- Oct 7, 2014
- 2,737
- 452
- 86
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
These things are not proven they are only believed. Michael has some parallel tasks with the messiah.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Jesus wasn't a created being as your post implies. Michael, Gabriel, lucifer were all three created and separate beings. They are arch angels.
They aren't duoity which is oneity or oneity that somehow is threeity. Where anyone comes up with this stuff amazes me.
The god being who, became flesh, that would be the word, created all things, even the angels!
Sounds like polytheism to many.Consider what the word "God" means; deity, which can be singular and/or plural; Jesus is God singular, the Father is God singular and Jesus and His Father are God plural; Is the Father Jesus's God; didn't Jesus say, "My God, Why have you forsaken me".
I know, we do not believe in the same God.
You admitted to me that the Holy Spirit is not a person and the Holy Spirit is not God.
This is contrary to what Scripture teaches.
All three persons of the Godhead or Trinity are God.
The Father is a person and is God.
The Son is a person and is God.
The Holy Spirit is a person and is God.
They all exist distinctly different from each other yet they also exist as only one God.
Also, are you saying we will be gods in the sense that we will have the same substance, essence, and power as God?
Are you saying the spirit part of Christ who existed at the foundation of the world was created at some point?
As for Jesus being Michael the Archangel: Yeah, that is not true. It would not make sense for Jesus to take on the identity of an angel. I can see Christ putting on an empty outer shell, temple, or soul-less body that is like that of angels so as to house his Almighty being or essence as God Almighty (Because there are many passages in the Old Testament showing how Christ went under the title called the "Angel of the Lord"), but for Him to declare He is an angel by another name is just silly. Jesus is God. Jesus is eternal. Jesus is uncreated. Jesus is the second person of the Godhead or the Trinity. Jesus is not an angel (like other angels) or a created being.
...
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
John 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
John 9:35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?
John 9:37 And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.
John 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
John 11:4 When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby.
Sounds like polytheism to many.
I am merely stating that the Trinity doctrine sounds as if it were polytheism to millions of people. I am not saying that if indeed it is true, that it is evil. Indeed, if it were true, it really would not change my respect for Jesus one bit. Why should it?There is an assumption that polytheism is always wrong. By way of analogy consider the word "people", a thousand people are murderers; should we assume all people are murders? Polytheism describes pagan practice which has nothing in common with God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. You depend on a peculiar use of semantics being correct that God will not be offended.
Further distortion of Philippians 2:6 apparently for the purpose of supporting heterodox doctrine.
Where did you post the scripture? I do not read the threads. I reply to "Alerts." Give one scripture which you think proves that Jesus did not operate on his own power and I will answer it.But I have noticed that you have 'yet' to address the scripture I posted.
The post I was responding to said that Jesus only referred to Himself as "son of man" never "Son of God." I was not responding to the question if Jesus was always God's son.I do not understand what you imply by these scriptures mean; thy do not imply Jesus was always God's son. Satan seems to be the first to call Jesus the son of God, but I see nothing in scripture that suggests Jesus was Gods son before He took on human form.
He asked the apostles who they and the people thought he was? And praised Peter for having the only "right" answer, that he said was revealed to him (Peter) by "his/their" Father in Heaven... And that was, "That he was the Christ (Messiah, only Savior) the "Son of God"... Jesus would not glorify himself, but wanted that to be up to them, as it was revealed to them by the Spirit of the Father, or "tell" them as to say to them "I am The Son of God" or "I am God", although he did say "I AM" to these things, before he was cruxified...The post I was responding to said that Jesus only referred to Himself as "son of man" never "Son of God." I was not responding to the question if Jesus was always God's son.
Simple question that only requires a 'simple answer':
Has there ever been an entity that believed that it 'could' rob God of equality? An entity that DID consider 'equality to God' something to be 'grasped'?
And 'who' was this entity? What entity attempted to 'rob' God of equality. What entity attempted to 'grasp' equality from God? . . '
MEC
I was not addressing "the translation in the KJV's rendering in Philippians 2:6." I was referring to how it was twisted to fit heterodox teaching in the post quoted immediately above your post here.I believe there is nothing wrong with the translation in the KJV's rendering in Philippians 2:6.
...
. . . And this isn't only 'my' conclusion, it is the conclusion that many who have studied history and the Bible have come to. I am 'not alone'. And in 'most' instances, those that defend 'trinity' know very little if 'any' of the 'history'
If you have studied the Bible and the "Trinity" as much as you claim you would know that the Trinity was written about by the early church 170 years and less after Christ. However In addition to the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit were addressed or referred to as God in scripture.of it's 'creation'. It was 'not' created by God, Christ or His apostles. It was not a 'part' of 'Christianity' until 'hundreds of years' after the 'death of Christ'. So it could 'not' have been taught by any prophet or apostle. Not prophets or apostles of the Bible.
Don't you realize that these were people "trying to figure things out" and did not have the kind of advancements that have sped things up today, all the information, knowledge or tools in their arsenal or at their disposal, like we do today, which means that all this "old" information, while it can be somewhat useful, is pretty out of date for the most part and are full of older theories that most of us have already built on and have now surpassed, and cannot compare with what were discovering now, today, that even the Bible itself says, would not become fully opened up, and fully known until the end (times) were very near, or we were "in that period" of time, when there would be a sudden explosion of truth and knowledge and wisdom and understanding, that our predecessor's just didn't get to have...From: trinitytruth.org:
Tertullian was just a forerunner of the Nicene doctrine and did not state the immanent trinity. His use of trinitas (Latin: 'Threeness') emphasised the manifold character of God. In his treatise against Praxeas he used the words, “Trinity and economy, persons and substance.” The Son is distinct from the Father, and the Spirit from both the Father and the Son. “These three are one substance, not one person; and it is said, 'I and my Father are one' in respect not of the singularity of number but the unity of the substance.” In his book Tertullian against Praxeas, he also states that the Son was not co-eternal with the Father and did have a beginning as the begotten Son of God. He also did not teach that the Holy Spirit was a literal being. So the trinity doctrine as we know it today did not even come from the man who introduced the word Trinity.
"Trinity" as we know it today, was 'never' mentioned until it was 'formed'. That took place almost 'four hundred' years after the death of Christ. Even the council at Nicaea didn't establish 'trinity'. It only dealt with the essence of Christ. It was even 'later' that the 'doctrine' of 'trinity' itself 'came into being'.
Trying to use propaganda, especially 'false propaganda' does little to add any true 'faith' to the doctrine. At least try to be as accurate as you are able. Otherwise it makes it appear that you are 'grasping at straws' rather than actually defending it. For why would anyone use 'inaccurate' information to defend something? Makes it look like it can't be defended with the 'truth'.
Tertullian spoke of 'no trinity' as it is defined today. So to make such an indication is 'false' teaching. We actually have no accurate record of the 'first mention' of 'trinity' as it exists today. But we certainly know it was 'after' 170 AD. It wasn't used 'commonly' until the fifth century. It was 'not mentioned' at the council at Nicaea. Not in anything I've ever read.
Blessings,
MEC
Empty argumentation which does not address, explain or clarify anything. No different than a kindergartner saying, "I'm right and you're wrong! Am too! Nuh huh!."See, you attempt to deceive. Either that or you need to do further research or come to a proper understanding of the research that you have done.
The very 'earliest' mention of 'triune' was around 170 AD. And that didn't offer 'anything' to 'do' with 'trinity' as it much 'later' evolved.
No, you 'say' that 'obscure scripture' makes such an indication, but in truth, it says no such thing.
You have shown no such thing to me! If you can, link me to a post/posts where you have shown any of this?Look, it's simple: 'trinity' insists and only exists based on a number of 'facts' that it relies upon for the concept to even exist. I have shown that at least 'two of the concepts' are proven inconsistent with 'scripture'.
*1, ignores Philippians 2:6.[1]Christ is 'not equal' to God in that:
[2]All indications offered in scripture point to a 'created' entity.
[3]Christ openly stated that the Father is 'greater' than the Son.
God is one. There are three who are called or referred to as God in scripture. The Father is God but He is not the Son or the Holy Spirit.The Son is God but He is not the Father or the Holy Spirit.The Holy Spirit is God but He is not the Son or the Father. There is one God.Not really sure of your understanding of 'greater than, less than or equal'. But 'equal' means: the same. The Father and the Son are 'not the same'. And no amount of 'Greek words' is going to alter the 'fact'. The fact that 'according to scripture' the Son and the Father are 'not equal'. If they were equal, why do you suppose that the Son did not reveal Himself to 'be the Father'?
Most of this is just rehashing what you said above. Yes, the Holy Spirit does guide believers, unfortunately every heterodox group around; LDS. JW. UPCI. OP, INC, WWCG etc, claims they are guided by the Holy Spirit and they know they are right and everyone else is wrong.See, you are tying to 'pull' that 'stuff' that we need to 'reinterpret' the Bible in order to find the 'truth'. What you don't seem to realize is that I 'do not' follow such a 'belief'. I believe that the Bile is the 'word of God'. While there may be a 'few' mistakes offered in it's wording or use of capital letters, there are no 'mistakes' that are capable of hendering [sic] the 'truth'. For it is 'not only the letters or words' of the Bible that lead us to 'truth', but the Holy Spirit that makes is possible for us to come to proper understanding.
In much of what you consider to be 'works of the 'church' fathers', I find 'no such Spirit'. I witness 'philosophy' and 'mythology' and 'imagination'. Not inspired by the Holy Spirit but their own imaginations. For anyone that knows how can write whatever they 'choose'. Doesn't make them 'holy' or even remotely 'correct'. It is up to 'us' to make such evaluations 'according' to scripture.
Blessings,
MEC
This is all a 2nd/3rd copy/paste from a questionable website. Here directly from Tertullian's writing referring to the Paraclete, i.e. the Holy Spirit as a person. From this we can conclude that most of your copy/paste is equally suspect.. . . Tertullian was just a forerunner of the Nicene doctrine and did not state the immanent trinity. His use of trinitas (Latin: 'Threeness') emphasised the manifold character of God. In his treatise against Praxeas he used the words, “Trinity and economy, persons and substance.” The Son is distinct from the Father, and the Spirit from both the Father and the Son. “These three are one substance, not one person; and it is said, 'I and my Father are one' in respect not of the singularity of number but the unity of the substance.” In his book Tertullian against Praxeas, he also states that the Son was not co-eternal with the Father and did have a beginning as the begotten Son of God. He also did not teach that the Holy Spirit was a literal being. So the trinity doctrine as we know it today did not even come from the man who introduced the word Trinity.
"Trinity" as we know it today, was 'never' mentioned until it was 'formed'. That took place almost 'four hundred' years after the death of Christ. Even the council at Nicaea didn't establish 'trinity'. It only dealt with the essence of Christ. It was even 'later' that the 'doctrine' of 'trinity' itself 'came into being'.
Trying to use propaganda, especially 'false propaganda' does little to add any true 'faith' to the doctrine. At least try to be as accurate as you are able. Otherwise it makes it appear that you are 'grasping at straws' rather than actually defending it. For why would anyone use 'inaccurate' information to defend something? Makes it look like it can't be defended with the 'truth'.
Tertullian spoke of 'no trinity' as it is defined today. So to make such an indication is 'false' teaching. We actually have no accurate record of the 'first mention' of 'trinity' as it exists today. But we certainly know it was 'after' 170 AD. It wasn't used 'commonly' until the fifth century. It was 'not mentioned' at the council at Nicaea. Not in anything I've ever read.
Blessings,
MEC
I see. We are more capable of 'understanding' and 'following' than those of the 'past'?
Your contention is that 'Christianity' 'evolved' into it's present state?
Paul warned that during 'his time' that there were 'already' those that had 'gone out from among them' to 'teach damnable heresy', and that this situation would only wax 'worse and worse' till the 'end'.
Neogala, openly admitting that you are an 'amateur', wouldn't that put you in a position to 'listen' more attempt to 'teach'?
Let me also add that Tertulian also believed that Christ was a 'created being'. That there was 'a time before' the Son existed. He came to this conclusion simply by accepting the 'fact' that the Son was 'begotten'.
So if we are to consider the 'teachings' of Tertulian, why deny or ignore what He suggested concerning Christ being a 'created being'?
Blessings,
MEC
I was not addressing "the translation in the KJV's rendering in Philippians 2:6." I was referring to how it was twisted to fit heterodox teaching in the post quoted immediately above your post here.
,....But the KJV rendering is somewhat lacking as I said in my previous post. The Greek word "arpagmos" is translated "robbery" in the KJV. This came about because the word "arpagmos" only occurs once in the KJV and the correct meaning was not known. According to the scholarship which I cited, in my previous post, the word was used in Greek writings contemporary with the NT, means "something to take advantage of,” or, more idiomatically, ‘'as something to use for his own advantage.”
.....Second point the Greek word "einai" translated "to be" in the KJV is not a future tense or subjunctive. It is a present infinitive and correctly translated as "the being equal with God," thus it was a then and there present reality not something considered and declined.
If you openly admit that the modern translations are the 'devil' trying to alter the 'truth', why would you expose yourself to the teachings of the devil by reading 'other translations'? That makes absolutely 'no sense' to me. Like 'going to hell' to see if one can learn any 'truth' there. Or attending a Satanic ritual in order to see what you can learn.
If the 'devil' has devised the 'newer' translations in order to deceive, why would you willingly expose yourself to such attempted deception?
Blessings,
MEC
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?