My two cents; God, Jesus and The Holy Ghost are one, and they are three distinct personalities. Just as an egg is not the shell, white or yolk but all three.
God does not occupy space or time. He is in me (Holy Ghost), at the right hand of God (Jesus) and in the now and the future.
The bible does not have contradictions; just fallible people misreading passages against the others. Any verse needs to be interpreted with this in mind: who wrote it, to whom it is written, what literary devices does this person use, what has happenned before this verse and what happens afterwards.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
Originally posted by timofearlI have heard this before. How about water, ice and snow?....Sounds good, but God is one. The bible means one, and when it says three, it means three. Can you explain these verses?
My two cents; God, Jesus and The Holy Ghost are one, and they are three distinct personalities. Just as an egg is not the shell, white or yolk but all three.
God does not occupy space or time. He is in me (Holy Ghost), at the right hand of God (Jesus) and in the now and the future.
The bible does not have contradictions; just fallible people misre ...[text shortened]... devices does this person use, what has happenned before this verse and what happens afterwards.
1 Cor 15:27-28
27 For "He has put all things under His feet." But when He says "all things are put under Him," it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted.
28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.
(NKJ)
Also, can you explain why the Epistles read,
Eph 1:2
2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
(NKJ)
Why isn't the Holy Spirit mentioned? Furthermore, why does the book of Revelations show God as ruling, Jesus as ruling, but the Holy Spirit is not mentioned? Kind of rude, wouldn't you say?
Why is Jesus the "image" of the living God? Why does it not simply say Jesus is God? Is God the author of confusion?...or is the trinitarian tradition causing all the confusion?🙂
Originally posted by checkbaiterSo do you not believe in the Father? Also, is not God said to be a Spirit in the Bible? How can God be both the Father and a Holy Spirit?
I have heard this before. How about water, ice and snow?....Sounds good, but God is one. The bible means one, and when it says three, it means three. Can you explain these verses?
1 Cor 15:27-28
27 For "He has put all things under His feet." But when He says "all things are put under Him," it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excep ...[text shortened]... the author of confusion?...or is the trinitarian tradition causing all the confusion?🙂
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
Originally posted by whodeyNot literally. God's plan of His Redeemer existed before Abraham. The same way God says we are seated in the heavenlies. Are you seated in the heavenlies or are you at your computer? God calls things before they occur. Yes, we are seated in the heavenlies, but not literally. It will happen. God's plan cannot be stopped. When Jesus said He existed before Abraham, He meant figuratively.
Christ said that he existed before the time of Abraham. Who else or what else can make this cleim? How can one come to terms with it?
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
Originally posted by whodeyJohn 4:24
So do you not believe in the Father? Also, is not God said to be a Spirit in the Bible? How can God be both the Father and a Holy Spirit?
24 "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."
(NKJ)
God is spirit, so by logic He is Holy Spirit. His gift to us is holy spirit, lower case. Most Christians don't distinguish between the Giver and the gift.
But you are saying the Holy Spirit is a different entity. Holy Spirit is just another name for God.
I wish to ponder just one more verse which is Matthew 16:13-20.
"When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of Man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist; some, Elias, And others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He said to them, But whom say you that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona; for flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also to you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever you will bind on earth will be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you will loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. The he charged his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ."
I would like to make three points from the verse above.
1. In this verse we see a clear distinction between a mere prophet who is a Son of Man and Jesus the Christ who is the Son of God. However, is he not both the Son of Man and the Son of God in the scritpures? How can this be? Must he not be one or the other? Also, reading this it is apparent that only one man can fill this role and he is special above ALL else. In fact, when John the Baptist saw Christ for the first time he said that he was unworthy to even loose his sandels. What are the implications for this elevated state of being?
2. It is also apparent that Christ did not go around broadcasting to the world exactly who and what he was. In fact, he charged his disciples to tell no one. Why? Is not one of the consequences for not broadcasting to the world exactly who he was part of the reason for this discussion?
3. Christ said that Peter was the one in whom he would build his church. What church is being talked about here? Is it not the Catholic church? If it is the Catholic church, does the Catholic church not preach the Trinity? And if it is a false doctrine, are not Christ's efforts in constructing his church around Peter in vain due to such blasphemous doctrines? On the other hand, if the church in question is not Peter, then what church is Christ referring to? After all, Saint Peter spent much time in Rome and died there and was buried there.
Originally posted by checkbaiterExactly. 😉 However, Jesus says something interesting. He says that blasphamous words spoken against the Son or the Father will be forgiven, however, words spoken against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. So if the Holy Spirit and the Father are EXACTLY the same in every way, how can this be so?
John 4:24
24 "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."
(NKJ)
God is spirit, so by logic He is Holy Spirit. His gift to us is holy spirit, lower case. Most Christians don't distinguish between the Giver and the gift.
But you are saying the Holy Spirit is a different entity. Holy Spirit is just another name for God.
Originally posted by whodeyDo you have proof that Christ was referring to the Catholic Church ?
3. Christ said that Peter was the one in whom he would build his church. What church is being talked about here? Is it not the Catholic church? If it is the Catholic church, does the Catholic church not preach the Trinity? And if it is a false doctrine, are not Christ's efforts in constructing his church around Peter in vain due to such blasphemous doctri ...[text shortened]... erring to? After all, Saint Peter spent much time in Rome and died there and was buried there.
Originally posted by Rajk999I have the prophesy given before the advent of the Catholic church and I also have history to show me that Peter evangalised in Rome and died in Rome. Therefore, it seems apparent to me that the prophesy was both a literal and figurative one in which the site that Peter was buried after his martyrdom seems to have also been the site for the construction of the Vatican.
Do you have proof that Christ was referring to the Catholic Church ?
If not, then how was this prophesy fulfilled if at all?
Originally posted by whodeyI dont know the answer to that. Seems like you dont either.
I have the prophesy given before the advent of the Catholic church and I also have history to show me that Peter evangalised in Rome and died in Rome. Therefore, it seems apparent to me that the prophesy was both a literal and figurative one in which the site that Peter was buried after his martyrdom seems to have also been the site for the construction of the Vatican.
If not, then how was this prophesy fulfilled if at all?
So the Catholic Church should be the best church to join then?
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
Originally posted by whodeyWhen Jesus said to Peter, "thou are (Petra) (a pebble) implying that Peter was tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine.....then He said On this (Petros) (meaning Himself, )I will build my church. (He was the rock)....the church was never built on Peter, just the opposite. Jesus is the head of the church, not Peter.
I have the prophesy given before the advent of the Catholic church and I also have history to show me that Peter evangalised in Rome and died in Rome. Therefore, it seems apparent to me that the prophesy was both a literal and figurative one in which the site that Peter was buried after his martyrdom seems to have also been the site for the construction of the Vatican.
If not, then how was this prophesy fulfilled if at all?
Originally posted by twhiteheadGood question. It is apparent to me that once Christ had arisen and had ascended to the Father, they were then free to reveal the identity of Christ as he gave them the mandate to go throughout the world to preach the good news.
So did one of them disobey?
Originally posted by checkbaiterMatthew 16:18 "And I say also to you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock; I will build my church and the gates of hell hsall not prevail against it."
When Jesus said to Peter, "thou are (Petra) (a pebble) implying that Peter was tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine.....then He said On this (Petros) (meaning Himself, )I will build my church. (He was the rock)....the church was never built on Peter, just the opposite. Jesus is the head of the church, not Peter.
So you are saying that Jesus was calling Peter a rock yet the prophesy had nothing to do with Peter being the rock upon which Christ would build his church? Don't get me wrong, Christ is Peter's foundation, however, your interpretation is confusing to say the least. No matter your interpretation, there is no mistaking this to be a prophesy. Christ said that "I WILL" do such and such.
Originally posted by checkbaiterAre believers in Christ seated in the heavenlies or not?
Not literally. God's plan of His Redeemer existed before Abraham. The same way God says we are seated in the heavenlies. Are you seated in the heavenlies or are you at your computer? God calls things before they occur. Yes, we are seated in the heavenlies, but not literally. It will happen. God's plan cannot be stopped. When Jesus said He existed before Abraham, He meant figuratively.
When we come together in our church prayer meetings we always exercise our faith to believe that Lord's word through His apostle that we are seated in the heavenlies. Our position to pray binding prayers against the spiritual enemy is based on our being seated in the heavenlies.
It doesn't matter if I am physically sitting at my computer. In the corporate Body we are seated in the heavenlies. One part of our being is one with the Lord Jesus, our regenerated human spirit. And Christ is in the heavenlies:
"He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit" (1 Cor. 6:17)
Since we believers in Christ are joined as "one spirit" with the Lord we are with Him seated in the heavenlies.
We believers in Christ are also told to "Come forward to the throne of grace" (Heb. 10:22). If the throne of grace is only billions of miles away how can the Bible tell us to come forward to the throne of grace? The answer that coming to our regenerated spirit is coming forward to the throne of grace. As believers setting out mind on the regenerated spirit is also to coming forward to the throne of grace.
We are also told as disciples to set our minds on the on the things which are above where Christ is at the right hand of God:
"If therefore you were raised together with Christ, seek the things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God. Set your mind on the things which are above, not on the things which are on the earth. For you died and your lifeis hidden with Christ in God. " (Col. 1:1-3)
Our coming forward to the throne of grace, our sitting with Christ in the heavenlies, and our setting our minds on the things above where Christ is seated at God's right hand are all possible because the Christians believers is joined as "one spirit" with the Lord Jesus.
These are matters in the Holy Spirit with our human born again spirit. These are matters appropriated by faith.
I would urge you to find a book by Watchman Nee entitled "Sit, Walk, and Stand."
The believer's "organic" union with the Lord Jesus deep within is the secret to our being where He is. At least the core and the kernel of our being is with Him where He is. If we LIVE in that realm God counts that as our being crucified with Him, raised with Him, seated with Him.
Romans 8:10 says that Christ is in the believers. But Romans 8:34 says that Christ is "at the right hand of God" interceding for the believers. So you see to the born again believers Christ is both places and we are with Him.