Rosenritter
New member
If traditions are sufficient then why do we have scripture?
The Trinity
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
keypurr
Well-known member
Yes I can.
Jesus and the Apostles did.
So do Luther, Calvin and others.
Sent from my A622GL using TheologyOnline mobile app
Right Divider
Body part
My apologies. It did not sound like an agreement.
Right Divider
Body part
Jesus did NOT "receive" anything but a symbolic confirmation of who He ALREADY was.
Can't you see that the Spirit of God came down like a dove and lighted UPON Him?
ALL FOUR accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) agree on this point.
According to your ridiculous "story" the spirit that was in Jesus had to be suppressed or kicked out. That is FALSE.
Luke also added the voice of God to the information about this event:
Luke 3:22 (AKJV/PCE)
(3:22) And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
(3:22) And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
This was NOT Jesus becoming something that He was NOT ALREADY.
Again, you cannot understand figures of speech. The "express image of His person" is telling you that Jesus is God. But you reject it anyway.
"charakter autos hupostasis"
Keypurr is a VICTIM of his own imagination.
So, we had to wait hundreds of years for you to come around and straighten everybody out?
keypurr
Well-known member
Right Divider
Body part
:kookoo:
Why is it that we are unable to communicate with yo Keypur? Is it that you are unable to to understand the context of scripture? What is your biggest beef?
Rosenritter
New member
Keypurr, could you clarify what would have happened to the original Jesus? Was he effectively killed when the other spirit took over, or placed in a coma, or was he a passive observer that could take no actions but still could think? Or was he allowed to take actions every now and them for unimportant things?
I am unclear on this point. Please forgive RD's presentation, he is working on the longsuffering and patience bit. I would like to understand your position.
James 3:17 KJV
But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
Right Divider
Body part
Please don't reply to me when you're talking to keypurr.
Don't confuse direct talk with patience.
Rosenritter
New member
RD, the tone of this thread is rather hostile and borderline abusive. You have attacked over major disagreement, minor disagreement, and even agreement when it is stated in different words.
Let us suppose you were right, for the moment. If you were right, how do you expect to win someone's heart?
But let us suppose, for sake of argument, that you were wrong about something. How would you be able to fairly evaluate the possibility if you are always in a state of hostile attack over everything? As a non rhetorical question, are you always right?
Right Divider
Body part
Perhaps I do come off too strong for some, but I don't think that telling the truth has come off all puppies and cotton candy.
We don't "win someone's heart" with sweet talk, but with plain truth.
keypurr
Well-known member
It is the fact that your blindness will not let you see the depth of my thoughts friend. You need to ask yourself if you are really open minded.
Sent from my A622GL using TheologyOnline mobile app
keypurr
Well-known member
I am sure God would relate to us in terms that we would understand. The dead are dead. To be dead is to not think, say, move, breath. Just to decompose. Jesus was not God and he did not raise himself. The dead know nothing.
Sent from my SM-T330NU using TheologyOnline mobile app
Rosenritter
New member
From my experience, it is near impossible to convince someone of anything if they do not believe that their position is correctly understood. After all, everyone thinks they are right. You think you are right, don't you? Well, so do they. And you will not be trusted if you are trying to tell them they are wrong when you "obviously" don't know what you are talking about. That is, you need to know their position before you can be qualified to judge. They know this instinctively.
There is also a possibility that you in spite of how sincere you may be, you might be wrong. It could be in a small matter, or perhaps in a large way. But if you dogmatically hang on to something wrong, even in the small matter, you will be "disqualified" from persuading someone further no matter how "right" you may be on the large issue. This will be true for most people. If you are not willing to consider that you may be wrong and to fairly yield a point (or fail to press where it may be less than absolutely provable) then why would you expect them to be more noble than yourself?
Finally, there is the issue that even if you were completely right, that it is morally wrong for that person to yield if you have been abusive. Some people will "confess" to anything or any belief if it is convenient, or to avoid persecution. There is a time and place for mockery, when someone is themselves proud and abusive and they are their own god. But if someone is sincere, you will never win them through abuse. "Plain truth" is not unkind. See the passage from James 3:17 above.
Let's summarize this another way, "Love thy neighbor as thyself." If you were mistaken about something, how would you want to be shown? Would you want me to be gentle, listen to you fully, prove that I understand you, and only then show the difference, why it matters, and the problem that it overcomes? Or would you rather I call you stupid, foolish, ridiculous, following a false god, an agent of the devil, having an evil spirit, and generally insult your intelligence of yourself, your wife, and any children you might have in the future? I am using extremes here, but I hope it conveys the idea.
keypurr
Well-known member
John 1 is the most misunderstood verse in the NT. The Greek to English translations have mislead most. The JWS got this one right for they use the words "a god". The spirit son is a creation who was given the fullness of his creator. But he is a FORM of God, not God himself. This is what became flesh in the body prepared of him.
I have not left anything out from my studies, that is why I can say I have the same God that Jesus Christ has. The Father is the only true God. Like the Greeks, most folks who profess to be Christians do not follow the example of their Lord.
Sent from my SM-T330NU using TheologyOnline mobile app
keypurr
Well-known member
Your in the same boat BR is in, bobbing up and down in the sea of tradition. I have over thirty Greek to English Bibles and only one Aramaic to English one. I trust none fully because they all have human translators. So I take what is written and prove what it says by comparing and reasoning with the content.
Believe as you wish RD, I have been where you are and could never go back there.
Sent from my SM-T330NU using TheologyOnline mobile app
Rosenritter
New member
So if I understand correctly, you know that God raised Jesus (1 Corinthians 6:14, 2 Corinthians 4:14, Hebrews 11:19) and thus you conclude that Jesus cannot be God. But doesn't your logic depend on assuming that Jesus is not God to begin with? If so, that's circular logic. So, if I show you a passage where we are told that Jesus raised the body of Jesus, that should be sufficient to prompt honest reconsideration of your other assumed premise, right?
For clarification, your assumed premise is that if Jesus was God, then God could not raise Jesus from the dead. It might be more dramatic to wait for your answer and commitment, but I'll step forward in faith that you are reasonable.
Joh 2:18-22 KJV
(18) Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
(19) Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
(20) Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
(21) But he spake of the temple of his body.
(22) When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.
Note that Jesus did not say "God will raise it up" but "I will raise it up." Both statements would be correct, but the latter that he actually spoke and is recorded in the gospels gives the credit to Jesus himself. The logical resolution of the aforementioned passages and Christ's prophecy is that he actually was their God. Otherwise, it would have been blasphemous to claim the credit himself. Moses was denied entry into the promised land when he struck the rock and claimed credit for the miracle himself. God actually made him die before they arrived.
I realize that the conclusion may sound confusing, but Jesus did literally say that he would raise his own body. The literal words of scripture should overrule our own confusion. Are you willing to perhaps reconsider some of your other conclusions in this light?
Rosenritter
New member
If the JW have got it right, then I have something to add. I have talked with JW teams on four different occasions. I talked to them and showed them scripture from their own bibles, the New World Translation. On each occasion they were forced to admit that Jesus was God. Not "a god" but actually the LORD God Jehovah. Three of those teams were in succession, one team came in where the previous one had retreated after admitting that "Jesus is God the Father" or "Jesus is the God Jehovah" (and I didn't use the same proofs each time there.) They have done their best to edit their Bibles to obscure and remove it, but even with that bias they didn't manage to get rid of it all.