The Spirit was not yet

Originally posted by Suzianne
Yes, and MY point is that you are not being especially forthcoming with your exact belief on the concept. I'm saying that you DO believe in a Trinity, even while you claim not to believe it.

And even now you dance away from this point.

Ask me what you want to know. I've posted my belief on the godhead several times in the forum and your responded to them every time as I remember. Let's try again. I believe that truth starts with the fundamental claims that God makes about himself. These need to be well founded, repeated and unquestionable. Such as:

1) God is unchanging - sonship won't agree to this. He dances around the this basic fundamental with long exegesis of other scriptures looking for what he no doubt believes is a hidden truth which will support his erroneous teaching. God does not change. Do we agree, yes or no?

2) God is one. Hear oh Israel the Lord your God is one. God goes to extraordinary lengths to explain that he not on does not change, but that he is ONE and he will not give his glory to another. He is one. Do we agree, yes or no?

3) The deity of Christ. The Revelation of Jesus Christ and the spirit empowered acknowledgement of his identity is the cornerstone of Christianity which has been bastardised over the last 2,000 years. Jesus said "unless you believe (acknowledge) that I AM, you will die in your sins. Jesus is Jehovah in the flesh. Made himself a little lower than the Angels. He is the right arm laid bare. The invisible God made visible. But it is the same person, the same entity, the same ONE God showing us and example of obedience and faith while redeeming manning for himself. No other "person" is involved. Emanuelle - God with us. Agree, yes or no?

4) Baptism in the name of Jesus. Mathew 28 go baptise in the name of the father of the son and of the Holy Spirit. They didn't. They all, every time, without fail, baptised in the name of Jesus. Why? Because the name Jesus (God saves) IS the name of the father and of the son and of the Holy Spirit. They KNEW who he was. One person, one God revealing himself in the flesh.

5) The "son" shall hand over all authority to the "father". But Isaiah says that "or his increase there shall be no end", so that's odd. But wait, this is ONE God, these are not "persons". These are offices of the same God. The office of "son" will come to an end after the dispensation (or whatever) of grace and judgment. There will be no need for the office of son. That's why the term "eternal son" is nowhere in the Bible.

These are my beliefs about the Godhead and I will not acquiesce to a foreign ideology that says my God is THREE when he is ONE. It is error. I don't care how many doves float from the sky or how many times Jesus prayed to the father. The base truth is that God is ONE.

Originally posted by divegeester
I notice you slipped this little gem in under cover of a sonship style monologue.

Tell me checkbaiter, if Jesus is not God, did not declare himself God and the NT the same, then who is your saviour?

THIS is what I am talking about!!

You put forth all this diatribe against sonship by claiming that you have zero belief in the Trinity and then you argue with checkbaiter when he says that Jesus is not God!

WHICH is it for you?

THAT is what I've been asking you in this thread, numerous times, without answer.

Originally posted by Suzianne
THIS is what I am talking about!!

You put forth all this diatribe against sonship by claiming that you have zero belief in the Trinity and then you argue with checkbaiter when he says that Jesus is not God!

WHICH is it for you?

THAT is what I've been asking you in this thread, numerous times, without answer.

Relax, I was being sarcasist when I said "gem". Read my post above.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
It's at that point I would opt out of the whole theist shebang. But I guess that's where faith comes in.

For me, if I can't account for something, I don't believe it.

But all CAN be "accounted for".

If you rely on those who lean unto their OWN understanding, then yes, it will appear that some things in the Bible cannot be accounted for. This is also where the JWs fail. All that the JWs believe that is different from what mainstream Christianity believes all started with the misunderstanding of one man. He then passed on his misunderstanding to others and the misunderstanding multiplied until we have what we have today.

Today there are those who insist on railing against "evil Christianity" and through their vanity, try to stand alone in their belief. This might be fine, if they would keep their unbelief to themselves. But they then multiply their error by converting others to their misunderstanding.

If you have searched for understanding (an accounting) and found none, then perhaps you should widen your search. But beware, those who would mislead you are legion. Discernment (true discernment, not bias) is key.

Originally posted by Suzianne
All that the JWs believe that is different from what mainstream Christianity believes all started with the misunderstanding of one man.

When you talk about "mainstream Christianity", are you using the word "mainstream" to refer to what the largest number of Christians purport to believe? Do you see yourself as a "mainstream Christian"? Which other Christian posters here do you see as being part of this "mainstream"?

Originally posted by divegeester
Ask me what you want to know. I've posted my belief on the godhead several times in the forum and your responded to them every time as I remember. Let's try again. I believe that truth starts with the fundamental claims that God makes about himself. These need to be well founded, repeated and unquestionable. Such as:

1) God is unchanging - sonship won ...[text shortened]... at from the sky or how many times Jesus prayed to the father. The base truth is that God is ONE.

I appreciate that you have laid this out for me. Please allow me some time to absorb it.

I do have one thing now, though. And this is the source of my confusion regarding your reaction to people who speak of the Trinity.

"Because the name Jesus (God saves) IS the name of the father and of the son and of the Holy Spirit. They KNEW who he was. One person, one God revealing himself in the flesh."

So you DO believe in a Trinity. It's just that His name is Jesus. "One person, one God". AND this "One person, one God" is the father, the son and the Holy Spirit.

WHY do you argue against a Trinity again? This is the exact same belief of those who speak of the Trinity.

YES He is ONE. We speak of a "triune" God, because this tells us that He is "three in one". The "three offices of God" in ONE God. NO Christian you ever meet will say that "God is THREE", and no one here speaking of the Trinity is saying that, either.

I wouldn't mind you laying out exactly what you think it is that we are saying with regards to the Trinity. Because what we're saying is exactly what you are saying. You just seem loathe to "call it" a "trinity". Is the source of your confusion the word "persons"?

I can also tell that I have further questions about other points in what you've posted here, but it is late here (3:25am) and it can wait.

Originally posted by FMF
When you talk about "mainstream Christianity", are you using the word "mainstream" to refer to what the largest number of Christians purport to believe? Do you see yourself as a "mainstream Christian"? Which other Christian posters here do you see as being part of this "mainstream"?

Since you are not "part of the mainstream Christian community" (and certainly not Christian at all), it doesn't surprise me that you don't get it. Not that "getting it" would even stop you from putting on your "Interrogator" persona. Stop stalking me.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Since you are not "part of the mainstream Christian community" (and certainly not Christian at all), it doesn't surprise me that you don't get it. Not that "getting it" would even stop you from putting on your "Interrogator" persona. Stop stalking me.

When discussing differing beliefs in an arena like this, I cannot see how you seeking to depict one thing (your view) as "mainstream" and another belief (one you don't agree with) as not "mainstream" is anything other than an argumentum ad populum and therefore not really genuine discourse at all. The same goes for calling another Christian's beliefs "truly bizarro ideas"; it doesn't constitute an argument, as such. It comes across more like an unwillingness to test your belief (and rationale for it) against someone else's belief.

Coming back to the anointing oil of Exodus 30:22-33 anyone ..
Coming back to "For the Spirit was not yet" (John 7:39) .

In the making of the holy anointing oil, why didn't God simply tell Moses to make it from Olive Oil, and that's it ? If the Holy Spirit is so widely agreed to be typified by oil why didn't God just tell Moses to make the holy anointing oil of Olive Oil and nothing else ?


Why the care that the four finest spices be compounded into that basic olive oil ?

" You shall take the finest spices of flowing myrrh five hundred shekels,
and of fragrant cinnamon half as much, two hundred fifty shekels , and of fragrant calamus two hundred fifty shekels,
And of cassia five hundred shekels according to the shekel of the sanctuary, and a hin of olive oil.

And you shall make it a holy anointing oil, a perfume COMPOUNDED according to the perfumer's art; it shall be a holy anointing oil." (Exo. 30:23-25)

Is there no significance to this? Could not have God simply told Moses to use Olive Oil to anoint the priests, the furniture, and the tabernacle ?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Precisely against whom does He act "without mercy"?

I think the answer to that holds the answer to your question.

My head is bursting with examples! 🙂

As we were recently discussing the great flood, let us start there. - God effectively wiped out the whole of humanity, save for a few righteous souls on the ark. - Is that really a morally acceptable example of mercy?!

Even If humanity at that time had indeed become irredeemably corrupt and God was initially going to wipe out humanity completely, was allowing a select handful to escape the flood a validation of his divine mercy?

I ask this specifically with reverence to all the children who were allowed to perish in the flood, children too young to have been corrupt and unrighteous. Would a truly merciful God have allowed them to be destroyed alongside the unrighteous?

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Do you think I don't know that?

You quoted this:

The basic reason why God did not reveal the Devil to people in Old Testament times is that they were unprepared to deal with such a powerful spiritual being.

And the Bible says this:

Rev 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

The Dragon = The old Serpent = The Devil = Satan.

But in the Old Testament there is mention of the serpent and Satan which = The Devil.

So OT people did know of the Devil .. contrary to your quote.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
My head is bursting with examples! 🙂

As we were recently discussing the great flood, let us start there. - God effectively wiped out the whole of humanity, save for a few righteous souls on the ark. - Is that really a morally acceptable example of mercy?!

Even If humanity at that time had indeed become irredeemably corrupt and God was initial ...[text shortened]... ghteous. Would a truly merciful God have allowed them to be destroyed alongside the unrighteous?

Examples by the hundreds actually. My way of getting around that is the the Bible is not meant to be a book that can explain everything to our satisfaction. God probably had good reason to destroy everyone, and the full facts at that time are not known to us.

I have come across explanations [Checkbaiter I think] which says that everyone were descended from the nephilims or giants and were corrupted. These explanations make no sense to my mind but Christians swallow that nonsense because they are in search of a God that they want to claim is love and is merciful etc etc .. [ love and mercy is by their definition] the Bible does not support that and the sooner Christians accept that truth the more contented they will be in their doctrine.

As for that nephillim explanation all one has to ask is where did Noah get his daughters in law, did those women not have any good family?

Originally posted by Suzianne
I appreciate that you have laid this out for me. Please allow me some time to absorb it.

I do have one thing now, though. And this is the source of my confusion regarding your reaction to people who speak of the Trinity.

[b]"Because the name Jesus (God saves) IS the name of the father and of the son and of the Holy Spirit. They KNEW who he was. One ...[text shortened]... ons about other points in what you've posted here, but it is late here (3:25am) and it can wait.

One person is not three persons. One person is a unity, three persons is a pagan construct which some Christians call a trinity. For the reasons I've very Sicily laid out above, i don't accept the trinity. It's not a complicated premise.

To say that three distinct persons is actually just one distinct person is ridiculous.

Originally posted by divegeester
I notice you slipped this little gem in under cover of a sonship style monologue.

Tell me checkbaiter, if Jesus is not God, did not declare himself God and the NT the same, then who is your saviour?

Jesus Christ, the Son of God, a man attested by God and appointed as head of the church.

Originally posted by Rajk999
You quoted this:

The basic reason why God did not reveal the Devil to people in Old Testament times is that they were unprepared to deal with such a powerful spiritual being.

And the Bible says this:

Rev 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

The Drago ...[text shortened]... t and Satan which = The Devil.

So OT people did know of the Devil .. contrary to your quote.

Is Rev 20:2 already past? I think this is future, it hasn't happened yet.
Where is the devil, Satan exposed in the OT?