If Jesus is the TRUE God, who is his SON Jesus?

Chris†opher Paul · Oct 3, 2002

Ok, thanks for clarifying. Now I will go dig up the evidence of Cephas, which refutes your point about 'little rock'.

Kephas (or Cephas, either spelling in Latin alphabet) comes from Aramaic, and
means a rock foundation. In Greek, it would be petra or petras, but that word is feminine and means 'little rock', so the Greeks made it intentionally masculine by spelling it petro or petros.

/going to get more info...

Chris†opher Paul · Oct 3, 2002

Here ya go...proof that you are wrong Old Shepherd. Jesus spoke in Aramaic, not Greek, and so...

--

"Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this [Christ's identity] was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

When we read this in English, we must remember that this apostle's name was Simon, not Peter, and that's how Jesus addressed him in verse 17: "Blessed are you, Simon . . ." It's easy to forget that "Peter" was not a name, as it is today, it was a Greek word meaning "rock." So what Jesus said was, "Blessed are you Simon. I tell you that you are rock, and on this rock I will build my Church ." Catholics interpret this literally. They believe that Jesus Himself is the invisible, spiritual foundation of the Church, the "chief cornerstone" (Eph. 2:20), but that Peter is the visible, organizational foundation of the Church on earth.

Protestants have historically claimed that the "rock" in verse 18 refers, not to Peter, but to Peter's confession of Christ, or to Christ Himself. They based this primarily on the fact that the Greek word "Peter" (Petros) is slightly different from the word "rock" (petra). Therefore, they concluded that the rock cannot refer to Peter. But the reason for the difference is simple: the Greek word "rock" (petra) is feminine, and one would not give a man a feminine nickname. The word "Peter," Petros, is simply the masculine form of petra.

Petros happens to be a preexisting Greek word. In the past, some Protestants argued that it means "a small pebble," whereas petra means "a large rock." Thus, they concluded that Jesus was contrasting Peter with the rock. However, this line of reasoning is very weak for a number of reasons, as Protestant scholar D.A. Carson explains:

Although it is true that petros and petra can mean "stone" and "rock" respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses ("you are kepha" and "on this kepha"), since the word was used both for a name and for a "rock." The Pe[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]ta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name. . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been lithos ("stone" of almost any size).

It is important to bear in mind, as Carson just pointed out, that Jesus spoke to his disciples in Aramaic, not Greek. He did not refer to Simon with the Greek word Petros, he used the Aramaic word Kepha, as the Bible clearly states:

And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas [Kepha]" (which, when translated, is Peter [Petros]). (John 1:42).

OldShepherd · Oct 3, 2002

Originally posted by s0uljah
Here ya go...proof that you are wrong Old Shepherd. Jesus spoke in Aramaic, not Greek, and so...

That is very interesting. But one scholar does not a consensus make and one scholar's opinion is not proof. Did Peter consider Himself the rock upon which the church was built? He left us some writings, what did he say about "the rock?"

More to follow. This is off topic, it more properly belongs on another thread.

Kain · Oct 3, 2002

Originally posted by OldShepherd
I'm not the one with a truth problem! You still haven't read or comprehended the part in red which proves, as I have said, that the Jewish Cabal Zohar Trinity, preceded Christianity and all the rest by a few hundred years. The cart did not come before the horse as you are desperately trying to prove.

And as I already pointed out, that 'proof' comes from Christian converts. Big surprise.

isshinwhat · Oct 3, 2002

More to follow. This is off topic, it more properly belongs on another thread

Click to expand...

.

I'll start one in the Prots, Caths, and Jews forum....

OldShepherd · Oct 4, 2002

Originally posted by Kain
And as I already pointed out, that 'proof' comes from Christian converts. Big surprise.

The big surprise (NOT) is your intellectual dishonesty. Just as you are incapable of understanding what the Trinity is, also you appear to be incapable of reading one simple sentence. You will note my source is not Christian converts but the Jewish Encyclopedia. If you have too much trouble reading this sentence, I can use simpler one and two syllable words.

"The Cabala, on the other hand, especially the Zohar, its fundamental work, was far less hostile to the dogma of the Trinity, since by its speculations regarding the father, the son, and the spirit it [the Zohar] evolved a new trinity, and thus became dangerous to Judaism."

Isadore Singer ed., The Jewish Encyclopedia , KTAV Publishing, 1901, vol. 12, p. 261.

I don't see any converts of any kind in that sentence. Since I did post this quote, I am well aware of what it says later but I'm trying to see if you have any concept of what truth is. You have three times ignored this sentence in order to propagate a lie.

This quote proves, as I have said, that the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit originated within pre-Christian Judaism.

Chris†opher Paul · Oct 4, 2002

Yep, even in the Torah...God refers to Himself as "Us" and "We" etc...no Christians wrote that Kain.

Kain · Oct 4, 2002

Originally posted by OldShepherd
The big surprise (NOT) is your intellectual dishonesty. Just as you are incapable of understanding what the Trinity is, also you appear to be incapable of reading one simple sentence. You will note my source is not Christian converts but the Jewish Encyclopedia. If you have too much trouble reading this sentence, I can use simpler one and two syllable words.

"The Cabala, on the other hand, especially the Zohar, its fundamental work, was far less hostile to the dogma of the Trinity, since by its speculations regarding the father, the son, and the spirit it [the Zohar] evolved a new trinity, and thus became dangerous to Judaism."

Isadore Singer ed., The Jewish Encyclopedia , KTAV Publishing, 1901, vol. 12, p. 261.

I don't see any converts of any kind in that sentence. Since I did post this quote, I am well aware of what it says later but I'm trying to see if you have any concept of what truth is. You have three times ignored this sentence in order to propagate a lie.

And you have three times ignored my explanation. Taking one section out of context (a general practice of trinitarians) to support your view won't help. You will notice that the article show who discovered the 'trinity' in the Zohar and Cabala. It was Christian converts. The Cabala is 'less hostile' to the trinity view says nothing of the Cabala actually having a Trinity. It's just another mangling of ancient texts.

This quote proves, as I have said, that the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit originated within pre-Christian Judaism.

Click to expand...

Trinities have existed in one form or another in many ancient pagan religions. It has nothing to do with Judaism or the Tanach (and little to do with the actual New Testament unless you dig around). You can't seem to understand this simple fact.

Kain · Oct 4, 2002

Originally posted by s0uljah
Yep, even in the Torah...God refers to Himself as "Us" and "We" etc...no Christians wrote that Kain.

Count how many times 'we' and 'us' is used.

Now count how many times 'one' is used.

'we' and 'us' alone could mean any number, not just 3. It could just as easily be 3, or 7. Or, you can finally admit that it means one, as confirmed elsewhere when God says "I alone created..."

Thunderchild · Oct 4, 2002

Kephas or Petra mean rock - the words are synonymous. Neither means, nor is used, to denote bed-rock. Both refer to movable stones, including such things as the chief corner stone. Petros, on examination of the Bible together with such things as the septuagint and Greek lexicons, proves to be no more than a masculinisation of a feminine noun.

However, given the patterns of both Greek and Hebrew (or Hebrew derived) languages, it would be extremely surprising if the "Petros" and the "rock upon which I[/b] will build my church" were one and the same. (Peter does not, according to the passage, build Christ's church) If that was even a remote possibility, the word "rock" would not have been used twice - that there are two different rocks mentioned in the sentence is shown by the fact the word "rock" appears in both clauses.

As to the gates of Hades not prevailing against the church - the more expected word for prevail in the translation would be perhaps "withstand."

Is there anything to support the claim that Peter was head of the apostles? In my opinion, the Bible is correct in declaring that the church is built upon the foundation of the apostleS and the prophets, and that there was no super-apostle.

The organisation of the churches into larger conglomerates under headship of a developing hierarchy in the local area, those local conglomerates then forming still greater areas as dioceses, was a process that BEGAN in the EAST then forming still larger areas of authority as the great sees, then into a single body under (by common assent) Rome. These facts are asserted by Rome itself, in its own public record. That commentators of the Church of Rome say different to the public record, available to be read by anyone, is mystifying.

OldShepherd · Oct 5, 2002

Originally posted by Kain
And you have three times ignored my explanation. Taking one section out of context (a general practice of trinitarians) to support your view won't help. You will notice that the article show who discovered the 'trinity' in the Zohar and Cabala. It was Christian converts. The Cabala is 'less hostile' to the trinity view says nothing of the Cabala actually having a Trinity. It's just another mangling of ancient texts.

"says nothing of the Cabala actually having a Trinity." Well it is clear that we cannot expect a truthful answer from you, you evidently are blind as well as dishonest. Read the first sentence again. What "evolved" a new Trinity, was it converts or was it the Zohar? Later Jews rediscovered the Pre-Christian Cabal Zohar Trinity and then converted to Christianity. But this quote twice makes the point that the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit originated in pre-Christian Judaism. If you ever develop some integrity I might continue this discussion.

"The Cabala, on the other hand, especially the Zohar, its fundamental work, was far less hostile to the dogma of the Trinity, since by its speculations regarding the father, the son, and the spirit it [the Zohar] evolved a new trinity, and thus became dangerous to Judaism."

Isadore Singer ed., The Jewish Encyclopedia , KTAV Publishing, 1901, vol. 12, p. 261.

Trinities have existed in one form or another in many ancient pagan religions.

Click to expand...

Another blatant falsehood, propagated by dishonest and deceptive phony wannabe Jews. Please document for us from any ancient historical source a Trinity, in any BCE society, whatsoever. Again by Trinity I do not mean the mongrelized, illegitimatized caricature you have been talking about or a phonied up triad of pagan dieties. A trio or triad is not a Trinity.

OldShepherd · Oct 5, 2002

Originally posted by Kain
Count how many times 'we' and 'us' is used.

Now count how many times 'one' is used.

'we' and 'us' alone could mean any number, not just 3. It could just as easily be 3, or 7. Or, you can finally admit that it means one, as confirmed elsewhere when God says "I alone created..."

Oh is that the standard the number of times something is mentioned in the Tenakh? Well then tell us how many times did יהוה give His name in the Tenakh, or how times are the ten commandments repeated? Here is a good one, how many times is it commanded in the Tenakh that we are not supposed to eat meat and milk together? And there are many, many, more. Evidently we are not to believe any of these things because they are only mentioned once or twice.

Kain · Oct 5, 2002

Originally posted by OldShepherd
"says nothing of the Cabala actually having a Trinity."

Well it is clear that we cannot expect a truthful answer from you, you evidently are blind as well as dishonest. Read the first sentence again. What "evolved" a new Trinity, was it converts or was it the Zohar? Later Jews rediscovered the Pre-Christian Cabal Zohar Trinity and then converted to Christianity. But this quote twice makes the point that the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit originated in pre-Christian Judaism. If you ever develop some integrity I might continue this discussion.

Blind and dishonest. Obviously you have no integrity for conversation as you have lost your grip of comprehension. I too can play this game. Let's see: Your blindly following your pagan trinity custom and refuse to accept what God is really telling you in the bible.

There. Did that make you feel better?

Now here is the truth pointed out by that article that your too 'blind' to see and accept.

1. It says the "The Cabala, on the other hand, especially the Zohar, its fundamental work, was far less hostile to the dogma of the Trinity"

Key phrase "far less hostile" means that anybody looking for a trinity in the Cabala and Zohar can find it easier then when looking for it in the Tanach. In reality, the Cabalah has nothing to do with a trinity. It describes different aspects of God, but it is still only one Crown. There are no multiple deities in God, only one deity. 'Spirit of God' is not God the Spirit.

2. The trinity was found by Christians and Converted Jews. They later managed to convert Frankists, living abroad in the influence of pagan Christians.

3. The trinity concept is not accepted in Judaism. This was my original statement for which you brought up the above as proof to use against it. It didn't go as planned since the article itself supports my claim.

Don't be a sore loser.

Another blatant falsehood, propagated by dishonest and deceptive phony wannabe Jews. Please document for us from any ancient historical source a Trinity, in any BCE society, whatsoever. Again by Trinity I do not mean the mongrelized, illegitimatized caricature you have been talking about or a phonied up triad of pagan dieties. A trio or triad is not a Trinity.

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm hearing a lot of blatant falsehoods from you. Despite your phony beliefs, one doesn't have to be a Jew or 'wannabe Jew' to use Jewish scripture in denouncing the phony trinity of gods.

Note: The Trinity did not come from pagan origins as you have stated. Your web link has been removed as a consequence. Rule 2 - any false statements on God and the Bible is not acceptable.

Kain · Oct 5, 2002

Originally posted by OldShepherd
Oh is that the standard the number of times something is mentioned in the Tenakh? Well then tell us how many times did יהוה give His name in the Tenakh, or how times are the ten commandments repeated? Here is a good one, how many times is it commanded in the Tenakh that we are not supposed to eat meat and milk together? And there are many, many, more. Evidently we are not to believe any of these things because they are only mentioned once or twice.

The more you post, the more you reveal your lack of comprehension.

I brought up that example to show that the verses of God being one far outweigh the verses that can be interpreted to show multible Gods. The solution of this is simple: the interpretations of verses that show multiple Gods are therefore wrong. They must in fact be refering to only one God.

The example you bring up isn't contraticted elsewhere in the Tanach and so, there aren't any interpretations difficulties from it. When it says "don't eat meat and milk together," it doesn't turn around and say that it's okay to eat milk and meat together later on. Unless you bring in the NT and Jesus doing away with some of Yahweh's eternal laws, but that has nothing to do with the God of the Hebrews.

OldShepherd · Oct 6, 2002

Originally posted by Kain
Blind and dishonest. Obviously you have no integrity for conversation as you have lost your grip of comprehension. I too can play this game. Let's see: Your blindly following your pagan trinity custom and refuse to accept what God is really telling you in the bible.

There. Did that make you feel better?

Now here is the truth pointed out by that article that your too 'blind' to see and accept.

1. It says the "The Cabala, on the other hand, especially the Zohar, its fundamental work, was far less hostile to the dogma of the Trinity"

Key phrase "far less hostile" means that anybody looking for a trinity in the Cabala and Zohar can find it easier then when looking for it in the Tanach. In reality, the Cabalah has nothing to do with a trinity. It describes different aspects of God, but it is still only one Crown. There are no multiple deities in God, only one deity. 'Spirit of God' is not God the Spirit.

Another blatant falsehood. "by its [the Zohar] speculations regarding the father, the son, and the spirit it [the Zohar] evolved a new trinity, and thus became dangerous to Judaism."

(several hundred years later). "2. The trinity was found by Christians and Converted Jews, They later managed to convert Frankists, living abroad in the influence of pagan Christians."

"3. The trinity concept is not accepted in Judaism. This was my original statement for which you brought up the above as proof to use against it. It didn't go as planned since the article itself supports my claim."

Another deliberate false hood! My original statement was in response to Franklin, on Sep 7, that there were no pagan Trinities and that the Trinity originated within Pre-Christian Judaism, which I documented with the quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia, e.g.

by its [the Zohar] speculations regarding the father, the son, and the spirit it [the Zohar] evolved a new trinity, and thus became dangerous to Judaism."

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/21028-9.html

You did not respond until Sep 24.

"The Zohar isn't a canonized book of the Tanach. It you wish to consider one non-canonized books, they you also have to consider all the non-canonized books which will just make one big mess of things."

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=360922&highlight=zohar#post360922

So you have misrepresented this entire exchange. You don't even know what you said or when. The difference is I don't just make wild acusations, I back it up.

Kain: "Yes, I'm hearing a lot of blatant falsehoods from you. Despite your phony beliefs, one doesn't have to be a Jew or 'wannabe Jew' to use Jewish scripture in denouncing the phony trinity of gods."

It is one thing to constantly allege and assert falshoods, it is entirely another to back up those accusations with fact, e.g., "You said "X", the truth is "Y". Another blind misrepresentation, "trinity of gods." There is no such thing!

Bintheredunthatgotthetshirtdontfit. A site quoting a bunch of 19th and 20th century scholars, who contradict each other, is not proof of diddly squat! I said ancient historical documents! There are a few blatant misquotes of the ECF but none of those prove anything about Pre-Christian Trinities.

As a matter of fact throughout this piece of doggy doo the writer keeps callings Triads, Trinities. They are not the same thing.

Also here is a statement which occurs at least 5 times in this fantasy, paragraphs 4, 6, 8, mid way down the page, and near the bottom. Notice how this also implies that a triad, i.e. a grouping of three, is a Trinity, i.e. Triune, three which are one. Any middle schooler can prove this wrong from a dictionary.

"Is this positive proof that the Christian Trinity descended from the ancient (fill in the blank) triads? No."

The writer himself recognizes that some perceived similarity between pagan practices and Christian beliefs does not prove anything.

And I will add that I have argued this topic many times and not you nor nobody, has ever been able to produce any historical evidence, ie. ancient scrolls, codices, papryi, clay/stone tablets, etc., that any pagan religion or society, which could have influenced early Christianity, had anything like a Trinity or even three dieties functioning, reigning, etc. in concert. Every so-called triad I have ever seen was the concoction of a modern writer.

rqv d[ K[rb hn[t-al

Note: The Trinity did not come from pagan origins as you have stated. Your web link has been removed as a consequence. Rule 2 - any false statements on God and the Bible is not acceptable.

Kain · Oct 6, 2002

Originally posted by OldShepherd
Another blatant falsehood. "by its [the Zohar] speculations regarding the father, the son, and the spirit it [the Zohar] evolved a new trinity, and thus became dangerous to Judaism."

I accept. To Christians, the Zohar and Cabala 'evolved' a new trinity, just like the NT scriptures evolved into a trinity. If you knew anything about the Cabala and it's symbolic nature, you would know that it has nothing to do with an actual Christian trinity. However, your set in yoru pagan ways and I can't make your change your mind and it's not my intention to. You have misinterpreted (a common theme for you) this entire line of thread.

"3. The trinity concept is not accepted in Judaism. This was my original statement for which you brought up the above as proof to use against it. It didn't go as planned since the article itself supports my claim."

Another deliberate false hood! My original statement was in response to Franklin, on Sep 7, that there were no pagan Trinities and that the Trinity originated within Pre-Christian Judaism, which I documented with the quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia, e.g.

Click to expand...

Yes, except that I'm not responding to your original statement. You brought up that link as proof against a comment I made earlier in this thread, so I disputed your proof. Nothing more than that.

Let's go back and reflect:

Post #42, I make this comment:
"Before the NT, no Hebrew ever thought of the Eternal as a trinity, or multiple deities. There were those who worshipped other Gods, but as it is written, that was the cause of first Israel, then Judah to be taken into captivity."

Then in post #43, isshinwhat responds by:
"That statement is not entirely true. I'll do a little research and drag the quotes and passages over for you to peruse."

Jumpiong to #58, you respond to isshinwhat by bringing up that link as proof.

"That will probably be a waste of time. I have already posted a quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia which shows that pre-christian Judaism believed in a Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/21028-9.html

And here I listed most of the O.T. scriptures which speak of a plurality within God.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/21028-24.html

Also Kain cannot or will not understand what Trinity means. He has posted several false, garbled versions of what he thinks it is."

But that's not enough for you, you have to belittle my intelligence.

But your quote of the Jewish Encyclopedia didn't proof that Hebrews believed in a trinity. It showd that later Christians and Christian converted Judaens found the Cabala and Zohar "less hostile" to their trinity ideas.

You have proven nothing. All you have done is try to sidestep and avoid the main theme by resorting to futile insults. Pathetic.

So you have misrepresented this entire exchange. You don't even know what you said or when. The difference is I don't just make wild acusations, I back it up.

Click to expand...

The proof above shows that it is indeed you who has misrepresented the entire exchange. You do indeed make wild accusations. And your 'proof' only supports my original statement of post #42.

http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/The Origin of the Trinity.htm

Click to expand...

Bintheredunthatgotthetshirtdontfit. A site quoting a bunch of 19th and 20th century scholars, who contradict each other, is not proof of diddly squat! I said ancient historical documents! There are a few blatant misquotes of the ECF but none of those prove anything about Pre-Christian Trinities.

It shows enough similarities to be the root of the Christian "trinity' of today. Even the early Christians didn't mention a trinity until later, and then it 'evolved' over time (much like the Cabala and Zohar 'trinity' Christians discovered).
I expected you to dismiss it just as you dismiss the Old Testament in your acceptance of pagan Christian views, of which the trinity is only one.
Tracing history, it's easy to see where the 'trinity' idea came from and why it was adopted. It had nothing to do with the Tanach.

As a matter of fact throughout this piece of doggy doo the writer keeps callings Triads, Trinities. They are not the same thing.[/qutoe]

Of course not. One is an 'evolution' over the other. This is a concept that formed over time.

"Is this positive proof that the Christian Trinity descended from the ancient (fill in the blank) triads? No."

The writer himself recognizes that some perceived similarity between pagan practices and Christian beliefs does not prove anything.

Click to expand...

It may not be, but combined with the absence of the trinity from the Tanach, this is possitive proof that the 'trinity' formed after the new testament scriptures.

And I will add that I have argued this topic many times and not you nor nobody, has ever been able to produce any historical evidence, ie. ancient scrolls, codices, papryi, clay/stone tablets, etc., that any pagan religion or society, which could have influenced early Christianity, had anything like a Trinity or even three dieties functioning, reigning, etc. in concert. Every so-called triad I have ever seen was the concoction of a modern writer.

rqv d[ K[rb hn[t-al

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I too have argued it many times, and not you nor anybody has ever been able to produce any scriptual evidence (in whatever form) of a trinity existing in the Tanach. Triad/trinities formed after as a doctrine of the Roman Herecy.

Have a good day.

fieldsofwind · Oct 6, 2002

one who tries to 'make sense' of things pertaining to the Living God is destined to fail, because mans sense... is foolishness to God.

I simply believe Him... His voice... I believe it. That is all I have against all other religions-claims-ideas.

My Father has told me that He is the Living God and apart from Him there is no other.

God Is... which is hard to think of by human standards, and that is perfect.

He is perfect... perfectly just, perfect love... at the same time

He is God who can not be in the presence of sin, and at the same time desires to be with us at all times.

He says that He is spirit... His Son says that He Is... and His Spirit lives within me... a sinner.

To our understanding... He says that He is in three parts... God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

I can not possibly begin to understand all... but I listen to my Father, and He has been teaching me.

God... in all of His glory manifests Himself in three different ways.

The Father: Undescribable Holiness... never allows the presence of sin...

The Son: God manifests Himself as a man out of love... He has to, in order to become the living sacrifice once... and for all. For God to be love, He had to become a man... to be in the presence of sin, to become that sin on the cross, to become the sacrifice... yet still be the Alpha and the Omega... The Beginning and the End... the First and the Last... He is Almighty God... who was dead, and is now alive again...(read Rev chapter 1)

The Holy Spirit: Paul describes the Holy Spirit as the Spirit who is God... and without that I still know That He is, because He has told me. God who lives with us... sees our sin. This is necessary because God desires to be with us always even to the end of the ages. More of an explanation could be given, but is not necessary

Yes... Christ prayed to God the Father... and those who say "well... then He cannot be God then".... are simly putting God... the undescribable... into their own box of limitations.

God the father many times described Himself as Israel's Saviour... and Christ His son said the same exact thing... that He is the saviour. He is God... manifesting Himself as a man...

All three parts are so perfect together... still being One

The Hebrew word that Israel used to describe God was plural-singular... meaning three parts...

Don't believe me... ask Him... He will show Himself to those wanting to believe Him

edpobre · Oct 7, 2002

Originally posted by fieldsofwind

He says that He is spirit... His Son says that He Is... and His Spirit lives within me... a sinner.

To our understanding... He says that He is in three parts... God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

I can not possibly begin to understand all... but I listen to my Father, and He has been teaching me.

God... in all of His glory manifests Himself in three different ways.

Click to expand...

Was it God who TAUGHT you that God is in three "parts?" Was  it God who TAUGHT you that He manifests Himself in three different ways? Be honest, fieldsof wind, wasn't it your Sunday school teacher who TAUGHT you these?

Can you show me WHERE in the Bible (WORD of God, remember?) God TEACHES that He is in three "parts?"

Yes... Christ prayed to God the Father... and those who say "well... then He cannot be God then".... are simly putting God... the undescribable... into their own box of limitations.

Click to expand...

You are talking way over your head my friend. What you are saying is standard Protestant defense of the DEITY of Jesus. Read John 8:40 and John 17:3 and tell me if Jesus is "putting God into his own box of limitations."

John 8:40 - "But now you seek to kill ME, a MAN who has told you the TRUTH that I HEARD from God...."

John 17:3 - "And this is ETERNAL LIFE, that they may know YOU, the ONLY true God..."

Do you say that Jesus was "putting God in his own box of limitations?"

God the father many times described Himself as Israel's Saviour... and Christ His son said the same exact thing... that He is the saviour. He is God... manifesting Himself as a man...

Click to expand...

Don't rely on your OWN understanding my friend. God MADE Jesus SAVIOR and AUTHORIZED Jesus to FORGIVE sins (John 5:31). 

All three parts are so perfect together... still being One

The Hebrew word that Israel used to describe God was plural-singular... meaning three parts...

Don't believe me... ask Him... He will show Himself to those wanting to believe Him.

Click to expand...

God COMMANDS people to LISTEN to Jesus (Matt. 17:5). Ask Jesus what he is and WHO God is. And you better BELIEVE what Jesus says. Orherwise, you are CONDEMNED already (John 3:18)

Ed

 

OldShepherd · Oct 7, 2002

Originally posted by edpobre
1 John 5:8 EXPRESSLY teaches that the witnesses AGREE as ONE. If John were saying in 1 John 5:7 that they are ONE God, then he would NOT have written in 1 John 5:8 that the three AGREE as ONE because Jesus has DECLARED that ONLY the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).Obviously, the THREE would NOT have AGREED on that!

Your statement makes absolutely no sense at all.

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

In this verse the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost bear record in heaven In the next verse the Spirit, the water, and the blood bear witness in the earth.

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: And these three agree in that one.

The one that the three on earth agree in, is the one mentioned in verse seven, because there is an and. You can quote all the verses you want to but that is what these two verses say. Now the problem for you is to make this verse agree with your doctrine as the true first century church did.

Cyprian 250 AD Treatise I On The Unity of the church.
The Lord says, "I and the Father are one; " and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, "And these three are one." And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills? He who does not hold this unity does not hold God's law, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation.

Click (here) to link to Cyprians Treatise I , On the Unity of the church.

1 John 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

This is the witness, what was just written in the preceding two verses, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost are one and the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: agree in that one. This is the witness, singular, one, not these, which God has testified of His Son.

You are ranting like a two-year old OldShepherd.

If you were a member of the only true church you wouldnt constantly be insulting people. I cannot help it if you refuse to acknowledge what the Bible actually says in the original languages.

I have tried to tell you but you refuse to listen, all languages have rules, just like Tagalog. Salamat does not mean paalam" and paalam" does not mean Salamat" When you speak Tagalog you follow the rules so people will understand you and know what you are talking about. When Peter, Paul, John and all the others wrote Greek they followed the grammar rules, precisely, they meant what they said and they said what they meant,. It was absolutely critical because they were writing revelation from God and could not make even one mistake.

But you want to disregard those grammar rules and you have to rely on several different conflicting translations to make the Bible it say what you want it too.

Thhe FATHER (alone) is the ONLY true God BECAUSE the Bible says so.

Read the rest of the Bible. 1 John 5:20. The rules of grammar here are very clear John is calling Jesus the true God.

And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

Now tell me HONESTLY OldShepherd. Without TWISTING Phil. 2:5-8, do we read in there that Jesus is God, CONTRARY to what apostle Paul wrote in his other epistles?

I was not the one adding to and twisting these verses as I clearly showed before. I will answer this on a separate post. Again the only way you can make these verses say what you want is to ignore what is written.

Your statement that "Paul very clearly refers to Jesus as God" is a MISREPRESENTATION because there is NOTHING in 1 Tim. 3:16 that says "Jesus is God." That is ONLY your IMAGINATION of what the verse should say to FIT your FALSE belief that Jesus is God.

Twisting scriptures again. The subject of this verse is God not manifestation. God, not a manifestation, was manifested in the flesh. God is the subject and manifested in the flesh is a predicate clause. Just like someone might say, The dog is brown, short, and dirty. Dog is the subject not brown. The dog is short not the brown is short. But that is exactly the way you are trying to distort this verse to make it say what you want. God is the subject and there are six predicate clauses that describe God. Who is the only one which all six clauses describe?

1 Tim 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, (God was) justified in the Spirit, (God was) seen of angels, (God was) preached unto the Gentiles, (God was) believed on in the world, (God was) received up into glory.

Apostle Paul wrote in 1 Tim. 1:17 and 1 Tim. 6:16 that God is INVISIBLE and CANNOT be SEEN. Apostle Paul in 1 Tim. 3:16 writes that Jesus, the MANIFESTATION (image) of the INVISIBLE God, was "SEEN by angels."

You keep repeating John 8:40 and 17:3 because you say that Jesus said He was a man and the Father was the only true God. Why are you quoting Paul and deliberately ignoring what Jesus said now? Why did Paul write that God is invisible and cannot be seen when Jesus had already said at least four times that God had been seen and would be seen from now on? You are so blinded by your false blasphemous doctrine that you ignore scripture and call Jesus a liar!

John 6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

He has seen the father. he which is of God, Jesus, whom heretics, like Ed and the Iglesias ni Manalo, say is only a man, has seen the Father.

John 14:7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

Henceforth, i.e. from now on, you have seen Him, i.e. the Father. But Jesus must be wrong because ED posted some verses where Paul said that God was invisible.

John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father;

Those who have seen Jesus, have seen the Father. Notice Jesus does not say an image, shadow, manifestation etc, but they have seen the Father.

John 15:24 If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.

Jesus said, they have. . . seen. . .my Father The teaching of Ed/Iglesias ni Manalo is based on one or two twisted, out-of-context, verses. In the above verses, written by John, Jesus very clearly states that God, the Father, has been and will continue to be seen! Is Jesus right? Or is Ed and his false church, Iglesias ni Manalo?

OldShepherd · Oct 7, 2002

Posted by Kain
I accept. To Christians, the Zohar and Cabala 'evolved' a new trinity, just like the NT scriptures evolved into a trinity. If you knew anything about the Cabala and it's symbolic nature, you would know that it has nothing to do with an actual Christian trinity. However, your set in yoru pagan ways and I can't make your change your mind and it's not my intention to. You have misinterpreted (a common theme for you) this entire line of thread.[/b]

You still don't get it you keep arguing and arguing and you are totally incapable of reading one simple sentence and understanding what it says. Here is is again. The article does not say they evolved a Trinity it very clearly twice says the Cabal Zohar evolved a Trinity. Just like all antichristians, you are so blinded by your irrational hatred that even when a Jewish publication contradicts what you have been taught you can't even see it or admit it.

"by its [the Zohar] speculations regarding the father, the son, and the spirit it [the Zohar] evolved a new trinity, and thus became dangerous to Judaism."

If Jesus is the TRUE God, who is his SON Jesus?

Based on a True Story

Based on a True Story

Zaqunraah

Varpatrol

Pro Deo et Patria

Zaqunraah

Based on a True Story

Varpatrol

Varpatrol

Sheep in Wolf's clothing

Zaqunraah

Zaqunraah

Varpatrol

Varpatrol

Zaqunraah

Varpatrol

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Zaqunraah

Zaqunraah

Similar threads