Jesus is the SON not the Father.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rev.1:8 could be construed differently
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.
....but if we continue on, where John begins to tell us of his vision he hears a loud voice as of a trumpet(vs 10)saying: I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,...........and in verse 12 he turns to see the voice that spoke it which is (vs 13)One like the Son of Man and goes on to describe him, and even fall down as dead to worship Him, to which the voice says again: I am the First and the Last.(vs17).

So even if verse 8 were construed as being said of God, Jesus, the Son of Man sais it twice more in the verses that follow, which would then only solidify the knowledge that Jesus is the "Lord".

    
 
Upvote 0
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

How familiar with the Bible are you personally? If you were, you could not make such statements, so your information must be second-hand.
 
Upvote 0

edpobre

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2002
1,377
37
NEW YORK
✟3,067.00
19th March 2003 at 03:53 PM All4Christ said this in Post #236

hey ed....you believe the Bible is all true? you believe everything Jesus says...? then try looking at EVERYTHING; you try to explain away many things, while I take into account those TWO things Jesus said that you use over and over again, and help them form my view. I don't take the trinity as my viewpoint just because that has been the view of the church for over almost two thousand years. I take it because when I look at the Bible I see overwhelming evidence for the trinity. If you come up with a MORE satisfactory way to deal with every bit of evidence, and not just explain them away, then let me know. Meanwhile, maybe look at them and try to see if they fit into your argument, and not just try to make them irrelevant.

Whew. Sorry if that is offending; I'd like to say much more but I don't think it'd be appropriate. About the word....the greek word is LOGOS. I know that. But you know, John is known for using DOUBLE MEANINGS. Look at the light concept (need me to explain ask). In this case he meant that the WORD was Jesus. I mean....taking a look at the passage in 1 John just confirms the whole thing. They coincide perfectly! And both of them support Jesus being the Word. Do me a favor, and show me some more passages that EXPLICITLY say that Christ can't be a part of the one true God. Because the Trinity is trying to keep it to being ONE God, despite what you may think. It is trying to avoid have a polytheistic view of Christianity. Christ was fully man, yet he was fully God. Let me ask you something. Do you believe that ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God? If so, do you believe Christ sinned???? If so, how could he die on the Cross so that we could have eternal life?? He had to be perfect to do that....or do you not believe we are saved through him? If you don't believe we are saved through him what do you say to Jesus saying "I am the way and the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me? I'm very interested to hear what you think. Let me know.

GOD BLESS YOU ALWAYS!

All4Christ,

Have you forgotten John 3:16? Don't you understand what it says? If you do, don't you BELIEVE what it says? Let  me refresh your memory. It says: "For God (the Father) so loved the world that He SENT His only begotten Son (Jesus), that whoever BELIEVES in him  should NOT perish but HAVE everlasting life."

Jesus SAID he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3). Do you truly BELIEVE in Jesus?

Ed




 
 
Upvote 0
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... ;)
 
Upvote 0

OldShepherd

Zaqunraah
Mar 11, 2002
7,156
174
EST
✟21,242.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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... ;)
Where does the Nicene creed contradict itself? What is the "popular Protestant version"? If you have some factual information, please post it instead of just repeating what some anti-Christian, anti-Trintiarian has said.
 
Upvote 0
:sigh:

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.
 
Upvote 0

All4Christ

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙
CF Senior Ambassador
Supporter
Mar 11, 2003
11,682
8,018
PA
Visit site
✟1,013,527.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
in greek begotten has three different meanings...i'll write more about them later with the source I got this from, but one of the meanings of begotton or monogeenees (sp?) is of the same nature. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotton son (son of the same nature of God) that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life. I'll explain more later.
 
Upvote 0
I dont see what is so hard to understand. If God is omnipotent and eternal, a Spirit(Gen.1.3) then why does He have to be 'contained' into just being 'A' BEING?  Does He say I Am that I Am? He doesnt exist as A being, He exists as IS. 

The making of creation shows Him as not a single entity 'contained' in or even as one singular substance.  First, the Spirit of God hovers over the face of the waters. God hovers, moves, spreads out over the entire earth. He IS Spirit that moves around in a permeating manner. Jesus likened it to the 'wind'. Gods Spirit is God. Next, 'then God said'.  He speaks, which creates an effect that is substantial and forms a perpetual law(either spritual or physical). He IS Word that produces whatever He intends. Gods Word is God. Then later, He 'forms' beasts and man out of earth and 'blows' into man His breath and 'walks' in the garden.  He IS tangible in form and movement of some sort and occupies space. He has a 'face'. Gods form is God.

Spirit, Word and Form. Now is that 3 different, separate Gods or 1 God existing on 3 different levels or in differrent aspects of BEING?

Since man is made in Their image, it is again reflected only man IS contained, an image.  Formed of dust(tangible occupance of space) blown into(spirit) and made a living soul(thoughts, words). Instead of man existing in all the levels or just 'being' he is made 'A being'. An image of being. Contained to earth.

God IS. Not AN 'is'.  He exists outside of containment. He is not limited to life as A single creature, or A single being or A single god. He IS God. Spirit, Word, and Form. Whatever His existing manifests as, doesnt separate from BEING God. So if He sends forth His Word, clothed in flesh AS a man, a Son OF the Most High and FOR a divine purpose; then His Word is still His Word, and still GOD!

 

           
 
Upvote 0

OldShepherd

Zaqunraah
Mar 11, 2002
7,156
174
EST
✟21,242.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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.
Those are all your opinions, your thoughts, etc. I asked for factual information not just a repetition of what some anti-Christian, anti-Trintiarian has said. I am familiar with the falsehoods, distortions, and half-truths that various, sects teach their followers. 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.

Bear in mind this creed was a statement, by the church, AGAINST a new heresy taught by one man, that Jesus was not God. It was not intended to be a complete statement regarding the total nature of God.

  • 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.
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.

And just for your info. the Trinity was written about over 1000 years before the Roman Catholic church came into existence. The ONLY place a Trinity can be found other that Chrtistianity is pre-Christian Judaism.
 
Upvote 0
I asked for factual information not just a repetition of what some anti-Christian, anti-Trintiarian has said.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.


http://www.bibleman.net/johannine.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
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.
As I thought, just another member of a heretical sect trashing Christianity with nothing but your own assumptions, presumptions, and presuppositions.

Since you posted a Mormon argument about the Johannine Comma I will counter it with several links which prove that Mormon link false. For example, your guy says,

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.
He is wrong. The first known mention of 1 John 5:7 was by Athenagoras 177 AD.

  • 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.
 
Upvote 0
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?

;)
 
Upvote 0

Edouard

Regular Member
Mar 15, 2003
234
6
48
Auburn Hills, MI
Visit site
✟7,902.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Politics
US-Republican
Christ, God, and the Holy Spirit.

There is currently a cult called "The Way" which I was just introduced to by a young kid at my work. They believe that Christ, God and The holy spirit are all different with the same purpose.

HOWEVEr scripture shows us differently, even in the old testement.

John 1:1 and Genesis 1:1
Creation: nothing was made without God and nothing has been made without Christ.

In Genesis, when it discusses God, it is plural. How interesting.
Seondly, the book of John does nothing more than compel us to believe in the Trinity.

john 6:25-59 discusses who Christ is and who the Father is.
John 17 i think is even more compelling.

20) My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as your are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that youhave sent me. I have given them glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete the unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved me.

Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.

Edouard
Grace and Peace be with you.
 
Upvote 0

rnmomof7

Legend
Feb 9, 2002
14,465
733
Western NY
✟78,744.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
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

How many gods are there Jon? How many do you pray to?
 
Upvote 0

Osiris

Übermensch
Mar 15, 2003
3,480
120
Visit site
✟4,264.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
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?

;)

is wind and air the same thing? air is a mixture of gases, wind is gases moving. when the wind is in the bag it will no longer be considered wind, it is just unmoving air. gases when seen closely will reveal that are made up of different particles.

So the tree blowing about in your yard, and the tree moving about in your neighbors yard might be the same wind (flow of air), the tree moving about on the other side of the planet is not the same wind(not the same flow of air). You can compare your analogy with that of a flow of water. Put a bag in a stream of water and take it out when the bag is full. The bag will have water yet the stream is still running. But the water in the bag is made up of different particles than the water in the stream.

Just because things seem they are something, you have to look closely and see they are a different thing. I personally believe God, Jesus and the Holy spirit are 3 different unique entities. Jesus did talk to God with respect but never ordered God, God talked to Jesus with authority(commanded him, or sent him to do his will on earth). Jesus never ordered God to do something, and God never prayed to Jesus. These relationships can show that they each have a different status, God being the father, Jesus the son and only son(only a son), and the Holy Spirit.

Hope this helps
 
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
Gee Osiris thank you for the technical information.  Father, Son and Holy Spirit different 'particles'? The stream, being the original source of the water in the bag, remains unchanged, while the water in the bag changes particle makeup simply because its in the bag. ;)  If the water is returned again into the stream, will its particle makeup also return as it was? And did it ever stop 'being water'?

 

 
 
Upvote 0

lared

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2002
936
12
Visit site
✟1,291.00
Osiris,
That was a good explanation.
I remember reading in Matthew that no one knows the day or the hour, not even the son, but only the Father. If this is true, then there are things that the son does not know, that the Father does know. Then Jesus could not be Almighty, but only the Father. Two different persons.
Sincerely, Lared
 
Upvote 0

All4Christ

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙
CF Senior Ambassador
Supporter
Mar 11, 2003
11,682
8,018
PA
Visit site
✟1,013,527.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
noo....not really. Look at the following verses ok? (btw...they're from Phillipians 2:5-11

"Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God [NIV replaces robbery to be equal with equality somthing to be grasped], but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Okay let's break this down

"Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God" Jesus...in the form of God? hmm....to me that says exactly what it says, Jesus was in the form of God before he became flesh. He was divine! He is GOD! But before I get ahead of myself....let me finish

"who did not consider it robbery to be equal with God" this references to the fact Jesus saw His being God as something to be given away, not selfishly grasped. He willingly became a human being on our behalf, relinquishing His glory though retaining His deity. So I believe he had his diety, yet he relinquished some of the "Divine" powers as he was a human, because he was man AND God. If this is not clear, ask me to explain...it's late so I may not make sense.

"but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. "

okay so he made himself have no glory whatsoever...I mean, look at Him.....born in a stable, from Nazereth....nothing glorious about it! Okay....the next part.....AND COMING INTO THE LIKENESS OF MEN. How much clearer can this get?!? Jesus had to COME into the appearance of a man. He TOOK on the form of a bondservant. It doesn't say. God caused him to be in the flesh. It says he TOOK the form of a bondservant and HE came into being the likeness of a man.

And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross."

Okay so this says that because he was in the appearance as a man, He made himself obedient to God the Father....right? So if he is found in the APPEARANCE of man, isn't it possible that other things may be limited as he is on Earth? Such as knowing EVERYTHING, etc.? Maybe he does know everything, but when he came to earth, in order to become flesh, he relinquished some of those priveleges. Just a hypothesis.

"that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father"

How powerful! Every knee shall bow to Jesus. Doesn't God say YOU SHALL HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME? also over and over again God is referred to as LORD. And you know what? It makes God happy that everyone confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord and that every knee bows to him! Wow. I'll leave you to your own thinking.

OK....can't write more....it's too late....maybe just read this and think about it.
 
Upvote 0

lared

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2002
936
12
Visit site
✟1,291.00
All4Christ,
Bowing is not a common gesture or custom in the USA where I note your origin due to your flag. So it may difficult for you to understand that bowing does not neccesarily mean worship.
When visiting England, it is common for many to bow before the queen. Certainly, many would say they are not worshiping the queen.
Or when visiting Japan, bowing before one another is quite common.
I think the scripture you cited says it all....."that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow.........to the glory of God the Father"
Sincerely,
Lared
 
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

All4Christ

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙
CF Senior Ambassador
Supporter
Mar 11, 2003
11,682
8,018
PA
Visit site
✟1,013,527.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Yes....but did you miss the parts about Jesus being the form of God? Or would you say that Jesus is spirit, as God is? Or would you say he is the form of an angel that means that he is similar to the form of God? It clearly states that Jesus was the form of God. Similarly, "begotten" in John 1, means of the same nature....when you study the Greek. Therefore wherever it says God's only begotten Son, in essence it is saying God's only Son OF THE SAME NATURE of Him.

By the way....I purposely left that part to the glory of the Father, because it pointed out that he wanted everyone to "bow to Jesus." but before I go on....would you explain your definition of bowing? Or the definition "every knee shall bow"?

If it invalidates what I said, then by all means tell me it.

 

Oh, I just read your post more clearly.....you did explain to an extent.  But I have another question.  Could you name some instances in the Bible where there is bowing yet they are not worshiping?  Thanks....

God Bless....

Laura
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.