The Trinity

[Lazy afternoon]

No, not via the Holy Spirit. He IS the Holy Spirit.

No.

The holy Spirit overshadowed Mary when Jesus was conceived.

You deny Gods son, which is why you speak like a devil.

LA

 

[popsthebuilder]

So the word "another" doesn't mean anything to you?

Here's the Greek version, so that you can examine it yourself:

"And I [God the Son, Jesus] will ask the Father [God the Father] and another Helper [God the Holy Spirit, someone other than God the Father and God the Son] He [God the Father] will give you that He [God the Holy Spirit] might be with you to the age."

The Trinity.

GT would have people believe that Jesus was a schizophrenic with a multiple personality disorder.

Another...as in the Holy Spirit will dwell within another. Namely self.

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

 

[Lazy afternoon]

What?

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

What what?

 

[popsthebuilder]

So the word "another" doesn't mean anything to you?

Here's the Greek version, so that you can examine it yourself:

"And I [God the Son, Jesus] will ask the Father [God the Father] and another Helper [God the Holy Spirit, someone other than God the Father and God the Son] He [God the Father] will give you that He [God the Holy Spirit] might be with you to the age."

The Trinity.

GT would have people believe that Jesus was a schizophrenic with a multiple personality disorder.

I've got the same app, thanks though.

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

Another...as in the Holy Spirit will dwell within another. Namely self.

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

You're not paying attention to the description of the words in the verse. "Another" is describing "Helper".

"Another" is an accusative masculine singular adjective.
"Helper" (also Comforter) is an accusative masculine singular noun.

The Holy Spirit is the Helper. The Helper is a person.

 

[Tambora]

I take neg reps from you as hitting the mark.
So, gt, thank you for letting me know by your second neg rep that the truth is hitting its mark.

Thanks for the info.

Keep up the good work.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I've got the same app, thanks though.

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

I know. You're the one who first showed it to me.

 

[God's Truth]

You are just horribly confused and will not accept the truth.

They are THREE PERSONS and ONE GOD.

So God the Father is not God, unless you put Him with two others, who are not God, unless they are all three together?

The FATHER is 100% God, but He is not the SON who is also 100% God.

You just said that the the three are PERSONS and together make one God.
Now you say the Father is 100% God.
You just contradicted yourself.

That is what I said you said and you said I don't understand. You are one confused person.

The Father SENT the Son; the Son SENT the Holy Spirit.

The scriptures also say the Father sent the Holy Spirit.
It says that because they are the same.

That is the truth. It's not hard, but you reject the truth.

(and I'm now reminded why I've put on ignore a number of times).

So did you know the Father sent the Holy Spirit?

 

[popsthebuilder]

You're not paying attention to the description of the words in the verse. "Another" is describing "Helper".

"Another" is an accusative masculine singular adjective.
"Helper" (also Comforter) is an accusative masculine singular noun.

The Holy Spirit is the Helper. The Helper is a person.

Lol

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

 

[God's Truth]

I didn't see where you quoted any accusation of hers.

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

Thank you

 

[Rosenritter]

Why would using that passage mean that Jesus sinned unto death, being tempted doesn't mean that he sinned. Jesus was tempted like we are, but he never sinned once that's the difference!

There is nothing wrong with saying that Jesus endured temptation as we endure temptation. In one of the proper uses of the word, this is correct. What is incorrect (and this is my objection) is when one swaps out a different meaning of the word, and applies it out of context to construct a flawed argument of "Jesus was tempted, therefore he was not God."

Jesus was tempted (tried) in all points as we are. Jesus was not tempted (succumbed) as we are.

The only place in the whole Bible where there is any association of "tempted" with "not God" is in that one passage in James, and there it is very clear that what James means by tempted is "succumbed" not "tried." I would be greatly relieved if you would clarify that you are not (or no longer) using that argument.

In the Bible it actually says that Jesus was tempted in all points we are, so if that's true he would have experienced what we do, the difference is, Jesus never sinned once, we do!

No disagreement there.

I believe he had more power in him than you and GT give him credit for. He could spot Satan a mile off, Satan could have tempted him all day long of he wanted to, but it would have been no use, because Jesus could see him everywhere and denied him.

I have no idea what GT is arguing. I might read (unblock) about one post in a hundred. I've got to wonder at that statement of yours though.... "more power" than I give Jesus (the Almighty God in the flesh) credit for? How is that possible?

Spoiler

That's the difference between being born of God and not, those born of God receive spiritual discernment, and they should be able to see Satan more and more as they grow stronger in God. That's why I talk about wilful sining. We should be able to see when we're being tempted a lot more now. When we didn't know God, Satan would have been able to use us much more,(or sift us as wheat as Jesus put it to Peter) toss us to and fro at his will. But once we walk in the Spirit, then the Spirit should be guiding us in the truth and showing us what sin is daily and we will see when we are being tempted, not only through others but in our own hearts once our flesh lusts for something we should be able to start to nip it in the bud before it grows, and all done through Christ with the help of the Spirit helping us to overcome daily and Jesus was our perfect example.

But there are times when I do things and I don't realise it, I go in head first without thinking. Or a wrong thought comes into my head and I've sinned and I know that I have to fight it when I realise what I've done and then go to God ask for help, and say sorry, and put it right if I can and I couldn't do this either without God's help. Jesus was totally different to me, he had the full power of the Spirit because he completely lived by the will of God, and the father never left him because he did all that pleased him, and he never let a wrong thought in or did a wrong deed, he was far stronger than Satan. That is why he is our perfect example to follow, because he didn't have a spot or blemish. And this is what James means when he talks of true and undefiled religion is this, to visit the fatherless and the widows in their infliction and to remain unspotted from the world. he means to turn from this world and to turn from sin.

Also, people think that I mean my own works, but I couldn't obey God if I didn't know him, and I couldn't do any works of God if God isn't working on my heart first. But I know that those born of God, should be carrying out the works that God does within, outwardly and we should be more like Christ if he is in our hearts. And as he shows us sin, we are to turn away from it, deny ourselves and live by the will of God.

You have a peaceful spirit.

 

[God's Truth]

No distinction if you didn't notice.

They bear record in heaven

And are one....



Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

Amen.

No distinction.

 

[God's Truth]

And I ask you dear friend and sister; what is greater; the temple, or the substance within the temple?

peace

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

Jesus is the Spirit and he is the temple.

He is all.

 

[Rosenritter]

Having trouble still I see.

How do you, with any intellectual honesty, claim that Jesus was not tempted towards the desired of his own flesh, yet did not succumb, never allowing the seed of sin to be planted, but still being tempted?'

Please define the word "tempted" as you apply in in your question. As it stands currently it appears nonsensical. Maybe that was a trick question? Then again, sometimes your phone inserts strange words. Clarify please?

Now; please explain how GOD has ever been tempted by evil(satan)

Neither God nor Jesus has been tempted by evil, as per the definition used by James 1:13-14. God and Jesus have both been tempted by Satan at least a few times. Satan attempts to test God to see what he will do with his servant Job. By your definition (above) of being "tempted by evil (Satan)" this means God was tempted by evil. Likewise, Jesus was also tempted by evil (Satan) in the desert, as Satan tested Jesus to see what he would do. However, your definition is not the one used in James 1:13-14, so any answer based on a contrary definition has little actual application.

I understand that tempt and test are synonymous. I also understand that GOD tests us, but we fold toemptsation due to our own lusts and greed and physical desires.

They are not perfect synonyms. One of the meanings of tempt means to test. Another meaning of tempted means to have failed the test. The argument you were using to frame Jesus as "not God" relied on swapping the two meanings.

GOD has no lust, no physical desire, no temptation whatsoever.

By inserting the word "physical" you are implicitly acknowledging that God does have desires that are applicable in a non-physical sense.

I am not the one playing word games.

Please do open your eyes just a little wider and step out from behind that smoke screen.

May I request that you define the word "tempt' and "temptation" when you use them in sentences here? I think you're still swapping them.

 

[Rosenritter]

We already know and discussed that GOD can be angered.

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

What is the difference between righteous anger and unrighteous anger? Is there a difference? I'll explain where I'm going with this. If one tempts God and provokes him to anger, but he reacts with an unrighteous rage, then God has sinned by his own standard. Surely you acknowledge that sin does not require physical substance.

God does have feeling, he does have emotions, he does have desires. If your understanding of God does not include this, then you're more Trinity than I am. At least by Tertullian's standard, the person of God is above and beyond passion, compassion, hurt, and feeling. So if that's your view of God, the Greek Platonic invisible "perfect" God that cannot be touched, then maybe you're more accurately described as a Trinity minus two.

 

[Rosenritter]

That's not excuse not to answer my question. If you think I'm avoiding anything you're highlighting plainly state so as I have been doing with you.

(John 1:18) "..No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him.."

Scripture plainly tells us that no man has seen God at any time, you would deny a scripture such as this by claiming that it means different from how it reads, you do NOT take it for what it says but what you want it to say. John 1:18 states that no man has seen God at any time, thus the appearances of God in the OT must have been someone else other than God, the only logical and scriptual solution is that they were Angels, since this is what scripture states!

You should have stopped here. I'll stop you here, because it seems we need to. When Jesus says, "No man has seen God at any time" he is clearly not speaking in the manner of witnessing physical manifestation. He is speaking about the truest purest sense of the glory of God, the aspect that God stopped just short of revealing to Moses. Your error is in attempting to take that one statement out of its intended context and apply it to mean that it is impossible for God to appear in a form that is visible for us to see with the naked eye.

By the way, it's intended context? It's to demonstrate that Jesus IS God. Read John chapter 1.

John 1:18 KJV
(18) No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 17:5 KJV
(5) And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.


Jesus has seen God, yet we are told that no man has seen God in this way. We are told in the book of Hebrews that Jesus is no angel. There aren't any other categories left. There is Creator God (Jesus) and there are created men and angels. And some animals and plants and rocks.

 

[God's Truth]

No.

The holy Spirit overshadowed Mary when Jesus was conceived.

You deny Gods son, which is why you speak like a devil.

LA

Jesus is the Holy Spirit.

Jesus himself lives in the saved.

2 Corinthians 3:17.

 

[God's Truth]

Another...as in the Holy Spirit will dwell within another. Namely self.

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

Oh I am so happy to hear this.

 

[Rosenritter]

I find it very hypocritical of you to refuse to answer my questions because you claim I ignore your facts even though I reply to all your points, as far as I'm aware.

You on the other hand refuse to answer questions I pose post after post BUT still reply and say whatever you want to say in regards to my posts in general.

The questions you keep evading:

I'm not evading any questions, I have stopped reading when you start off on a tangent based on a false assumption with clearly bad logic. If you get tired, start by establishing small things in agreement before trying to build a JW crusade on a foundation that's clearly sand-like.

If

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 replied "are you not gods" would Jesus comparing himself to them claiming to be the same type of god as them (not necessarily a judge but someone divinely appointed) be a good defence for an accusation of blasphemy if Jesus was NOT God but a god?

Stopping you here. The Jews did not say to Jesus, "you make yourself a god." Curious, is that what the JW bible says in that place? OK, I just checked one of my paper copies. It DOES say "a god" in your bible. That's not just a bad translation, it's a bad translation invented to shape a specific argument. Too bad that won't work with anyone else's bible, or anyone else in history who didn't have the New World translation.

If you correct your question, I'll answer it.

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. Shame it has no application to the scripture at hand. Unless you've got the New World Translation, which was hand made just for this specific argument.

 

[Rosenritter]

ONE God, THREE Persons.

That's what the Bible teaches. Do bad that you cannot accept what the Bible teaches.

The bible doesn't teach three persons. You teach three persons. Now I'm not saying that makes you necessarily mistaken, but it does mean that I have to ask you the meaning of "person" in this sense. The bible doesn't define "person" for me, so I have to ask you.