The Trinity

[popsthebuilder]

Abraham had faith that God would provide a lamb....just as he had faith God would provide him a son in his old age.

Against all hope, he believed in hope.....

Wish I could thank this twice.

Your words are true on so very many levels.

peace

 

[popsthebuilder]

... or Abraham could have been prophesying by the Holy Spirit.

Please pardon if I misunderstood you or got your position confused with someone else, but you do allow that God's spirit can work with us, maybe steer us towards certain actions, or perhaps give us the right words to say in a certain situation?

Matthew 10:19-20 KJV
(19) But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak.
(20) For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.

When God did speak to Abraham, he had words of praise, not condemnation. To contrast, consider the example of Moses, who struck the rock when he was told to speak gently to it instead. God did intervene and made the rock give forth water, but it was also accompanied with the punishment of death. Even righteous Job had to endure some harsh words from God when he made his appearance. Not so with Abraham.

If God didn't condemn Abraham in this instance, then perhaps neither should we. I wouldn't say he lied when there are other options available.

You know I believe Abraham was without fault and had such a faith that he was given the title "friend of GOD". So me saying that he lied to his son, is not me saying he did wrong in the sight of GOD, but that the partial sight of man is never all encompassing.

Surely there is some other issue with some relevance that we can discuss.

peace

 

[Rosenritter]

You know I believe Abraham was without fault and had such a faith that he was given the title "friend of GOD". So me saying that he lied to his son, is not me saying he did wrong in the sight of GOD, but that the partial sight of man is never all encompassing.

Surely there is some other issue with some relevance that we can discuss.

peace

OK. On to different topic.

 

[popsthebuilder]

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.

You are aware that orthodox is another way to say traditional right?

Have you studied up on what is said about the traditions of man?

peace

 

[popsthebuilder]

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'?

So you prove my point for me now?

Thank you.

Do you still mind if I, at times use "IT" to refer to the Spirit of GOD. I don't declare that you must, or that what you refer to GOD as is between you and some other man or woman.

 

[marhig]

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.

Gods plan wasn't that Jesus should come and be crucified, God's plan was that Jesus should come and bare witness to the truth and preach the gospel and save as many as he could through faith by the grace of God.

But God foreknew what Satan through wicked men would do to Jesus, and he knew that Satan would have Jesus murdered. And he foretold it through the prophets, even Jesus himself spoke about it in the parable of the wicked husbandmen.. And Jesus fulfilled those prophesies thus showing he was the Messiah that had been prophesied as coming. And Jesus was willing for it and to bare his cross unto death, and endure the suffering and persecution in he life, in the hope that he could save as many as possible who would believe on him and in the word of God and bring us a new and living way.

As for questions 2 and 3 God was in Christ Jesus, Jesus was in the fullness of God bodily, he was in the express image of the living God. And Jesus didn't come to blast anyone, he wanted us to believe that he is the son of God, the Messiah sent from the father to preach the gospel and bare witness to the truth. We are to believe in Christ through freewill, God doesn't want robots he wants us to truly love him from our hearts, and Jesus came and showed us the way. He is the way, the truth and the life.

And I don't agree with A,B or C



.

 

[popsthebuilder]

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.

Oh....it is a reference to the seed. My mistake.

Looking too hard for things that are irrelevant.

I'm done doing that. Thanks for the wake up.

peace

 

[popsthebuilder]

: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 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).

But I thought begotten meaned formed or created.

 

[popsthebuilder]

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.

What?! Baby?

Congratulations.

May GOD Guide it(your baby) towards His will, even moreso than He does and will do to you.

peace

 

[marhig]

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.

Reading the scriptures is important, but without the Spirit we will have no understanding.

So it's not studying for many years that's important, it's reading them with an honest heart, a heart that loves God, a heart that the Spirit can work on and through.

We can study the scriptures for 50 years and know nothing, God will only give Revelation to those who truly love him, those who put him first before themselves and are willing to become a living sacrifice and lay their lives down for God, Christ and others, those willing to become last. Those who are willing to live by his will. And once we are willing to do this and turn from sin to do so. Then God will bless us with progressive revelation through Christ by the Spirit and help us to overcome. And the first revelation we receive is that Jesus is the Christ the son of living God, and this revelation is the rock that Christ builds his church upon.

 

[Rosenritter]

Gods plan wasn't that Jesus should come and be crucified, God's plan was that Jesus should come and bare witness to the truth and preach the gospel and save as many as he could through faith by the grace of God.

But God foreknew what Satan through wicked men would do to Jesus, and he knew that Satan would have Jesus murdered. And he foretold it through the prophets, even Jesus himself spoke about it in the parable of the wicked husbandmen.. And Jesus fulfilled those prophesies thus showing he was the Messiah that had been prophesied as coming. And Jesus was willing for it and to bare his cross unto death, and endure the suffering and persecution in he life, in the hope that he could save as many as possible who would believe on him and in the word of God and bring us a new and living way.

As for questions 2 and 3 God was in Christ Jesus, Jesus was in the fullness of God bodily, he was in the express image of the living God. And Jesus didn't come to blast anyone, he wanted us to believe that he is the son of God, the Messiah sent from the father to preach the gospel and bare witness to the truth. We are to believe in Christ through freewill, God doesn't want robots he wants us to truly love him from our hearts, and Jesus came and showed us the way. He is the way, the truth and the life.

And I don't agree with A,B or C
.

1. I didn't imagine that was your answer for question one. I thought the question to be almost rhetorical, but now I'm glad I broke it down like that. I really want to talk to you about this.

Gods plan wasn't that Jesus should come and be crucified, God's plan was that Jesus should come and bare witness to the truth and preach the gospel and save as many as he could through faith by the grace of God.

In Genesis 3:15, God prophesies to the serpent that the seed of the woman shall bruise the head of the serpent, but that he shall bruise his heel. In Psalm 22 the crucifixion is described with details, including "they pierced my hands and my feet" and in Zechariah the LORD says that they shall look upon "me whom they have pierced."

Throughout the gospels we are shown that the crucifixion was part of the plan, such as passages like these:

Mark 15:27-28 KJV
(27) And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left.
(28) And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.

John 19:24 KJV
(24) They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.

John 19:28 KJV
(28) After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.

John 19:36-37 KJV
(36) For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.
(37) And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

John specifically says that the crucifixion fulfilled the passage from Zechariah, where the LORD says "They shall look upon me whom they have pierced." Aside from John equating Jesus with the LORD, this does seem to have been the plan. It was written ahead of time. It was in the blood of the Passover Lamb that was spread across the doorposts. Even the very days chosen when the Lamb was to be taken into the Israelite's homes in Egypt match up with the days preceding the crucifixion.

So I don't understand how you can say that this wasn't God's plan, but he knew what Satan would do? Was he powerless to stop this? I really don't understand what your view is on this now. Satan doesn't get to write the prophecy, God does. Please explain.

2. I still don't understand your answer. Now you are saying "Jesus was in the fullness of God bodily" on one hand while previously protesting that "Jesus was not God." Is God allowed to fulfill the role that he creates and prophesies? That is, is he allowed to make it happen as himself, rather than through a third party? You seem to be protesting that God did this through a third party. That's not the question.

3. You also didn't really answer question three. Question three assumes that God came to earth as the Messiah. It doesn't matter if you disagree on this part, it's a premise for the question. Let's skip this one, for sake of proceeding I'll supply the answer "No, they couldn't have crucified him if he had proved to them He was God, because the only proof they would understand was sheer force." If you disagree with this I'll accept an amended answer.

I appreciate that you did answer the last question. Not A nor B nor C. I apologize for not providing a "none of the above." Could you please explain further? Do you understand that the promised Messiah would need to be without sin? Or was this a bad assumption on my part? Thanks.

 

[Rosenritter]

But I thought begotten meaned formed or created.

In the context of the culture of those times, one passed their inheritance to their firstborn begotten son. It's in the story of the birthright that Jacob fought over with Esau. If a person could not attend a business arrangement but sent their firstborn son instead, if he sends the heir, whomever he sent him to is dealing with someone who has the same power and authority as him who sent him. And given a little bit of time, he is going to be that entity that they were dealing with. That firstborn begotten son inherits all things and replaces that father.

So when we consider that God is using this figure and metaphor in this application, I don't think it means "formed" or "created." God has created other beings, and in those cases it says he created them. I think the proper application is that the Son was "directly taken" from the Father.

 

[Rosenritter]

What?! Baby?

Congratulations.

May GOD Guide it(your baby) towards His will, even moreso than He does and will do to you.

peace

Thank you. She turned nine months yesterday. Her grandparents are coming to visit from overseas next month and we've scheduled a dedication for her when they can be there also.

 

[popsthebuilder]

In the context of the culture of those times, one passed their inheritance to their firstborn begotten son. It's in the story of the birthright that Jacob fought over with Esau. If a person could not attend a business arrangement but sent their firstborn son instead, if he sends the heir, whomever he sent him to is dealing with someone who has the same power and authority as him who sent him. And given a little bit of time, he is going to be that entity that they were dealing with. That firstborn begotten son inherits all things and replaces that father.

So when we consider that God is using this figure and metaphor in this application, I don't think it means "formed" or "created." God has created other beings, and in those cases it says he created them. I think the proper application is that the Son was "directly taken" from the Father.

Oh? And who took from GOD that GOD did not will to give?


I'm sorry but that is a stretch.

No matter how you word it, Jesus was not eternal prior to initial physical manifestation though the Word of GOD which all was created by did indeed proceed from HIS breath.

And in an attempt to be clear; by "HIM" i mean the utter fullness of GOD, and not the image there of.

 

[glorydaz]

Are me, myself, and I three different people?

Jesus said "I and my Father"

LA

Gen. 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

... non conclusive, as angels would have been present as part of his creation already by this point, thus could have been the subject of "our" in the plural sense as well. There's no ground to be gained here, there are stronger passages available.

:rotfl:

And there could have been Martians, too.

The difference being Glory, is that scripture tells us that angels were present. Would you be able to snap out of your disrespect mode for a bit, at least to acknowledge the scripture?

Job 38:6-7 KJV
(6) Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
(7) When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

The sons of God were present when the cornerstone of the earth was laid.

You have a tendency to short non-answer and mock and quip and to act like funny emoticons trump having an a legitimate reply. I'd appreciate a legitimate reply instead. I have seen you answer sensibly before. Would you grace us with that consistency please?

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.

Well, let's just follow the yellow brick road and see if I had no reason. I was following along talking about our triune God, and innocently gave a verse that is uniformly accepted as speaking of God. (Rather than "me, myself, and I" as you proposed.) Then five or six pages later (after conversing on different subjects) you suddenly decide to challenge my quote.

Then what? You're offended by my Martian comment. You carry on even more....even longer...on and on with your lectures. My "snark comment" was not only honest, it was required. :banana:

 

[Tambora]

But I thought begotten meaned formed or created.

Can't be.
As the Lord Jesus Christ is said to be the ONLY begotten of GOD. John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18, 1 John 4:9.


So, even if you were to view the Son as being created, you certainly couldn't say He was the only created one.
So, no, "begotten" does not mean "created".

 

[popsthebuilder]

Can't be.
As the Lord Jesus Christ is said to be the ONLY begotten of GOD. John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18, 1 John 4:9.


So, even if you were to view the Son as being created, you certainly couldn't say He was the only created one.
So, no, "begotten" does not mean "created".

Emphasis is on son there, not begotten.

All is through the only begotten son.


Silly

peace

 

[Tambora]

Jesus said "I and my Father"

LA

John 10:30 KJV
(30) I and my Father are one.


If you would like to check the Greek, you might find out that "are" is 1st person plural.
I and my Father we are one.

And as for the word "one", it is used as a plurality instead of a singularity.
Such as:
Mark 4:8 KJV
(8) And other fell on good ground, and did yield fruit that sprang up and increased; and brought forth, some thirty, and some sixty, and some an hundred.


Mark 4:20 KJV
(20) And these are they which are sown on good ground; such as hear the word, and receive it, and bring forth fruit, some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some an hundred.



Ephesians 4:16 KJV
(16) From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.


Ephesians 4:25 KJV
(25) Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.


Acts 4:32 KJV
(32) And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.





Same Greek word used.

 

[Tambora]

Emphasis is on son there, not begotten.

It is about the ONLY begotten Son.

All is through the only begotten son.

All that is created.
Therefore, the Son cannot be created if all things created were created by Him.

John 1:3 KJV
(3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Silly

peace

"Begotten" does not mean "created".
Peace.

 

[marhig]

1. I didn't imagine that was your answer for question one. I thought the question to be almost rhetorical, but now I'm glad I broke it down like that. I really want to talk to you about this.



In Genesis 3:15, God prophesies to the serpent that the seed of the woman shall bruise the head of the serpent, but that he shall bruise his heel. In Psalm 22 the crucifixion is described with details, including "they pierced my hands and my feet" and in Zechariah the LORD says that they shall look upon "me whom they have pierced."

Throughout the gospels we are shown that the crucifixion was part of the plan, such as passages like these:

Mark 15:27-28 KJV
(27) And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left.
(28) And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.

John 19:24 KJV
(24) They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.

John 19:28 KJV
(28) After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.

John 19:36-37 KJV
(36) For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.
(37) And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

John specifically says that the crucifixion fulfilled the passage from Zechariah, where the LORD says "They shall look upon me whom they have pierced." Aside from John equating Jesus with the LORD, this does seem to have been the plan. It was written ahead of time. It was in the blood of the Passover Lamb that was spread across the doorposts. Even the very days chosen when the Lamb was to be taken into the Israelite's homes in Egypt match up with the days preceding the crucifixion.

So I don't understand how you can say that this wasn't God's plan, but he knew what Satan would do? Was he powerless to stop this? I really don't understand what your view is on this now. Satan doesn't get to write the prophecy, God does. Please explain.

2. I still don't understand your answer. Now you are saying "Jesus was in the fullness of God bodily" on one hand while previously protesting that "Jesus was not God." Is God allowed to fulfill the role that he creates and prophesies? That is, is he allowed to make it happen as himself, rather than through a third party? You seem to be protesting that God did this through a third party. That's not the question.

3. You also didn't really answer question three. Question three assumes that God came to earth as the Messiah. It doesn't matter if you disagree on this part, it's a premise for the question. Let's skip this one, for sake of proceeding I'll supply the answer "No, they couldn't have crucified him if he had proved to them He was God, because the only proof they would understand was sheer force." If you disagree with this I'll accept an amended answer.

I appreciate that you did answer the last question. Not A nor B nor C. I apologize for not providing a "none of the above." Could you please explain further? Do you understand that the promised Messiah would need to be without sin? Or was this a bad assumption on my part? Thanks.

I'll have to answer this bit by bit, and I might not be able to answer everything right now, as I've got a busy day

Firstly, I did say that God foreknew what would happen to Jesus, and that includes him being crucified, and I did say that God foretold it through the prophets, and Jesus fulfilled those prophesies and was willing to suffer as he did to bare witness to the truth and save as many as he could through the gospel, thus showing us that he is the Messiah. What I don't agree on, is that the crucifixion was Gods plan for salvation. We are saved through Christ Jesus, by believing on him and the gospel, through faith by the grace of God.

Also, why to you think that this following verse means the cross?

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.

Thanks