-
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!
The Trinity???
- Thread starter destinata7
- Start date
Ummm, no.
destinata7
Member
My daughter is very sick, so I haven't had time to add to my "Arius and Athanasius both had it wrong" post. Give me a day or two to explain....
Also, I agree with runt. Let's keep things civil. A person can make points without insulting.....myself included. Talk to you very soon!
Destinata7
Also, I agree with runt. Let's keep things civil. A person can make points without insulting.....myself included. Talk to you very soon!
Destinata7
Good morning, Runt.Runt said:
I would think that an opening post declaring:
places the question of Constantine's "pressure" squarely on topic, and easily dispensed by the simple act of providing the evidence underlying the claim. No?
Good morning, destinata7. I hope your daughter feels better.destinata7 said:
Runt said:
Runt,
I am not one to squabble over censorship and whine because of preferential treatment but, if you can't see pure antagonism and incitement to war in Deut's posts then something is very wrong here.
The 'topic' is 'The trinity???' And in the initial post trinity was addressed.
The one who has strayed from the topic and has harassed individuals attempting to have a discussion is the very one you said; "I'm not referring so much to your posts" to.
Explanation please.
Good evening, Juble. I am sorry that you imagine "pure antagonism and incitement to war", and sorry too that destinata7 imagines a Constantine conspiracy.Juble said:
Unlike you, I do not believe that the intent of this thread was to discuss the trinity. I believe, instead, that it was to promote the so-called "Destinata", speaking their "Lost Language of Ah" as they wait for their "Jaboah" to come up with something called "The Peace Manifest Bible". When confronted by such an imaginative story, I feel that I have every right to delve into the credibility of the story-teller, even to the extent of stopping innuendo in its tracks and requesting evidence for insinuated claims. It's strange that you would find that so threatening.
That you equate a request for evidence with "antagonism and incitement" is unfortunate and, perhaps, significant.
Lightkeeper
Well-Known Member
Deut. 32.8 said:Good evening, Juble. I am sorry that you imagine "pure antagonism and incitement to war", and sorry too that destinata7 imagines a Constantine conspiracy.Juble said:
Unlike you, I do not believe that the intent of this thread was to discuss the trinity. I believe, instead, that it was to promote the so-called "Destinata", speaking their "Lost Language of Ah" as they wait for their "Jaboah" to come up with something called "The Peace Manifest Bible". When confronted by such an imaginative story, I feel that I have every right to delve into the credibility of the story-teller, even to the extent of stopping innuendo in its tracks and requesting evidence for insinuated claims. It's strange that you would find that so threatening.
That you equate a request for evidence with "antagonism and incitement" is unfortunate and, perhaps, significant.
***MOD POST***
It might be better if you guys iron this out in PM's rather than on the boards. Let's keep the peace here.
I agree. Thank you.
destinata7
Member
The earliest recognition of the observance of Sunday as a legal duty is a constitution of Constantine in 321 A.D., enacting that all courts of justice, inhabitants of towns, and workshops were to be at rest on Sunday (venerabili die sol-is), with an exception in favor of those engaged in agricultural labor. This was the first of a long series of imperial constitutions, most of which are incorporated in the Code of Justinian, bk. iii. tit. 12 (Dc fcriis). The constitutions comprised in this title of the code begin with that of Constantine, and further provide that emancipation and manumission were the only legal proceedings permissible on the Lords day (die dominico), though contracts and compromises might be made between the parties where no intervention of the court was necessary. Pleasure was forbidden as well as business. No spectacle was to be exhibited in a theatre or circus. If the emperors birthday fell on a Sunday, its celebration. was to be postponed. The seven days before and after Easter were to be kept as Sundays. In Cod. i. ~, 9, appears the regulation that prisoners were to be brought up for examination. and interrogation on Sunday. On the other hand, Cod. iii. 12, 10, distinctly directs the torture of robbers and pirates, even on Easter Sunday, the divine pardon (says the law) being hoped for where the safety of society was thus assured. After the time of Justinian the observance of Sunday appears to have become stricter. In the West, Charlemagne forbade labor of any kind. A century later in the Eastern Empire No. liv. of the Leonine constitutions abolished the exemption of agricultural labor contained in the constitution of Constantine; but this exemption was specially preserved in England by a constitution of Archbishop I\Ieopham. The canon law followed the lines of Roman law. The decrees of ecclesiastical councils on the subject have been numerous. Much of the law is contained in the Decretals of Gregory, bk. ii. tit. p (Dc feriis), c. I of which (translated) runs thus: We decree that all Sundays be observed from vespers to vespers (a vespera ad vesperam), and ~that all unlawful work be abstained from, so that in them trading or legal proceedings be not carried on, or any one condemned to death or punishment, or any oaths be administered, except for peace or other necessary reason. Works of necessity (especially in the case of perishable materials or where time was important, as in fishing) were allowed, on condition that a due proportion of the gain made by work so done was given to the church and the poor. The consent of parties was insufficient to give jurisdiction to a court of law to proceed on Sunday, though it was sufficient in the case of a day sanctified by the ecclesiastical authority for a temporary purpose, e.g. a thanksgiving for vintage or harvest.
Encyclopedia Britannica
Making Sunday legally the day of worship is a form of pressure wouldn't you say? As you can see Constantine is the first one to implement this legally hence other governments and yes even the church, which was very connected to the Roman Empire, were affected by this legistlation and adopted it officially as their own policy.
Did anyone worship on Sunday before Constantine? Yes.
Did anyone worship on Saturday before Constantine? Of course.
Did the legal "pressure" of Constantine have an effect on the eventual near worldwide observance of Sunday worship? Anything can be argued, but I am personally convinced that the answer to this question is Yes.
Regards,
Destinata7
Encyclopedia Britannica
Making Sunday legally the day of worship is a form of pressure wouldn't you say? As you can see Constantine is the first one to implement this legally hence other governments and yes even the church, which was very connected to the Roman Empire, were affected by this legistlation and adopted it officially as their own policy.
Did anyone worship on Sunday before Constantine? Yes.
Did anyone worship on Saturday before Constantine? Of course.
Did the legal "pressure" of Constantine have an effect on the eventual near worldwide observance of Sunday worship? Anything can be argued, but I am personally convinced that the answer to this question is Yes.
Regards,
Destinata7
Please listen carefully: pressure occurs only when people are coerced to change their position and/or actions. Do you have any evidence that worshipping on the "Lord's Day" was not fully established by the 4th century? The edict did not constitute pressure but, rather, support.destinata7 said:
true blood
Active Member
First of all the doctrine of the trinity states that the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God and together not exclusively they form one God co-eternal, without beginning or end, and co-equal. I do not believe the Bible teaches this. I believe the Bible teaches God is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, that Jesus is the Son of God and God is Holy and God is Spirit.
The term Son of God is used over 45 times in the Bible; NOT ONE PLACE IS THERE "GOD THE SON". To say that "Son of God" means or equals "God the Son" totally negates the rules of language. Jesus was not literally with God in the beginning nor does he have all the assets of God. So to me the doctrine of the trinity is total bull**** even though its well-rooted among "church-going" christitans. What is the importance of this? Well if Jesus Christ is God and not the Son of God, we have not yet been redeemed.
The bible states that there are two types of doctrine: man-made doctrine and God-breathed doctrine. How am I to know the difference then? BY TESTING IT. You have to study God's Word to know His Will and by study I don't mean simple, cursory reading; but study, observation and unemotional detached consideration. II Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
There is an origin of the trinity doctrine that goes long before the founding of Christianity in ancient religions. The Babylonians used an equilateral triangle to represent this three-in-one god. The Hindue trinity was made up of the gods Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. The Greek triad was Zeus, Athena and Apollo. A large pagan temple built by the Romans in present day Lebanon of Jupiter, Mercury and Venus. In Babylon the planet Venus was worshipped as a trinity consiting of Venus, the moon and the sun. Even cultures such as Egyptian, Phoenician, Greek, Indian, Chinease, Japanese, Icelandic and others accepted this trinity idea. HOWEVER the trinity was NOT part of Christian dogma and formal documents of the first three centuries after Christ. In fact the opposite was the case. The Father was spoken of as supreme, the true and only God, as without beginning, invisible, unbegotten an as such immutable. and the Son as inferior, a real person, having a beginning, visible, begotten and mutable. It is a fully documented historical fact that the doctrine of the trinity was established in the fourth century. Even the NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA states that trinitarianism became part of Christian doctrine in the forth century. HOWEVER there are evidences of trinitarian concepts being introduced by Christian converted pagans in the first century. Even while Paul was alive the pure gospel was being contaminated by those who wanted to modify God's Word to their own benifits
II Timothy 1:15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.
II Timothy 4:10 For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia.
By the half of the the first contury two major sects had made in-roads into Christianity. The Ebionites and the Gnostics. They started to spread false doctrines of Christ thus becoming infiltrated by idolatrous worship and theories. Read "THE DIDACHE" to see the nonsense yourselves, written in 80 A.D.
To move to modern doctrine there are two scriptures that clearly contain a trinitarian forumla. I John 5:6-8 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ: not by water only, buy by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holdy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one.
These verses contain words that do not appear in any of the early manuscripts especiually the Greek manuscripts..first appearing in Latin copies. The early manuscripts read: For there are three that bear record, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. Irenaeus (second century), Terullian (third century) Cyprian (third century), Hieronymus (fifth century) and Augustine (fifth century) corrupted the origninal text and they'll have to answer to God when Judgement comes.
Promoters of a trinity of the baptismal formula prior to the fourth century had Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. It would not have been difficult for scribes to insert "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" in place of the original "in my name". This must have been what happened because earlier manuscripts from which Eusebius quoted in the early part of the fourth century. He cited Matthew 28:19 eighteen times without once using them. Rather he wrote, "...baptizing them in my name".
The Greek Justin Martyr who wrote in the mid second century never quoted "in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" nor did Aphraates of Nisibis in the fourth century thus showing these fellows must of had earlier manuscripts. Further more regarding water baptism there is no record in the New Testament that the command was ever carried out by the first century church. They always baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Acts: 2:28, Acts 8:16, Acts 10:48, Acts 19:5. Then under more persecusion and threats by the Roman emperors Nero, Domitian, Trajan simply caused more dissension. Also in the second century Aristides and Justin Martry wrote discertations to emperors to stop the persecution called Apologies which were in fact compromises between Christianity and paganism thus taking roots.
Then Constatine, a roman emperor, "turn christian" began to grant special favors to christians thus making conversions to "christianity" a ticket to political, military and social promotion which further changed Christ's position however still many clergy did not accept this new postition. Following a confrontation between Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, Egypt and his presbyter Arius in which Alexander taught that Jesus was God and Arius did not. So a synod was held at Alexandria in 321 where Arius was deposed and excommunicated although he still had support outside of Egypt such as Eusebius of Palestinian Caesarea and Bishop Nicomedia agreeing with Arius. Constantine, disturbed over the controversy, sent his advisor Ossius and Bishop Cordova to Alexandria, Egypt. Siding with Alexander's position they returned to rome and persuaded Constantine. Then to legitimatize his postition, Constantine invited all bishops of the Christian Church to Nicaea, France in May 325 A.D. to settle the dispute. The council consited of around 220 bishops who were almost exclusivly from the Occident. Constantine, who was in control of the proceedings, USED HIS POLITICAL POWER to bring pressure to bear on the bishops to accept his theological postition. The creed they sign was clearly anti-Arian; in other words, the Nicene Creed embraced the Son as co-equal with God. 218 bishops signed the creed although it was clearly the work of a minority. You can read the Encyclopedia Britannica to check out the proceedings. In the year 381 A.D. a second council met in Constantinople reaffirming the Nicense Creed and also decleard the deity of the Holy Spirit. The doctrin of the trinity was then fully established becoming a cornerstone of Christianity.
Clearly the idea of a Christian trinity was not part of the first century Church. The twelve apostles never subscribed to it or received revelation about it. It has evolved from pagans who converted to Christianity who brought their pagan beliefs and practices confirmed by Church bishops out of political gains. Since then it has been adhered to as thought it were divine revelation. Clearly its not and those people will be Judged accordinly.
The term Son of God is used over 45 times in the Bible; NOT ONE PLACE IS THERE "GOD THE SON". To say that "Son of God" means or equals "God the Son" totally negates the rules of language. Jesus was not literally with God in the beginning nor does he have all the assets of God. So to me the doctrine of the trinity is total bull**** even though its well-rooted among "church-going" christitans. What is the importance of this? Well if Jesus Christ is God and not the Son of God, we have not yet been redeemed.
The bible states that there are two types of doctrine: man-made doctrine and God-breathed doctrine. How am I to know the difference then? BY TESTING IT. You have to study God's Word to know His Will and by study I don't mean simple, cursory reading; but study, observation and unemotional detached consideration. II Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
There is an origin of the trinity doctrine that goes long before the founding of Christianity in ancient religions. The Babylonians used an equilateral triangle to represent this three-in-one god. The Hindue trinity was made up of the gods Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. The Greek triad was Zeus, Athena and Apollo. A large pagan temple built by the Romans in present day Lebanon of Jupiter, Mercury and Venus. In Babylon the planet Venus was worshipped as a trinity consiting of Venus, the moon and the sun. Even cultures such as Egyptian, Phoenician, Greek, Indian, Chinease, Japanese, Icelandic and others accepted this trinity idea. HOWEVER the trinity was NOT part of Christian dogma and formal documents of the first three centuries after Christ. In fact the opposite was the case. The Father was spoken of as supreme, the true and only God, as without beginning, invisible, unbegotten an as such immutable. and the Son as inferior, a real person, having a beginning, visible, begotten and mutable. It is a fully documented historical fact that the doctrine of the trinity was established in the fourth century. Even the NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA states that trinitarianism became part of Christian doctrine in the forth century. HOWEVER there are evidences of trinitarian concepts being introduced by Christian converted pagans in the first century. Even while Paul was alive the pure gospel was being contaminated by those who wanted to modify God's Word to their own benifits
II Timothy 1:15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.
II Timothy 4:10 For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia.
By the half of the the first contury two major sects had made in-roads into Christianity. The Ebionites and the Gnostics. They started to spread false doctrines of Christ thus becoming infiltrated by idolatrous worship and theories. Read "THE DIDACHE" to see the nonsense yourselves, written in 80 A.D.
To move to modern doctrine there are two scriptures that clearly contain a trinitarian forumla. I John 5:6-8 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ: not by water only, buy by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holdy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one.
These verses contain words that do not appear in any of the early manuscripts especiually the Greek manuscripts..first appearing in Latin copies. The early manuscripts read: For there are three that bear record, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. Irenaeus (second century), Terullian (third century) Cyprian (third century), Hieronymus (fifth century) and Augustine (fifth century) corrupted the origninal text and they'll have to answer to God when Judgement comes.
Promoters of a trinity of the baptismal formula prior to the fourth century had Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. It would not have been difficult for scribes to insert "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" in place of the original "in my name". This must have been what happened because earlier manuscripts from which Eusebius quoted in the early part of the fourth century. He cited Matthew 28:19 eighteen times without once using them. Rather he wrote, "...baptizing them in my name".
The Greek Justin Martyr who wrote in the mid second century never quoted "in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" nor did Aphraates of Nisibis in the fourth century thus showing these fellows must of had earlier manuscripts. Further more regarding water baptism there is no record in the New Testament that the command was ever carried out by the first century church. They always baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Acts: 2:28, Acts 8:16, Acts 10:48, Acts 19:5. Then under more persecusion and threats by the Roman emperors Nero, Domitian, Trajan simply caused more dissension. Also in the second century Aristides and Justin Martry wrote discertations to emperors to stop the persecution called Apologies which were in fact compromises between Christianity and paganism thus taking roots.
Then Constatine, a roman emperor, "turn christian" began to grant special favors to christians thus making conversions to "christianity" a ticket to political, military and social promotion which further changed Christ's position however still many clergy did not accept this new postition. Following a confrontation between Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, Egypt and his presbyter Arius in which Alexander taught that Jesus was God and Arius did not. So a synod was held at Alexandria in 321 where Arius was deposed and excommunicated although he still had support outside of Egypt such as Eusebius of Palestinian Caesarea and Bishop Nicomedia agreeing with Arius. Constantine, disturbed over the controversy, sent his advisor Ossius and Bishop Cordova to Alexandria, Egypt. Siding with Alexander's position they returned to rome and persuaded Constantine. Then to legitimatize his postition, Constantine invited all bishops of the Christian Church to Nicaea, France in May 325 A.D. to settle the dispute. The council consited of around 220 bishops who were almost exclusivly from the Occident. Constantine, who was in control of the proceedings, USED HIS POLITICAL POWER to bring pressure to bear on the bishops to accept his theological postition. The creed they sign was clearly anti-Arian; in other words, the Nicene Creed embraced the Son as co-equal with God. 218 bishops signed the creed although it was clearly the work of a minority. You can read the Encyclopedia Britannica to check out the proceedings. In the year 381 A.D. a second council met in Constantinople reaffirming the Nicense Creed and also decleard the deity of the Holy Spirit. The doctrin of the trinity was then fully established becoming a cornerstone of Christianity.
Clearly the idea of a Christian trinity was not part of the first century Church. The twelve apostles never subscribed to it or received revelation about it. It has evolved from pagans who converted to Christianity who brought their pagan beliefs and practices confirmed by Church bishops out of political gains. Since then it has been adhered to as thought it were divine revelation. Clearly its not and those people will be Judged accordinly.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
I may be wrong here.. but I seem to recall hearing that sunday was origionally at the end of the week and was moved for political reasons to the begining of the week at a later time... cant have the most important day of the week coming in last place now could they?
in fact some countries have Sunday at the end of the week on thier calenders such as Denmark, Norway and Sweden. (almost kinda' makes the whole first day/last day arguments kinda' silly really as it realy depends on where you are.)
exerpt from:http://www.ernie.cummings.net/calendar.htm
SUNDAY
In AD 321 Emperor Constantine established for the calendar a seven day week and Sunday as the First Day of the Week.
Also that Sunday should be a day of rest and worship.
Sunday in Christianity is the "Lords day" which is a memorial to Jesus Christs Resurrection from the dead. Sunday worship dates back to the apostolic times. The author of Revelation writes:
"I was in the Spirit of the Lords's day,
and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,"
(Rev. 1:10) KJV
now I know that the seven day week is fairly common it was found in Jewish, Persian and Chinese calanders as well... so Constantine wasn't all that clever... but it was helping to fix an older calander that was in some need of help... The Julian calander was not set on week days and they varied from four to ten days long... while they were at it they decieded important days like when christ should be born and when he should have died...
http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/calendar.htm#Julian
as for the full establishment of the 'lords day' there is some evidence that a few small christain groups such as the gnostics worshiped on the old Jewish sabbath to maintain thier ties to the older faith, but for the most part christians wanted to be seen as different and better than the parent religion thus the move to the next day.. the day Jesus supposedly rose from the grave...
http://webexhibits.org/calendars/week.html
of cource we all know what happins to small unpopular and supposedly 'heritic' groups in christian history prior to the reformation...
anyway just my 2 cents...
wa:-do
in fact some countries have Sunday at the end of the week on thier calenders such as Denmark, Norway and Sweden. (almost kinda' makes the whole first day/last day arguments kinda' silly really as it realy depends on where you are.)
exerpt from:http://www.ernie.cummings.net/calendar.htm
SUNDAY
In AD 321 Emperor Constantine established for the calendar a seven day week and Sunday as the First Day of the Week.
Also that Sunday should be a day of rest and worship.
Sunday in Christianity is the "Lords day" which is a memorial to Jesus Christs Resurrection from the dead. Sunday worship dates back to the apostolic times. The author of Revelation writes:
"I was in the Spirit of the Lords's day,
and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,"
(Rev. 1:10) KJV
now I know that the seven day week is fairly common it was found in Jewish, Persian and Chinese calanders as well... so Constantine wasn't all that clever... but it was helping to fix an older calander that was in some need of help... The Julian calander was not set on week days and they varied from four to ten days long... while they were at it they decieded important days like when christ should be born and when he should have died...
http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/calendar.htm#Julian
as for the full establishment of the 'lords day' there is some evidence that a few small christain groups such as the gnostics worshiped on the old Jewish sabbath to maintain thier ties to the older faith, but for the most part christians wanted to be seen as different and better than the parent religion thus the move to the next day.. the day Jesus supposedly rose from the grave...
http://webexhibits.org/calendars/week.html
of cource we all know what happins to small unpopular and supposedly 'heritic' groups in christian history prior to the reformation...
anyway just my 2 cents...
wa:-do
What evidence, painted wolf?painted wolf said:
destinata7
Member
Deut. 32.8 said:
If everyone was already worshipping on Sunday, why was it important to devise a law that threatened those who failed to observe it?
Keep in mind that the local churches couldn't even agree on who God was at the time of Constantine. What makes you think that they all agreed on the very contraversial topic of a Sunday Sabbath? Constantine's motivation was to help the church become more consistent in their observations to prevent the tremendous amount of fighting that was threatening to destroy the peace in his empire.
Deut, you have constantly demanded proof for my statements. Now I would like to have proof for one of yours. "The edict did not constitute pressure but, rather, support." My opinions concerning Constantine and his influence are purely based on books that I have read outside the Holy Bible. Prove to me your above statement and I am open to change my position. After all, if we are not at least a little open-minded, why are we posting on this forum. To seek the truth? Or to demonstrate how intelligent that we are....
Remember supporting your statement involves proving, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Sunday was universally recognized as the day to worship before Constantine issued his laws.
Destinata7
destinata7
Member
Jesus Christ is not the Ultimate Invisible God (Yahshadvah)
Nonetheless, He is God-as-represented to all of us.
1) Can God die? Even for one minute?
And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost. Luke 23:46
2) Can God's "personalities" have conflicting wills?
And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. Matthew 26:39
If this "cup" was dying on the cross, then what was the real will of Christ? To not die on the cross?
Regardless of this speculation, this scripture is an indicator that Jesus was not the Ultimate Invisible God. Does Yashadvah struggle with His will? I think not.
3) Can God forsake Himself?
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God,my god, why hast thou forsaken me? Matthew 27:46
4) Are we God?
Read these two scriptures:
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: Col. 1:15
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Genesis 1:27
If Jesus Christ being the image of God makes Him God Himself....then what about man being in the image of God? Is man God too? Nope! Not the Ultimate God.
5) Can God be "begotten"?
God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Acts 13:33
6) Can God "learn" to be obedient when He is omniscient (already knows everything)?
Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; Hebrews 5:8
7) Can God's mind be truly put into your human body? (Physical mind or spiritual mind...it doesn't matter for this point)
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Philip. 2:5
Can we really have the same mind as the Ultimate God in any sense? Not if the Ultimate God is truly unlimited...and Yahshadvah is unlimited! You're body would explode!
8.) James 1:13 says that God cannot be tempted with evil. Hebrews chapter two says that Jesus Christ was tempted just as we are tempted.
Jesus Christ cannot be the Ultimate Invisible God!
Then who is Jesus Christ? The Father...our Father!
Standby for my next post titled "Jesus Christ is the Father"
With Love,
Destinata7
PS My view of the Trinity is this:
1) Jesus Christ is the Father and the Son
2) Jesus Christ is not the Invisible God
3) The Holy Spirit is not the Invisible God or the Father in the sense that many people believe
4) Jesus Christ the Father/Son is our exclusive ambassador to the Invisible God
I look forward to discussing these points with you in the near future!
Nonetheless, He is God-as-represented to all of us.
1) Can God die? Even for one minute?
And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost. Luke 23:46
2) Can God's "personalities" have conflicting wills?
And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. Matthew 26:39
If this "cup" was dying on the cross, then what was the real will of Christ? To not die on the cross?
Regardless of this speculation, this scripture is an indicator that Jesus was not the Ultimate Invisible God. Does Yashadvah struggle with His will? I think not.
3) Can God forsake Himself?
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God,my god, why hast thou forsaken me? Matthew 27:46
4) Are we God?
Read these two scriptures:
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: Col. 1:15
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Genesis 1:27
If Jesus Christ being the image of God makes Him God Himself....then what about man being in the image of God? Is man God too? Nope! Not the Ultimate God.
5) Can God be "begotten"?
God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Acts 13:33
6) Can God "learn" to be obedient when He is omniscient (already knows everything)?
Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; Hebrews 5:8
7) Can God's mind be truly put into your human body? (Physical mind or spiritual mind...it doesn't matter for this point)
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Philip. 2:5
Can we really have the same mind as the Ultimate God in any sense? Not if the Ultimate God is truly unlimited...and Yahshadvah is unlimited! You're body would explode!
8.) James 1:13 says that God cannot be tempted with evil. Hebrews chapter two says that Jesus Christ was tempted just as we are tempted.
Jesus Christ cannot be the Ultimate Invisible God!
Then who is Jesus Christ? The Father...our Father!
Standby for my next post titled "Jesus Christ is the Father"
With Love,
Destinata7
PS My view of the Trinity is this:
1) Jesus Christ is the Father and the Son
2) Jesus Christ is not the Invisible God
3) The Holy Spirit is not the Invisible God or the Father in the sense that many people believe
4) Jesus Christ the Father/Son is our exclusive ambassador to the Invisible God
I look forward to discussing these points with you in the near future!
Deut. 32.8 I think I owe you an apology.
I didn't see it coming like you obviously did. I thought that your going on's were pointless and had no purpose except to annoy. I see now that you saw this blasphemous post from destinata7 coming from his first post and I did not. I also have to admit that I knew nothing about that particular heritical movement.
So....I'm sorry and stand corrected as to your agenda.
I didn't see it coming like you obviously did. I thought that your going on's were pointless and had no purpose except to annoy. I see now that you saw this blasphemous post from destinata7 coming from his first post and I did not. I also have to admit that I knew nothing about that particular heritical movement.
So....I'm sorry and stand corrected as to your agenda.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
here is a few ...
"But if some, through weak-mindedness, wish to observe such institutions as were given by Moses (from which they expect some virtue, but which we believe were appointed by reason of the hardness of the people's hearts), along with their hope in this Christ, and the eternal and natural acts of righteousness and piety, yet choose to live with the Christians and the faithful, as I said before, not inducing them either to be circumcised like themselves, or to keep the Sabbath, or to observe any other such ceremonies, then I hold that we ought to join ourselves to such, and associate with them in all things as kinsmen and brethren" (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter XLVII, p. 218, Volume 1, Clarke's Ante-Nicene Library, or The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1953 edition).
"The observance of the Sabbath among the Jewish Christians gradually ceased. Yet the Eastern Church to this day marks the seventh day of the week (excepting only the Easter Sabbath) by omitting fasting, and standing in prayer; the Latin Church, in direct opposition to Judaism, made Saturday a fast day. The controversy on this point began as early as the end of the second century" (History of the Church, p. 372, 1864 edition; p. 205, 1952 edition).
"There is another sect,. . . 'Hypsistarians,' that is, worshipers of the most high God, whom they worshiped as the Jews only in one person. And they observed their Sabbaths, and used distinction of their meats, clean and unclean, though they did not regard circumcision, as Gregory Nazianzen whose father was one of the sect, gives account of them" (Antiquities of the Christian Church, Book 16, Chapter 6, Section 2).
taken from: http://www.nisbett.com/sabbath/sabbath_history.htm
"The first Christian church established at Jerusalem by apostolic authority became in its doctrine and practice a model for the greater part of those founded in the first century. . . . These Judaizing Christians were first known by the outside world as 'Nazarenes.'. . . All Christians agreed in celebrating the seventh day of the week in conformity to the Jewish converts" (History of the Christian Church, pp. 50, 51, 69).
from: http://graceandtruthministries.org/history_of_the_sabbath_and_sunday_1_p.html
Also groups such as the Coptics were attacked by the Jesuits during the crusades as heritics... a similar fate befel the Templars who were accused of 'devil worship' on rather shaky and trumped up grounds. A similer fate befel Constantinople during the fouth cent. where christians killed christians...
also visit: http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/3_ch07.htm
http://www.courses.drew.edu/SP2002/bibst-111-002/Early_Christianities.html
wa:do
"But if some, through weak-mindedness, wish to observe such institutions as were given by Moses (from which they expect some virtue, but which we believe were appointed by reason of the hardness of the people's hearts), along with their hope in this Christ, and the eternal and natural acts of righteousness and piety, yet choose to live with the Christians and the faithful, as I said before, not inducing them either to be circumcised like themselves, or to keep the Sabbath, or to observe any other such ceremonies, then I hold that we ought to join ourselves to such, and associate with them in all things as kinsmen and brethren" (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter XLVII, p. 218, Volume 1, Clarke's Ante-Nicene Library, or The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1953 edition).
"The observance of the Sabbath among the Jewish Christians gradually ceased. Yet the Eastern Church to this day marks the seventh day of the week (excepting only the Easter Sabbath) by omitting fasting, and standing in prayer; the Latin Church, in direct opposition to Judaism, made Saturday a fast day. The controversy on this point began as early as the end of the second century" (History of the Church, p. 372, 1864 edition; p. 205, 1952 edition).
"There is another sect,. . . 'Hypsistarians,' that is, worshipers of the most high God, whom they worshiped as the Jews only in one person. And they observed their Sabbaths, and used distinction of their meats, clean and unclean, though they did not regard circumcision, as Gregory Nazianzen whose father was one of the sect, gives account of them" (Antiquities of the Christian Church, Book 16, Chapter 6, Section 2).
taken from: http://www.nisbett.com/sabbath/sabbath_history.htm
"The first Christian church established at Jerusalem by apostolic authority became in its doctrine and practice a model for the greater part of those founded in the first century. . . . These Judaizing Christians were first known by the outside world as 'Nazarenes.'. . . All Christians agreed in celebrating the seventh day of the week in conformity to the Jewish converts" (History of the Christian Church, pp. 50, 51, 69).
from: http://graceandtruthministries.org/history_of_the_sabbath_and_sunday_1_p.html
Also groups such as the Coptics were attacked by the Jesuits during the crusades as heritics... a similar fate befel the Templars who were accused of 'devil worship' on rather shaky and trumped up grounds. A similer fate befel Constantinople during the fouth cent. where christians killed christians...
also visit: http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/3_ch07.htm
http://www.courses.drew.edu/SP2002/bibst-111-002/Early_Christianities.html
wa:do