The Trinity

[Rosenritter]

This is why you irk me. You assume that whatever pops into your brain must be the truth.

It's your attitude. It sucks. I won't pretend to be nice to people who are so impressed with themselves they think they can order other people around like they were grunts in the army.

I quoted the well known verse about making man in OUR image, and you immediately went off on a tangent about angels being present. Then you insinuated that I didn't know about the verses in Job, and when I laughed at your arrogance, you decide you can assume I'm avoiding answering. You're a ninny. Stop it. If you can't do that, I'll simply go about talking about you rather than to you. I'm sure anyone can tell you I'm not above doing so. Not only that, but it's better than trying to dialogue with a ninny.



No, I was making fun of your presumptions. The same kind of presumptions I've seen you make in the past about Luke 16 and Samuel. You seem to be bent in that direction, instead of sticking to what scripture states plainly.



Would you rather I just called you stupid?




:doh:

TOL provides me with the opportunity to post here. I can do so without your giving me one.




No, they were angels, but the angels were busy singing and shouting....remember?

* Man is not made in the image of angels.

So in response to the statement that "the angels of God were present at creation" and you responded "There could have been Martians too" was just an opportunity for dishonest snark. You weren't actually disputing that angels were present. Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Rosenritter]

Irrelevant. You Christians always focus your critique, on the individual rather than on the argument or issue that is being discussed. I've been studying the bible since 1984, just about, 33 years. Is that enough time, to study the bible and have an opinion? Now you're going to tell me, you've been studying the bible for 55 years, so your opinion, is somehow correct or always correct, where mine is always wrong? The strength and veracity of a person's position, is based on how long they've been studying the bible?

I've learned a few things from younger believers, about the bible. They haven't been studying the bible for 33 years, but they still were able to convince me, that they were right and I was wrong. Perhaps, just maybe, you're wrong. Is that possible? I'm always opened to the possibility that I am wrong. I'm not infallible. Are you infallible?

Reality, it seems fair to ask someone how long they studied the book in question...

 

[popsthebuilder]

There you gave implication of female characteristics.

Nowhere does the scripture refer to God as 'It'.



You scolded me earlier for claiming you claimed we can call God a 'She'.

Here we see you refer to Him as a 'She'.

Yes, technically I did use maternal qualities to show that they are to qualities of GOD.

That doesn't mean I call or expect others to call GOD, mother. I am not speaking of Mary or the mother of GOD as some Catholics do teach. I was simply explaining that GOD has qualities of both male and female if someone actually wanted to discuss it.

I don't have to justify myself to you any further.

Ridicule me for my base belief if you want.

You did not produce the scripture I requested, and despite my plea AMD warning you continue to ridicule me about it.

Someone else already showed you that the Spirit can be tested to as an it, but I guess you didn't see it.

Genesis: 1. 12. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

(is the earth a he)

Genesis: 3. 15. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. -

(hey look, a woman is referenced as both an it and a he within the same verse)

Genesis: 24. 65. For she had said unto the servant, What man is this that walketh in the field to meet us? And the servant had said, It is my master: therefore she took a vail, and covered herself.

(odd; according to you that should say he is my master and not it)

Exodus: 1. 16. And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.

Exodus: 2. 9. And Pharaoh's daughter said unto her, Take this child away, and nurse it for me, and I will give thee thy wages. And the woman took the child, and nursed it.

(must be a typo)

Exodus: 14. 18. And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I have gotten me honour upon Pharaoh, upon his chariots, and upon his horsemen. 19. And the angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them: 20. And it came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel; and it was a cloud and darkness to them, but it gave light by night to these: so that the one came not near the other all the night.

(did you see that angel of the LORD is referenced as an it)


Phone is dead.

I will continue this later.

 

[glorydaz]

So in response to the statement that "the angels of God were present at creation" and you responded "There could have been Martians too" was just an opportunity for dishonest snark. You weren't actually disputing that angels were present. Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

Nothing dishonest about my snark. Can you say the same? :chew:

 

[glorydaz]

Ease of communication is a good reason. Plus you wouldn't want to be mistaken by others (either within or without the faith) as to of which God you are speaking.

To give a demonstration of one of the earlier points, did you notice how Glorydaz switches gender reference for no reason other than to show disrespect? We all know the target of her speech, but it's a live example that purposely using the wrong gender in reference (other than that which one identifies themselves) is usually interpreted within the realm of insult, rather than honor. I know you don't mean it like that, but that's how it is interpreted.

OH, I have another reason. I simply don't believe your claim of gender.

It's interesting how you keep bringing it up, though.....as if.... thou doth protest too much. I've run across that before. :think:

 

[glorydaz]

Reality, it seems fair to ask someone how long they studied the book in question...

Note to all.....This particular poster is the self-appointed arbiter of the thread. :carryon:

 

[God's Truth]

Go back through the posts. Don't you realize yet that for a trinitarian the Father, Son and Spirit are separate personalities. She does not believe in that manner. It has been explained many times throughout the thread.

You did nothing with those scriptures. You merely gave a false statement that I was wrong and that they did not say what I said they say. That is not debating and mere denial is no defense for the truth.

 

[God's Truth]

Reality, it seems fair to ask someone how long they studied the book in question...

It doesn't matter how long a person studied.

 

[Bright Raven]

You did nothing with those scriptures. You merely gave a false statement that I was wrong and that they did not say what I said they say. That is not debating and mere denial is no defense for the truth.

You don't realize what the truth is. Scripturally, in Orthodox Christianity, God is a Trinity. You do not have to believe it if you don't want to. However it remains the truth.

 

[God's Truth]

Yes, technically I did use maternal qualities to show that they are to qualities of GOD.

That doesn't mean I call or expect others to call GOD, mother. I am not speaking of Mary or the mother of GOD as some Catholics do teach. I was simply explaining that GOD has qualities of both male and female if someone actually wanted to discuss it.

I don't have to justify myself to you any further.

Ridicule me for my base belief if you want.

You did not produce the scripture I requested, and despite my plea AMD warning you continue to ridicule me about it.

Someone else already showed you that the Spirit can be tested to as an it, but I guess you didn't see it.

Genesis: 1. 12. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

(is the earth a he)

Genesis: 3. 15. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. -

(hey look, a woman is referenced as both an it and a he within the same verse)

Genesis: 24. 65. For she had said unto the servant, What man is this that walketh in the field to meet us? And the servant had said, It is my master: therefore she took a vail, and covered herself.

(odd; according to you that should say he is my master and not it)

Exodus: 1. 16. And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.

Exodus: 2. 9. And Pharaoh's daughter said unto her, Take this child away, and nurse it for me, and I will give thee thy wages. And the woman took the child, and nursed it.

(must be a typo)

Exodus: 14. 18. And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I have gotten me honour upon Pharaoh, upon his chariots, and upon his horsemen. 19. And the angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them: 20. And it came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel; and it was a cloud and darkness to them, but it gave light by night to these: so that the one came not near the other all the night.

(did you see that angel of the LORD is referenced as an it)


Phone is dead.

I will continue this later.

You need to stop being so hostile. Where do you get I am ridiculing you? You need to prove it that it is what I did. It sounds like it just your imagination. Try and stop judging me; hypocrites are not fit to judge anyone.

As for those scriptures you gave, you should try using a better translation, try King James 2000 Bible.

You aren't reading the word 'it' correctly in those scriptures you posted.

You tried to ascribe feminine characteristics to God as proof that God is not necessarily a male.
The Bible ascribes feminine characteristics to human men in the Bible the same way.

In Numbers 11:12 Moses asks, "Have I given birth to this people?" From your absurd argument, we conclude that scripture makes Moses an 'it'.

Moses used a maternal description to describe something about himself, as other scriptures have shown God the Father to do.

In the New Testament, Jesus and Paul likened themselves to mothers, though they are men. See Matthew 23:37; Luke 13:34; and Galatians 4:19. Should we think too that they should be called 'it'?

 

[God's Truth]

You don't realize what the truth is. Scripturally, in Orthodox Christianity, God is a Trinity. You do not have to believe it if you don't want to. However it remains the truth.

Again, address those scriptures then and explain exactly what they mean.

 

[Bright Raven]

Again, address those scriptures then and explain exactly what they mean.

What scriptures that you obviously do not understand do you need explained?

 

[Rosenritter]

Genesis: 3. 15. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. -

(hey look, a woman is referenced as both an it and a he within the same verse)

The woman is not being referenced by either "it" or "he" ...

Genesis 3:15 KJV
(15) And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.


That passage isn't about the woman, it's the earliest Messianic prophecy of scripture. Jesus will bruise the head of the serpent, but the serpent will bruise his heel.

 

[Rosenritter]

Nothing dishonest about my snark. Can you say the same? :chew:

No, I cannot say that your snark is honest. If you already acknowledged that the angels were present at creation, then there was no honest reason for you to play the troll and pretend that you were arguing otherwise.

 

[Tambora]

The light of the sun, is a contingent reality, produced by the solar mass. The solar mass, is the "true sun" , or "sun proper". The light is, the "light of" the sun, and yet it is also identified as sun. It is sun, in a way, but not sun in the same, complete sense, as the actual sun in space, 52,000,000 miles away. The sun can not be perceived, without that which it generates. We only perceive and come in contact with the sun, through what it generates, within itself.

:rotfl: You just crack me up!
Without light the sun is not a sun.
You cannot separate the light and still call it a sun.
Otherwise, the "true sun", as you call it, would be nothing but a cold dark mass with no light at all.

The great angel/messenger, is an eternal manifestation and generation of the heavenly Father. He is the means through which The Father, becomes intelligible, revealed, to His creation. He is the angel/messenger that carries The Name of YHWH / The Authority and Presence of YHWH.
The Son, or Archangel/messenger, sits upon the throne in heaven,at the right hand of the Eternal Infinite, True God / Heavenly Father. Satan,deluded himself, thinking he could replace the archangel, taking His place upon the throne. He made the mistake of thinking the Son of God, was just another angel like himself. It's like a human being, seeing Yeshua/Jesus, sitting on His throne, and thinking "Hey, He's just a human like me. I'm better looking than He is. I'm taller than him. I'm more intelligent...I should be the one sitting on the throne, not this guy...". Same error. Satan thought "He's an angel like me, a member of my race. I can take His place..". That led to war, and a third of the angels were cast into the abyss.

The Son is not a created angel.
The Son is not created at all, but is the creator of all John 1:3, (along with the Father and the Holy Spirit).

 

[Rosenritter]

OH, I have another reason. I simply don't believe your claim of gender.

It's interesting how you keep bringing it up, though.....as if.... thou doth protest too much. I've run across that before. :think:

The only reason I clarify is for the sake of consistency. I have no problem engaging in a forum on a gender-neutral basis. But since I had previously spoken of my wife and newborn child during previous conversations a gender-neutral persona is no longer appropriate.

Believe whatever delusion you like though.

 

[marhig]

Marhig, when I use two to three sentences only, and ask you one direct question, how come you won't provide a direct answer to that one question? If God had come with thunder and lightning and destroying cities in his wake to prove his status and divinity, would they have crucified him?

Jesus did do many miracles before their eyes, and they still crucified him.

John 12

But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,. He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him

Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue:For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.

Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me..I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness. And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.


Jesus is not the father!

 

[Rosenritter]

It doesn't matter how long a person studied.

I think it does. If someone has casually read a few hate-pages on the web over the last few weeks, that holds less weight than if this is a subject they've studied off and on through various sources over the last few years. There's also the opportunity to gain insight into perspective. Someone who has studied the bible in seminary and then burnt out and against Christianity in general will have a different perspective than someone who has done self-study and remains Christian in spite of what they might perceive as church abuses.

It's a fair question and it opens the door to further insight. You don't always know what details will be important so it helps to talk.

 

[Rosenritter]

Jesus did do many miracles before their eyes, and they still crucified him.

John 12

But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,. He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him

Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue:For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.

Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me..I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness. And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.


Jesus is not the father!

I'm not sure that you answered the question directly. Yes, Jesus produced miracles, but never of the type to defend himself. One of the Islamic arguments against Jesus is that God would never allow himself to be harmed by men. It's a variation of the "might makes right" mentality, closer to Tertullian's understanding of "God the Father" that cannot be harmed and feels no passion.

1. Do you agree that the promised Messiah was to be crucified? Psalm 22, for example? That this was to be fulfilled?
2. Do you have any reason why God could not be allowed to be the Messiah that he promised us? One Savior? When a producer makes a movie, he sometimes places himself in the role of an actor. Is God allowed this same privilege?
3. If God also took the role of Messiah, could they have crucified him if he had blasted anyone to ash who spoke against Him?

God laid out this plan a very long time in advance. Pops made reference to Genesis 3:15 and it's interlaced through scripture in all sorts of ways. That promised Messiah needed to be perfect and without sin or God's prophecy and the thousands of years of advance planning are ruined. We are told that no one is without sin, God (and Christ) as the exceptions. Humans sin. Humans make mistakes.

Would you have bet your life savings that a random person that will be born 4000 years in the future will be the one and only person who will never sin against God? God did more than bet a life savings, he wagered his name on it.

Would you please answer the three questions above? And would you please answer this question: how did God make that prophecy?
a) God has a crystal ball and the future is already determined. God read the future in advance to know the one person who would be without sin and declared him to be the Messiah. Free will is an illusion.
b) God possessed the promised Messiah to prevent him from actually sinning even though the actual human was sinful and would have sinned. Or in other words, the only "perfect" part of that sacrifice was the God that controlled him, but the other part was tainted and sinful.
c) God was that Messiah. "If you want something done right, you do it yourself"

Thank you Marhig.

 

[Rosenritter]

Irrelevant. You Christians always focus your critique, on the individual rather than on the argument or issue that is being discussed. I've been studying the bible since 1984, just about, 33 years. Is that enough time, to study the bible and have an opinion? Now you're going to tell me, you've been studying the bible for 55 years, so your opinion, is somehow correct or always correct, where mine is always wrong? The strength and veracity of a person's position, is based on how long they've been studying the bible?

I've learned a few things from younger believers, about the bible. They haven't been studying the bible for 33 years, but they still were able to convince me, that they were right and I was wrong. Perhaps, just maybe, you're wrong. Is that possible? I'm always opened to the possibility that I am wrong. I'm not infallible. Are you infallible?

Reality, do you identify yourself as Christian? I ask because of the way you used the phrase "You Christians" as if it were non-inclusive. Thanks.