• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why Didn't the Holy Spirit Know?

cataway

Well-Known Member
Hi @caraway

Can we try this ONE more time before I give up on getting an answer to my simple question. Your last two posts did not answer the question you were asked.

You claimed "if there is a hierarchy, there is no trinity".

In order to make your claim rational, you were asked WHY three things did not make a trinity.

WHY are three things not a trinity regardless of whether a hierarchy is involved pr not?
Your claim is irrational and illogical. If three horses are in a race, why do you believe there is no trinity of horses regardless which comes in first, second, or third.

Are you able to support your claim in any logical way? This claim you made appears irrational.

Clear
the trinity doctrine says all three ,God , son and holy spirit are Co-equal .
they are not equal ,scripter backs this up many times .
you want to use the word ? there are many things that have trinity in the name of a place . collages ,hospitals, churches the list go's on and on . there's even a movie called trinity .

if you want to use the trinity its not illegal
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Speaking about his second coming, Jesus said,

"But of that day and hour knoweth no [man], no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." Matt 24:36.
I understand Trinitarians say that it was the "man part" of Jesus that didn't know the day and hour. Scripturally, it's not the best argument given that there are no verses that mention a "man part" of Jesus.

But we'll assume Jesus had a God part as well as a man part. But why doesn't the third person of the trinity know the day and hour? Is he also part God and part man?


A human male told his own human male self that his ancient Father was a scientist, the inventor of science that caused a ground fission attack on Earth.

For Jesus lived about 2000 years ago.

Told you that the reaction of image in the clouds, already was owned by his Father human self spiritually in his own past...science inventor.

Does a human man/male not a scientist know what a scientist as a human male studied and imposed as time relating to 12 hours?

No, he does not. Only a male in a group mentality claim that they personally understand science.

Now in the past when our Father who never knew evil in science converted Earth life and attacked self and the Nature Garden as the life eviction story of his previous higher spirit....did he know actually?

A male making a review would say, no he never knew evil as the storyteller and write those quotes into his quotations of study.

But the male/man not the image of man, he knew for his Father the first scientist encoded his mind psyche to be enabled to know.

So whilst science was invented by spiritual innocence not knowing....after the fact you did know and understand the concept of evil, but did it anyway.

So you never learnt nor listened to your own life lesson or warnings....why the Father story always portrays Holy Wise men in prophecy detailing self warnings from feed back atmospheric heard speaking voices.
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
This is another case of adding something that really isn't there. Let's just read Isaiah 9:6 for what it says. It does not say Jesus shall be all the things. It says he shall be called all those things. There is a difference.

Isa 9:6,

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
This is of course a prophecy concerning the coming Messiah.

First of all, it says, "a child is born" so to say Jesus was not born is not correct. There are many verses that say Jesus was born, that he had a beginning. That right there out to be enough to realize that Isaiah does not think Jesus to be God.

To be called something is a far cry from actually being that something. My name is Rich. While quite comfortable, I would never consider myself to be among the group of people with tons of money. Living close to the Southern border, I know several people named Jesus. None are my savior though!

The Jews placed more meaning on names than we do. They would name their children with the real hope that they would live up to the meaning behind the name. Isaiah was describing the character of the coming Messiah, not saying he would be Yahweh. Don't you find it interesting that Mary and Joseph didn't actually name Jesus Wonderful, Counselor, etc.?

I think I've gone over the meaning of "god" to the ancient Jews. It meant anyone with power and authority. Look it up an any good Concordance.

I didn't say Jesus was not born. The Man we know as Jesus Christ was born. But the Son was not born at the virgin birth. The Son was given. The birth of Jesus Christ is the eternal Son becoming Man.

You think 'The Mighty God' means anyone with authority. How silly.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

TrueBeliever37

Well-Known Member
Exactly. God is spirit and He is holy, hence He is often called the Holy Spirit. Holy spirit also refers to the gift God gives to all born again believers, first given on the day of Pentecost.

It is not a separate person with the same substance as God. That was never what the Jews thought. Such an heretical idea was not settled upon until the 4th century.

Yet based on your other posts, you still don't seem to understand that the Messiah was God manifest in the flesh. It is true there is not a Trinity. But the one God wrapped himself in flesh, and shed his blood for mans sin. Then the eternal Spirit raised that body up an eternal Spiritual body, and he ascended and took the throne.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
A human male told his own human male self that his ancient Father was a scientist, the inventor of science that caused a ground fission attack on Earth.

For Jesus lived about 2000 years ago.

Told you that the reaction of image in the clouds, already was owned by his Father human self spiritually in his own past...science inventor.

Does a human man/male not a scientist know what a scientist as a human male studied and imposed as time relating to 12 hours?

No, he does not. Only a male in a group mentality claim that they personally understand science.

Now in the past when our Father who never knew evil in science converted Earth life and attacked self and the Nature Garden as the life eviction story of his previous higher spirit....did he know actually?

A male making a review would say, no he never knew evil as the storyteller and write those quotes into his quotations of study.

But the male/man not the image of man, he knew for his Father the first scientist encoded his mind psyche to be enabled to know.

So whilst science was invented by spiritual innocence not knowing....after the fact you did know and understand the concept of evil, but did it anyway.

So you never learnt nor listened to your own life lesson or warnings....why the Father story always portrays Holy Wise men in prophecy detailing self warnings from feed back atmospheric heard speaking voices.
All of that depends on how you look at things, not only in the past or the future, but the present/nowness/pastness as well. The scientists of the future understand that and have been saying it for millennia. One only need read the Wall Street Journal to develop a deeper understand of the facts regarding this case. It will not be an easy task, but one could look to the orangutans to see how they handled the same situation when presented with the plausible outcomes. Suffice it to sat they merged their psyche with those of the frogs and they found the answer. If you don't believe me, Google it.

All in all, I can't argue with what you said. Take care.
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Cataway claimed "if there is a hierarchy there is no trinity" (post #146)

Hi Cataway

The definition of "a trinity" is a set of THREE
The first principle I wanted you to see is that a trinity is simply a set of three things. The three stooges, Larry, Moe, and Curly make up a trinity. Three grapes, three lemurs, three pillows, etc are all examples of trinities. Hierarchy has nothing to do with this base definition.


GOD the Father; the Son/ Messiah Jesus; and the Holy Spirit form a trinity of individuals

IF you speak of God the Father; his Son Jesus the Messiah; and the Holy Spirit in a sentence, then you are describing a trinity of individuals. Whether there is a hierarchy or not, you are still speaking of three individuals. Three individuals. In part#149, you mentioned pagan trinities. If those pagan models were made up of three, they were still trinities. (Three things). It is irrelevant that they are pagan entities. If there are a set of the, then they are a trinity.

Judeo- Christianity speaks a lot about the trinity of God the Father, the Son/ Messiah and the Spirit. These three individuals all have characteristics that elevate their importance above other beings in some way. As long as these three individuals are somehow connected, they form a trinity of individuals. Three.

If there is a hierarchy in their function and power, they still form a group of three, a trinity of individuals. If you speak of only God and his Son together, then we are speaking of a duality (ie Two things). The two things need not be the same.

There are multiple models of the Judeo- Christian trinity
I very much agree with your model that, at least in the earlier Judeo-Christian model, God and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are not the same individual. The later model of equality in the Judeo- Christianity s a product of later centuries. One can argue about the reason the "three is really one" model was developed, still, it is not the model described in the early Judeo- Christian literature.

The base point however is that the presence of a hierarchy and differences that existed between individuals in the earliest Judeo- Christian trinity did not mean there was not a trinity of individuals that somehow had special status and some sort of relationship. The later arguements tend to be over what the relationship is among these three that make up this terribly of individuals (i.e. are they the same individual or separate, etc...)

Clear
 
Last edited:

rrobs

Well-Known Member
You think 'The Mighty God' means anyone with authority. How silly.

Good-Ole-Rebel
Did I say The Mighty God is anyone with authority? If I did, it was a mistake. I meant to say that a god meant someone with power and authority.

That is what it meant to the Jews and Greeks of the 1st century. It doesn't matter what we think about it. God wrote the scriptures in their language and culture and it behooves us to see it their way, not ours. Did you look it up for yourself? Did you consider the verses I quoted that clearly called different men gods? You at least owe it to yourself to see if that is true or not. Don't be stubborn.

Yahweh is the one true God (the Father, 1 Cor 8:6) and that name is never hinted at as belonging to anyone other than the creator of the universe. The scriptures declare over and over that Yahweh created the universe all by Himself with no help from anyone else.
 
Last edited:

rrobs

Well-Known Member
Yet based on your other posts, you still don't seem to understand that the Messiah was God manifest in the flesh. It is true there is not a Trinity. But the one God wrapped himself in flesh, and shed his blood for mans sin. Then the eternal Spirit raised that body up an eternal Spiritual body, and he ascended and took the throne.
That is true according to tradition. However, the scriptures always call Jesus a man, never a god-man, and certainly never God manifested in the flesh. You will however find such a creature in many Pagan religions.

I do believe the scriptures say Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father who is the one actually on the throne.

Heb 12:2,

Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of [our] faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Jesus will however get his own throne after the events of the Book of Revelation, after the everlasting kingdom is brought to pass as promised to Israel, i.e. the new heavens and new earth.

We must be very careful when rightly dividing the words of truth. Tradition is a powerful force, able to make God's word of no effect.

Matt 15:6(b),

...Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.​
 

cataway

Well-Known Member





The base point however is that the presence of a hierarchy and differences that existed between individuals in the earliest Judeo- Christian trinity did not mean there was not a trinity of individuals that somehow had special status and some sort of relationship. The later arguments tend to be over what the relationship is among these three that make up this terribly of individuals (i.e. are they the same individual or separate, etc...)

Clear

yep its terribly all right . and did you really think the trinity came about in the early times of Christianity? a triad of gods existed long before Jesus came to the earth, its replete in pagan religions.
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
Did I say The Mighty God is anyone with authority? If I did, it was a mistake. I meant to say that a god meant someone with power and authority.

That is what it meant to the Jews and Greeks of the 1st century. It doesn't matter what we think about it. God wrote the scriptures in their language and culture and it behooves us to see it their way, not ours. Did you look it up for yourself? Did you consider the verses I quoted that clearly called different men gods? You at least owe it to yourself to see if that is true or not. Don't be stubborn.

Yahweh is the one true God (the Father, 1 Cor 8:6) and that name is never hinted at as belonging to anyone other than the creator of the universe. The scriptures declare over and over that Yahweh created the universe all by Himself with no help from anyone else.

Well, you were responding to (Is. 9:6) which I had quoted. And it hasn't changed.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
Well, you were responding to (Is. 9:6) which I had quoted. And it hasn't changed.

Good-Ole-Rebel
I see now. I misunderstood.

Isa 9:6,

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 9:6 does not say:

Isa 9:6,

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and he shall be Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
There is a huge difference. I know Christians don't mean to change the word of God, but that is what they are forced to do to support the trinity. They do the same by changing the words "word" in John 1:1 to "Jesus." We must let the scriptures speak for themselves. If God used the word "word" it's because He had a good reason. We should not change that word into another word. We should search the scriptures to find out what that word really means in John 1:1. Merely changing it to anything else, including "Jesus," makes it all but impossible to understand the truth. God was careful in His choice of words.
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
I see now. I misunderstood.

Isa 9:6,

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 9:6 does not say:

Isa 9:6,

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and he shall be Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
There is a huge difference. I know Christians don't mean to change the word of God, but that is what they are forced to do to support the trinity. They do the same by changing the words "word" in John 1:1 to "Jesus." We must let the scriptures speak for themselves. If God used the word "word" it's because He had a good reason. We should not change that word into another word. We should search the scriptures to find out what that word really means in John 1:1. Merely changing it to anything else, including "Jesus," makes it all but impossible to understand the truth. God was careful in His choice of words.

With (Is. 9:6) the Messiah is identified with the name mighty God. That is what I am saying at this time. The child was born. That is the Son becoming Man. But the Son was given. As He always existed with the Father and was not born at the virgin birth.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

TrueBeliever37

Well-Known Member
Don't be stubborn.

Yahweh is the one true God (the Father, 1 Cor 8:6) and that name is never hinted at as belonging to anyone other than the creator of the universe. The scriptures declare over and over that Yahweh created the universe all by Himself with no help from anyone else.

YHWH is the one true God, and he created everything by himself with no help from anyone else.
So that means the Messiah had to be YHWH dwelling in a fleshly body. Because Colossians 1:14-18 lets us know everything was created by him.
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Regarding the various versions of the trinity

cataway said : "yep its terribly all right" . Post #169

I did NOT say it was terrible.

Please do not assume I am like you. I do not have the hubris to think I am somehow morally or spiritually superior to those who develop different models of belief than myself. I do not think it is terrible that later Christians did perhaps the best they could in trying to understand what God was like any more than I think it is terrible that your beliefs or my own beliefs have errors when we are trying to understand and develop models as to what God is like and what his relationship is to others.

Remember your own errors. I did no condemn you or say you were "terrible" when you offered your own theory that "if there is a hierarchy there is no trinity" (post #146). I assumed you were simply creating your theory with good intent. We all make errors.


cataway said : “did you really think the trinity came about in the early times of Christianity?” Post #169

No, you are making another irrational statement that has nothing to do with my prior statements. My historical religious interest in this context is not what pagans believed nor is it in the beliefs of your own or other of the modern Christian movements. Instead, in this context, I am interested in what the early Judeo-Christians say THEY believed and in THEIR religion. I do not see any advantages of later Christian movements (like your profile says you belong to) over the earliest Christian religions, with their beliefs and their interpretations and their texts.

For example, Why should your religious movement with it’s beliefs and it’s texts and it’s interpretation of texts have any precedence or priority over the earliest Christian religion with their beliefs and their texts and their interpretation of texts?


Cataway, IF you are willing to have a logical and rational discussion of religion and historical data, then I am perfectly willing to do this. I don't think it is helpful for you to simply try to assume a moral superiority over others and condemn other religionists who are doing exactly the same thing you are doing, and that is, most of them are simply doing the best they can to understand God and this existence. Try to understand them and your judgments will be more accurate. Try to love them and your judgments and condemnations of them may not be so quickly offered. If you can see that you are making some of the same mistakes as the people you want to condemn, your insights that you offer to others will be more helpful.

In any case Cataway, I hope your own spiritual journey in this life is wonderful and happy.

Clear
ειδρτωφυω
 
Last edited:

TrueBeliever37

Well-Known Member
That is true according to tradition. However, the scriptures always call Jesus a man, never a god-man, and certainly never God manifested in the flesh. You will however find such a creature in many Pagan religions.

I do believe the scriptures say Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father who is the one actually on the throne.

Heb 12:2,

Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of [our] faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Jesus will however get his own throne after the events of the Book of Revelation, after the everlasting kingdom is brought to pass as promised to Israel, i.e. the new heavens and new earth.

We must be very careful when rightly dividing the words of truth. Tradition is a powerful force, able to make God's word of no effect.

Matt 15:6(b),

...Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.​

How can you sit at the right hand side of a Spirit that fills heaven and earth? The phrase right hand can also be a Hebrew idiom meaning power. Some verses in the scripture are saying it was his right to take the throne. And some verses are saying he sat down in/with the power of God.
 

cataway

Well-Known Member
Regarding the various versions of the trinity

cataway said : "yep its terribly all right" . Post #169

I did NOT say it was terrible.

Please do not assume I am like you. I do not have the hubris to think I am somehow morally or spiritually superior to those who develop different models of belief than myself. I do not think it is terrible that later Christians did perhaps the best they could in trying to understand what God was like any more than I think it is terrible that your beliefs or my own beliefs have errors when we are trying to understand and develop models as to what God is like and what his relationship is to others.

Remember your own errors. I did no condemn you or say you were "terrible" when you offered your own theory that "if there is a hierarchy there is no trinity" (post #146). I assumed you were simply creating your theory with good intent. We all make errors.


cataway said : “did you really think the trinity came about in the early times of Christianity?” Post #169

No, you are making another irrational statement that has nothing to do with my prior statements. My historical religious interest in this context is not what pagans believed nor is it in the beliefs of your own or other of the modern Christian movements. Instead, in this context, I am interested in what the early Judeo-Christians say THEY believed and in THEIR religion. I do not see any advantages of later Christian movements (like your profile says you belong to) over the earliest Christian religions, with their beliefs and their interpretations and their texts.

For example, Why should your religious movement with it’s beliefs and it’s texts and it’s interpretation of texts have any precedence or priority over the earliest Christian religion with their beliefs and their texts and their interpretation of texts?


Cataway, IF you are willing to have a logical and rational discussion of religion and historical data, then I am perfectly willing to do this. I don't think it is helpful for you to simply try to assume a moral superiority over others and condemn other religionists who are doing exactly the same thing you are doing, and that is, most of them are simply doing the best they can to understand God and this existence. Try to understand them and your judgments will be more accurate. Try to love them and your judgments and condemnations of them may not be so quickly offered. If you can see that you are making some of the same mistakes as the people you want to condemn, your insights that you offer to others will be more helpful.

In any case Cataway, I hope your own spiritual journey in this life is wonderful and happy.

Clear
ειδρτωφυω
The Trinity concept stems from ancient Babylon, where the sun-god Shamash, the moon god Sin, and the star god Ishtar were worshipped as a triad. Egypt followed the same pattern, worshipping Osiris, Isis, and Horus. Assyria’s chief god, Asshur, is portrayed as having three heads. Following the same pattern, images are to be found in Catholic churches depicting God as having three heads.

The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.
In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.
According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.
John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Today Father talked to me spiritually.

He said that as the Native spiritual male Father history, not a scientist lived first, his holy male reverence and quotes Mother Nature, was never the science male meaning for inferring space, a Mother of God the stone.

His meaning spiritually to living on Earth was a holy spiritual reference to self to revere the nature of the body of the stone, the nature garden, the animals and equal brother and sister self in his life.

And they OWN the origin of the speaking recorded records in modern day earth life after the ICE AGE.

However your science evil male quotes fake and false about a stone body sitting in space, own very different male/female as quotations from an evil minded male egotistical status about males owning everything that they talk about and quote it as an evil minded reality of the Destroyer male self.

So how can the Holy male spiritual being, the history inventor of the status science his own self warn self against self, when his use and stories in natural human history MEMORY which is what you use and utilise as a baby male to adult male, a science destructive newly formed/born DNA life.....as the evolved self who understood science?

It could not warn you.

So instead the female life and psyche spiritually began to be notified that males were no longer listening nor heeding their natural male spiritual conscious warnings.

The very reason.

Father said, as the first original Nature came out of the eternal spirit which science snidely comments about....no it did not he says the UFO radiation group fission created the life on Earth.

So brother liar does the Bible claim that a ground fission first created the billions of so diverse microbial bodies? No. Does it talk about, discuss all of the billions of diverse Nature self separate spiritual bodies? No. Does it talk about every intricate detail of animals forming? No.

Liar.

The genetical story was a human science review and medical story about how human genetics had been damaged.....liar scientists.

UFO scientology believes we were an alien spirit first as the Creator self...and identify their so called wisdom by that statement.

Human spiritual selves know that when we die as a human we still own one portion of our own higher self...the eternal spirit, never in creation, but who released creation from its own holy presence.

We came out after creation was created only when the gases cooled and affected that body.

The story as told spiritually, seen spiritually is in spiritual memory recorded, and cannot be argued about, but science does for science wants it to claim beginning body, reaction, change and power as a mass without owning any space.

What he claims in science is an infinite body....not a space owner. Seeing he knows space in science owns 2 conditions. Totally empty deep and cold and then irradiated space....which is not infinite.

He knows exactly why he studied NDE...trying to claim he would own a contact and realization of the point of release...which is a total laugh.

For the bio Nature came into the Earth gas mass....we did not come into out of space.

What he lies about every day as a dis spirited evil Destroyer psyche.

As told by Father.

Now what most of you pertain in your male quotes is that you do not believe in Father your own selves. Instead as adults, the baby to adult male self you want to challenge him. So he took up that challenge and when I nearly got self combusted the first quote he made in my female life psyche was that you scientist made this PERSONAL.

As you listen via NDE studied and mind AI conditions, you all heard him say it also.

Father was owner of the first male original adult human being manifested life as a male and as a human....not as any evil alien....Satanist.

Father told me he caused the scientific reactive attack and conversion on his own spirit and so he was given the image sitting on a throne of stone in the Heavenly mass...as first male image.

Jesus a 2000 year ago male image update burning irradiation of nature and life, was foretold.....and before him his own DNA historic male father from his own Holy Land Moses, also gained his image in the heavens with his Father as Abraham.

So Father virtually had updated that heavenly cloud image 3 times if you cared to use common human logic. Especially when males witnessed the loss of their spiritual male life....its attack....and saw Jesus just as it was foretold.

Why humans in modern day life irradiation see both visions of the Holy mother harmed in the same incidence and the Holy Father as a Jesus representation.

For you will never see the Holy male Father, for he no longer owns his original image...and it is through the Image of Jesus that he became the new representative warning to life on Earth.

To see Jesus returned means that life is in an updated radiation attack by Satanic causes once again......so eventually Jesus image will change into a modern day human being spiritual male self.

a4fcf4e7c771189529c2f53003bef51e.jpg


The witnessed changing of the cloud male image
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hi @rrobs

@Good-Ole-Rebel said : “The birth of Jesus Christ is the eternal Son becoming Man.” (post #163)
@rrobs said : “Yahweh is the one true God (the Father, 1 Cor 8:6)… The scriptures declare over and over that Yahweh created the universe all by Himself with no help from anyone else. (post #167)

Hi rrobs : While I disagree with Good-Ole-Rebel on some points, If I understand Good-ole-rebels position correctly (he will have to tell us if I am correct), I think he is implying that the Son existed before birth. If so, I think Good-ole-rebels position on this specific doctrine is consistent with early Christian doctrine on this very specific point.

Also, In early Christian worldviews, it is the son; (the word; the “right hand” of the Father, etc.) that actually accomplishes the work of creation of the world. The son creates under the commission and direction of God the Father.

Again, I hope your own spiritual journey is wonderful rrobs

Clear
ειδρσεειω
 
Last edited:

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
Hi @rrobs

@Good-Ole-Rebel said : “The birth of Jesus Christ is the eternal Son becoming Man.” (post #163)
@rrobs said : “Yahweh is the one true God (the Father, 1 Cor 8:6)… The scriptures declare over and over that Yahweh created the universe all by Himself with no help from anyone else. (post #167)

Hi rrobs : While I disagree with Good-Ole-Rebel on some points, If I understand Good-ole-rebels position correctly (he will have to tell us if I am correct), I think he is implying that the Son existed before birth. If so, I think Good-ole-rebels position on this specific Alsodoctrine is consistent with early Christian doctrine on this very specific point.

Also, In early Christian worldviews, it is the son; (the word; the “right hand” of the Father, etc.) that actually accomplishes the work of creation of the world. The son creates under the commission and direction of God the Father.

Again, I hope your own spiritual journey is wonderful rrobs

Clear
ειδρσεειω

Yes. (Col. 1:15-19)

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
@Good-Ole-Rebel : Thanks for letting me know I understood you. I did not want to misrepresent your position on this point.


REGARDING THE PRE-CREATION ROLE OF THE MESSIAH (i.e. THE WORD / THE MORTAL SAVIOR / JESUS/THE CHRIST, ETC)

Hi @rrobs I thought it probably was a bit unfair of me to simply claim that the earlier Christian doctrine was the Jesus, being commission by God the Father, was directed by God the Father to be the agent of creation rather than the Father himself. I thought I ought to give you some data to demonstrate that was the teaching of the early historical Christian movement in their literature. In this case, the Plan of material creation is the Fathers Plan which he then directs the pre-existent son to carry out.


Though New Testament Hebrews makes the innocuous statement that “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds.” (kjv Heb 1:1-2) , I think the concept underlying the words the Son "made the worlds" is often overlooked. However this tradition that the Son (or the son of man, or the word, or the logos, etc) was the creator of the words (as directed by God to do so) is not common knowledge.

This verse traditionally referred to the time before creation when he was “made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.” Vs 4

The prophet enoch spoke of this same tradition and time period, when, before creation, “ At that hour, that Son of Man was given a name, in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits, the head of days. This time period was “… even before the creation of the sun and the moon, before the creation of the stars, he was given a name in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits.” And he became the Chosen One... (c.f.1st Enoch 48:1-7)

The tradition of the Son of Man becoming chosen by God as the savior (i.e. the lamb slain before the foundation of the world” and his special servant) is woven into early textual histories just as his role as “the Word of God” (i.e. the “Logos”). Similarly, just as the Messiah was chosen as the savior before creation (i.e. the lamb slain from the foundation of the world…),. He was also chosen as the agent of creation.

Thus many of the early Hellenistic synagogal prayers reflect God the Father, having create the world through Jesus.

For example, one post Eucharistic prayer reads : #1 vs 2 We give thanks to you, O God and Father of Jesus our Savior...on behalf of the knowledge and faith and love and immortality which you gave to us through Jesus your Son. 4 O Master Almighty, the God of the universe, you created the world and what is in it through him, and you planted deeply in our souls a law; and you prepared for men the things (necessary) for communion; " (aposCon 7.26. 1-3)

Thus 1 Clement also taught the early Christian saints as he refers to God the Father as “ ... the creator of the universe...through his beloved servant Jesus Christ, “…through whom he called us from darkness to light, from ignorance to the knowledge of the glory of his name.

Clement still realized that the Father is the “primal source” since all is done by direction of and in in accordance with the Fathers plan. The Father commands, and the Word or Logos, Jesus, obeys. 1 Clement 59:2-3;

This is the same context of another Hellenistic Synagogal prayer which Blesses God, the “King of the ages, who through Christ made everything, and through him in the beginning ordered that which was unprepared; who separated waters from waters with a firmament, and put a lively spirit in these; 3 who settled the earth (firmly), and stretched out heaven, and ordered the exact arrangement of each one of the creatures..... Vs 18 And the goal of the creative work – the rational living creature, the world citizen – having given order by your Wisdom, you created, saying, “let us make man according to our image and likeness” (aposCon 7.34.1-8) ;

Barnabas
speaks of this same close relationship where the Father includes the Son in his plan from this early stage of creation.For the Scripture speaks about us when he says to the Son: “Let us make man according to our image and likeness, and let them rule over the beasts of the earth and the birds of the air and the fish of the sea.” And when he saw that our creation was good, the Lord said: “Increase and multiply and fill the earth.” These things he said to the Son" The Epistle of Barnabas 6:12;

And, again he refers to the Lord Jesus as “Lord of the Whole world” says “And furthermore, my brothers: if the Lord submitted to suffer for our souls, even though he is Lord of the whole world, to whom God said at the foundation of the world, “Let us make man according to our image and likeness, how is it, then, that he submitted to suffer at the hands of men.?The Epistle of Barnabas 5:5

The early tradition which has Jesus / the word/logos as the main one to whom God the Father was speaking permeates multiple synagogal prayers. When God said Let us make man according to our image and likeness

Even at this early stage of creation, the traditions indicate that the Savior was already mediating creation. Thus yet another Hellenistic Synagogal prayer reads : #4 vs 2 “O Creator, Savior, rich One in favors, Long-sufferer, and supplier of mercy, who do not withdraw from the salvation of your creatures!” as the prayer shifts to honoring the father (vs38) the prayer reads : “ For you are the Father of wisdom, the Creator, as cause, of the creative workmanship through a Mediator...41 the God and Father of the Christ,... (aposCon 7.35.1-10);

As yet another example, Hellenistic Synagogal prayer #5 starts out recognizing this same relationship, saying : O Lord, Almighty One, you created the cosmos through Christ, and marked out a Sabbath day for a remembrance of this; 2 because on it you rested from the works (of creation), in order to give attention to your own laws. “ (aposCon 7.36.1-7);

Such references that were so ingrained in early Christian prayers and texts were incredibly influential and had profound popularity in early Christianity. For example, the very text that Columbus used as a guide to how long his journey across the ocean would take, also references this same relationship between the Lord God and his “word” or his “logos”. It reads : O Lord, you spoke at the beginning of creation, and said on the first day, ‘Let heaven and earth be made,’ and your word accomplished the work. ...”Again, on the second day you created the spirit of the firmament, and commanded him to divide and separate the waters,...”On the third day you commanded the waters to be gathered together in the seventh part of the earth; six parts you dried up and kept so that some of them might be planted and cultivated and be of service before you. For your word went forth, and at once the work was done.” the Fourth Book of Ezra 6:38-44; ("Your word was a euphamism for the pre-existent messiah who was in the beginning with God - John 1:1)
POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS
 
Top