The Trinity

[NWL]

I gave scripture that plainly says THE SON OF GOD, the Son of Man CAME FROM HEAVEN.

John 3:13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man.

John 6:62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!

Just as we refer to Jesus being in heaven with the Father prior to him coming to earth even though Jesus was only named Jesus upon his birth they spoke in the same way. The term "son of Man" is only relevant to him as a human when he "became flesh" since he was part of mankind, he became human.

(John 1:14) "..So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of divine favor and truth.."

(Philippians 2:7) "..No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and became human.."

Again, Jesus was called the "son of Man" because he became Human, prior to coming to Earth Jesus was not a Human or a Son of Man, if he was then it would be impossible for him to "become" human or become flesh since he would've already been those things.

The same way we today say Jesus came from the Father even though Jesus wasn't called Jesus until his birth the 1CE writer too would've and did refer to Jesus along with his other epithets, "son of man" when referring to his pre-human existence.

 

[NWL]

I have proven with scripture that the Son of God did come from heaven.
I have been debating Lazy for a long time about this and he/she has said a man named Jesus became God and did not come from heaven

As I've said I could be mistaken, but I too have spoke to and about LA.

 

[Potter's Clay]

Do you believe adherence to the perspective of the Trinity to be needed for salvation?

Ohhhh; never met you before; welcome.

peace

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

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

 

[Potter's Clay]

Welcome to TOL.

Love your name.

Thank you! I have been trying to find an app that has a community that discusses theological issues. I'm glad that I was able to find this community.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Eagles Wings]

Welcome and know that EW will try her best to make you feel unwelcome,as she sees fit.

Tsk tsk

So far, Potter's Clay's, thoughts are well said.

Take a look if you please.

 

[Nihilo]

I'm quite certain that Mrs. Mary makes no distinction between the Spirit that is Christ, and GOD now, in this time.

I believe she may distinguish between when Christ walked the earth as man; as man is not equal to the utter literal absolute fullness of GOD as a material creation or temple.

That doesn't mean that what was in the temple/ vessel that was Jesus of Nazareth wasn't wholly the Spirit of GOD.



Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

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.

 

[Rosenritter]

So Augustine is the "official" decider? :rotfl:

I don't follow Augustine; I follow God's Word.

Augustine is as good as any in this case, because God's Word doesn't define a Trinity for us.

 

[Right Divider]

Augustine is as good as any in this case, because God's Word doesn't define a Trinity for us.

Your opinions are a poor excuse.

 

[Rosenritter]

The thing is, if Jesus endured temptation as we do, and was tempted in all points as we are, then he went through exactly what we do, yet without sin!

Agreed.

And what is the devil? He is evil, so how can Jesus not have been tempted by evil? Are we not tempted by evil?

That's where the logical fallacy enters. "Tempted by evil" is a specific phrase used in the epistles of James, but James defines the phrase as "succumbing to temptation to do evil" not as "tempted by an evil one." You're trying to use the phrase in a different sense, and then apply that back on top of the epistle of James to say that Jesus cannot be God.

That's the error. If you can confirm understanding we can maybe cut away several dozen unnecessary back and forths.

 

[Rosenritter]

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.​

He: used as the subject of a verb to refer to a male person, boy, or male animal.

... 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.

 

[Rosenritter]

Marhig, I asked a simple question, one that was not answered. Could you please answer the question?

Can the effect be greater than the cause?

JudgeRightly, if the cause is the pull of a trigger and the effect is an atomic blast, how would you respond to your own question? I'm confused about what you're trying to accomplish here.

 

[God's Truth]

Tsk tsk

So far, Potter's Clay's, thoughts are well said.

Take a look if you please.

I spoke the truth.

 

[God's Truth]

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.

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!

 

[Rosenritter]

Please answer the question, you've avoided answering yet again by creating a strawman that the translation of "you make yourself a god" is incorrect when I've already shown that this is an acceptable translation of the Greek and even showed you references from secular scholars stating such a fact.

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?



Thank you for answering. Since you've stated that it would be an applicable defence I'm interested to see your response the my question above and whether or not you apply the same consistent standard to an identical scenario.

At this point I'll quote my previous post to you where I showed how the translation "you make yourself a god" in John 10:33 is both contextually and grammatically possible according to the scholarly community, all references below are made by people who are not Unitarian.

[omitted the non-Bible translations]

The New English Bible translation (NEB)of John 10:33
"We are not going to stone you for any good deed, but for your blasphemy. You, a mere man, claim to be a god."​

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.

 

[God's Truth]

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

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

 

[Rosenritter]

You're using the premise that Jacob was praying to God as a basis for your argument. You're saying that since only people pray to God and Jacob was praying to God and mentioned "The Angel which redeemed me from all evil" that the angel must be God. Your premise is the thing that is wrong here.

Where in the text does it state Jacob was praying to God? It doesn't, again, you're assuming it does. Jacob himself was blessing the boys and made a statement that "true God" and "the angel" bless his grandsons. As can be clearly seen in the below verses it was Jacob himself that was evoking the blessing and merely stated that God and the angel bless them and made more references regarding what he hoped God would do.

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?

Genesis 48:15-16 KJV
(15) And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day,
(16) The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.

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.

 

[Rosenritter]

Take scripture for what it says and not what you want it to say! This is the main difference between you and I, I take scripture for what it says, you do not.

Where in John 1:18 does it state that "no man seeing God" is NOT in reference to seeing physical manifestation of God but rather "speaking about the truest purest sense of the glory of God, the aspect that God stopped just short of revealing to Moses"? It doesn't, you just assume it does. As I've said too many times now your reasoning is riddled in assumptions and claims NOT backed up by evidence. All the scripture states is that "no man has seen God at any time", as I said you would you twist the scripture and apply a meaning to it that is not stated in the verse.

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.

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.

 

[Right Divider]

JudgeRightly, if the cause is the pull of a trigger and the effect is an atomic blast, how would you respond to your own question? I'm confused about what you're trying to accomplish here.

With logic like that, I can see why you refuse to believe the truth.

 

[God's Truth]

As I've said I could be mistaken, but I too have spoke to and about LA.

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.

 

[JudgeRightly]

JudgeRightly, if the cause is the pull of a trigger and the effect is an atomic blast, how would you respond to your own question? I'm confused about what you're trying to accomplish here.

And yet, there's not more mass/energy after the explosion than there was before, so the effect is not greater than the cause, even in that circumstance.

Similarly, you cannot mix enough of any kind of chemicals and get love or emotion.

So, as I stated above, because no one was bold enough to answer my question, since you are a person, and the effect cannot be greater than the Cause, therefore your Creator must be personal.