Originally posted by jaywillare you speaking in tongues, is there a translator in the house, i cannae understand a word of this!
Robert s arguing that Christ as a spiritual being was created.
But if that is so then God was created also because the Word was God (John 1:1).
But we should know that the eternal God was never created. So the Word that was with God and was God was never created.
But when the Word became flesh (John 1:14) the uncreated God took upon Himself the c ...[text shortened]... eated. And this is why the prophet Isaiah would write that the Son given is the Eternal Father.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie==================================
no the word was 'a god', or a divine being as some translators render it, he WAS NOT,IS NOT, NEVER HAS BEEN, NOR EVER WILL BE ALMIGHTY GOD!!!!
no the word was 'a god', or a divine being as some translators render it, he WAS NOT,IS NOT, NEVER HAS BEEN, NOR EVER WILL BE ALMIGHTY GOD!!!!
=====================================
You may shout that as hysterically as you wish. But there is no need to shout.
Are you one of the "Jehovah's Witnesses?"
Are you arguing that John writes that the God Whom the Word was was a different God than the God with Whom the Word was ?
Are you saying that there are TWO Gods in John 1:1?
1.) The God with Whom the Word was.
2.) A lesser God Who the Word WAS ?
Are there two God's refered to in John 1:1 ?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieCan you understand this ?
are you speaking in tongues, is there a translator in the house, i cannae understand a word of this!
"Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came into being, I AM." (John 8:58)
Who is the "I AM" ? in the Bible ?
What did the crowd who heard Him take Him to mean ?
The next verse says "So they picked up stones to throw at Him ..."
The great I AM refers to Jehovah God of Exodus 3:14.
Is this simple enough for you ?
Originally posted by jaywilltomorrow, jaywill, its 00:30 am in Glasgow, i have stuff i need to write up for tomorrow, I am a human being, nothing more, nothing less, I am not saying anything about this text until i have rested from the insanity of this debate, i will see you all tomorrow! although i do have a very interesting facsimile referring to the sahidic Coptic text, Chester beatty papyrus i think with an interlinear translation which seems to be very early dating from before the fourth century! and guess what, it contains John 1:1, till tomorrow - regards Robbie carrobie, son of a thousand trinitarian dogmas, usually put there by his opponents!
[b]==================================
no the word was 'a god', or a divine being as some translators render it, he WAS NOT,IS NOT, NEVER HAS BEEN, NOR EVER WILL BE ALMIGHTY GOD!!!!
=====================================
You may shout that as hysterically as you wish. But there is no need to shout.
Are you one of the "Jehovah's Witnesses?"
...[text shortened]...
2.) A lesser God Who the Word WAS ?
Are there two God's refered to in John 1:1 ?[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillhey relax, don't stress, till tomorrow! oh man i just re-read what you are trying to pull, it is truly laughable jaywill, hehe, haha, it is to laugh, if this is the best you guys got then im in for an easy ride, so everyone who states, that i am, is the same as almighty god, har har, hee hee!
Can you understand this ?
[b]"Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came into being, I AM." (John 8:58)
Who is the "I AM" ? in the Bible ?
What did the crowd who heard Him take Him to mean ?
The next verse says "So they picked up stones to throw at Him ..."
The great I AM refers to Jehovah God of Exodus 3:14.
Is this simple enough for you ?[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo. I am not in a bad mood.
are you in a bad mood? really sorry if i upset you, just messing around thats all,
I enjoy the truth of the Word of God. Within me the Lord loves you. But I have to admonish you when you err.
And I think you err on the Trinity and on the incarnation.
But I think you should get some rest. Me too.
Originally posted by knightmeisterhaha, so laughable, you really are gonna have to do better than hurl unsubstantiated claims across the forum floor, really the doctrine doesn't make sense, no matter how many scriptures you try to shoehorn in, some on the least provocation, like jesus said 'i am'. haha, he he , it is to laugh!
Or don't want to understand maybe?
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillok, the story so far, jaywill tried to convince us that isaiah 9:6 is with reference to God Almighty, even though the Hebrew word for almighty was not used in the verse, it is still not established whether he thinks this verse is speaking about the father or the son, or both, because quite clearly god cannot be born, having always existed. Then we get an admittance from Knightmeister after a long discussion that the father and the son are different entities, just like he is a different entity from his parents although holding similar characteristics, this is of course after much discussion over colossians 1v15 which clearly indicates that Christ was a created being, thus having a beginning, thus not god who has always existed. Jaywill here tried to convince us that the scripture is with reference to Christ the man and concerns his preeminence, although this was soundly refuted and anyway cannot be inferred from the verse, then the verse at John 8:58 was used in a laughable attempt to try to show that Christ, by saying that he had existed before Abraham was God almighty, because it states in their translation 'i am', therefore anyone in scripture who can affirm that 'they are', must be god almighty, don't laugh, this is what they are saying. one can only but wonder at what attempts they will think of next in their efforts to prove a doctrine that is not only non biblical but essentially pagan in origin.
No. I am not in a bad mood.
I enjoy the truth of the Word of God. Within me the Lord loves you. But I have to admonish you when you err.
And I think you err on the Trinity and on the incarnation.
But I think you should get some rest. Me too.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt doesn't but then again there are a lot of things that the Bible doesn't say explicitly. As far as I know it also doesn't say that Christ is just a spiritual being either.
thankyou for your honesty, now we have our first real admittance, Christ is distinct entity from the father, it took a little time, but its significant never the less, now where in scripture does it state that Christ is an, 1.'eternal', son, that he is the same in, '2. essence and 3.substance', to the father, as to the part about being co equal, that is easily refutable, so please do tell!
I have one thing I want you to consider here that I think is irrefutable. This whole issue has bee left open ended by Jesus. He has spoken about the Holy Spirit and his relationship with the Father in very metaphorical terms.
He says stuff about us knowing that he is one with us as he is one with the Father , he talks about him having to go away so that the Holy Spirit may be released to the world , he describes the Holy Spirit as "He" and personalises Him. There's also the suggestion that the Holy Spirit is the same Spirit of God that the OT talks about that inspired the Prophets.
He also talks as if the Holy Spirit is also one and the same as him because he says that he will be present with us and in us. There's a whole lot more , but the picture painted here is one where we are supposed to be united with the Father via being united with Christ via the Holy Spirit of God. Christ is one with God (he says this) and we become one with him via the Holy Spirit.
Now you know as well as I do that this is backed up by scripture so what do we make of all this? Well , Jesus does not explicitly say other than "on that day you will know that I am in you and you are in me" + " when he the comforter comes he will guide you into all truth".
My simple point is this. Some way of understanding all this is needed. It's no good criticising the Trinity idea if you have no viable alternative. Something is being described here by Christ that involves a three way process involving Christ , the Father and the Holy Spirit. The trinity seems a very good explanation to me , do you have a better one?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieJohn 8:58 was used in a laughable attempt to try to show that Christ, by saying that he had existed before Abraham was God almighty, because it states in their translation 'i am', therefore anyone in scripture who can affirm that 'they are', must be god almighty,
ok, the story so far, jaywill tried to convince us that isaiah 9:6 is with reference to God Almighty, even though the Hebrew word for almighty was not used in the verse, it is still not established whether he thinks this verse is speaking about the father or the son, or both, because quite clearly god cannot be born, having always existed. Then we g ...[text shortened]... efforts to prove a doctrine that is not only non biblical but essentially pagan in origin.
--------------------------robbie-------------------------
Think about what you are saying here. Jesus said "before Abraham was , I am!" It's a very very strange thing to say do you not think? It's quirkily phrased for a start and it's obvious that it brought about a huge reaction from the listeners because they stoned him (presumably for blasphemy). He doesn't correct them at all. Also , he would have known that the phrase "I am" is very loaded with meaning , he was well versed in the Torah. So why say it?
Originally posted by knightmeisteryes the truth of the matter, you are beginning from the premise that the trinity exists, why or rather how could there be an alternative to something that does not exist, as to the references that you mention we shall no doubt consider these and draw objective conclusions, right now i need to go to work, so see you and get them references ready!
It doesn't but then again there are a lot of things that the Bible doesn't say explicitly. As far as I know it also doesn't say that Christ is just a spiritual being either.
I have one thing I want you to consider here that I think is irrefutable. This whole issue has bee left open ended by Jesus. He has spoken about the Holy Spirit and his relati ...[text shortened]... Spirit. The trinity seems a very good explanation to me , do you have a better one?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am beginning from the premise that there is something being described by Jesus that is hard to understand and that it involves the Holy Spirit and his union with the Father somehow. This much I think is indisputable , do you agree?
yes the truth of the matter, you are beginning from the premise that the trinity exists, why or rather how could there be an alternative to something that does not exist, as to the references that you mention we shall no doubt consider these and draw objective conclusions, right now i need to go to work, so see you and get them references ready!
My premise is also that whatever he is describing is not explicitly stated and requires us to make sense of it. The Trinity is an attempt to do just that.
As for whether the Trinity exists , well - the Holy Spirit exists , Jesus exists , the Father exists - there is a relationship between the three is there not?