The Trinity

[JudgeRightly]

Mary the mother of God is in heaven right now, the Queen Mother, the mother of the King, Jesus Christ the Lord. She knows Who He is.

Can she hear your prayer to her?

 

[Truster]

... and male gates.

Acts 12:10 KJV
(10) When they were past the first and the second ward, they came unto the iron gate that leadeth unto the city; which opened to them of his own accord: and they went out, and passed on through one street; and forthwith the angel departed from him.

"of his own accord" is correctly translated as automatically or of itself or self-moved, acting without intervention. From the Greek automatos.

It is far better to do an accurate study before posting an opinion.

 

[Rosenritter]

It seems like you're looking for excuses instead of knowledge.

The definition of a "person" is not that difficult. A person has these attributes (not an exhaustive list):

• Consciousness
• The ability to speak and listen
• Reason
• Will

God the Father speaks to His Son and the Son speaks to His Father.
The Holy Spirit was lied to (Acts 5:3). You cannot lie to anything but a person.

There are MANY, MANY demonstrations of this throughout scripture.

Luke 22:42 (AKJV/PCE)​

(22:42) Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. ​

TWO wills defined in that verse: the Fathers and the Sons.

OK, you have provided a definition of person. Let's accept your definition as given for this discussion. I will state, however, that your definition differs from other definitions that I know of, including the person in the legal sense. The legal person does not have any of those attributes. That's just one example of a contrary definition.

You suggest that the Father speaking to the Son or the Son speaking to the Father proves that this represents person-hood. I will grant that the ability to speak does put one beneath your definition of person. However, what that does not do (by itself) is demonstrate that these are different persons. I also cannot recall any recorded conversation between people. You've got the Clark Kent and Superman problem going here. Are Clark and Superman different people? In one sense, yes. In another sense, no.

You suggest that a passage that speaks of "lying to the Holy Spirit" suggests personhood. I don't agree with that assessment. I agree that the Holy Spirit is a person (under your sense of the word) for different reasons, but I don't think your provided proof is good here.

You cite Luke 22:42 saying "two wills defined in that verse" - I will point out that does not provide evidence of different persons. Paul himself speaks of having more than one will within himself. He says he does differently than he wills, and as such he is referring to conflicting wills within the same person.

So far you have demonstrated that God is a person, but I'm not sure that you're properly proving that these are different people.

 

[Rosenritter]

Duh, I'm pretty sure that's what we're talking about here, which is why I quoted it.



No, Paul is talking about when we die.

For we know that if our earthly house, this tent [our physical body], is destroyed [ie, we are killed or die], we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens [a new heavenly body]. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven, if indeed, having been clothed, we shall not be found naked. For we who are in this tent [our current body] groan, being burdened, not because we want to be unclothed, but further clothed, that mortality may be swallowed up by life. Now He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has given us the Spirit as a guarantee. So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. For we walk by faith, not by sight.We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord - 2 Corinthians 5:1-8 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Corinthians5:1-8&version=NKJV

To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. In other words, when we (Christians) die, we are immediately transported to Heaven to be with God, and are given a new body to dwell in.

On the other hand, those who are not believers, when they die, will not be given a new body.



"Uncontained" is a word, and is the word I wanted to use.

How so?

Interpret Paul by Paul. Paul already specified to the same Corinthian church (1 Cor 15) that we do not receive heavenly bodies, incorruption, immortality, eternal life, until Christ's return and the resurrection of the dead. So It's not 'when we die" but "when we are accepted into heaven" which is "at the resurrection of the dead."

 

[NWL]

Well I proved to you that you are wrong about what you said.

Jesus the SON OF MAN, the SON OF GOD came from heaven.

No you didn't.

Jesus being the "son of man" relates to him as a human, Jesus became human when he came to earth as John 1:14 and Phil 2:7 state. Jesus was NOT the "son of man" prior to coming to earth. The verses you showed stating the "son of man" came from heaven is not proof that Jesus was the son of man prior to becoming human anymore than me saying "Paul persecuted Christians", Paul was called Saul at the time he persecuted Christians. My statement does not mean the statement Paul persecuted Christians after being named Paul, its simply me referring to Paul's and his most recent name. Likewise when the bible writer referred to the "son of man" coming from heaven he wasn't claiming Jesus was the "son of Man" prior coming to earth, if he was then it would contradict that Jesus became flesh/human.

I've never denied the Son of God came from heaven.

 

[Right Divider]

OK, you have provided a definition of person. Let's accept your definition as given for this discussion. I will state, however, that your definition differs from other definitions that I know of, including the person in the legal sense. The legal person does not have any of those attributes. That's just one example of a contrary definition.

The "legal" definition clearly has to do with human interaction. God is far beyond that topic.

You suggest that the Father speaking to the Son or the Son speaking to the Father proves that this represents person-hood. I will grant that the ability to speak does put one beneath your definition of person. However, what that does not do (by itself) is demonstrate that these are different persons. I also cannot recall any recorded conversation between people. You've got the Clark Kent and Superman problem going here. Are Clark and Superman different people? In one sense, yes. In another sense, no.

Silly example using a non-existent "person" (Superman). [BTW, Clark Kent is a disguise.... Superman is the 'real guy' in that story].

You suggest that a passage that speaks of "lying to the Holy Spirit" suggests personhood. I don't agree with that assessment. I agree that the Holy Spirit is a person (under your sense of the word) for different reasons, but I don't think your provided proof is good here.

Your opinions are very poor in my opinion, so I don't really care if you think that it's not "good proof".

You cite Luke 22:42 saying "two wills defined in that verse" - I will point out that does not provide evidence of different persons. Paul himself speaks of having more than one will within himself. He says he does differently than he wills, and as such he is referring to conflicting wills within the same person.

Different CONTEXT.

So far you have demonstrated that God is a person, but I'm not sure that you're properly proving that these are different people.

Your blindness will persist until you believe the truth.

 

[Nihilo]

Catholic Popes teach Catholics to elevate Mary. There is no such command in the Bible, nor are there any examples of such an act in the Bible. Mary would not want to be exalted in such a way. In fact, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.” Jesus replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.” See Luke 11:27-28. Does that sound like Jesus wanted Mary exalted to the level that the Catholic Church has exalted her? No. Someone told Jesus, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you.” Jesus replied, “My mother and brothers are those who hear God’s word and put it into practice.” See Luke 8:20-21. Does it sound like Jesus wants us to elevate and worship his mother? No!

No one's worshiping Mary.

 

[Nihilo]

Can she hear your prayer to her?

Everyone in heaven can. :idunno:

 

[Angel4Truth]

Everyone in heaven can. :idunno:

From: Is prayer to saints / Mary biblical?

"For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." There is no one else that can mediate with God for us. If Jesus is the ONLY mediator, that indicates Mary and the saints cannot be mediators. They cannot mediate our prayer requests to God. Further, the Bible tells us that Jesus Christ Himself is interceding for us before the Father: "Therefore He is able to save completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them" (Hebrews 7:25). With Jesus Himself interceding for us, why would we need Mary or the saints to intercede for us? Whom would God listen to more closely than His Son? Romans 8:26-27 describes the Holy Spirit interceding for us. With the 2nd and 3rd members of the Trinity already interceding for us before the Father in heaven, what possible need could there be to have Mary or the saints interceding for us?

Catholics argue that praying to Mary and the saints is no different than asking someone here on earth to pray for us. Let us examine that claim. (1) The Apostle Paul asks other Christians to pray for him in Ephesians 6:19. Many Scriptures describe believers praying for one another (2 Corinthians 1:11; Ephesians 1:16; Philippians 1:19; 2 Timothy 1:3). The Bible nowhere mentions anyone asking for someone in heaven to pray for him. The Bible nowhere describes anyone in heaven praying for anyone on earth. (2) The Bible gives absolutely no indication that Mary or the saints can hear our prayers. Mary and the saints are not omniscient. Even glorified in heaven, they are still finite beings with limitations. How could they possibly hear the prayers of millions of people? Whenever the Bible mentions praying to or speaking with the dead, it is in the context of sorcery, witchcraft, necromancy, and divination—activities the Bible strongly condemns (Leviticus 20:27; Deuteronomy 18:10-13). In the one instance when a "saint" is spoken to, Samuel in 1 Samuel 28:7-19, Samuel is not exactly happy to be disturbed. It is clear that praying to Mary or the saints is completely different from asking someone here on earth to pray for us. One has a strong biblical basis; the other has no biblical basis whatsoever.

God does not answer prayers based on who is praying. God answers prayers based on whether they are asked according to His will (1 John 5:14-15). There is absolutely no basis or need to pray to anyone other than God alone. There is no basis for asking those who are in heaven to pray for us. Only God can hear our prayers. Only God can answer our prayers. No one in heaven has any greater access to God's throne than we do through prayer (Hebrews 4:16).

 

[NWL]

You seem to not understand what the word "prayer" means. OK, who do you think Jacob was asking for this blessing? Jacob has no power to bless anyone. He's about to die. Or do you propose that he will make this blessing happen from beyond the grave?

You're denying that Jacob was blessing them. Let's resolve this quick, does the account in Genesis 48 say Jacob blessed the boys by these two citations, yes or no?

“Bring them to me, please, so that I may bless them."

"he [Jacob] continued to bless them on that day, saying: “Let Israel mention you when they pronounce blessings, saying, ‘May God make you like Eʹphra·im and like Ma·nasʹseh.’”

Also, notice what Jacob stated in the second citation in v20, "Let Israel mention you when they pronounce blessings, saying, ‘May God make you like Eʹphra·im and like Ma·nasʹseh". Jacob stated the Israelite's would bless the boys by pronouncing what, for"God [to] make you like Eʹphra·im and like Ma·nasʹseh". Jacob stated the Israelite's would be saying a blessing NOT a prayer when asking God to make the two boys "like Eʹphra·im and like Ma·nasʹseh". Why is this so hard to accept when I apply the same principle of Jacob?

[/COLOR]Your explanation doesn't even make sense when compared to the text: The sentence says, God (followed by three parenthetical definitions) .... BLESS THE LADS. It's a request for the blessing of God, from Jacob, and it only has power to the extent that God answers this prayer.

No, but it can be understood that way, but doesn't necessitate it. I can say "the King before whom I walked, The King who has looked after me, 16 The Queen who has been recovering me from all calamity, give me money". No one would read this and think the Queen was the king, they could read it that way if they really wanted to, but they could not deny that the statement could be read in more than one sense.

 

[NWL]

The bible states in multiple places that man has seen God, so if we are taking the Bible at face value, this must be believed. So instead of taking your tack and picking and choosing which verses to accept, through your JW doctrinal filter, I allow for all passages to be correct, and let them naturally sort themselves out.

And where might those occurrences be?

Ah yes, we've been talking about those appearances, have you forgotten, you've failed miserably at responding back to my point regarding your reasoning.

Jacob wrestled with a man who implied he was God - Gen 32:28
Jacob stated "I have seen God face-to-face" - Gen 32:30
Yet
Jacob asked God what his name was even though he already knew Gods name - Compare Gen 28:16, Gen 32:29

So answer me, if Jacob knew that the angel was Jehovah stating he saw God face-to-face, why ask what his name was?

The instances where people saw God (or prophesied that they will see God) are in the physical sense. Jesus must therefore be talking about something beyond the physical sense. The passage with Moses where he talks to God face to face, and then asks to see God, and God says "no man can see my face" but allows himself to be seen in another sense contradicts your interpretation in one neat package already, even without the other available support.

No it does not, I've already explained this. Firstly God is invisible, he does not have a physical representation or physical body (see Col 1:15, 1 Timothy 1:17). Moses asked to see Gods glory, Moses does NOT ask to see a physical representation of God. In turn the verse states that Moses saw not God himself but just what he asked to see, his glory.

(Exodus 33:18) "..Then he [Moses] said: Please show me your glory..[God said] When my glory is passing by, I will place you in a crevice of the rock, and I will shield you with my hand until I have passed by.."

God spoke referring to his face and back to explain in human terms that it was not possible for Moses to take the full force of Gods glory (Gods face) and that he would only be able to reveal the after glow of his glory, his back as it were. God speaks in humans terms regarding himself so that we can relate to what he means. God does not sit on a literal physical throne in the heavens and he certainly does not rest his literal feet on earth (Isaiah 66:1), God speak in human term so that we can understand his invisible qualities (Romans 1:20). Likewise God did not literally cover his literal hand over Moses as stated in the account nor did Moses see any physical representation of Gods back, since again, Moses asked to see Gods glory and the verse states it was Gods glory that went past him, not a physical body.

Your understanding of the account simply does not add up. Moses saw God face-to-face speaking to him with like he would to a normal human, this then stops, Moses isn't happy with this and somehow knows that there's more to God so asks to see his fullness. How on earth would Moses know the physical appearance of God was not actually God?

 

[NWL]

Ah, so you managed to find one other Bible that used "a god" instead of "God." Seems I was mistaken in my statement that "no other Bible has that." You managed to find an exception.

So let's be clear, "a god" instead of "God" is a clearly WRONG translation, which anyone who used the context provided by Jesus himself can clearly see. Jesus is not "a god" because the context is "God judgeth among the gods" ....

1) Jesus is the one who judgeth among the Gods
2) Jesus is not judged by any God
3) Jesus will arise and inherit all nations.

All of these things above are stated by Jesus prior to this gospel exchange of "You, being a man, maketh yourself GOD." And obviously, your created interpretation of "you, being a man, make yourself a judge" as being the accusation of the Jews makes no sense, this was obviously NOT their meaning, and clearly was not so because their charge was BLASPHEMY.

Your translation is corrupt, and specifically made after the creation of the JW doctrinal package. It's an example of circular logic: the JW doctrine creates its own translation, and then attempts to use that translation to prove their doctrine. CIRCULAR.

Stop evading and answer the question, I'll deal with your above response after you've answered:

If for arguments sake Jesus was a little god or secondary god to Almighty God Jehovah, if the Jews said to Jesus "we are stoning for blasphemy because you make yourself a god" and Jesus said "are you not gods" would Jesus comparing himself to them as being "little gods", just like them, be a good defence for an accusation of blasphemy if Jesus was NOT God but a god?

If thief "A" steals $100 from an old lady on the street, thief "B" then steals the $100 from the same old lady and thief A see's this. Thief A then accuses thief B of being a thief and states he will call the police on him because he has committed a crime. Thief B then says to Thief A "Why are you snitching on me, are you not a thief?". Does thief "B" make a valid point in his own defence regarding thief's "A" accusation?

Yes, such would seem to be applicable

Also, please answer the question I asked you that you haven't answered for some time now.

Compare these two citations regarding the same account:

(Matthew 8:5-13) "..When he [Jesus] entered Ca·perʹna·um, an army officer came to him, pleading with him [Jesus] 6 and saying: “Sir, my servant is laid up in the house with paralysis, and he is suffering terribly.” 7 He [Jesus] said to him: “When I get there, I will cure him.” 8 The army officer replied: “Sir, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but just say the word and my servant will be healed. 9 For I too am a man under authority, having soldiers under me, and I say to this one, ‘Go!’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come!’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this!’ and he does it..”

(Luke 7:1-9) "..When he [Jesus] had completed what he had to say to the people, he entered Ca·perʹna·um. 2 Now an army officer’s slave, who was dear to him, was seriously ill and about to pass away. 3 When he heard about Jesus, he sent some elders of the Jews to him to ask him to come and make his slave well. 4 They came up to Jesus and began to plead with him earnestly, saying: “He is worthy of your granting him this, 5 for he loves our nation and he himself built our synagogue.” 6 So Jesus went with them. But when he was not far from the house, the army officer had already sent friends to say to him: “Sir, do not bother, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof. 7 That is why I did not consider myself worthy to come to you. But say the word, and let my servant be healed. 8 For I too am a man placed under authority, having soldiers under me, and I say to this one, ‘Go!’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come!’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this!’ and he does it..”

I ask you this, in the above account, who spoke to Jesus, the Army officer himself or the elders of the Jews? Are the "Elders of the Jews" and the "Army officer" the same person?

 

[Potter's Clay]

The same way that you judge others you will be judged. Matthew 7:2.

I don't need to judge when God has already made it clear. All I'm doing is summarizing his word.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Lazy afternoon]

You said 'no' to the scripture THAT PLAINLY SAYS Jesus is the Spirit.

Not wise to go against what is written.

I realize you will not understand that verse, but where "the Lord is that Spirit" does not mean Jesus is a Spirit.

That scripture says Jesus was made like sinful flesh. That scripture proves you wrong, for if Jesus is not God and did not come from heaven, as you say, then what does it mean to be made like sinful flesh? You were NOT made LIKE sinful flesh, you ARE sinful flesh. Jesus is God the Father come from heaven and made like sinful flesh.

So on one hand you claim Jesus is a Spirit, and on the other hand that Jesus was made sinful flesh.

You do not know what either statement means.

That is what the scripture says. Not only that, you go against the scriptures that say Jesus CAME FROM HEAVEN.

Jesus did not come from Heaven. He came from mankind as the seed of Abraham.

However the Word which bought Him forth, and spoke through Him was by the Holy Spirit, which came from Heaven.

It seems you have no idea of anything.

LA

 

[popsthebuilder]

That last part is not in the Bible anywhere. The only time we get a new physical body is at the resurrection of our bodies.

How do you ever get that we float around contaminated if we have been washed clean and conformed our spirits to be like his?

Is it because he limits the Spirit itself to the capacities of a person?

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

 

[Lazy afternoon]

I know that, but Lazy said before that a man became God and now she is denying it.

You say God became Man, but what you don't get is that there is ONLY ONE GOD AND HE IS THE FATHER.

The only true God, the creator of all that is, bought forth a son through Mary and conformed His life to His living Word, before God joined Him and walked in Him from His baptism onward but not permanently until His resurrection and Glorification in Gods presence.

When men claim from Rev. that Jesus is God, then they declare that they do not recognize the union of the Father with His Son and do not believe the record of the Bible.

Jesus is not God Himself but has and is everything that the Father can be in a man.

There is no wrath in Jesus, but can be the instrument of his Fathers wrath.

You can not understand that.

LA

Read post 12315

 

[popsthebuilder]

For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven,if indeed, having been clothed, we shall not be found naked.For we who are in this tent groan, being burdened, not because we want to be unclothed, but further clothed, that mortality may be swallowed up by life.Now He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord.For we walk by faith, not by sight.We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. - 2 Corinthians 5:1-8 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Corinthians5:1-8&version=NKJV



I think you misread what I said. I said "uncontained," not "[un]contaminated." Please read more carefully.

What makes you think there are separate spirits or souls in heaven? Curious really

What makes you think we are conscious(even of past life/or not) in actual physical death prior to the day of resurrection?

Do you think everyone separate spirit has its own separate resurrection instantly upon physical death?

Please excuse my ignorance.

I find it interesting.



Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

No, I was trying to get a straight answer to a very simple question.



Explain what? If a question is very simple, and requires a very simple answer, why does it need explaining? It's not like I'm asking some super hard question that needs extra information in order to answer it.

Because you're attempting to set one up with a blind vague question; so when they answer; you draw some nonexistent, faulty, specific conclusion.



Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

Because you're attempting to set one up with a blind vague question; so when they answer; you draw some nonexistent, faulty, specific conclusion.



Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

Incorrect, I was trying to build up a point, asking questions to find common ground, and find out where we differ, so that I can show the basis for my beliefs, and then if there are differences between my foundation and yours (everyone here's), I can try to fix those, and then move up from there.

I'm trying to provide you with a good foundation on which to build your beliefs, so that doctrinal issues fall into place more easily.

Otherwise there's no end to debates, as it devolves into vain repetition of the same points over and over.

So far, no one has been willing to test their foundational beliefs.

So, Pops, can the effect be greater than the cause, if not, then if you are a person, does that mean that what caused you, is a person, and back to Adam, was he a person? And if so, was his Creator something less than a person?

If Adam was the effect, is the Uncaused Cause personal, because the effect cannot be greater than the cause?

 

[popsthebuilder]

I just joined yesterday, and I'm trying to get a feel for the app.

To answer your question - yes. Otherwise, a person is not worshipping the true and living God and is fundamentally denying his nature.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

That is terribly unfortunate friend.

Perhaps, by the will and mercy of GOD, through the Way that is the Christ, we can discuss why you believe the trinitarian doctrine to be a prerequisite to eternal salvation. I hope we can learn from one another.

peace



Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk