11 May 13
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou seem to overlook that the scriptures say that the one God is in Christ reconciling the world back to Himself.
Let us examine some Bible texts that refer to Jesus and to God, and we will see what some commentators who lived before the Athanasian Creed was formulated thought about those texts.
“I and the Father are one.”—JOHN 10:30.
Novatian (c. 200-258 C.E.) commented: “Since He said ‘one’ thing, let the heretics understand that He did not say ‘one’ per ...[text shortened]... nd everyone including Jesus Christ. Their comments give no hint that they believed in a Trinity.
(2 Corinthians 5:19)
JOHN 10:30 should have read, “I and the Father are one God.”
“The Father is greater than I.”—JOHN 14:28. This is because the Father is the first person of the Triune God. The Son is the second person and the Holy Spirit the third person. Don't forget that after Christ's resurrection, all authority was given to the risen Christ.
Yes there is one God and Father. There is also one God and Son. And there is one God and Holy Spirit. The Father is one person, the Son is one person, and the Holy Spirit is one person. These three are one God.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Glory be to God! Holy! Holy! Holy!
The Instructor
11 May 13
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindswhy should John 10:30, read 'I and the father are one God', there is no Greek equivalent for God in the passage.
You seem to overlook that the scriptures say that the one God is in Christ reconciling the world back to Himself. (2 Corinthians 5:19)
JOHN 10:30 should have read, “I and the Father are one God.”
“The Father is greater than I am.”—JOHN 14:28. This is because the Father is the first person of the Triune God. The Son is the second person and the Holy S e God.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Glory be to God! Holy! Holy! Holy!
The Instructor
It reads, 'ego kia ho pater hen esmen', 'I and the father one are', there is no Theos, the Greek equivalent for God in the passage, you have added it because of your religious bias.
secondly the term, one, is 'hen', in Greek and refers not to a person, but to a thing, for its in the form of neuter, and refers to a relationship of unity as anyone can see making your lie that it should read, the Father and I are one God, stinky.
Why do you hate Jesus this way to make him an object of idolatry? Why do you hate Jesus to change the Bible in order to make him an object of idolatry?
http://interlinearbible.org/john/10-30.htm
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
11 May 13
3 edits
The problem for them is that they have taken a stance which cannot be expressed rationally, when they are therefore challenged, they become emotive.
Robbie C.,
Basically the reasons I gave in my first post you TOTALLY IGNORED and said to your self "Jehovah's Witness business as usual."
You simply IGNORED my post, ran over it to in the name of "lengthy tirade" and got right back to your basic heresy.
Don't come around now pretending that no reasons from the Bible are given to you and all you get is emotional responses.
Some of us can see the difference between standing faithfully with the what the Bible teaches and just being stubborn.
11 May 13
4 edits
Originally posted by sonshipyour first post was made when i asked, what does it mean to 'confess Christ as Lord', you launched into a tirade against me, against the organisation i belong to and introduced elements that were completely irrelevant to answering that simple question.
Robbie C.,
Basically the reasons I gave in my first post you [b]TOTALLY IGNORED and said to your self "Jehovah's Witness business as usual."
You simply IGNORED my post, ran over it to your in the name of "lengthy tirade" and got right back to your basic heresy.
Don't come around now pretending that no reasons from the Bible are given to you ...[text shortened]... rence between standing faithfully with the what the Bible teaches and just being stubborn.[/b]
I have not said that no reasons were given, that is a straw man argument, i stated that the trinity is irrational and thus when challenged, trinitarians have a tendency to become emotive, anyone can see what has transpired here for themselves.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
11 May 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWithout reviewing what I wrote in the first post I don't recall it being so much AGAINST you but FOR the New Testament.
your first post was made when i asked, what does it mean to 'confess Christ as Lord', you launched into a tirade against me, against the organisation i belong to and introduced elements that were completely irrelevant to answering that simple question.
The problem is that when I am FOR the New Testament it SOUNDS Like a TIRADE against your Jehovah's Witnesses.
But regardless I make no apologies. The Bible forbids me to wish you Godspeed or say "Rejoice". He who says Rejoice to the antichrist teacher shares in his evil works.
Do not receive him into your house, John writes, and do not wish him Rejoice. Do not tell say I am a disappointment to you as compared to other Christians.
I do not care about this. My God is the man Jesus Christ for eternity.
And if this is too emotional for you ... well we are to love the Lord our God with all our heart, all our soul, all our strength, all our mind ... our whole being.
So my emotion is strong concerning my love for Christ too.
11 May 13
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipsure, call me what you like, it would change the fact that the father is to be worshipped exclusively.
Without reviewing what I wrote in the first post I don't recall it being so much AGAINST you but FOR the New Testament.
The problem is that when I am FOR the New Testament it SOUNDS Like a TIRADE against your Jehovah's Witnesses.
But regardless I make no apologies. The Bible forbids me to wish you Godspeed or say "Rejoice". He who says Rejoice to the ...[text shortened]... our mind ... our whole being.
So my emotion is strong concerning my love for Christ too.
11 May 13
Originally posted by sonshipyeah right, Christ must have made a mistake when he uttered,
We've been through it all before. You reject [b]Isaiah 9:6.
The Son given shall be called the Eternal Father.
We've been through it all before.
Twists, denials, dances around the words ... seen it before.[/b]
(Matthew 4:9, 10) Then Jesus said to him: “Go away, Satan! For it is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.
11 May 13
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe father seeks those that will worship Him in spirit and truth. The Father does not wish that He be worshipped exclusively, for why would the Father tell all His holy angels to worship the Son as was already quoted to you?
sure, call me what you like, it would change the fact that the father is to be worshipped exclusively.
But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says:
“Let all the angels of God worship Him.”
(Hebrews 1:6 NKJV)
The Instructor
11 May 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat a tangled web.
yeah right, Christ must have made a mistake when he uttered,
(Matthew 4:9, 10) Then Jesus said to him: “Go away, Satan! For it is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.
On the one hand the verse from Matthew quite clearly states that only the 'Father' is to be worshiped, and yet Isaiah 9:6 quite clearly states that Jesus is the 'Father'. No one wonder no one can agree, it doesn't make any sense. 😞
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
11 May 13
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo. Some of us want to believe EVERYTHING the word of God says and not use ONE portion to SUPPRESS the other portion.
yeah right, Christ must have made a mistake when he uttered,
(Matthew 4:9, 10) Then Jesus said to him: “Go away, Satan! For it is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.
You're LOPSIDED in favor of the passages which enforce your antichrist doctrine.
I believe Matthew 4:9,10 more than you do.
I take Matthew 4:9,10 and I take Isaiah 9:6.
You slice off the passages to suppress other passages.
This is why the ancient brothers looked at the mysterious nature of God while defending it against the attacks of the Arians and were forced ... forced to coin a word Trinity.
They refused to let one part of the Bible suppress another part of the Bible. They saw the paradoxes and they rightly defended the truth against the lopsided heretics who selectively chose passages to confirm only what they wanted to believe.
11 May 13
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobits not such a tangled web when you realise that the term in Isaiah is not made with reference to the almighty. Christ is an eternal father in the sense that all those who put faith in him might get everlasting life, thus he becomes a life giver, as a father gives life to his progeny, It in no way can be construed as meaning that he is the Father, as in God Almighty as the trinitarians are trying to make out because of their dogma, thus its rather a simple affair to reconcile the passage.
What a tangled web.
On the one hand the verse from Matthew quite clearly states that only the 'Father' is to be worshiped, and yet Isaiah 9:6 quite clearly states that Jesus is the 'Father'. No one wonder no one can agree, it doesn't make any sense. 😞
Why dont you ask him why there are different words used in Hebrew for even the term mighty God than almighty God? and why Isaiah uses the former?