G
Georges
Guest
mutzrein said:
yup......
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
yup......
Gabbylittleangel
Member
FOR THOSE WHO MISSED IT THE FIRST TIME:
Gabbylittleangel said:I have a question for those who do not believe in the Trinity.
There has been much said about if you believe Jesus is God or not.
What do you believe about the Holy Spirit? Who or what is the Holy Spirit if you do not believe it is God? In what way is the Holy Spirit not God?
WAIT!!
I decided that this question needed its own thread. Please post your answers there!
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... 673#306673
I
Imagican
Guest
Imagican wrote:
Imagican wrote:
Ok, if Jesus and God were 'one', as in, 'the same' as in Jesus IS God, then HOW is it possible that there are things that God knows that Christ DOES NOT? If they are 'one' then why would they need to communicate with 'each other'? And if NO MAN has EVER 'seen God', then HOW could Christ BE God? I have yet for a 'trinitarian' to offer an acceptable answer to these types of questions.
Hello Mec. Its me again, your favorite poster.
I can't resist answering this question, since its a very easy question to answer, and being that I am not the sharpest tool in the shed, wll it will be fun. The simple truth is that While Jesus was chilling here on earth for 33 years or so, he gave himself completely to his humanity, while still being God. So while he was here with us, he did not know the day or the hour of when he would return. Now that he is back at the right hand of the father, you bet he knows when he is coming back. You see Mec, the only way the Scritures make sense from the beginning to the end is via the Godhead or Trinity.
Imagican wrote:
Free, and you call this a 'reasonable answer'? Firstly, this scripture states that Christ was 'in the 'form' of God'. I ask you this: WHAT IS the 'form' of God? You answer this and you will quickly see how confused you are in your interpretation. Second, this scripture PLAINLY states that Christ 'DID NOT count equality A THING TO BE GRASPED. Do you NOT see what this is saying. IT PLAINLY states that Christ REALIZED that 'equality' with God was NOT a thing to BE GRASPED. Unlike Satan, Christ is PERFECTLY content with 'His place'. And realizes that equality with God is NOT a thing to attempt to 'create'.
MEC
mEC, Mec, mec
Another easy question. I seem to recall that Jg posted a thread on ''the angel of the Lord'' You have never answered who ''The Angel of the Lord'' is.
The Angel of the Lord is Jesus Christ in carnite. (GOD) I will see if I can find the thread for you.
No need to look up the thread, I remember the subject and the post to which you refer. I know what the two of you 'believe' so far as the 'angel of the Lord' is concerned. Whether it was actually Christ or not is debatable and of NO consequence so far as 'trinity' is concerned. That Christ existed BEFORE being 'born in the flesh' is WITHOUT DOUBT. Now, to your 'answer'.
Nice try. So, from 'your' perspective, Christ, (God), became flesh. He stated that what He had to offer us so far as The Word is concerned, was GIVEN Him by The Father, (God, in essence HIMSELF), yet He WAS God. And by 'taking on the flesh', He stoped being God and became a 'man' instead? A man that needed to pray 'to Himself' in order to gain strength and to seek the forgiveness FROM His Father for those that crucified Him. Yet the forgiveness actually came from God who was Jesus so He really didn't need to ask Himself to forgive them? Am I getting any of this 'right'?
The scripture that was offered PLAINLY stated that Christ was IN THE FORM OF GOD, (that would be spirit, right), and did NOT think it FIT to 'pretend' to be equal with God. Isn't that what it really states? But He DID leave the 'form' of God, (spiritual realm), and become flesh, (part God and part man). Yet the part that was God didn't KNOW what God knows. Your explanation makes NO sense whatsoever for the simple FACT that Christ EXHIBITED the power 'given' Him BY THE FATHER, (God), OVER AND OVER AGAIN. He gave us MUCH prophecy concerning the future. Yet you say that when He became man that there were certain 'limitations' to God. ??????? You 'can't' be serious. Can't you see what this doctrine forces one to say at times. Things that DO NOT FIT, no matter HOW HARD you 'try'.
Nice try though. Jesus stated without confusion that the answer to His return was ONLY KNOWN BY THE FATHER, (God), yet your 'trinity' insists that Christ WAS God, yet this would make Christ's statements a 'contradiction' of your 'man-made' doctrine, so you make up something like the answer that you offered which CANNOT fit when broken down through observation and comparing scripture. Seems like some sort of 'double talk' when listening to such answers concerning this 'trinity'. And you know, God Himself will offer 'strong delusion to those that choose to follow that which is NOT True. I choose NO DELUSION, only what is offered through scripture and through The Spirit. And because of this, there are those that have 'bought into' this 'man-made' theology and accuse ME of being the one that is 'making stuff up'. How strange indeed.
MEC
Imagican wrote:
Ok, if Jesus and God were 'one', as in, 'the same' as in Jesus IS God, then HOW is it possible that there are things that God knows that Christ DOES NOT? If they are 'one' then why would they need to communicate with 'each other'? And if NO MAN has EVER 'seen God', then HOW could Christ BE God? I have yet for a 'trinitarian' to offer an acceptable answer to these types of questions.
Hello Mec. Its me again, your favorite poster.
I can't resist answering this question, since its a very easy question to answer, and being that I am not the sharpest tool in the shed, wll it will be fun. The simple truth is that While Jesus was chilling here on earth for 33 years or so, he gave himself completely to his humanity, while still being God. So while he was here with us, he did not know the day or the hour of when he would return. Now that he is back at the right hand of the father, you bet he knows when he is coming back. You see Mec, the only way the Scritures make sense from the beginning to the end is via the Godhead or Trinity.
Imagican wrote:
Free, and you call this a 'reasonable answer'? Firstly, this scripture states that Christ was 'in the 'form' of God'. I ask you this: WHAT IS the 'form' of God? You answer this and you will quickly see how confused you are in your interpretation. Second, this scripture PLAINLY states that Christ 'DID NOT count equality A THING TO BE GRASPED. Do you NOT see what this is saying. IT PLAINLY states that Christ REALIZED that 'equality' with God was NOT a thing to BE GRASPED. Unlike Satan, Christ is PERFECTLY content with 'His place'. And realizes that equality with God is NOT a thing to attempt to 'create'.
MEC
mEC, Mec, mec
Another easy question. I seem to recall that Jg posted a thread on ''the angel of the Lord'' You have never answered who ''The Angel of the Lord'' is.
The Angel of the Lord is Jesus Christ in carnite. (GOD) I will see if I can find the thread for you.
No need to look up the thread, I remember the subject and the post to which you refer. I know what the two of you 'believe' so far as the 'angel of the Lord' is concerned. Whether it was actually Christ or not is debatable and of NO consequence so far as 'trinity' is concerned. That Christ existed BEFORE being 'born in the flesh' is WITHOUT DOUBT. Now, to your 'answer'.
Nice try. So, from 'your' perspective, Christ, (God), became flesh. He stated that what He had to offer us so far as The Word is concerned, was GIVEN Him by The Father, (God, in essence HIMSELF), yet He WAS God. And by 'taking on the flesh', He stoped being God and became a 'man' instead? A man that needed to pray 'to Himself' in order to gain strength and to seek the forgiveness FROM His Father for those that crucified Him. Yet the forgiveness actually came from God who was Jesus so He really didn't need to ask Himself to forgive them? Am I getting any of this 'right'?
The scripture that was offered PLAINLY stated that Christ was IN THE FORM OF GOD, (that would be spirit, right), and did NOT think it FIT to 'pretend' to be equal with God. Isn't that what it really states? But He DID leave the 'form' of God, (spiritual realm), and become flesh, (part God and part man). Yet the part that was God didn't KNOW what God knows. Your explanation makes NO sense whatsoever for the simple FACT that Christ EXHIBITED the power 'given' Him BY THE FATHER, (God), OVER AND OVER AGAIN. He gave us MUCH prophecy concerning the future. Yet you say that when He became man that there were certain 'limitations' to God. ??????? You 'can't' be serious. Can't you see what this doctrine forces one to say at times. Things that DO NOT FIT, no matter HOW HARD you 'try'.
Nice try though. Jesus stated without confusion that the answer to His return was ONLY KNOWN BY THE FATHER, (God), yet your 'trinity' insists that Christ WAS God, yet this would make Christ's statements a 'contradiction' of your 'man-made' doctrine, so you make up something like the answer that you offered which CANNOT fit when broken down through observation and comparing scripture. Seems like some sort of 'double talk' when listening to such answers concerning this 'trinity'. And you know, God Himself will offer 'strong delusion to those that choose to follow that which is NOT True. I choose NO DELUSION, only what is offered through scripture and through The Spirit. And because of this, there are those that have 'bought into' this 'man-made' theology and accuse ME of being the one that is 'making stuff up'. How strange indeed.
MEC
I
Imagican
Guest
oscar3 said:
Ah, the 'alternate smack-down'............... (he he he).
Now, I read the scripture that you offered and am confused as to the 'where' you see 'trinity' in this quote. All KNOW that there IS Father, Son and Holy Spirit. What we differ in is our view of the relationship between the three, (oh, and Gabby, you're right of course. English should have been capitalized). And the FACT that the three are mentioned offers NO evidence of them being 'the ONE God' that 'trinity' insists upon. If ANYTHING, them being mentioned as SEPARATE entities goes FAR as being evidence that supports my understanding. No 'trinity' mentioned here. Another nice try though.
MEC
I
Imagican
Guest
Free,
You mince words well my friend. While 'technically' Constantine did NOT invent nor introduce the word 'tinity' into Catholocism, what he DID do was ULTIMATELY decide on the principles that LED to 'trinity' becoming Catholic doctrine.
I don't believe that ANYONE in our present day is able to discern the FIRST use of this word, it WAS certainly 'being' used at the time of the Council of Nicea. Many had already begun to believe in the 'triune' nature, (as trinitarians describe it), as early as the second century AD.
And Constantine, 'a KNOWN pagan', was the ONE that introduced the concept, (at the urging of a bishop no doubt), of Chirst and God BEING of the SAME substance. While it took a while after this for the Church to actually introduce further doctrine to COMPLETE 'trinity', this was CERTAINLY one of the LARGEST steps EVER taken to bring about it's overall demand to adherance by the CC.
Now, the CC would LOVE for us to believe that Constantine was a Christian from the moment of his 'vision' during the campaign in which he defeated his foe at the Milvian Bridge. But HISTORY indicates that it wasn't until MUCH later in life that he 'may' have reverted to Christianity. But at the time of the Council of Nicea, it is relatively accurate to state that he 'had NOT' converted at that time. He was simply an Emperor attempting to stiffle the debate among the bishops under his control.
There was MUCH confusion over this issue even then. Back and forth, back and forth did the pedullum swing in favor of and then against again this 'Jesus IS God'. Finally coming to rest on the doctrine that the CC holds to this day. Yet, even though there were retributions against the CC for it's treatment of those that refused this doctrine, I have yet to find in any historical account, those that refused the 'trinity' persecuting those that did accept it for the simple sake of doctine. They were persecuted FOR their previous treatment towards those that did NOT accept this doctrine.
MEC
You mince words well my friend. While 'technically' Constantine did NOT invent nor introduce the word 'tinity' into Catholocism, what he DID do was ULTIMATELY decide on the principles that LED to 'trinity' becoming Catholic doctrine.
I don't believe that ANYONE in our present day is able to discern the FIRST use of this word, it WAS certainly 'being' used at the time of the Council of Nicea. Many had already begun to believe in the 'triune' nature, (as trinitarians describe it), as early as the second century AD.
And Constantine, 'a KNOWN pagan', was the ONE that introduced the concept, (at the urging of a bishop no doubt), of Chirst and God BEING of the SAME substance. While it took a while after this for the Church to actually introduce further doctrine to COMPLETE 'trinity', this was CERTAINLY one of the LARGEST steps EVER taken to bring about it's overall demand to adherance by the CC.
Now, the CC would LOVE for us to believe that Constantine was a Christian from the moment of his 'vision' during the campaign in which he defeated his foe at the Milvian Bridge. But HISTORY indicates that it wasn't until MUCH later in life that he 'may' have reverted to Christianity. But at the time of the Council of Nicea, it is relatively accurate to state that he 'had NOT' converted at that time. He was simply an Emperor attempting to stiffle the debate among the bishops under his control.
There was MUCH confusion over this issue even then. Back and forth, back and forth did the pedullum swing in favor of and then against again this 'Jesus IS God'. Finally coming to rest on the doctrine that the CC holds to this day. Yet, even though there were retributions against the CC for it's treatment of those that refused this doctrine, I have yet to find in any historical account, those that refused the 'trinity' persecuting those that did accept it for the simple sake of doctine. They were persecuted FOR their previous treatment towards those that did NOT accept this doctrine.
MEC
D
D46
Guest
I just got in from a trip to NC and saw this. First of all you have to understand all bible versions don't say that (and, that's part of the problem).
Phillipians 2:6 (KJV) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Who, being in very nature[a] God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, (NIV)
who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, (NASB)
There is a difference here with the NIV and the NASB saying essentially the same thing. Those two leave one doubting the diety of Christ.
S
scorpia
Guest
What exactly do you mean by the word "divine"? Also, on the area that both the king and the prince are both human beings by nature, how would you compare now God and Jesus by (their) nature? In your own perspective, what is the nature (in one word as much as possible if you can) of Jesus Christ?mutzrein said:
O
Oscar3
Guest
D46 said:
What a great catch !!!!!
Thanks for sharing that
S
scorpia
Guest
Hence human beings are flesh, aren't we?mutzrein said:
[/quote:03e4d]
Hence God and His Son are Spirit, aren't they? Being Spirit in nature, the Son is God, too.
Mutz: 'Divine', by my own definition, is that which emanates or comes from, or is of God.
Scorpia:Thanik you.
Mutz: Human beings, by nature are of the flesh
Scorpia: Hence human beings are flesh, aren't we?
Mutz: God and His son, by nature are of the Spirit.
Scorpia:Hence God and His Son are Spirit, aren't they? Being Spirit in nature, the Son is God, too.
No. God IS spirit but spirit does not = God. I am born of the Spirit but I am not God. Angels are spirit beings - they are not God. Even satan is an eternal spirit being - though he would like to be, is not God.
You see it is the Spirit OF God that gives life - eternal life. For those of us who a born of God's spirit - we of course are also God's children and co-heirs with Christ of God's kingdom.
Scorpia:Thanik you.
Mutz: Human beings, by nature are of the flesh
Scorpia: Hence human beings are flesh, aren't we?
Mutz: God and His son, by nature are of the Spirit.
Scorpia:Hence God and His Son are Spirit, aren't they? Being Spirit in nature, the Son is God, too.
No. God IS spirit but spirit does not = God. I am born of the Spirit but I am not God. Angels are spirit beings - they are not God. Even satan is an eternal spirit being - though he would like to be, is not God.
You see it is the Spirit OF God that gives life - eternal life. For those of us who a born of God's spirit - we of course are also God's children and co-heirs with Christ of God's kingdom.
Gabbylittleangel
Member
You know, there is another illustration that I have heard used, but I never quite thought it conveyed the idea. Others have thought that it helped to understand the concept of the Trinity though.
I am a daughter.
I am a sister.
I am a mother.
I am all three of those things, in one. At the same time. The reason I don't like to use it is simply because I am not all three of those things in relationship to another person. I am one or another to various people.
In contrast, God is All in all to me. All at the same time.
Like I said, it really is not a good illustration to compare to the concept of God, but it might help enlighten something.
I am a daughter.
I am a sister.
I am a mother.
I am all three of those things, in one. At the same time. The reason I don't like to use it is simply because I am not all three of those things in relationship to another person. I am one or another to various people.
In contrast, God is All in all to me. All at the same time.
Like I said, it really is not a good illustration to compare to the concept of God, but it might help enlighten something.
S
scorpia
Guest
mutzrein said:
Angels are spirit beings and yet they are not God, I agree. The Father is spirit being and He is the Almighty One and the Father is God, I agree. You have said too many things about spirits, angels, and the Father, but what about Jesus? Is Jesus spirit being? Is Jesus a human being? Who is Jesus? Being the Son of God, what does that mean in terms of spirit, human being, created spirit being, etc.? Please have your answer in one word as much as possible to make yourself clear and not vague.
I
Imagican
Guest
j,
You earlier made reference to 'the angel of the Lord'. You, along with others seem to be of the persuasion that this 'angel of the Lord' MUST have been Jesus Christ. I offered that this was debatable for the Bible makes NO clear reference to such.
Acts 12:7
7And, behold, the angel of the Lord came upon him, and a light shined in the prison: and he smote Peter on the side, and raised him up, saying, Arise up quickly. And his chains fell off from his hands.
Now, a question for you and the 'others'. Is this 'angel of the Lord', referenced above, Jesus Christ? And, if so, how is it that Peter didn't recognize this 'angel' as BEING Jesus Christ? I mean, come on brother, Peter KNEW Jesus Christ PERSONALLY. And if your answer eludes to some kind of 'disguise' that Christ may have been 'hiding' behind, please explain WHY Christ would so need to 'hide' His identity. And with this explanation, please offer some Biblical reference that you may have used to come to such a conclusion.
My point is this; neither you, nor I, nor anyone else has ANY reason to believe that 'the angel of the Lord' was ANYTHING other than 'THAT'; an angel of the Lord. That this angel WAS Jesus Christ, or even COULD have been, is NOTHING other than PURE SPECULATION, (or maybe just 'wishful thinking'), for there is 'actually', through The Word, NO INDICATION that 'the angel of the Lord' was, indeed, Jesus Christ.
MEC
You earlier made reference to 'the angel of the Lord'. You, along with others seem to be of the persuasion that this 'angel of the Lord' MUST have been Jesus Christ. I offered that this was debatable for the Bible makes NO clear reference to such.
Acts 12:7
7And, behold, the angel of the Lord came upon him, and a light shined in the prison: and he smote Peter on the side, and raised him up, saying, Arise up quickly. And his chains fell off from his hands.
Now, a question for you and the 'others'. Is this 'angel of the Lord', referenced above, Jesus Christ? And, if so, how is it that Peter didn't recognize this 'angel' as BEING Jesus Christ? I mean, come on brother, Peter KNEW Jesus Christ PERSONALLY. And if your answer eludes to some kind of 'disguise' that Christ may have been 'hiding' behind, please explain WHY Christ would so need to 'hide' His identity. And with this explanation, please offer some Biblical reference that you may have used to come to such a conclusion.
My point is this; neither you, nor I, nor anyone else has ANY reason to believe that 'the angel of the Lord' was ANYTHING other than 'THAT'; an angel of the Lord. That this angel WAS Jesus Christ, or even COULD have been, is NOTHING other than PURE SPECULATION, (or maybe just 'wishful thinking'), for there is 'actually', through The Word, NO INDICATION that 'the angel of the Lord' was, indeed, Jesus Christ.
MEC