Denial of the Trinity doctrine

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hank

has the Right to be wrong
May 28, 2002
1,026
51
Toronto
✟16,926.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Originally posted by Rising_Suns
phew....is this ever going to end? All I see is: OldShepherd, Hank, OldShepherd, Hank, OldShepherd, Hank, OldShepherd, Hank, OldShepherd, Hank, OldShepherd, Hank, OldShepherd, Hank, OldShepherd, Hank, OldShepherd, Hank, OldShepherd, Hank, OldShepherd, Hank, OldShepherd, Hank, OldShepherd, Hank, OldShepherd, Hank......

 :)

It will end, but read my first post it is a long road, and I did not know I have to split hairs. LOL 
 
Upvote 0

Hank

has the Right to be wrong
May 28, 2002
1,026
51
Toronto
✟16,926.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Now back to the Bible.
The only version which lists 1 John 5:7-8 in accordance with you is my New King James version.

Thus I quote from this Bible 1 John 5:1-10 (NKJV; Thomas Nelson, Inc.)
1 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him. 2By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. 3For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome. 4For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world our faith. 5Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? 6 This is He who came by water and blood--Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 8And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.
9If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for this is the witness of God which He has testified of His Son. 10He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son.


  The first question here is about the first verse for now. St. John wrote: "Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God:" Since Christ in born of God, it implies that God did something whatever it might have been to Christ. What was that God did?
 
Upvote 0

Gunny

Remnant
Site Supporter
May 18, 2002
6,133
105
United States of America
✟58,262.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
[What was that God did? [/B]

God(The Word-Jesus) became flesh. Man of the O.T. were given the Holy Spirit. Was Jesus more than a mere man given special powers by God?

Yes, Sir. The Word(Jesus) became flesh. Jesus sinned not. All other men-flesh only sinned in the O.T. & N.T.

Angels created in heaven sinned-not of flesh.

Jesus, man? Yes. Jesus, God? Yes.

No one else but the Word (Jesus) that became flesh could have bore sin's penalty for the world except God(Jesus) as a man, as Adam was a man, that failed.

I will not attempt to twist and turn scripture into prove something that is a fact.

I don't need to defend with my words the truth of Jesus. Jesus stated who He was and those that hear His voice know exactly who He is for the Comforter as come and testifies to the born again believer who Jesus is with certainity.

God is not a God of confusion and He need not for man to play riddle games with His Holy Word to discredit who the Spotless Lamb of God, The I Am, is to those that reject Jesus was God in the flesh.
 
Upvote 0

OldShepherd

Zaqunraah
Mar 11, 2002
7,156
174
EST
✟21,242.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Posted by Hank
Now my clarification of my quote:
So on one hand the government persecutes Christians Bishops and then turns those into the leaders of the new State Religion. They must have built 320 parishes very quickly. (I know a miracle.)
Christianity already existed, the bishops were already in office. The statement is false. You did not correct it. That is NOT splitting hairs.

Posted previously "His predecessors also tried to make Christianity into a unifying State Religion but it resulted in defiance of the Christian leaders; and when you disobey Caesar you got killed.”

In reponse to my post you posted

”
Diocletian attempted to use the state religion as a unifying element. Encouraged by the Caesar Galerius, Diocletian in 303 issued a series of four increasingly harsh decrees designed to compel Christians to take part in the imperial cult, the traditional means by which allegiance was pledged to the empire. This began the so-called "Great Persecution."”

According to this quote and link, you posted, the “state religion” under Diocletain was emperor worship NOT Christianity. The previous statement was false. You did not correct it. That is NOT splitting hairs.

"Here again I am treating on another touchy subject, because it raises the question why exactly the surviving Bishops (after Diocletian actions) became part of the State Religion formed by Constantine just a view years later."

Why? The bishops were Christian, they did not become part of some new thing under Constantine. Constantine became a Christian and made the Christian faith the official religion, although he allowed some pagan practices to continue. Constantine did NOT form a new religion. This is NOT splitting hairs, it is the difference between truth and a lie.

”I am wrote what I wrote, how can one write something and not read it? - There see, Christians where not persecuted under Constantine. Now can you tell me how Constantine got converted into Christianity right after Christians where persecuted? That is my point here, not the hairs you are trying to split.”

I don’t know how you can post something and not read it but your posts contradict each other. Why are you posting things that contradict earlier posts, if you are reading them? Here is a link and quote to how Constantine was saved. Below that a quote and link to a first hand historical account of Christians being persecuted while Constantine was emperor and how he intervened. As I said Christians were being persecuted until Constantine ended the persecution.

Therefore it is ridiculous to assume or state that bishops who had been persecuted, tortured, their families killed, for not denouncing their Christian faith and worshipping Caesar, would willingly permit any type of pagan practice to be incorporated into their faith.


Eusebius: The Conversion of Constantine
CHAPTER XXVII.

Being convinced, however, that he needed some more powerful aid than his military forces could afford him, on account of the wicked and magical enchantments which were so diligently practiced by the tyrant, he sought Divine assistance, deeming the possession of arms and a numerous soldiery of secondary importance, but believing the co-operating power of Deity invincible and not to be shaken.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/conv-const.html

Chapter II. Demolition of Churches, and Butchery of the Bishops.
For in that city some of the churches, for the second time since the commencement of the persecutions, were leveled with the ground, and others were closed by the governors of the several districts, in order to prevent any who frequented them from assembling together, or rendering due worship to God. For he by whose orders these outrages were committed was too conscious of his own crimes to expect that these services were performed with any view to his benefit, and was convinced that all we did, and all our endeavors to obtain the favor of God, were on Constantine's behalf.

These servile governors1 then, feeling assured that such a course would be pleasing to the impious tyrant, subjected the most distinguished prelates of the churches to capital punishment. Accordingly, men who had been guilty of no crime were led away, without cause2 punished like murderers: and some suffered a new kind of death, having their bodies cut piecemeal; and, after this cruel punishment, more horrible than any named in tragedy, being cast, as a food to fishes, into the depths of the sea. The result of these horrors was again, as before, the flight of pious men, and once more the fields and deserts received the worshipers of God. The tyrant, having thus far succeeded in his object, he farther determined to raise a general persecution of the Christians:3 and he would have accomplished his purpose, nor could anything have hindered him from carrying his resolution into effect, had not he who defends his own anticipated the coming evil, and by his special guidance conducted his servant Constantine to this part of the empire, causing him to shine forth as a brilliant light in the midst of the darkness and gloomy night.
Chapter III. How Constantine Was Stirred in Behalf of the Christians Thus in Danger of Persecution.

He, perceiving the evils of which he had heard to be no longer tolerable, took wise counsel, and tempering the natural clemency of his character with a certain measure of severity, hastened to succor those who were thus grievously oppressed. For he judged that it would rightly be deemed a pious and holy task to secure, by the removal of an individual, the safety of the greater part of the human race. He judged too, that if he listened to the dictates of clemency only, and bestowed his pity on one utterly unworthy of it, this would, on the one hand, confer no real benefit on a man whom nothing would induce to abandon his evil practices, and whose fury against his subjects would only be likely to increase; 4 while, on the other hand, those who suffered from his oppression would thus be forever deprived of all hope of deliverance.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-28.htm#P7237_3037396
 
Upvote 0

OldShepherd

Zaqunraah
Mar 11, 2002
7,156
174
EST
✟21,242.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
People on this forum argue that the Trinity is pagan, not scriptural, etc. etc. but once I was driving home listening to Christian radio. It happened to be Chuck Missler of Koinonia House he said something that sounded so far out when I got home I had to immediately check it out . I can’t remember his exact title but it was something like “The Gospel summarized in the 5th chapter of Genesis.”

In Gen 5:1 we are told the meaning of Adam’s name and in Gen 4:25 the meaning of Seth’s name. The meaning of Noah's name is given in 5:29. But what are the meanings of the names in between and is there any significance to those names?


Gen 5:1 This is the written account of Adam's line. When YHWH created man, he made him in the likeness of YHWH. 2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them "man". 3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son. . . and he named him Seth.
Gen 4:25 Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, "God has appointed me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him."

Gen 5:6 Seth . . .became the father of Enosh.
9 Enosh . . .became the father of Kenan.
12 Kenan . . .became the father of Mahalaleel.
15 Mahalaleel . . .became the father of Jared.
18 Jared. . .became the father of Enoch.
21 Enoch . . .became the father of Methuselah.
25 Methuselah . . .became the father of Lamech.
28 Lamech . . .had a son.
29 He named him Noah and said, "He will comfort us . . . ."

Here are the meanings of those names taken from Strong’s Concordance.

#0582 fwna 'enowsh en-oshe' from 0605; TWOT - 136a; n m AV - man 520, certain 10, husbands 3, some 3, merchantmen 2, persons 2, misc 24; 564 1) man, mortal man, person, mankind

#07015 hnyq qiynah kee-naw' from 06969; TWOT - 2018a; n f AV - lamentation 18; 18 1) lamentation, dirge, elegy

#04111 lallhm Mahalal'el mah-hal-al-ale' from 04110 and 0410, Greek 3121 Malelehl;; n pr m AV - Mahalaleel 7; 7 Mahalaleel = "praise of God" 1) son of Cainan and the 4th in descent from Adam in the line of Seth

#03381 dry yarad yaw-rad' a primitive root; TWOT - 909; v AV - (come, go, etc) down 340, descend 18, variant 2, fell 2, let 1, abundantly 1, down by 1, indeed 1, put off 1, light off 1, out 1, sank 1, subdued 1, take 1; 380 1) to go down, descend, decline, march down, sink down

#02596 $nx chanak khaw-nak' a primitive root; TWOT- 693; v AV - dedicate 4, train up 1; 5 1) to train, dedicate, inaugurate

# 04191 twm muwth mooth a primitive root; TWOT - 1169; v AV - die 424, dead 130, slay 100, death 83, surely 50, kill 31, dead man 3, dead body 2, in no wise 2, misc 10; 835 1) to die, kill, have one executed

#07971 xlf shalach shaw-lakh' a primitive root; TWOT - 2394; v AV - send 566, go 73, (send, put,...) forth 54, send away 48, lay 14, send out 12, put 10, put away 7, cast out 7, stretch out 5, cast 5, set 5, put out 4, depart 4, soweth 3, loose 3, misc 22; 847

l , preposition to, Brown-Driver-Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1980, p. 510.

#04347 hkm makkah mak-kaw' or (masc.) hkm makkeh muk-keh' from 05221; TWOT - 1364d; n f p AV - wound 14, slaughter 14, plague 11, beaten 1, stripes 2, stroke 2, blow 1, smote 1, sores 1, wounded 1; 48

05146 xn Noach no’-akh
the same as 05118, Greek 3575 Nwe; TWOT - 1323b; n pr m
AV - Noah 46; 46
Noah = "rest"
son of Lamech, father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth; builder of the ark which saved his family from the destruction of the world which God sent on the world by the flood; became the new seminal head of mankind because his family were the only survivors of the flood

Adam - Man(kind)
Seth - Appointed
Enosh - Mortal
Kenan - Sorrow (Lamentation)
Mahalaleel - The Blessed El/Praise of El
Jared - Shall Come Down
Enoch - Teaching
Methuselah - His death Shall Bring (send forth)
Lamech - to the Suffering wounded/stricken)
Noah - Comfort/Rest

Now put them all together.

Man(kind) (is) appointed mortal sorrow. (But) the Blessed God shall come down, teaching (that) His death shall bring to the suffering, comfort/rest.

Do you suppose that is merely coincidence?
 
Upvote 0

drmmjr

Regular Member
Feb 5, 2002
459
7
Visit site
✟867.00
Faith
Christian
Adam - Man(kind)
Seth - Appointed
Enosh - Mortal
Kenan - Sorrow (Lamentation)
Mahalaleel - The Blessed El/Praise of El
Jared - Shall Come Down
Enoch - Teaching
Methuselah - His death Shall Bring (send forth)
Lamech - to the Suffering wounded/stricken)
Noah - Comfort/Rest

Now put them all together.

Man(kind) (is) appointed mortal sorrow. (But) the Blessed God shall come down, teaching (that) His death shall bring to the suffering, comfort/rest.

Do you suppose that is merely coincidence?
Old Sheperd,

Look again at what you have for Mahalaleel.
[qoute]#04111 lallhm Mahalal'el mah-hal-al-ale' from 04110 and 0410, Greek 3121 Malelehl;; n pr m AV - Mahalaleel 7; 7 Mahalaleel = "praise of God" 1) son of Cainan and the 4th in descent from Adam in the line of Seth [/quote]
Praise of God, not God. Who is the praise of God but Jesus?

Man(kind) (is) appointed mortal sorrow. (But) the praise of God (Jesus) shall come down, teaching (that) His (Jesus') death shall bring to the suffering, comfort/rest.
 
Upvote 0

Hank

has the Right to be wrong
May 28, 2002
1,026
51
Toronto
✟16,926.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Originally posted by OldShepherd
Christianity already existed, the bishops were already in office. The statement is false. You did not correct it. That is NOT splitting hairs.

Posted previously "His predecessors also tried to make Christianity into a unifying State Religion but it resulted in defiance of the Christian leaders; and when you disobey Caesar you got killed.”

In reponse to my post you posted

”
Diocletian attempted to use the state religion as a unifying element. Encouraged by the Caesar Galerius, Diocletian in 303 issued a series of four increasingly harsh decrees designed to compel Christians to take part in the imperial cult, the traditional means by which allegiance was pledged to the empire. This began the so-called "Great Persecution."”

According to this quote and link, you posted, the “state religion” under Diocletain was emperor worship NOT Christianity. The previous statement was false. You did not correct it. That is NOT splitting hairs.


In the autumn of 302 AD Diocletian visited Antioch in Syria for an official engagement. Prior to this of course, there had to take place the customary Pagan sacrifice. But you see this time there was a problem. As the bloodletting ritual began, there came the vocal denouncements of the on looking Christians. Many made cross signs to ward off the evil influence of the sacrifice. Prominent amongst these brave dissenters was a Christian named Romanus. Diocletian fumed. " . . . In the first, while Diocletian was sacrificing in public, the chief interpreter of the victims' organs reported that he could not read the future in them because of the hostile influence of Christians standing around. Diocletian burst into a rage, insisting that all in his court should offer sacrifice, and sent out orders to his army to follow suit." (Ramsey MacMullen, Constantine, p.24).

This how this persecution started. Diocletian expected as much respect for his religion as he gave to Christian's beliefs. Thus what was asked from the Christians is to give sacrifices to his gods. – No, he obviously did not wanted Christianity to become the State Religion he wanted Christianity to be part of a unified state religion. As I said you are splitting hairs.


Originally posted by OldShepherd
"Here again I am treating on another touchy subject, because it raises the question why exactly the surviving Bishops (after Diocletian actions) became part of the State Religion formed by Constantine just a view years later."

Why? The bishops were Christian, they did not become part of some new thing under Constantine. Constantine became a Christian and made the Christian faith the official religion, although he allowed some pagan practices to continue. Constantine did NOT form a new religion. This is NOT splitting hairs, it is the difference between truth and a lie.

”I am wrote what I wrote, how can one write something and not read it? - There see, Christians where not persecuted under Constantine. Now can you tell me how Constantine got converted into Christianity right after Christians where persecuted? That is my point here, not the hairs you are trying to split.”

I don’t know how you can post something and not read it but your posts contradict each other. Why are you posting things that contradict earlier posts, if you are reading them? Here is a link and quote to how Constantine was saved. Below that a quote and link to a first hand historical account of Christians being persecuted while Constantine was emperor and how he intervened. As I said Christians were being persecuted until Constantine ended the persecution.

Therefore it is ridiculous to assume or state that bishops who had been persecuted, tortured, their families killed, for not denouncing their Christian faith and worshipping Caesar, would willingly permit any type of pagan practice to be incorporated into their faith.

NO! The persecustion ended only in the west while Constantine ruled in that part of the Empire Galerius continued on.

Also since you insist on history off-topic to trinity; another tidbit for you in respect to Constantine

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ROME/LATE.HTM

Constantine, however, had several problems with his new faith. The first was that there was no established doctrine. In fact, there were as many forms of Christianity as there were communities of Christians. The second was more pressing, for foundational Christianity was manifestly anti-political. Its founder, Jesus of Nazareth, consistently condemned worldly authority and insisted that the Christian life is a non-worldly, individualistic, non-political life. As a result, the foundational Christian texts are not only anti-Roman (for Judaea was part of the Roman Empire during the life of Jesus of Nazareth), but consistently dismissive of human, worldly authority. If Christianity were going to work as a religion in a state ruled by a monarch that demanded worship and absolute authority, it would have to be changed. To this end, Constantine convened a group of Christian bishops at Nicea in 325; there, the basic orthodoxy of Christianity was instantiated in what came to be called the Nicene creed, the basic statement of belief for orthodox Christianity. Constantine accomplished more, however, for the Nicene council also ratified his own power and Christianity would begin the long struggle, lasting to this day, between the anti-political ideas of Jesus of Nazareth and the Christianity that is compromised to allow for human authority and power. (A more thorough discussion of the Nicene Council and the history of Christianity in the late Empire can be found in the module, "Early Christianity")
 
Upvote 0

Hank

has the Right to be wrong
May 28, 2002
1,026
51
Toronto
✟16,926.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Originally posted by gunnysgt
God(The Word-Jesus) became flesh. Man of the O.T. were given the Holy Spirit. Was Jesus more than a mere man given special powers by God?

Yes, Sir. The Word(Jesus) became flesh. Jesus sinned not. All other men-flesh only sinned in the O.T. & N.T.

Angels created in heaven sinned-not of flesh.

Jesus, man? Yes. Jesus, God? Yes.

No one else but the Word (Jesus) that became flesh could have bore sin's penalty for the world except God(Jesus) as a man, as Adam was a man, that failed.

I will not attempt to twist and turn scripture into prove something that is a fact.

I don't need to defend with my words the truth of Jesus. Jesus stated who He was and those that hear His voice know exactly who He is for the Comforter as come and testifies to the born again believer who Jesus is with certainity.

God is not a God of confusion and He need not for man to play riddle games with His Holy Word to discredit who the Spotless Lamb of God, The I Am, is to those that reject Jesus was God in the flesh.

gunnysgt, first thanks for your answer. May I ask you a follow up question?

God send down His Son. After His death on the cross who was raised from the dead?

As 1 John 5:5 read: Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?

Is the Son of God still the Son of God or God?
 
Upvote 0

OldShepherd

Zaqunraah
Mar 11, 2002
7,156
174
EST
✟21,242.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Originally posted by drmmjr Old Sheperd,

Look again at what you have for Mahalaleel.
#04111 lallhm Mahalal'el mah-hal-al-ale' from 04110 and 0410, Greek 3121 Malelehl;; n pr m AV - Mahalaleel 7; 7 Mahalaleel = "praise of God" 1) son of Cainan and the 4th in descent from Adam in the line of Seth
Praise of God, not God. Who is the praise of God but Jesus?

Man(kind) (is) appointed mortal sorrow. (But) the praise of God (Jesus) shall come down, teaching (that) His (Jesus') death shall bring to the suffering, comfort/rest.
I appreciate you taking the time to reply. But where is Jesus ever identified as the “praise of God”?

Here are some other possibilities


"Mahalalel (Malaleel Mahalaleel Mlahel)"
`God shines forth”
Halal with the interrogative prefix m/who.

01984 llh halal haw-lal’
a primitive root, Greek 239 allhlouia TWOT - 499,500; v
AV - praise 117, glory 14, boast 10, mad 8, shine 3, foolish 3, fools 2, commended 2, rage 2, celebrate 1, give 1, marriage 1, renowned 1; 165
1) to shine
1a) (Qal) to shine (fig. of God’s favour)
1b) (Hiphil) to flash forth light
2) to praise, boast, be boa****l
2a) (Qal)
2a1) to be boa****l
2a2) boa****l ones, boasters (participle)
2b) (Piel)
2b1) to praise
2b2) to boast, make a boast
2c) (Pual)
2c1) to be praised, be made praiseworthy, be commended, be worthy of praise
2d) (Hithpael) to boast, glory, make one’s boast
2e) (Poel) to make a fool of, make into a fool
2f) (Hithpoel) to act madly, act like a madman

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jamesdow/s004/f506271.htm

[THE GOD WHO IS PRAISED-from Mahalal which means blessed or praise; and El, the name for God]:

http://www.praize.com/bible/truthsearch/genesisprophecy.shtml

Now this last one is most interesting it defines all the names in Jesus’ genealogy from Adam to Jesus.

“Mahalaleel, the splendor of Jah.”


http://www.linkline.com/personal/schneb/studies/studies/alfgtm.htm
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

OldShepherd

Zaqunraah
Mar 11, 2002
7,156
174
EST
✟21,242.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Originally posted by Hank
In the autumn of 302 AD Diocletian visited Antioch in Syria for an official engagement. Prior to this of course, there had to take place the customary Pagan sacrifice. But you see this time there was a problem. As the bloodletting ritual began, there came the vocal denouncements of the on looking Christians. Many made cross signs to ward off the evil influence of the sacrifice. Prominent amongst these brave dissenters was a Christian named Romanus. Diocletian fumed. " . . . In the first, while Diocletian was sacrificing in public, the chief interpreter of the victims' organs reported that he could not read the future in them because of the hostile influence of Christians standing around. Diocletian burst into a rage, insisting that all in his court should offer sacrifice, and sent out orders to his army to follow suit." (Ramsey MacMullen, Constantine, p.24).

This how this persecution started. Diocletian expected as much respect for his religion as he gave to Christian's beliefs. Thus what was asked from the Christians is to give sacrifices to his gods. – No, he obviously did not wanted Christianity to become the State Religion he wanted Christianity to be part of a unified state religion. As I said you are splitting hairs.
I’ll answer the last part first. I do not consider you posting false information and refusing to correct it as splitting hairs. When you can post a truthful post, citing authoritative sources then perhaps we can move on. Where does anything you posted say Diocletian “wanted Christianity to be part of a unified state religion?” It does not say that anywhere. What you posted said, “Diocletian attempted to use the state religion as a unifying element, by forcing Christians to take part in the imperial cult.” Not by making Christianity part of the Roman emperor cult.,

”Diocletian attempted to use the state religion as a unifying element. Encouraged by the Caesar Galerius, Diocletian in 303 issued a series of four increasingly harsh decrees designed to compel Christians to take part in the imperial cult, the traditional means by which allegiance was pledged to the empire. This began the so-called "Great Persecution."

”NO! The persecustion ended only in the west while Constantine ruled in that part of the Empire Galerius continued on.” Again you are contradicting what you said earlier.

”
I am saying the Christians where not persecuted under Constantine! They were briefly persecuted by Diocletian but Galerius did most of it. Again I quote the Catholic Encyclopedia”

Diocletian was Constantine’s predecessor so which is it Hank? Did the persecution end with Diocletian or continue on? According to the historian Eusebius, who was there, Constantine ended the persecution.


”Also since you insist on history off-topic to trinity; another tidbit for you in respect to Constantine.”

No! It is NOT off topic. You posted a lot of false information, trying to prove something about the Trinity, which I have been pointing out. Once you start posting factual information about the history of the church then we can move on.


http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ROME/LATE.HTM

Constantine, however, had several problems with his new faith. The first was that there was no established doctrine. In fact, there were as many forms of Christianity as there were communities of Christians. The second was more pressing, for foundational Christianity was manifestly anti-political. Its founder, Jesus of Nazareth, consistently condemned worldly authority and insisted that the Christian life is a non-worldly, individualistic, non-political life. As a result, the foundational Christian texts are not only anti-Roman (for Judaea was part of the Roman Empire during the life of Jesus of Nazareth), but consistently dismissive of human, worldly authority. If Christianity were going to work as a religion in a state ruled by a monarch that demanded worship and absolute authority, it would have to be changed. To this end, Constantine convened a group of Christian bishops at Nicea in 325; there, the basic orthodoxy of Christianity was instantiated in what came to be called the Nicene creed, the basic statement of belief for orthodox Christianity. Constantine accomplished more, however, for the Nicene council also ratified his own power and Christianity would begin the long struggle, lasting to this day, between the anti-political ideas of Jesus of Nazareth and the Christianity that is compromised to allow for human authority and power. (A more thorough discussion of the Nicene Council and the history of Christianity in the late Empire can be found in the module, "Early Christianity")

”The first was that there was no established doctrine. In fact, there were as many forms of Christianity as there were communities of Christians.” These two statements are lies. Just because some guy posts something on the net does not make it true! Who is he and where is some historical documentation to support this?

I have been quoting from the early church fathers such as Eusebius, who wrote from his own personal experience. I can also quote first and second century church fathers such as Polycarp and Ignatius who were disciples of John the Beloved or Barnabas, disciple of Paul. There was established doctrine. To say otherwise is to call Jesus a liar. Jesus said I will build my church upon this rock and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Unless Jesus was lying then HIS church continued from then until today.
 
Upvote 0

Hank

has the Right to be wrong
May 28, 2002
1,026
51
Toronto
✟16,926.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Old Sheppard wrote:
Diocletian was Constantine’s predecessor so which is it Hank? Did the persecution end with Diocletian or continue on? According to the historian Eusebius, who was there, Constantine ended the persecution.

Constantine stopped the percecution while Galerius continued on. You still are missing the simple fact that the empire was split in various jurisdictions. No Sir I did not contradict myself. I asked the question how come the Christians became such a forceful influence whilst being persecuted, - except that you are telling me that I am contradicting myself you have yet to give an answer.

Old Sheppard wrote:
No! It is NOT off topic. You posted a lot of false information, trying to prove something about the Trinity, which I have been pointing out. Once you start posting factual information about the history of the church then we can move on.

False in your opinion. I let you in in a little secret, the Church no longer writes it's history unchallenged. - My latest reference to Constantine came from Richard Hooker at http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/CHRIST/CHRIST.HTM
Thus if I have to bend to your truth we will never move on.

Also what has Diocletian/Constantine/Great Percecution to do with trinity? We have yet to enter in this discussion of trinity LOL but I bow for your mighty knowledge of historical truth. Care to answer the biblical question or is gunnysgt’s it?
 
Upvote 0

OldShepherd

Zaqunraah
Mar 11, 2002
7,156
174
EST
✟21,242.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Originally posted by Hank
False in your opinion. I let you in in a little secret, the Church no longer writes it's history unchallenged. - My latest reference to Constantine came from Richard Hooker at http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/CHRIST/CHRIST.HTM
Thus if I have to bend to your truth we will never move on.
You're right the church does NOT write history unchallenged. Because faithful believers have stood in the gap since the time of the apostles, defending the faith. Do you remember reading where Jesus said to Peter, "Upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it?" Where is the history of that church? You imply that the history of the church that Jesus built was falsified.

You imply that Christians stood by for 2000 years and let something you call "The Church" rewrite history unchallenged. That claim calls Jesus a liar!

What in the way of documented, historical evidence have you presented for this claim? Who is Hooker and why should I believe anything he writes? Does anything you quoted from him have any factual, historical documentation? That is what I have been asking for from the first and you have yet to produce the first piece of credible evidence.

We have yet to enter in this discussion of trinity LOL but I bow for your mighty knowledge of historical truth. Care to answer the biblical question or is gunnysgt’s it?
Post any statement, comment, or question you want and I'll respond. But as long as you are posting false unproven information I will say so. I believe I did answer one question, where is the Trinity in the Bible, 1 John 5:7, and I haven't seen any credible evidence to rebut what I posted.

Your version of history seems to be anything some JW writer puts down whether he can back it up with historical evidence or not, as long as it supports what you have already made up your mind to believe.
 
Upvote 0

Hank

has the Right to be wrong
May 28, 2002
1,026
51
Toronto
✟16,926.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Originally posted by OldShepherd
You're right the church does NOT write history unchallenged. Because faithful believers have stood in the gap since the time of the apostles, defending the faith. Do you remember reading where Jesus said to Peter, "Upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it?" Where is the history of that church? You imply that the history of the church that Jesus built was falsified.

You imply that Christians stood by for 2000 years and let something you call "The Church" rewrite history unchallenged. That claim calls Jesus a liar!

What in the way of documented, historical evidence have you presented for this claim? Who is Hooker and why should I believe anything he writes? Does anything you quoted from him have any factual, historical documentation? That is what I have been asking for from the first and you have yet to produce the first piece of credible evidence.
I am questioning the Great Persecution and the motives from Constantine. Both have little to do with trinity.

Matthew 16:17-19 "Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this 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."

Are you asking me where the history is for Christ’s Church in Heaven? Or which earthly church could possibly have overcome Hell?

Hooker asked questions and concluded. Let me ask you the some questions in respect to the Hooker statement.

Jesus said to Pilate:
John 18:35-37 (NIV) "Am I a Jew?" Pilate replied. "It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?" Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." "You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."

Jesus prophesied:
Revelation 19:17-21 (NIV) And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, "Come, gather together for the great supper of God, so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and mighty men, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, small and great." Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to make war against the rider on the horse and his army. But the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who had performed the miraculous signs on his behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped his image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. The rest of them were killed with the sword that came out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh.

Jesus Christ will rage war against the rulers of earth. Can you see the predicament Constantine must have been in? After you answered that question, can you still say Mr Hooker is invalid?

Originally posted by OldShepherd
Post any statement, comment, or question you want and I'll respond. But as long as you are posting false unproven information I will say so. I believe I did answer one question, where is the Trinity in the Bible, 1 John 5:7, and I haven't seen any credible evidence to rebut what I posted.

Your version of history seems to be anything some JW writer puts down whether he can back it up with historical evidence or not, as long as it supports what you have already made up your mind to believe.
See the follow up question I addressed to gunnysgt, post number 69.

My version of history is from the sources I gave you, I did not just sit here and look for fun stuff to get you upset.

The direct question to 1John 5:7 is "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.” One what? One in thinking? One team? We have three witnesses to one statement. How did we get trinity out of this verse?
 
Upvote 0

OldShepherd

Zaqunraah
Mar 11, 2002
7,156
174
EST
✟21,242.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Originally posted by Hank
I am questioning the Great Persecution and the motives from Constantine. Both have little to do with trinity.
I realize that this is an open forum, anyone who desires may post. But if what you say is true, I must ask why you jumped into a discussion I was having with Pobre, re: his false statements about Constantine and the Trinity? If you don’t like the subject, nobody forced you to post.

Your first post on the topic, #35 posted 29th October 2002 at 10:42 AM
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/24765-4.html

Are you asking me where the history is for Christ’s Church in Heaven? Or which earthly church could possibly have overcome Hell?
Are you deliberately being obtuse or do you not understand my posts? When Jesus made the statement in Matthew 16:18 “upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” He was on earth, talking to his disciples, and He said “this rock” not “that rock”, so the only conclusion which can be drawn from that passage is a church on this earth. When Jesus means heaven, He says heaven. Again I ask my question, unless Jesus was lying, there must be a history of his church. Where is the history of that church?
Hooker asked questions and concluded. Let me ask you the some questions in respect to the Hooker statement.

Jesus said to Pilate:
John 18:35-37 (NIV) "Am I a Jew?" Pilate replied. "It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?" Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." "You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."

Jesus prophesied:
Revelation 19:17-21 (NIV) And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, "Come, gather together for the great supper of God, so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and mighty men, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, small and great." Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to make war against the rider on the horse and his army. But the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who had performed the miraculous signs on his behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped his image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. The rest of them were killed with the sword that came out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh.

Jesus Christ will rage war against the rulers of earth. Can you see the predicament Constantine must have been in? After you answered that question, can you still say Mr Hooker is invalid?
Are the terms “Kingdom” and "church" synonymous? I saw no question in all that. What does Revelation 19 have to do with Constantine? If Hooker is writing about ancient history, as he was, then anything he writes which is not supported by valid, historical, documentation is invalid. Without historical documentation I might as well read, "Ali Baba and The Forty Thieves", it has just as much validity. Hooker was not doing an exposition of Revelation. The events in Revelation are end times events. They have not occurred yet.
See the follow up question I addressed to gunnysgt, post number 69.

gunnysgt, first thanks for your answer. May I ask you a follow up question?

God send down His Son. After His death on the cross who was raised from the dead?

As 1 John 5:5 read: Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?]

Is the Son of God still the Son of God or God?
Let me ask a question. Is this supposed to be a serious inquiry? To me it is asinine. May I suggest you do some reading and learn what the Trinity is and who Jesus is to Trinitarians. And I will preface my answer with this bit of advice. There are 31,172 verses in the KJV Bible. Anybody can prove almost anything by selectively quoting a few verses, or in your case asking asinine questions about one out-of-context verses. If you first understand what the Trinity is and who Jesus is, then you state how you believe this or any other verse proves your belief and/or disproves the Trinitarian view.

In John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. And no, it was not exclamation. It was address. The Greek construction is wrong for exclamation. The form here is “o kurioV mou kai o qeoV mou” “the Lord of me and the God of me”

It is irrelevant but even if the exclamatory construction existed, Thomas, a devout Jew, would not use God’s name as an interjection or exclamation.


Now I said all that to say this, as with Thomas, Jesus is “My Lord and My God”, He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Your next question?

My version of history is from the sources I gave you, I did not just sit here and look for fun stuff to get you upset.
You haven’t seen me upset. No, from where I sit it appears you just surfed the net until you found something that agreed with what you have already made up your mind to believe.

I will repeat myself for the umpteenth time. Not you. Not me. Not nobody can write anything relevant about historical events unless they quote, reference, cite, etc., historical records, documents, etc., which were written at or near the time of the events, by people in a position to have first hand information about the events. Have you presented any of that kind of evidence?

The direct question to 1John 5:7 is "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.” One what? One in thinking? One team? We have three witnesses to one statement. How did we get trinity out of this verse?
Do you read, write, and speak Greek? I do! I learned to speak Greek, in Germany, the year Elvis and I were stationed there. I studied both Biblical languages at the post grad level in ‘80-’83. In 1 John 5:7 there is no predicate following the word “one”. If there were a predicate “one” would refer to it. Without a predicate, whatever, i.e. everything, the Father is, the Word and the Holy Spirit are “one”, i.e. a unity, with the Father. These three are one, look up the word Trinity.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hank

has the Right to be wrong
May 28, 2002
1,026
51
Toronto
✟16,926.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Originally posted by OldShepherd
I realize that this is an open forum, anyone who desires may post. But if what you say is true, I must ask why you jumped into a discussion I was having with Pobre, re: his false statements about Constantine and the Trinity? If you don’t like the subject, nobody forced you to post.

Your first post on the topic, #35 posted 29th October 2002 at 10:42 AM
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/24765-4.html
To find truth one asks questions. As much as one has the option to post and ask question the one being asked has the option not to answer.

Originally posted by OldShepherd
Are you deliberately being obtuse or do you not understand my posts? When Jesus made the statement in Matthew 16:18 “upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” He was on earth, talking to his disciples, and He said “this rock” not “that rock”, so the only conclusion which can be drawn from that passage is a church on this earth. When Jesus means heaven, He says heaven. Again I ask my question, unless Jesus was lying, there must be a history of his church. Where is the history of that church?

Jesus also said to Peter in the same breath: Matthew 16:19(NIV) “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."
Is there anything, other the fact that Christ spoke those words on earth, compelling Peter to start building a church?

I quote Jesus Christ once more Matthew 6:19-21 (NIV)
"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.”
Christ teachings aimed predominantly towards heaven not earth; whilst He spoke on earth. Peter raised the dead through Christ and performed other healing miracles, do we have this sort of thing happening nowadays?

If you would be so kind and show me the connection between St. Peter and the history of your Church this would help here.

 

Originally posted by OldShepherd
Are the terms “Kingdom” and "church" synonymous? I saw no question in all that. What does Revelation 19 have to do with Constantine? If Hooker is writing about ancient history, as he was, then anything he writes which is not supported by valid, historical, documentation is invalid. Without historical documentation I might as well read, "Ali Baba and The Forty Thieves", it has just as much validity. Hooker was not doing an exposition of Revelation. The events in Revelation are end times events. They have not occurred yet.
Read Hooker again. Here we have a powerful ruler becoming a Christian. I quoted  two distinct problematic scriptures for Constantine. Even without Hooker; we both have to accept the simple fact Constantine was an emperor. We also have the Bible. I honestly can not phantom why you need further valid, historical, documentation to understand the predicament Constantine was in.

Originally posted by OldShepherd
Let me ask a question. Is this supposed to be a serious inquiry? To me it is asinine. May I suggest you do some reading and learn what the Trinity is and who Jesus is to Trinitarians. And I will preface my answer with this bit of advice. There are 31,172 verses in the KJV Bible. Anybody can prove almost anything by selectively quoting a few verses, or in your case asking asinine questions about one out-of-context verses. If you first understand what the Trinity is and who Jesus is, then you state how you believe this or any other verse proves your belief and/or disproves the Trinitarian view.
Let me answer. Yes.
Now how asinine do you think I am to reiterate your believe in the trinity I reject. If you think the Bible shows trinity just explain it.

Originally posted by OldShepherd
In John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. And no, it was not exclamation. It was address. The Greek construction is wrong for exclamation. The form here is “o kurioV mou kai o qeoV mou” “the Lord of me and the God of me”

It is irrelevant but even if the exclamatory construction existed, Thomas, a devout Jew, would not use God’s name as an interjection or exclamation.[/b]

Now I said all that to say this, as with Thomas, Jesus is “My Lord and My God”, He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Your next question?

You can not be a devout Jew and believe in Christ. What Thomas said was when he was a devout Christian. How Jews address G-d is not applicable here. Thus Thomas confirmed what Jesus said of Himself.
John 5:20(NKJV)
”For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself does; and He will show Him greater works than these, that you may marvel. For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will.”

Originally posted by OldShepherd
You haven’t seen me upset. No, from where I sit it appears you just surfed the net until you found something that agreed with what you have already made up your mind to believe.
Incorrect. My dad was Catholic and my mom protestant. My Grandmother was JW. When I came to Canada I was with the United Church of Canada until they accepted homosexuals. I bumped into Billy Zeoli and helped there for a while. Two years ago I started questioning my faith as Born again Christian. I read the Bible every day since I could read. My mind is open. A theist/agnostic is one who firmly accepts God but has no preconceived notion of God. Thus I argue with an open mind against trinity.
 
Originally posted by OldShepherd
I will repeat myself for the umpteenth time. Not you. Not me. Not nobody can write anything relevant about historical events unless they quote, reference, cite, etc., historical records, documents, etc., which were written at or near the time of the events, by people in a position to have first hand information about the events. Have you presented any of that kind of evidence?[/b]
Not yet. First let’s see how far we can come with the Bible.

Originally posted by OldShepherd
Do you read, write, and speak Greek? I do! I learned to speak Greek, in Germany, the year Elvis and I were stationed there. I studied both Biblical languages at the post grad level in ‘80-’83. In 1 John 5:7 there is no predicate following the word “one”. If there were a predicate “one” would refer to it. Without a predicate, whatever, i.e. everything, the Father is, the Word and the Holy Spirit are “one”, i.e. a unity, with the Father. These three are one, look up the word Trinity. [/B]
I know nothing about Greek. I do trust other God fearing scholars who translated the scriptures though.
One witness is the answer however. The passage refers to
(KJV)”For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.[record in heaven] - [] added by me.

==== 
I quote St. Peter Acts 3:13-15 (NKJV)
“The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified His Servant Jesus, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let Him go. But you denied the Holy One and the Just, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses.”
Here St. Peter referred to the God of the Israelites which raised Christ from the dead. What/Who was raised and how did that get back into trinity? I hope not too asinine for you.
 
Upvote 0

edpobre

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2002
1,377
37
NEW YORK
✟3,067.00
Originally posted by gunnysgt
I don't need to defend with my words the truth of Jesus. Jesus stated who He was and those that hear His voice know exactly who He is for the Comforter as come and testifies to the born again believer who Jesus is with certainity.


Yes, Jesus stated WHO he was and if you TRULY hear his voice you SHOULD know exactly WHO he is - a MAN (John 8:40).

God is not a God of confusion and He need not for man to play riddle games with His Holy Word to discredit who the Spotless Lamb of God, The I Am, is to those that reject Jesus was God in the flesh.

Yes, God is NOT a God of confusion. That's why He COMMANDS that people LISTEN to His Son (Matt. 17:5). His SON says, the FATHER alone is the ONLY true God (John 17:3,1).   Anyone who says he TRUSTS Jesus MUST believe what he says - that he is a MAN and the Father alone is the ONLY true God.

Ed
 
Upvote 0

fieldsofwind

Well-Known Member
Oct 6, 2002
1,290
11
41
Visit site
✟9,595.00
Faith
Christian
Posted by ed: I know what is in the Bible fow. But that is not my question. I said you are NOT being RATIONAL because you said that this "thing" who is at the the side of the Father is "one and the SAME thing as the Father." BTW, what is this you cal "thing" fow?

you are the one that refered to 'thing'

Posted by ed: "Then show me the verse which says that the Father BECAME the SON."

The Bible says: (John 14:5-10) Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?" Jesus answered, "I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work."

The Bible says: (John 1:1-5, 14) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it... The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

The Bible says: (Revelation 19:13) He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.

The Bible says: (Phil 2:5-10) Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in APPEARANCE as a man, he HUMBLED HIMSELF and BECAME obedient to death--even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, (Reminder: God will not give His glory to another... He is the LORD and Him alone), that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

The Bible says this was necessary: (Hebrews 9:14) How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

The Bible says: (Hebrews 9:16-17) In the cse of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while THE ONE WHO MADE IT is living.

Did God not make the covenant???

The Bible says: (Rev 19:16) On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS. (Remeber God says that I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols. (Isaiah 42:8)


well ed.... Christ says that HE is the Alapha and the Omega... the Beginning and the End... the First and the Last..... as does the Father. I ask you ed... are they not claiming the saim thing??? if two things come in first in a race... are they not of equal speed??? simple

ed's reply: If that's how you think, do you admit then that you believe there are two "Gods" whom you pass off as "things?"

No ed... that's not how I think.. They both say it ed... God says that there are no others... therefore they are one... they are both the Alpha and the Omega... the Beginning and the End... ther FIRST AND THE LAST!!!

Why did God create the earth ed??? It was because He desired a love relationship with a creation... Love ed... "Through Him all things were made that have been made" (John 1)... God is Love (1st John 4:8)... and through His love, He came to us. (also John 1) There are not two separate 'things' as you say ed... there is one Living God who is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. He is undescribable... and says that He IS.

When God made Himself a man... it was His love.... Jesus Christ... and He subjected himself to endure mans punishment, and subservience. This was His sacrifice, that He became our sins... God the Father can not be in the presence of sin, much less become it. Therefore, out of His uncomprehendible love... He made Himself nothing. He came to us and His name is Jesus Christ-Emmanuel-God with us: Yes... God can do that, even becoming something on earth, while at the same time being God the Father in Heaven. Yes... God can do any number of "evens" that one could fathom asking.

Christ, who being in very nature God, who made Himself nothing, became subject to God the Father... and at the end when all things were finished, was taken again into glory and given the title KING OF KINGS AND LORD OR LORDS... ALL CAPS ED. This is the title reserved for the LORD HIMSELF... WHO WILL NOT GIVE HIS GLORY TO ANOTHER... IT IS THE TITLE OF MY LORD CHRIST WHO IS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE HAVING DEFEATED DEATH... AND THE KEYS OF DEATH AND HADES RESIDE IN HIS HANDS! And after it is all over... Christ will subject Himself to the Father thus the Father becomes all in all. Christ is God... who made>HIMSELF<a man... and who was then again glorified by Him from whom He came

I believe
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by edpobre: "I wonder if Einstein would agree to this "out of space" equation!"

I wonder if you have read 1 cor. chapter 1. God says that he delights in the fact that man finds Himself as foolishness.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by edpobre: "You really are FORCING a square peg into a round hole Ben. How can Jesus, a SEPARATE personality, be ABSOLUTE God when he does NOT know EVERYTHING the Father knows?"


Got something for you here ed... look this up.

Revelation chapter 19:12

take care

FOW
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols. (Isaiah 42:8)


Ed... who is the Lord of Glory?

scroll down








1 Corinthians 2:8-- None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

fieldsofwind

Well-Known Member
Oct 6, 2002
1,290
11
41
Visit site
✟9,595.00
Faith
Christian
Posted by edpobre: “The Lord of Glory is Jesus. Don't you know that God MADE Jesus LORD? Read Acts 2:36.”

Here ed… you are contradicting every part of: I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols. (Isaiah 42:8)

What does the LORD say ed? He says that He will NOT do what you are saying He did. Explain that one. Of course… that is unless they are one in the same (which they are)

Posted by edpobre: “If you THINK God the Father BECAME Jesus because of YOUR interpretation of these verses, then answer me HONESTLY fow, who is the Father to whom Jesus was praying in John 17:1”

Here ed… lets let everyone read this and see what they see… how about it?

“The Bible says: (John 14:5-10) Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?" Jesus answered, "I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work."

You ask: “Who is the Father to whom Jesus was praying in John 17:1?” Your dimensional understanding does not limit the Father ed. He is the LORD of LORDS… He is the Alpha and the Omega… the Beginning and the End… the First and the Last… He is the Living God who says that there are no others but Him. He is the Savior… He is the Redeemer. All of these things Christ claims as well.

However… you say that God made Him these things… and that He gave all of this to Christ. Ah ha, but ed… that contradicts the very character of God… He says that He will NOT give these things to another… He says that there are no others but Him. Therefore Christ is God the Father who TOOK the nature of a man, out of His own Love… He says that He made HIMSELF a man… no one else did this to Him. God did not make… some sub-god a man… He made HIMSELF a man. This is the Father to whom the one who came from the Father prayed to during the time that He made Himself nothing.

Posted by edpobre: “While it is true that Jesus (the MAN into which the WORD that was God BECAME) is the WORD of God”

You say that the Word is God… and that it came into a man. However, God says that The “He” (the “He” that you refer to as a mere man) was with God in the Beginning. So, basically… the “Word was God” refers to this “He” who was with God in the Beginning.

(In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it... The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.)

Posted by edpobre: “show me a scripture which says that <I>Jesus WAS the WORD</I> that was God <I>BEFORE he WAS born.</I>”

The Bible says: (Revelation 19:13) He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.
Posted by edpobre: “Apostle Paul SAID: there is ONLY ONE God, the FATHER (1 Cor. 8:6)”

Here… I will post the verse for you ed: “yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and from whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.”

First of all… read the verse… tell me… do you think that this verse is saying that they are two different beings? It is not… Furthermore… this does explain exactly what we have been discussing here. God the Father had to fulfill His covenant. He had to become the ultimate sacrifice for man… you want to see this in the Bible? >>> Here you go: The Bible says, (Hebrews 9:16-17), In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while THE ONE WHO MADE IT is living. Through what was man made (as the verse indicates)? I say that it was through Love that God created us. (Remember through Him all things were made that have been made: John 1) Also, 1 John 4:9—“This is how God showed His love among us: He sent His one and only Son into the world that we might live through Him.” 1 John 4:19—“We love because He first loved us.” I also know that God is love (1 John 4:8 and 4:16) This “Love” whom He is… desired to become our sacrifice: (Remember… the greatest love is willing to lay down his own life for his friend)… Importance on “HIS OWN.” You may say… God will not make Himself nothing therefore being able to sacrifice Himself. Why ed? Is God unwilling to do this? Is He too self-seeking to allow Himself to become humble and submit Himself to death? How would this be if Love is not self-seeking, and God is Love? (1 Corinthians 13:5)

Therefore: From an earlier post---When God made Himself a man... it was love.... Jesus Christ... and He subjected himself to endure mans punishment, and subservience. (Which is why you see Him in subservience to the Father) This was His sacrifice, that He became our sins... God the Father can not be in the presence of sin, much less become it. Therefore, out of His uncomprehendable love... He made Himself nothing. He came to us and His name is Jesus Christ-Emmanuel-God with us: Yes... God can do that, even becoming something on earth, while at the same time being God the Father in Heaven. Yes... God can do any number of "evens" that one could fathom asking.

Posted by edpobre: “Sure, God and Jesus are BOTH Alpha and Omega. They BOTH said "I am the Alpha and the Omega." But that does NOT make them ONE God. Alpha and Omega does NOT mean the same to God as it means to Jesus.”

Really… according to whom ed? Are you now speaking for Christ… saying what He is and is not? I simply believe what He says. I believe what He says to me through His Spirit. And I believe what He says in His word. I do not try to twist things around as you do. And if you say you haven’t, then answer all of the questions pertaining to Isaiah 42:8

Posted by edpobre: “Show me the verse that says "God MADE Himself a MAN.”

Well ed… Christ, in the word of God, says that He made HIMSELF nothing. The word does not say some separate being made Him nothing… it says He made Himself nothing. You seem to indicate that God gave some other being everything indicated in the above posts (coming with info straight out of the word)… The problem is that God HIMSELF says that He will NOT do exactly what you say He did. Here-- The Bible says: (Phil 2:5-10) Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in APPEARANCE as a man, he HUMBLED HIMSELF and BECAME obedient to death--even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, (Reminder: God will not give His glory to another... He is the LORD and Him alone), that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Posted by edpobre: “Earlier, you said that God the Father BECAME Jesus Christ. Now you are saying that Christ BECAME subject to God the Father.”
Well ed… the Bible says that the Word (who was God) became flesh. It is the flesh (who was God) that became subservient to the very God (the only God) from whom He came.

Posted by edpobre: “ Christ will SUBJECT himself to HIM (meaning God) who placed ALL things under his feet (1 Cor. 15:28). Finally, God will again become "Lord of Lords."

You say “again” meaning that there was time when He was not… a time where it was Christ. However, this again contradicts the nature of God. He says that HE WILL NOT give His glory to another. Yet Christ is the Lord of Glory. This can only mean that Christ is the same as the one who spoke this: “I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another”

The fact is ed, that you are indeed wrong. You have allowed darkness to pervert what God says. Believe Him ed!

Christ, who being in very nature God, who made Himself nothing, became subject to God the Father... and at the end when all things were finished, was taken again into glory and given the title KING OF KINGS AND LORD OR LORDS... ALL CAPS ED. This is the title reserved for the LORD HIMSELF... WHO WILL NOT GIVE HIS GLORY TO ANOTHER... IT IS THE TITLE OF MY LORD CHRIST WHO IS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE HAVING DEFEATED DEATH... AND THE KEYS OF DEATH AND HADES RESIDE IN HIS HANDS! And after it is all over... Christ will subject Himself to the Father thus the Father becomes all in all. Christ is God... who made>HIMSELF<a man... and who was then again glorified by Him from whom He came

I believe
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.