Featured Which one is a Cult? A or B?

The Son is not the Father.

 

Huh?

I don't think you understand what the Trinitarian concept actually posits.

 

The question makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You are using the word "cult" to mean any Christian denomination that has doctrines you personally disagree with. There is no one perfect Christian denomination, no one group whose doctrines are 100% without flaw. The fact that a group has errors in doctrine does not in any way, shape, or form, make it a "cult."

 

Isn't Cult really too strong a word? How about there are lots of misunderstandings in the world especially when one relies on Beliefs?

First, There is no Kingdom!! Next, life is the education of God's children. Given enough lessons and lives, one comes to Understand all sides. When one Understands all sides, Intelligence will make the Best choices. Is there really a need for a bunch of laws and rules for those making the Best choices? Of course not!!

Everybody wants to rule the world. I see this as mankind's biggest problem. Rulers, Kingdoms, Controlling, Ruling and the narrow, only my way, are petty things. These things will be obsolete and useless at the Higher Level when one has Learn to choose the Best choices.

On the other hand, It never hurts to Question that which clearly does not add up. To Question is the start on the journey to Discovery. Isn't cult really too strong a word??

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

Depends on how one interprets this.

From the Catholic perspective, Jesus is of God; or to put it another way, Jesus is of the "essence" of God.

If you're not familiar with the word "essence", basically it can be summed up as "the whole is greater than just the sum of its parts". Thus, Jesus is of God but is not literally God, such as when Jesus said that he and the Father were "one". BTW, the same is also true of the Holy Spirit.

Thus, the Catholic use of the Trinitarian concept is not that there are three gods.

 

That one is about whether Jesus is God.
How about:
In the light of John 20:28 Thomas replied, “My Lord and my God!” 29Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Which one is the deceiver, A or B?

A. The people who say Jesus is not our God.
B. The people who say Jesus is our God.

 

Which one is the deceiver, A or B?

A. The people who say god created man in his image.
B. The people who say man evolved to what we are.

 

Who owns what?

When Jesus hands over the Kingdom to His God and Father does that mean that it did not belong to His God and Father? No.
In light of John 16:15 Everything that belongs to the Father is Mine.
When Jesus hands over the Kingdom to His God and Father does that mean that the Kingdom does not then belong to the Son?

How about:

In light of 1Kings 8:27 But will God indeed dwell upon the earth? Even heaven, the highest heaven, cannot contain You, much less this temple I have built.
Which one is a cult? A or B.

A The one that says God is everywhere.
B The one that says God is not everywhere.

 

People who say man evolved with no input from God are wrong.
Deliberate deceivers is not necessarily what they are however. How about deceived.

 

A Jew would not have called anyone "my God" without that person being God.
In context in John 20 it means that the Son of God is God, (John 20:31) and in the bigger context of John's gospel it means that the Jews were right when they claimed that Jesus claim to being the Son of God was making Himself equal to God.
John 5:18 Because of this, the Jews tried all the harder to kill Him. Not only was He breaking the Sabbath, but He was even calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.

And yes Jesus did break the Sabbath but law is like that, sometimes you have to choose which is the more important command to obey and in Jesus case it was whether to love His neighbour or to not do anything on the Sabbath. He chose wisely I would say.

 

Again, the key is to understand "essence" and how it is used in this context.

We need to remember that the NT was mainly written in Koine Greek, and Greek was heavily influenced by the likes of Aristotle and Plato. If the NT had been mainly written in English back then, there are likely old English idioms that would have been used instead.

Even today, translating Greek into English creates certain "issues" as there's words in Greek that don't translate well into English unless one explains them, and just one example of this is "agape", of which there is no single word in English that captures its meaning. One of my teachers specialized in Koine Greek, and he had to explain what it means as the English word "love" just doesn't cover it.

An excellent source for this background is "The History of the Catholic Church" by James Hitchcock, whereas he spends an entire chapter on how the Church came up with the Nicene Creed and the Christian canon, both of which took almost an entire century and involved over 1000 bishops from various areas. What came out as far as the Creed is concerned was very much a compromise, thus some of the wording seems [and is] rather muddled. It reminds me of the standing joke that "A camel is a horse built by a committee".

Because of the issue I mention above, the Church often took the "shortcut" of having Jesus be God, which is much easier to teach and understand than Jesus being of the essence of God. In a sense, Jesus being God is true, but the problem is that it makes no sense if taken at the literalistic level if one looks at the fact that numerous verses do separate the Two, such as when Jesus said he did not know when the end of times would be and that only the Father would know. Obviously, this implies that Jesus was not omniscient but the Father is.

 

Why do you say it was a false charge. Jesus was breaking the Sabbath and was making Himself equal with God by calling God His Father.

That does not mean they do not have the same nature/essence. The Son was then in a position of less authority and so the Father was greater. The Son is always submissive to His Father anyway.

You pick out a verse where Jesus is showing that He is God and you twist it around to mean that He is not God. Don't you realise that Jesus IS good? You will have to stop listening to your teachers who are teaching you false doctrine and reasonig.

I'm not sure what the 1000 years being like a day and a day being like a 1000 years to God has to do with it.
The thing about the Sabbath is that it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath and to work on the Sabbath out of love for God and neighbour. The Priests worked on the Sabbath, Jesus showed that even a Jew would pull his animal out of a ditch on the Sabbath and so should do the same for a man. Jesus broke the Sabbath in order to obey the Law and love God and neighbour.
Likewise the charge of claiming equality with God was correct. It is just that you do not want to admit that Jesus is the real Son of God with the same nature. You want to make Him a creation of God like the rest of creation.
Who cares, first, second or 50 millionth one created, that does not make anyone any better.
Jesus was appointed to be firstborn (Psalm 89:27). Nobody gets appointed to be the first one born. You are the first one born or you are not,,,,,,,,,,no appointment there. The Governing Body has denied the true meaning of "firstborn" to make it look like Jesus was created first and then they add to the Bible the word "other" to make it look like Jesus was one of the things created. Look at Colossians 1:15-17 in the New World Translation and you will see "other" added when it is not in the Greek. The NWT used to put this word in brackets but now has grown bold enough to remove the brackets as if it is in the original text.
John 1:3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.
The GB has not yet gotten around to adding "other" into this passage and we can see from it that Jesus has not come into existence. iows He is not a part of the creation except for the fact that He stepped into the creation when He became a man.