po18guy
Well-known member
You are greatly mislead.
- Status
A
Alexius
Guest
Well, here is a question. The passage in the New Testament which states “Before Abraham was, I am” is often used to support the belief that Jesus is divine. Judaism; however, teaches that the promised Messiah is in a state of pre-existence before coming to earth. This is not seen as proof of divinity; however. How do we know that Jesus meant that he is God by this statement and not that he was created before Abraham?
Prayers and petitions,
Alexius
Prayers and petitions,
Alexius
B
Benadam
Guest
It seems strange to us who are able to project Divinity into a human being and realize how comprehensive, inclusive, and Universal that Divine Human’s revelation of God is.
po18guy
Well-known member
EASY! Exodus 3:14Well, here is a question. The passage in the New Testament which states “Before Abraham was, I am” is often used to support the belief that Jesus is divine. Judaism; however, teaches that the promised Messiah is in a state of pre-existence before coming to earth. This is not seen as proof of divinity; however. How do we know that Jesus meant that he is God by this statement and not that he was created before Abraham?
Prayers and petitions,
Alexius
God said to Moses, "I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ " Ever after that, “I AM” was viewed not as we do today, but as the name of God which was not to be repeated. Thus, the Hebrews used various other terms for Him to avoid THE NAME. A similar prohibition exists in Judaism today: they omit the vowels in Lord and God, so as not to make a graven image under Mosaic law. Thus, God becomes in modern print either G-d or L-rd.
Need still more proof? In the garden at Gethsamane, the armed “crowd” or “solidiers” (John 18:5-6) sent to arrest Jesus turned and fell to the ground when Christ answered them, “I AM”. They were armed, he was meek. Why would they turn and fall to the ground? He answered using the Holy name of God-and no one could look upon the face of God and live. It was out of fear of God that they turned and fell.
They did not perish, because Christ was fully God and fully man. He revealed only His human face to them.
Christ’s peace be with you.
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
Steve does it bother you that muslims agree with you?
Since it appears you are ignoring this,
The Biblical Basis of the
Doctrine of the Trinity:
An Outline Study
By Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
apologetics.com
spotlightministries.org.uk/bowmanonthetrinity.htm
Since it appears you are ignoring this,
The Biblical Basis of the
Doctrine of the Trinity:
An Outline Study
By Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
apologetics.com
spotlightministries.org.uk/bowmanonthetrinity.htm
B
BibleSteve
Guest
Daniel,
Here’s what I think. I’ve done my homework, diligently studying every possible pro/con trinity argument that has ever been suggested for over 25 years. I’ve carefully reviewed dozens of translations, looked at the Greek and Hebrew texts, reviewed Word Dictionaries, Commentaries from multiple pro-Trinity religions…
I had no preconceived ideas about the Trinity being true or false. Frankly, the only thing I was concerned about was coming to the correct understanding.
My conclusion is that the Trinity doctrine is incorrect. I don’t need any priest, paster, elder, church, congregation, ECF’s or any other organization to tell me what I should believe on this topic.
I’ve read the Bible, praying to God to reveal the truth to me and this is what I’ve recieved… The Trinity is a bogus doctrine. I do appreciate that Isaac Newton, one of the smartest men in the history of humans studied the Bible and came to the same conclusion.
Jesus was as he described himself… God’s Son… the Son of God…
As for the Muslims or the Jews, I am not in the least concerned that they have also looked at the Trinity doctrine and realize it’s bogus. I don’t agree with much of their other ideas, but on this topic they are correct.
Thanks for asking.
po18guy
Well-known member
Those cultic scales tend to blind one to the truth. We can only pray.
Christ’s peace.
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
The last part of John 5:18 is John’s comment, editorial on what calling God his father meant, not just the opinion of the Jews!!!
No, he said Son of the Most High, indicating something more than just “son of god” as you are trying to use it.
Then explain John 1:18, why did copyists change “God the One and Only” to “only begotten son”? I think it is because even the copyists equated “son of god” with “one and only god”.
John 1:18 (New International Version)
No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.
Footnotes:
John 1:18 Or the Only Begotten
John 1:18 Some manuscripts but the only (or only begotten) Son
forananswer.org/John/Jn1_18.htm
John 1
43The next day Jesus decided to leave for Galilee. Finding Philip, he said to him, “Follow me.”
44Philip, like Andrew and Peter, was from the town of Bethsaida. 45Philip found Nathanael and told him, “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”
46"Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?" Nathanael asked.
“Come and see,” said Philip.
47When Jesus saw Nathanael approaching, he said of him, “Here is a true Israelite, in whom there is nothing false.”
48"How do you know me?" Nathanael asked.
Jesus answered, “I saw you while you were still under the fig tree before Philip called you.”
49Then Nathanael declared, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel.”
50Jesus said, "You believe because I told you I saw you under the fig tree. You shall see greater things than that." 51He then added, “I tell you the truth, you[m] shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”
Jesus is demonstrating omniprescence in this above text.
B
BibleSteve
Guest
(John 5:18) On this account, indeed, **the Jews began seeking all the more to kill him, because **not only was he breaking the Sabbath but he was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God.
Then, you also hold the opinion that John thought Jesus had broke the Sabbath and was deserving of the death penalty?
If so, was John correct or incorrect in this opinion?
I maintain Jesus did not break the Sabbath because by doing so, he wouldn’t be sinless.
It was the incorrect opinion of the Jews that he broke the Sabbath and that he was making himself equal to God.
K
Keikiolu
Guest
Your conclusion is perfectly sensible for a non-believer.
Since you don’t accept the only authority which sensibly CAN supply the “proof”, which is not actually proof but REVELATION, in the existence of the Holy Trinity, you’ve found precisely and only what you COULD have found…!
Your conclusion is perfectly logical and perfectly wrong.
But it’s no one’s job to change your mind, only to inform you of your wrongness, so as to help you become closer to God as He is.
So,… now you know you’re wrong as other’s see it, and right as you see it, and we can all agree that that is the way it is.
Now, the question is what are the consequences of our respective beliefs?
How does your view of God make God accessible to do what God does for you, do for you…?
I have a God who is a most wise and loving Father.
I have a God who is a most wise and loving Brother.
I have a God who is a most wise and loving Counselor and Effecter.
What does God do in the world, in your life, in other’s lives, in teaching that which needs learning, in the “story of man”, and any other way, in your experience of Him as God?
Trying to convince each other of that which neither will be convinced of is not a very good use of time.
The question is how one’s conception of God colors their behavior and what it does to the community where that view of God is held.
If you are a “church of one”, or an amorphous cloud of “fellows”, what does that say when compared to a historical structured and “effective” group that is the (Catholic) Church…?
Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaika
i ia oe. Aloha nui.
B
BibleSteve
Guest
I am very much a believer.
You’ve cut out an important part of my post:
"I’ve read the Bible, praying to God to reveal the truth to me and this is what I’ve recieved… "
I’ve looked to the authority of the Bible, and God’s Holy Spirit.
Why not go straight to the source instead of relying on the opinions of imperfect, uninspired men telling you what to believe?
K
Keikiolu
Guest
…and you’ve left out the, as I said above, “only authority which sensibly CAN supply the ‘proof’”, which is the Church.
Without the Church, the best you can do is to conclude that God is the Holy Trinity because you unsupportedly CHOOSE to do so.
You can also, as unsupportedly, choose the opposite,… which is your case.
So a book FROM the Church, and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (aka God), which you grant to yourself but not to “the people of the Church”, is your authority?
You can choose your “proofs” as you wish.
But your chosen authorities are the same as those of the Church, and I choose to believe that the Church is a MUCH better “expert authority” than you are.
So,… best to you in your self appointed supremacy of knowledge…!
Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaika
i ia oe. Aloha nui.
S
swariffin
Guest
I don’t blame you if you come into your conclusion nor do will I judge you. But, going straight to the source instead of relying on the opinion of imperfect, uninspired men, yield sooo many denomination of Christians, since each of the believer have the same opinion as yours. For me, I admited first that I do not have the abundance of time as those who studied the Bible for a living. I also admited that my talent is not in this kind of field. So, to make my research short, I looked at what those “experts” (all, not just the Catholic side) opinion, and consider it myself whether it is reasonable or not.
B
Benadam
Guest
M
MH84
Guest
:banghead:
Why? Because you don’t understand what I meant?
I believe that he Holy Spirit is God.
Read my later post:
Btw I did not say the Holy Spirit is not a divine Person. I said that in this passage:
Quote:
At the Annunciation, the angel Raphael declared to Mary, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thess, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee, and therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” Luke i, 35.
I **think **that
when St. Luke wrote in the Gospel that Gabriel declared that “the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee”, that “the power of the Most High” is in reference to also to the same Holy Ghost just mentioned in the same sentence.
The reason I brought this all up, is that when mgrfin used this passage as a proof of the Holy Trinity, I replied basically saying that IMO only the Holy Spirit and the Son of God is mentioned in that passage, not the Father.
D
Deconi
Guest
Steve, this is the whole crux of the Catholic argument AGAINST Scripture Alone theology. Your conclusions are testament to what can eventuate AND HAS been manifested by so many splinters of Protestantism.
The thing is, you number among multitudes who have done precisely as you have! Examined and re-examined Scriptures from cover to cover repeatedly. They take the thing apart and dismantle the texts and examine them phrase by phase, passage by passage, book by book. Then re-examine the whole book again, from cover to cover! I marvel at the way some can quote almost entire passages of Scriptures, word for word.
Here’s the problem. Having done all that, your conclusions are NOT THE SAME as the others around you, or before your time, who have done all that you have duplicated. Which one of “you” then is correct or has the truth in the conclusion? If you say ‘yours,’ HOW CAN YOU KNOW FOR CERTAIN? Even if you find a thousand conclusions the matches yours, word for word, HOW CAN you be certain?
The anti-Catholics (and I’m not accusing you of that) ALWAYS FORGET what The Catholic church says; **“That IT IS GUIDED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT as promised IT by Jesus Christ”!! **
Now I wonder, Is that the same Holy Spirit that people claim is guiding THEM when they arrive at conclusions that contradict what The Church holds? If you believe and claim that the Holy Spirit is guiding your conclusions, DOES THAT MAKE JESUS HIMSELF A LIAR, since HE TOLD The Church that He Will Guide It 'til the end?
What is your source for saying the Holy Spirit is your guide? The Church’s SOURCE is by it’s Founder! He HIMSELF said it. Can He be POSSIBLY misleading you, or is He DELIBERATELY misleading The Church?
I don’t have to descend to the details of Scriptures to engage you, although I am very familiar with your Textual Hypothesis methods, simply because it AUTOMATICALLY assumes the hypothesis is correct and objective.
The Bible is a Catholic church book so we could hear God’s Word during gatherings, Mass and prayer services throughout the ages. IT IS NOT INFALLIBLE !! That’s why there are so many versions of it because anyone can run off with it and write his own copy version of it. We hold that it is inerrant, but it is not infallible.
If you’re right into Scriptures, you’ll find St Paul holds that The Church is the HIGHER AUTHORITY than Scriptures!..when he said to “take it to The Church!” rather than “…take it to Scriptures.” True, there was NO BIBLE in his time, but the Scriptures were already circulating! and you should already have some idea from your 25year research of how many “Scriptures” there were, floating around until the Canon was decided.
I have known many ‘men’ in academia who have studied Scriptures as you have and still do not know why they do not all agree! Some are clergymen of various denominations, and they are old now. They just can’t get over that veil that seem to prevent them from seeing the entirety of what they know, but they are set in their ways against ‘that Church!’
I do not wish this upon you. I hope that you continue your research, for with the right humility in your heart, TRUTH will not hide from you!
God Bless.
po18guy
Well-known member
SORRY! I mistook the context. Apologies. 
HMMMMM…Having my NAB handy, it says: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you”. Without consulting elsewhere for the literary style of Luke, it appears to me that two Persons are mentioned and have been separated here-the Holy Spirit by name, then “power” used in direct reference to the “Most High”. However, “Most High” can mean Christ as it does during mass, or it has also been used to signify the Most High God. I know some astute scholar will straighten this out. For safety’s sake, I will assume I am wrong.
In the context of the Jewish state and culture, I would lean toward “Most High” referring to the God of Israel. Again, I will consider myself in error until proven otherwise! Being somewhat of a theological hayseed, I had not even considered this point prior.
- Status