Trinity

[mee]

Yes, as the bible informs us Jesus plays a very very big part in the outworking of Gods purpose for the earth , but it does not make Jesus God .



he had a Prehuman

Existence. ​

The person who became known as Jesus Christ did not begin life here on earth. He himself spoke of his prehuman heavenly life. (Joh 3:13; 6:38, 62; 8:23, 42, 58)

John 1:1, 2 gives the heavenly name of the one who became Jesus, saying: "In the beginning the Word [Gr., Lo´gos] was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god ["was divine," AT; Mo; or "of divine being," Böhmer; Stage (both German)].

This one was in the beginning with God." Since Jehovah is eternal and had no beginning (Ps 90:2; Re 15:3), the Word’s being with God from "the beginning" must here refer to the beginning of Jehovah’s creative works.

This is confirmed by other texts identifying Jesus as "the firstborn of all creation," "the beginning of the creation by God." (Col 1:15; Re 1:1; 3:14) Thus the Scriptures identify the Word (Jesus in his prehuman existence) as God’s first creation, his firstborn Son.


That Jehovah was truly the Father or Life-Giver to this firstborn Son and, hence, that this Son was actually a creature of God is evident from Jesus’ own statements. He pointed to God as the Source of his life, saying, "I live because of the Father." According to the context, this meant that his life resulted from or was caused by his Father, even as the gaining of life by dying men would result from their faith in Jesus’ ransom sacrifice.—Joh 6:56, 57.
​

​

 

[Thomas]

Since Jehovah is eternal and had no beginning (Ps 90:2; Re 15:3), the Word’s being with God from "the beginning" must here refer to the beginning of Jehovah’s creative works.

Must it? I find that reasoning faulty — it assumes God is subject to change and subject to time.

I would say it makes more sense to say there was never a time when the Word of God was not with Him, because if there was, there would have been a time when God was lesser than Himself.

As there is a correlation between the Word of God and the Wisdom of God, for He created by His word, in His wisdom ... to say the Word is created, is to say His wisdom is created ...

How can God create His own Word? His own Wisdom?

+++

he had a Prehuman Existence. The person who became known as Jesus Christ did not begin life here on earth. He himself spoke of his prehuman heavenly life.

So what was Jesus, exactly, before His human existence?

If not God ... and not a man ... a demigod?

Thomas

 

[Gatekeeper]

Must it? I find that reasoning faulty — it assumes God is subject to change and subject to time.

I would say it makes more sense to say there was never a time when the Word of God was not with Him, because if there was, there would have been a time when God was lesser than Himself.

As there is a correlation between the Word of God and the Wisdom of God, for He created by His word, in His wisdom ... to say the Word is created, is to say His wisdom is created ...

How can God create His own Word? His own Wisdom?

+++



So what was Jesus, exactly, before His human existence?

If not God ... and not a man ... a demigod?

Thomas

I think His Word always existed - not as Jesus the man, but as the Spirit, and Wisdom of God. The bible says that the Word was God, but I view this to mean "essence" and not in a literal sense. Jesus became that essence [God with us] He was a perfect representation of the Father, but not the father Himself

Love

James

 

[BlaznFattyz]

I think His Word always existed - not as Jesus the man, but as the Spirit, and Wisdom of God. The bible says that the Word was God, but I view this to mean "essence" and not in a literal sense. Jesus became that essence [God with us] He was a perfect representation of the Father, but not the father Himself

Love

James

yes the Word always existed. Maybe not as Jesus the man as history knows him, but the Word of God, even the eternal Son. That which is in the bosom of the father and proceeds from father to walk among us has always been the Son. And if God knows all things and is not limited to time, then he always knew what he was going to do, which is why the Son always existed, and one could say that Jesus always existed in a way, even though he was not yet manifest in the flesh from Mary and the Holy Spirit, he did show up throughout time as the Son of God to man. God of course he already knew what he would do and how the world ends. of course this goes into the philosophy of time and heaven, and is a little out there. anyways, The Holy Spirit took what was with God as God and taking it from the holy dimension of God to the limited dimension of man. No, he was not the Father himself, he is the Son, but he is God nonetheless who always existed, who is salvation, and who is glorified on the throne and will judge. and something i wanted to add which i read from one of your posts somewhere on the board, where christ's body is an empty vessel that the father pours the fullness of his Spirit.. it is more than that. For that body of Christ is the sacrifice and the temple and Christ is the high priest, and it it is what bled and what died and what resurrected, and what was glorified. so without the human body of Christ at that time there would be no God among us, and no forgiveness of sins, and no coming to God the Father. yes God is spirit, but the Son of God who is with God and is God is a resurrected and glorified person. So it cannot be easy seperated--the Spirit from the body when we talk about Jesus Christ and resurrection and glorification.

 

[Quahom1]

Re: Positions Taken and Sample Statements

yes simon peter was right he said that Jesus was the SON OF GOD .

And yes Jesus was humble and lowly in heart , and just as his father said LISTEN TO HIM ....LUKE 9;35 .


and yes as Jesus himself said ,all power and aurthority was GIVEN him


and yes as you say its all there even though many choose to dissmiss what the bible really teaches ,and move away to manmade doctrines .


and yes the father and the son are in unity and purpose and Jesus learned many things from his father.

being in heaven with his father before being born on the earth, he had the best teacher and gained much wisdom indeed .


but no where in the bible does it teach us that Jesus is GOD.


And he certainly did do the works of the father when he was on the earth , and it was his father who sent him to the earth for that purpose.

IT WAS THE FATHER THAT SENT HIM . have another read of the bible with no preconcieved ideas about a TRINITY DOCTRINE


AND YOU WILL SEE THINGS VERY CLEARLY INDEED



so as we can see the bible nowhere teaches that Jesus is God it just does not teach that .



yes all things are delivered to him BY THE FATHER


not sure why you think that JW reject the son , we certainly know and believe that Jesus IS THE SON OF GOD




For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent forth his Son into the world, not for him to judge the world, but for the world to be saved through him.
john 3;16-17



He who did not even spare HIS OWN SON but delivered him up for us all, why will he not also with him kindly give us all other things? ROMANS 8;32



By this the love of God was made manifest in our case, because God sent forth his only-begotten Son into the world that we might gain life through him
1 JOHN 4;9


But these have been written down that YOU may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that, because of believing, YOU may have life by means of his name.
JOHN 20;31



YES AS WE CAN SEE THE BIBLE TEACHES US THAT JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD ,I AM SEARCHING LIKE MAD AND THE BIBLE DOES NOT TEACH THAT JESUS IS GOD . ITS NOT THERE


thats because i have not taken on the preconcieved manmade doctrine THE TRINITY ..............



i only take in pure bible teachings with no manmade doctrines to cloud my thought .


if people do that they are more inline with Gods thoughts .

You mean like the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God and not a force, and the Father is God? I agree with you. If people get more in line with God's thoughts, their thoughts would not be so clouded. You see Mee, to deny Jesus as being God is to deny the divinity of Jesus, which is an outright insult to the creator of us all. To deny the Holy Spirit as being God, is to deny the divinity of the Holy Spirit, who currently keeps Satan at bay in this world and keeps us close. And that really angers Jehovah the Father, because He comanded us to obey Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

I guess it doesn't matter if they are called the Trinity or not, they are all God, and are not to be taken lightly or dismissed. On the part of the Holy Spirit, that is considered blasphemy. On the part of Jesus, there will come the day when He states that since He was denied, He denies.

No excuse will counter the decisions we make and live by today, on that final day.

No, I'll stick with the Trinity, thank you. But you go ahead and keep on with the one entity, two helper concept, if it makes you "feel" better.

 

[mee]

So what was Jesus, exactly, before His human existence?

If not God ... and not a man ... a demigod?

Thomas

he was just what the bible teaches us , Gods first-born of creation .

​

JESUS -A Godlike One; Divine
Joh 1:1—"and the Word was a god (godlike; divine)"
Gr., κα​

ὶ θεὸς η̉̃ν ὁ λόγος (kai the·os´ en ho lo´gos)


​

And God went on to say: "Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every moving animal that is moving upon the earth. genesis 1;26




He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; colossians 1;15

 

[mee]

Re: Positions Taken and Sample Statements

No, I'll stick with the Trinity, quote]

ok
i will stick to what the bible teaches .

 

[Thomas]

I think His Word always existed - not as Jesus the man, but as the Spirit, and Wisdom of God.

So do we Catholics. We believe the Spirit of God is God. The Wisdom of God is God ... the Word of God is God.

Otherwise you have God, and something else not from God. If there was God and something else, then God is not unlimited, infinite, etc.,

The bible says that the Word was God, but I view this to mean "essence" and not in a literal sense.

That's the difference, I think. We don't adulterate the Word of Scripture. If Scripture says the Word was God, then we have to understand how the Word can be God, not find some argument to explain it away.

If the essence of the Word is God, then the Word is God ... the essence of a thing is what it is, surely?

Thomas

 

[mee]

That's the difference, I think. We don't adulterate the Word of Scripture. If Scripture says the Word was God,

Thomas

yes adulterating the inspired words of God would be wrong , so the question is .................... should JOHN 1;1 be Translated WAS GOD,as many bibles have translated it , or should it be translated as it was originally inspired ................

In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. JOHN 1;1


i can see very clearly that if the bible is translated as WAS GOD it throws the rest of the bible out of harmony . it just shows how changing the inspired words of God is a no no.



but when it is translated correctly the whole of the bible harmonizes.


so we can see that the correct way is more like the following verse in the NEW WORLD TRANSLATION


In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. JOHN 1;1


In 1984 there appeared in English a translation from German of a commentary by scholar Ernst Haenchen (Das Johannesevangelium. Ein Kommentar).

It renders John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and divine [of the category divinity] was the Logos."—John 1. A Commentary on the Gospel of John Chapters 1-6, page 108, translated by Robert W. Funk.



When comparing Genesis 1:1 with the first verse of John’s Gospel, this commentary observes: "John 1:1, however, tells of something that was in existence already in time primeval; astonishingly, it is not ‘God.’ . . . The Logos (we have no word in either German or English that corresponds to the range of meaning of the Greek term) is thereby elevated to such heights that it almost becomes offensive. The expression is made tolerable only by virtue of the continuation in ‘and the Logos was in the presence of God,’ viz., in intimate, personal union with God."

Does that sound as if scholar Haenchen discerned in the Greek some distinction between God and the Logos, or Word? The author’s following words focus on the fact that in the original language no definite article is used with the word the·os´, or god, in the final phrase. The author explains:
"In order to avoid misunderstanding, it may be inserted here that θεός [the·os´] and ὁ θεός [ho the·os´] (‘god, divine’ and ‘the God’) were not the same thing in this period. Philo has therefore written: the λόγος [Logos] means only θεός (‘divine’) and not ὁ θεός (‘God’) since the logos is not God in the strict sense. . . . In a similar fashion, Origen, too, interprets: the Evangelist does not say that the logos is ‘God,’ but only that the logos is ‘divine.’ In fact, for the author of the hymn [in John 1:1], as for the Evangelist, only the Father was ‘God’ (ὁ θεός; cf. 17:3); ‘the Son’ was subordinate to him (cf. 14:28). But that is only hinted at in this passage because here the emphasis is on the proximity of the one to the other."
Then Haenchen observes: "It was quite possible in Jewish and Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him. Phil 2:6-10 proves that. In that passage Paul depicts just such a divine being, who later became man in Jesus Christ. . . . Thus, in both Philippians and John 1:1 it is not a matter of a dialectical relationship between two-in-one, but of a personal union of two entities."—Pages 109, 110.
Hence, rather than saying that the Logos (Jesus) was with God and was God, John 1:1 explains that the Logos was with the Almighty God and was divine, or was a god.
​

 

[Thomas]

he was just what the bible teaches us, Gods first-born of creation.

Exactly, eternally begotten of the Father ... there was never a time when the Father was not Father, there was never a time when God was without His Word.

JESUS – A Godlike One; Divine

I fail to see how you can say Jesus is divine, in one breath, and then not.

And God went on to say: "Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every moving animal that is moving upon the earth."

Yes ... and ... what comes next?
"And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth."

So this refers to Adam and Eve, doesn't it. Your attempt to suggest this refers to the Son is clearly erroneous.

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation" Colossians 1;15

Indeed. One of my favourite texts. This means, if one understands it, then He who said "Let there be light" Genesis 1:3 is Jesus, the Son, for the Word was first born of the Father, begotten not made, and through Him all things came into being:
"For in him were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible,
whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers.
All things were created by him and in him.
And he is before all: and by him all things consist.
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning,
the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he may hold the primacy:
Because in him, it hath well pleased the Father that all fulness should dwell:"
(Colossians 1:16-19)

The bit in red explains the meaning of 'firstborn' ... that all was in Him first, before breing manifest by creation. So, according to your Bible and mine, Jesus, being God, created the heavens and the earth.

Thomas

 

[mee]

Exactly, eternally begotten of the Father ... there was never a time when the Father was not Father, there was never a time when God was without His Word.




Thomas

yes you are correct to say that there was never a time when Jehovah was not around , he has always been around , but when it comes to Jesus there was a time when he had not yet been created by God .


he was the first thing to be created by Jehovah, thats why he is called THE FIRST-BORN OF CREATION .


But everything else to be created was created through this first-born Jesus christ.

yes Jesus really is unique ,he is the ONLY ONE to be created by Jehovah alone .



Col. 1:15, 16, RS: "He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth." In what sense is Jesus Christ "the first-born of all creation"?

(1) Trinitarians say that "first-born" here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; thus Christ would be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created. If that is so, and if the Trinity doctrine is true, why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all creation? But the Bible applies this expression only to the Son. According to the customary meaning of "firstborn," it indicates that Jesus is the eldest in Jehovah’s family of sons.



(2) Before Colossians 1:15, the expression "the firstborn of" occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. "The firstborn of Israel" is one of the sons of Israel; "the firstborn of Pharaoh" is one of Pharaoh’s family; "the firstborn of beast" are themselves animals. What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof?


(3) Does Colossians 1:16, 17 (RS) exclude Jesus from having been created, when it says "in him all things were created . . . all things were created through him and for him"? The Greek word here rendered "all things" is pan´ta, an inflected form of pas. At Luke 13:2, RS renders this "all . . . other"; JB reads "any other"; NE says "anyone else." (See also Luke 21:29 in NE and Philippians 2:21 in JB.)

In harmony with everything else that the Bible says regarding the Son, NWT assigns the same meaning to pan´ta at Colossians 1:16, 17 so that it reads, in part, "by means of him all other things were created . . . All other things have been created through him and for him." Thus he is shown to be a created being, part of the creation produced by God.

 

[mee]

So this refers to Adam and Eve, doesn't it. Your attempt to suggest this refers to the Son is clearly erroneous.



Thomas

i think you have missed my point, the point i was making was that Jesus had a pre-human life in heaven with his father ,that is why it says LET US make man.



Jehovah is talking to his first-born son ,JESUS

 

[Thomas]

yes you are correct to say that there was never a time when Jehovah was not around, he has always been around, but when it comes to Jesus there was a time when he had not yet been created by God.

That means God is subject to time, and subject to change ... so I think that assumption on your part is erroneous ... there was no 'time' before the Creation, and yet Jesus is before Creation, Jesus is not part of Creation.

+++

The Catholic view, for those who might be interested, is that the Father begets the Son in Eternity ... that is to say the Father begets the Son eternally ... there is not a point in time in which the Father begot the Son, and before which the Son was not, and after which the Son was ... it's not a one-off event in time, it is a continuum that transcends time. That's what we mean by 'eternally begotten' ... we call it eternal procession of the Son from the Father.

It's quite a profound doctrine, and quite beautiful.

he was the first thing to be created by Jehovah, thats why he is called THE FIRST-BORN OF CREATION.

You are assuming, by 'firstborn', that it means the same for God as it does for man, which is obviously wrong — who was the mother, for example? And did at some 'point' God decide to have a Son? What changed His mind ...

... you see (or perhaps you choose not to) your logic is faulty, God is unchanging, eternal, Infinite ... if the Son is the firstborn of the Father, then the Son is of the same nature as the Father, but the nature of God is not human, it is God ... so the nature of the Son is not human, He too is God.

Any other way you put it, makes God subject to a set of rules and conditions over which He has no control, and that is not what Scripture says.

But everything else to be created was created through this first-born Jesus christ.

Yes, created by Him, but not born of Him. That's the difference. We are created. He is not.

yes Jesus really is unique ,he is the ONLY ONE to be created by Jehovah alone.

No. Born of the Father, not created by Him.

Trinitarians say that "first-born" here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; thus Christ would be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created.

No, that is a partial misunderstanding of the Catholic Doctrine.

But the Bible applies this expression only to the Son. According to the customary meaning of "firstborn," it indicates that Jesus is the eldest in Jehovah’s family of sons.[/FONT]
So there's a family now? Show me where it says that?

Before Colossians 1:15, the expression "the firstborn of" occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. "The firstborn of Israel" is one of the sons of Israel; "the firstborn of Pharaoh" is one of Pharaoh’s family; "the firstborn of beast" are themselves animals. What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof? [/FONT]
This shows the nonsense of your position. You are assuming the relationship between Father and Son is defined in human terms — therefore that God is governed by the rules that govern nature.

The faithful believer assumes the Mystery is explained in human terms, but that the nature of God is not the same as the nature of man.

In harmony with everything else that the Bible says regarding the Son, NWT assigns the same meaning to pan´ta at Colossians 1:16, 17 so that it reads, in part, "by means of him all other things were created . . . All other things have been created through him and for him." Thus he is shown to be a created being, part of the creation produced by God.

Not at all. You have inserted a word by your tradition, to change the meaning of Scripture to fit your manmade doctrine.

Thomas

 

[BlaznFattyz]

Re: Positions Taken and Sample Statements

No, I'll stick with the Trinity,

ok
i will stick to what the bible teaches .

and ill stick with the trinity that the bible teaches. don't u just love these conversations...

 

[mee]

ONLY-BEGOTTEN​

The Greek word mo·no·ge·nes´ is defined by lexicographers as "single of its kind, only," or "the only member of a kin or kind." (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1889, p. 417; Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford, 1968, p. 1144) The term is used in describing the relation of both sons and daughters to their parents.



The Scriptures speak of "the only-begotten son" of a widow who lived in the city of Nain, of Jairus’ "only-begotten daughter," and of a man’s "only-begotten" son whom Jesus cured of a demon. (Lu 7:11, 12; 8:41, 42; 9:38) The Greek Septuagint uses mo·no·ge·nes´ when speaking of Jephthah’s daughter, concerning whom it is written: "Now she was absolutely the only child. Besides her he had neither son nor daughter."—Jg 11:34.



The apostle John repeatedly describes the Lord Jesus Christ as the only-begotten Son of God. (Joh 1:14; 3:16, 18; 1Jo 4:9) This is not in reference to his human birth or to him as just the man Jesus. As the Lo´gos, or Word, "this one was in the beginning with God," even "before the world was." (Joh 1:1, 2; 17:5, 24) At that time while in his prehuman state of existence, he is described as the "only-begotten Son" whom his Father sent "into the world."—1Jo 4:9.


He is described as having "a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father," the one residing "in the bosom position with the Father." (Joh 1:14, 18) It is hard to think of a closer, more confidential, or more loving and tender relationship between a father and his son than this.


The angels of heaven are sons of God even as Adam was a "son of God." (Ge 6:2; Job 1:6; 38:7; Lu 3:38)

But the Lo´gos, later called Jesus, is "the only-begotten Son of God." (Joh 3:18) He is the only one of his kind, the only one whom God himself created directly without the agency or cooperation of any creature.

He is the only one whom God his Father used in bringing into existence all other creatures. He is the firstborn and chief one among all other angels (Col 1:15, 16; Heb 1:5, 6), which angels the Scriptures call "godlike ones" or "gods." (Ps 8:4, 5) Therefore, according to some of the oldest and best manuscripts, the Lord Jesus Christ is properly described as "the only-begotten god [Gr., mo·no·ge·nes´ the·os´]."—Joh 1:18, NW, Ro, Sp.


​

A few translations, in support of the Trinitarian "God the Son" concept, would invert the phrase mo·no·ge·nes´ the·os´ and render it as "God only begotten." But W. J. Hickie in his Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament (1956, p. 123) says it is hard to see why these translators render mo·no·ge·nes´ hui·os´ as "the only begotten Son," but at the same time translate mo·no·ge·nes´ the·os´ as "God only begotten," instead of "the only begotten God."​

 

[Gatekeeper]

yes the Word always existed. Maybe not as Jesus the man as history knows him, but the Word of God, even the eternal Son. That which is in the bosom of the father and proceeds from father to walk among us has always been the Son. And if God knows all things and is not limited to time, then he always knew what he was going to do, which is why the Son always existed, and one could say that Jesus always existed in a way, even though he was not yet manifest in the flesh from Mary and the Holy Spirit, he did show up throughout time as the Son of God to man. God of course he already knew what he would do and how the world ends. of course this goes into the philosophy of time and heaven, and is a little out there. anyways, The Holy Spirit took what was with God as God and taking it from the holy dimension of God to the limited dimension of man. No, he was not the Father himself, he is the Son, but he is God nonetheless who always existed, who is salvation, and who is glorified on the throne and will judge. and something i wanted to add which i read from one of your posts somewhere on the board, where christ's body is an empty vessel that the father pours the fullness of his Spirit.. it is more than that. For that body of Christ is the sacrifice and the temple and Christ is the high priest, and it it is what bled and what died and what resurrected, and what was glorified. so without the human body of Christ at that time there would be no God among us, and no forgiveness of sins, and no coming to God the Father. yes God is spirit, but the Son of God who is with God and is God is a resurrected and glorified person. So it cannot be easy seperated--the Spirit from the body when we talk about Jesus Christ and resurrection and glorification.

Was up, Blazin??

I simply view Jesus as the son of God, and our savior - nothing more, nothing less. It is very hard to comprehend the thought that Jesus was God. God cannot be tempted, and Jesus was. God cannot die, yet Jesus did. God, cannot sin, but Jesus had that ability. How could Jesus [if he is God] be less than God and do all these things. Thsi is a debete that has no end [imo] and not one that salvation rests upon, so ...

Jesus in my mind was more than an 'empty vessel' also. He was/is God's only begotten son, 'born' of the Holy spirit, which made Him more than a man, yet less than God. Trinity is just too difficult for me to understand, and I'm the kind of person who needs to understand a concept before accepting it, ya know?

Love

James

 

[Gatekeeper]

So do we Catholics. We believe the Spirit of God is God. The Wisdom of God is God ... the Word of God is God.

Otherwise you have God, and something else not from God. If there was God and something else, then God is not unlimited, infinite, etc.,

I look at it from a logical point of view, as it all corresponds with natural birth processes [imo] I'm a product of my parents - I have both mothers, and fathers nature, but I cannot be considered either. I am an unique individual, just as Christ Jesus was. I inherrited the qualities of my father, and I inherrited the qualities of my mother, but I am not mum, or dad - I am James, son of both.

That's the difference, I think. We don't adulterate the Word of Scripture. If Scripture says the Word was God, then we have to understand how the Word can be God, not find some argument to explain it away.

Then, I suppose Peter was literally Satan, which the church was built upon. We can go even further, and suggest that God is actually Love also, in which case all one need do is love to be counted among the fold. [I'm pretty sure the Catholic church, and every other would resist these sentiments.

Sometimes we need to look deeper into the writ, to get to a better understanding of what it all implies. But, like I told Blazn, I don't think our salvation depends upon the acceptance, or denial of the trinity. I don't think it matters either way...

If the essence of the Word is God, then the Word is God ... the essence of a thing is what it is, surely?

Thomas

I am in 'essence' my father and my mother, yes? I have both of them as a part of me, but that doesn't make either one.

Love

James

 

[Dream]

The problem, Gatekeeper, is that he who denies the doctrine of the trinity denies the authority and infallibility of a certain influential church. You don't seem to understand what your denial means to members of the church who accept its authority and infallibility, and what it means especially to that church's leaders. You are rejecting the authority and capability of that church to define truth. That's what this discussion is really all about. Are you sure its wise to publicly state your position? It could cost you your life, your limb, and maybe your family sometime in the near future. It has cost others in the past.

 

[Gatekeeper]

The problem, Gatekeeper, is that he who denies the doctrine of the trinity denies the authority and infallibility of a certain influential church. You don't seem to understand what your denial means to members of the church who accept its authority and infallibility, and what it means especially to that church's leaders. You are rejecting the authority and capability of that church to define truth. That's what this discussion is really all about. Are you sure its wise to publicly state your position? It could cost you your life, your limb, and maybe your family sometime in the near future. It has cost others in the past.

Ahhhh, I get it now; it's all about church authority! If this is the case, and there is actually danger in disagreement, then the protastants, and every other known religion will one day be forced to defend themselves against the almighty Roman Catholic church. Seems like the Church has proclaimed all Christianity being heretical, and untrue, cept for the roman catholics themselves.

Pft...

That's all bs, and nothing more! There will be followers of 'the church' for many years to come. Besisdes, I think we've grown past our [past]....

Love

James

 

[Dream]

Truth doesn't change, Gatekeeper. If war was appropriate to defend truth in the past, then it is equally appropriate now.