Jesus is the SON not the Father.

Why didn't the angel say Jesus was the almighty? He clearly says the Lord, which could be construed as being different than Jesus, because Jesus and God are mentioned seperately within the same paragraph.

Click to expand...

14th September 2001 at 01:18 PM edpobre said this in Post #9
The Bible does not support the idea that Jesus, the SON, can be the same only true God as the FATHER (John 17:3) because the Bible does not support the idea that Jesus, the SON is also God, the FATHER.... What I am saying is, the Trinity is no longer as mysterious as many people were led to believe. The truth is, the Trinity has now been exposed as FALSE. Ed

Click to expand...

Today at 04:07 PM jodrey said this in Post #244

Eh, the popular Trinity is confusing. Most Christians have slightly different opinions of what it is and the Nicene Creed contradicts itself if it really does spell out the original Trinitarian God in the first place, which most say it does. Basically, the popular Protestant version is supported by the Bible because it conforms to both the "one" and the "three" concepts. It doesn't make logical sense, but Protestants are okay with this, and once again, you can't prove it wrong with the Bible. Just thought I'd let ya know...

Click to expand...

Today at 04:38 AM jodrey said this in Post #246

Basically, without getting into details, the Nicene Creed paints a picture of one Being, which is God, and that includes both the Father and the Son in that picture as the same Being. (The Holy Ghost actually isn't explicitly included with that Being, which is interesting. I wonder when people decided to stick him in.) There are only two lines that explicitly state that the Father and the Son are the same. This is reinforced by the second paragraph, which speaks about Christ as if He were the Father. However, the entire Creed refers to each as an individual, semantically separating each being, while it should instead only refer to God. According to the Orthadox Trinity, the Holy Ghost is God, not the Holy Ghost; Jesus Christ is God, not another person; the Father (Elohim) is God also: but both the Bible and the Nicene Creed refer to these individuals as if they really were individuals. Some might argue that sometimes it's important to define the role of the manifestation through a specific name, but this is not always the case, and sometimes, if God were all one, it would be just the same to refer to Jesus Christ as God as it would be to refer to the Holy Ghost to God. The linguistic stylings of the Nicene Creed make it very confusing.

There are different "versions" of the Trinity. It all depends on how "individual" God is. The Orthadox theory is that God is one singular Being, one person, so to speak, and basically that He takes on different forms, such as the Son or the Holy Ghost, and that has several logic flaws. If you say that one person takes on different "disguises" at various times, that's one thing. However, when that manifestation can only exist in one way in one point in time, or in other words, different "subpersons" cannot exist all at the same time, as the Bible shows that this would have to be possible. Christians who believe this theory though are perfectly fine with it, claiming that it is beyond logic, that we simply cannot understand God. The other popular theory is that of the "God-group," the way in which the three individuals make up a group, which is God, and this theory is usually held by protestants and liberals, and pretty much anyone else who doesn't believe understand the Orthadox theory. This makes far more logical sense than the three-is-one idea. But these are the two principle theories regarding the nature of God. There are others, I guess, which are not mainstream. My belief is even further from the Orthadox theory, that each individual is very distinct, and although they make up a whole in purpose, each one has his own godly power, personality, and spirit. This would be the "3=3" theory, which makes the most logical sense, although many people get hung up on a few different scriptures regarding it. Then there is also a theory that God is very strictly one Being, and there is no deviation on the matter. This makes the least logical sense. Basically, it all comes down to the Bible. If something doesn't reason out well in your mind people will say, "It's a divine mystery; you can't understand God." It all comes down to the Bible, and people will always find ways in and around their beliefs to make everything seem valid, so it's very difficult to get anywhere. The Bible does not address the specific question regarding the Trinity because the concept never existed in biblical times to get considered. It's something that's slowly taken form and gone in both directions over the years, following the start of the Catholic Church.

It's a waste of time to argue out the Trinity.

Click to expand...

• 
  I believe in one God,
  the Father Almighty,
  maker of heaven and earth,
  and of all things visible and invisible;
  
  And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
  the only begotten Son of God,
  begotten of his Father before all worlds,
  God of God, Light of Light,
  very God of very God,
  begotten, not made,
  being of one substance with the Father;
  by whom all things were made;
  who for us men and for our salvation
  came down from heaven,
  and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost
  of the Virgin Mary,
  and was made man;
  and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate;
  he suffered and was buried;
  and the third day he rose again
  according to the Scriptures,
  and ascended into heaven,
  and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;
  and he shall come again, with glory,
  to judge both the quick and the dead;
  whose kingdom shall have no end.
  
  And I believe in the Holy Ghost the Lord, and Giver of Live,
  who proceedeth from the Father [and the Son];
  who with the Father and the Son together
  is worshipped and glorified;
  who spake by the Prophets.
  And I believe one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church;
  I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins;
  and I look for the resurrection of the dead,
  and the life of the world to come. AMEN.
  
  NOTES AND COMMENT
  
  When the Nicene Creed was drawn up, the chief enemy was Arianism,
  which denied that Jesus was fully God. Arius was a presbyter
  (=priest = elder) in Alexandria in Egypt, in the early 300's. He
  taught that the Father, in the beginning, created (or begot) the
  Son, and that the Son, in conjunction with the Father, then
  proceeded to create the world. The result of this was to make the
  Son a created being, and hence not God in any meaningful sense.
  
  http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/history/creed.nicene.txt

The Bible does not address the specific question regarding the Trinity because the concept never existed in biblical times to get considered.

Click to expand...

I asked for factual information not just a repetition of what some anti-Christian, anti-Trintiarian has said.

Click to expand...

I am familiar with the falsehoods, distortions, and half-truths that various, sects teach their followers.

Click to expand...

Can you produce any proof, evidence, or documentation for what you have posted. Here is the Nicene creed perhaps you can point out exactly what you are talking about.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Today at 08:46 AM jodrey said this in Post #250

Actually, that was my own reasoning. I pulled out the Nicene Creed during an online debate a while back and just concentrated on its linguistic form, which is confusing. Is that a such a heresy to admit? According to Christians God cannot be described by our inferior minds, so it should be perfectly fine that the Nicene Creed is confusing.

From what I see, it's divided roughly 50% Orthadox Trinity, 35% Protestant Trinity, and 15% other. Those are just rough guesses, based on my own experience discussing the Trinity with other Christians. There are an awful lot of distortions and falsehoods spread around in any case.

Nah. I've already done this debate. I have no belief that the Trinity can be either proved or disproved by the Bible and Nicene Creed, and I'm not doing another few pages of typing just because.

Click to expand...

The first known mention of the Comma was from the Latin Church Father Priscillian, who mentions it in his Liber apologeticus 1.4, written in the mid-4th century, but there's no proof he originated the Comma.

Click to expand...

• 
  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.
  
  177 AD A Plea for Christians by Athengoras the Athenian: Philosopher and Christian.
  
  "Who, then, would not be ashamed to hear men speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their distinction in order."
  
  http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-46.htm#P2139_587041
  
  Above, 1 John 5:7 alluded to, 177 AD. Below, 1 John 5:7 quoted directly, 250 AD. Here are a few more links which refute your Mormon guy.
  • 
    
    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.
    
    http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-111.htm#P6832_2190664
  http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/authenticityof.htm
  
  http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/defending1.htm
  
  http://members.aol.com/basfawlty/1jn57.htm
  
  http://www.revneal.org/latmandebate.html
  
  http://www.1john57.com/RJack.htm
  
  chart with mss sources.
  
  http://www.1john57.com/jcindex.htm
  
  http://www.lifefebc.com/febc/BurnBush/V3N1A5.htm
  
  http://tllom.invitation.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=31
  
  The only place an actual Trinity, i.e. Triunity, one God manifest in three persons can be found is pre-Christian Judaism. And my source is the Jewish Encyclopedia.
  
  “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 evolved a new trinity, and thus became dangerous to Judaism. Such terms as ‘matronita,’ ‘body’, ‘spirit’ occur frequently (e.g. ‘Tazria,’ ed. Polna iii, 43b); so that Christians and converts like Knorr von Rosenroth, Reuchlin, and Rittangel found in the Zohar a confirmation of Christianity and especially the dogma of the Trinity (Jellinck, ‘Die Kabbalah’ p. 250, Leipsic, 1844 {transl. of Franck’s ‘La Kabbale,’ Paris 1843}) Reuchlin sought on the basis of the Cabala the words ‘Father, Son, and Holy Ghost’ in the second word in the Pentateuch, as well as in Ps. cxviii, 22 (ib. p. 10) while Johann Kemper, a convert , left in manuscript a work entitled ‘Matteh Mosheh,’ which treats in its third section of the harmony of the Zohar with its doctrine of the Trinity (Zettersteen, ‘Verzeichniss der Hebraeischen und Armamaeischen Handschriften zu Upsala.’ P. 16, Lund, 1900). The study of the Cabala led the Frankists to adopt Christianity, but the Jews have always regarded the doctrine of the Trinity as one irreconcilable with the spirit of the Jewish religion and its monotheism.”
  
  Isadore Singer ed., The Jewish Encyclopedia , KTAV Publishing, 1901, vol. 12, p. 261.

Yesterday at 06:46 PM jodrey said this in Post #250



Actually, that was my own reasoning. I pulled out the Nicene Creed during an online debate a while back and just concentrated on its linguistic form, which is confusing. Is that a such a heresy to admit? According to Christians God cannot be described by our inferior minds, so it should be perfectly fine that the Nicene Creed is confusing.



From what I see, it's divided roughly 50% Orthadox Trinity, 35% Protestant Trinity, and 15% other. Those are just rough guesses, based on my own experience discussing the Trinity with other Christians. There are an awful lot of distortions and falsehoods spread around in any case.



Nah. I've already done this debate. I have no belief that the Trinity can be either proved or disproved by the Bible and Nicene Creed, and I'm not doing another few pages of typing just because.

[/color]

http://www.bibleman.net/johannine.htm

Click to expand...

Yesterday at 12:18 AM EveOfGrace said this in Post #252

I wonder.......if the tree in my yard is blowing about, and the tree in my neighbors yard is also blowing about, is that two different winds or the same wind blowing both trees?

What if i get a plastic bag and scoop through the air and encompass the wind inside and tie a knot so the bag is inflated and yet also blows about by the wind outside of it.....is the wind inside no longer wind?

Hm, a step futher, i then pierce the bag which falls to the ground, and the wind returns again to the wind, is it still the same wind that was inside inflating the bag?

Click to expand...