowers of Isis and Astarte.
In regard to the Virgin Birth, it is significant.: that there is no reference to it in the Epistles which form the earliest Christian documents; but, on the contrary, St. Paul speaks of the seed of David according to the flesh," that is to 'say, of the seed of Joseph, David's decendant. The Earliest' Gospel,' that of St. Mark, dating between A.D. 70 and 100, does not mention it; nor does the Gospel of St. John, dating from some time earlier than A.D. 100. The Book of Revelation; written between A.D. 69 and 93, is silent on the subject, though had the Viigin Birth then been an important tenet of the 'faith' it would
undoubtedly have figured in the 'mystical symbolism of that composition.
But both in St. Matthew and in St. Luke the genealogy of our Lord is given, for the purpose of showing that Jesus was descended from David; for the promised Messiah was to be of the seed of David. These genealogies, however, are traced through Joseph; and if Joseph was not then thought to be the father of Jesus it is difficult to understand why the pedigree was given at all, for there is no suggestion anywhere that Mary was related to Joseph or was also descended from David, nor does she figure in the genealogies. The Syriac version of the Gospels, discovered in 1892, throws more light upon the subject, for there, at the end of the genealogy, the definite statement is made that Jacob had a son, Joseph, to whom was betrothed the Virgin Mary; and Joseph had a son, Jesus, called the Christ. It seems, in fact, that we have to deal with a contradiction due to the later insertion of the story of the Virgin Birth beside the earlier story of the descent of Jesus from David through, Joseph; and, in this case, we may place its inception somewhere in the Second Century.
Abbe Houtin, La Question Biblique, p. 245; E. Giran, Joius of Nazareth, p. 56.
1 Romans i. 3:
2 Luke ii. 5, 16, 41.- 3 Luke iii.; Tertullian, Apolog. xxi

 

[Der Alte]

Encyc. Brit., it ith ed., vol. xvii., p. 624. Apuleius, Metamorphoses, xi. i6.; The statues of Jupiter and Apollo became those of St. Peter and St. Paul; and the figures of Isis were turned into those of the Virgin Mary, while the Madonna-lilies are none other than the ancient sacred lotus-flowers of Isis and Astarte. . . .

Total rubbish. Seems like some folks will believe anything as long as it attacks God, Jesus, the Bible or Christianity. The Encyclopedia Britannica does not and has never said this.

Here is a link to the METAMORPHOSIS article in the Encyclopedia Britannica.

http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/MEC_MIC/METAMORPHOSIS.html

 

[he-man]

Total rubbish. Seems like some folks will believe anything as long as it attacks God, Jesus, the Bible or Christianity. The Encyclopedia Britannica does not and has never said this.

Co 8:4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
Haggai 2:11 "Thus says the LORD of hosts: "Now, ask the priests concerning the law, saying, (12) "If one carries holy meat in the fold of his garment, and with the edge he touches bread or stew, wine or oil, or any food, will it become holy?""" Then the priests answered and said, "No."
The ancient Egyptians, whose influence on early religious thought was profound, usually arranged their gods or goddesses in trinities: there was the trinity of Osiris, Isis, and Horus, the trinity of Amen, Mut, and Khonsu, the trinity of Khnum, Satis, and Anukis, and so forth. The Hindu trinity of Brahman, Siva, and Vishnu is another of the many and widespread instances of this theological conception. The early Christians, however, did not at first think of applying the idea to their own faith. They paid their devotions to God the Father and to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and they recognised the mysterious and undefined existence of the Holy Spirit; but there was no thought of these three being an actual Trinity, co-equal and
united in One, and the Apostles' Creed, which is the earliest of the formulated articles of Christian faith, does not mention it. Aristotle, On the Heavens,i.
The application of this old pagan conception of a Trinity to Christian theology was made possible by the recognition of the Holy Spirit as the required third "Person," co-equal with the other " Person". The idea of the Holy Spirit, as an emanation from God, had been known to the Jews from early times; but the Hebrew word which was used was roach, literally meaning "wind" or "breath," this being translated into Greek as imeurna, which has precisely that significance, the action of the Spirit being described theologically as "pneumatic."
Thus, in the Book of Genesis, where it is related that God breathed into Adam's nostrils the breath of life, the reference is to this Spirit, which had also moved upon the face of the waters in the earlier act of creation; and Job' speaks of the Spirit of God as being in his nostrils, and says: "The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life."
This conception of the Holy Spirit as the wind, or breath, of life is found in other ancient religions, and is clearly revealed in the prayer to the god; x Job xxvii. 3; xxxiii. 4;.Page 199
Aton inscribed on the coffin of the Egyptian Pharaoh Akhnaton (137o B.c.), which reads: "I breathe the sweet breath which comes forth from thy mouth. . . . It is my desire that I may hear thy sweet voice, the wind, that my limbs may be rejuvenated with life through love of thee. Extend to me thy hands holding thy Spirit (Ka), that I may receive it and may live by it." The Gospels are unanimous in attributing to Jesus various references to the Holy Spirit; but, it is only in the Gospel of St. John, which in the earliest times was not, 'regarded as authoritative, that our Lord gives a kind of personality to this Spirit by speaking of the Comforter who is to come down to His disciples. The conception, however, was familiar to the first Christians, for St. Paul speaks of the Holy Spirit which "searcheth all things, yea, even the depths of God "; and he commends his readers to "the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communionof the Holy Ghost." The baptising of Christians Weigall, Idle of Akhnaton, revised ed., p249(2)ICor.ii.10. (3) 2Cor.Xiii.14 in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, seems to have been usual, too, invery early days; but the story of the coming of the Holy Spirit at the first Pentecost (the Jewishfestival fifty days after the Passover) reverts to the earlier conception of the Spirit as "wind" or"breath," for it is described as arriving like "a rushing mighty wind."
Nevertheless, whether it was understood to be the divine "breath of life," or to be a personal agent of God, distinct from the Logos, the idea of the Spirit being co-equal with God was not generally recognised until the second half of the Fourth Century A.D. The school of Arius held the view that the Son was created by the Father and had not always been co- with Him; and this led to the opposing party not only emphasising the equality of the Father and Son (just as Mithra in the great rival religion, Mithraism, was both son of Ormuzd, the Creator, and at the same time coequal with him), but also emphasising the coequality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the SonIn the year 381 the Council of Constantinople added to the earlier Nicene Creed a description of the Holy Spirit as "the Lord, and giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and Son together is worshipped and glorified." But the great opponent of the Arians was Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria in Egypt; and, as has been said above, the Egyptian religion, which had not yet died out, was permeated with the idea of trinities. Thus, the Athanasian creed, which is a later composition but reflects the general conceptions of Athanasius and his school, formulated the conception of a co-equal Trinity wherein the Holy Spirit was the third "Person"; and so it was made a dogma of the faith, and belief in the Three in One and One in Three became a paramount doctrine of Christianity, though not without terrible riots and bloodshed.
Now, in the Constantinople creed the Holy Spirit was said to proceed from the Father, but at the Synod of Toledo in 589 the famous filioque was added, making the sentence read: "who proceedeth from the Father and the Son," as the Church of England has it in the Communion Service in the Prayer Book to-day. But this raised a furious :storm, and became one of the chief reasons of the break between the Churches of the West and East, the latter believing that the Spirit emanated from the Father only.
The modern mind has outgrown this splitting of hairs; and as the conception of divinity expands and develops, the desire to define the godhead fades. To-day a Christian thinker recognizes the three aspects of divinity—the Father, the Son or Logos, and the Holy Spirit, and finds no cause to repudiate the idea of such a Trinity; but at the same time he has no wish to be precise about it, more especially since the definition is obviously pagan in origin and was not adopted by the Church until nearly three hundred years after Christ. Page (201-203) Pagan Trinity

 

[A New World]

And then I would like to move on to the NEXT question: If the 'light' that was formed in the VERY beginning, was NOT 'physical light' and it apparently never existed BEFORE it was introduced, isn't that the FIRST of God's 'creation'. I mean RIGHT after the HEAVENS and the EARTH were created, (stated VOID and without FORM), God INTRODUCED 'light'. But not PHYSICAL light.

I think you may have swerved into something here. You wrote: God INTRODUCED 'light' not, God CREATED 'light.'

The text does not necessarily say God created 'light' at that time, it says, 'Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.' My thought as I read the text is, "God introduced the light (the Son) into His newly created 'heavens and earth.'

The focus may have been on the initial appearance of 'the Light of the world' into the new creation rather than the light (the Son) being created at that time.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

There you go again. I offered scripture from the OT that, combined with what we are offered in the NT give us COMPLETE understanding of the issue.

No man shall EVER see my face and LIVE.

No man has EVER seen God at ANY time, the only begotten SON declares Him.

When we take the TWO, we FIND the TRUTH.

And LOOK what confusion ensues when one tries to answer MY questions according to 'trinity'. God became MAN and it was the MAN that died, not GOD. Are you truly unable to see how inane this sounds? If God BECAME 'man', then when MAN died, at what POINT was man NO LONGER God? And at what point did God BECOME man? For we have the words of Christ Himself, the moment before HIS death, "My God, my God, why hath THOU forsaken ME?" Obviously at the MOMENT these words were uttered Christ was NOT GOD. For how does God forsake HIMSELF?

But here's the PROBLEM that you run into with your 'trinity': If Jesus WAS God, then the scriptures of GOD and His Son SAYING that 'no man shall EVER SEE God and LIVE' are wrong. They MUST have some other MEANING, or: they UTTERLY refute 'trinity'. For there were THOUSANDS that literally SAW Christ. And it He WERE God, then that means that literally THOUSANDS 'saw' God.

But i do not BELIEVE this. I believe that those that 'saw' Christ witnessed the literal existence of God's ONLY begotten Son. A Son we KNOW, at least from the time of His Baptism, was filled with the SPIRIT of His Father up until the moment that he uttered His last words upon the cross. It was God's SON that became a man, not God Himself. At least that is what the bible SAYS. God sacrificed His only Begotten Son, not HIMSELF. And Christ, the only Begotten Son sacrificed HIMSELF. Gave His life for ours.

And Doc, the ONLY thing that I can fathom that 'trinity' accomplished was placing Christ in the SEAT of God. Not NEXT to God, but IN God's SEAT. Therefore, all that it truly accomplished was allowing those that accept it to worship Christ AS God. Yet we have instruction from Christ Himself STATING that all that He did and said was for the GLORY of God, NOT Himself. The words He offered were NOT His own. The things that He did were things that He had WITNESSED His Father, (God), do. And we have Christ, the SON, praying to His Father, (God), over and over and over again. Teaching US how to pray to His Father: God.

If Christ worthy of our worship? Is there deity contained within the entity that IS Christ Jesus? Absolutely. But it is my firm belief that we are perfectly capable of worshiping Christ as God's Son without trying to MAKE Christ: God Himself. For when you break it down, worship REALLY isn't anything but LOVE. For we follow Christ's commandments Through LOVE. And we follow God's Commandments THROUGH love. If that's not how we are expected to worship then I guess I'm really confused.

Blessings,

MEC

Actually by this line of thinking one has done much more than attempt to find "truth" about God - for example requiring God to be "seated" gives God physical attributes of a pagan god, something which the Church has not only never done but has strongly fought against where ever such thoughts arose in the Church.

One cannot dismantle the doctrine which became titled the Trinity Doctrine without corrupting/cracking the solid foundations of truths it is built upon. God is Spirit, therefore the only Person that can have a "seat" in Heaven is the Person Who has a flesh, and that would be Jesus Christ the Son of God. By implying that "seated at the right" and that others put Jesus in "God's" seat means there are at least two chairs with God in the higher one, which means one has already put God in a box much like other faiths have done - like the Mormons. The One God the Church teaches about and the Trinity doctrine was developed to defend those teachings - is much bigger than one who requires a seat.

Again, one can accuse me of speculating, but that is baseless and false claim when someone says all of this is clearly laid out online in the Catechism as well as other online historical documents describing how the Trinity Doctrine developed along with the various heretical teachings that arose which the doctrine defends against - preserving the Truth.

The confusion I believe stems from attempting to understand that which we cannot totally fathom - the Nature of God- beyond what He has revealed to us. Not that we cannot at least see dimly from what He has revealed of Himself. Speculation would be saying things like God needs a seat or God cannot become man then "not die" when that Man He became is put to death. The proper teaching is that Man has two natures, only one of which could be put to death after He entered this life. It is not possible then to ignore that part of the teaching to cast doubt on the whole teaching by speculating in asking how is it possible that God cannot die after becoming Man. So any "confusion" about that is removed if it is first understood that the proper teaching is that Man is both Fully human and Fully God, two natures - then it follows after His birth that only one of those natures can be put to death. No confusion there.

In fact the very speculation one has entered into in attempting to "simplify" things (and diss a Doctrine) has already created a god that needs a seat and from my view also lessor gods (Jesus) "worthy" of praise/worship. So while one could look at such a view as simple - am lost at how such thoughts resemble Christianity.

And while tossing around SELECT scripture to paint the desired outcome we note this was ignored from my last post:
"And my KJV version of Saint John's Gospel includes this quote from God Himself "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father." which is incompatible with any understanding of Who (it is that) spoke those Words besides the one given/taught by the Church."

Which as I mentioned before that verse, in the SIMPLEST understanding, rules out that the man speaking has NOT seen God. So the proper question should become how to understand all the other verses previously selected and presented to make your case together with this verse (which clearly opposes your case) and perhaps to reflect on what it really means for a human to "see" the invisible.