Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is it really possible to understand the Bible

MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2013 4:52:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This actually comes from an answer on another thread, but I felt it worth making into it's own.

It is based around two scriptures:

1 Corinthians 1:26 For YOU behold his calling of YOU, brothers, that not many wise in a fleshly way were called, not many powerful, not many of noble birth; 27 but God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put the wise men to shame; and God chose the weak things of the world, that he might put the strong things to shame; 28 and God chose the ignoble things of the world and the things looked down upon, the things that are not, that he might bring to nothing the things that are, 29 in order that no flesh might boast in the sight of God. 30 But it is due to him that YOU are in union with Christ Jesus, who has become to us wisdom from God, also righteousness and sanctification and release by ransom; 31 that it may be just as it is written: "He that boasts, let him boast in Jehovah."

and

Proverbs 3:5 Trust in Jehovah with all your heart and do not lean upon your own understanding. 6 In all your ways take notice of him, and he himself will make your paths straight.

I am no grammarian, but one of the biggest confusions that other-language speakers find about English is that words can and often are their own antonyms.

The original language meaning of the word may not, but when translating it others have chosen to add in alternative meanings. I come across that a lot in scriptural discussion which frequently remind me of a saying of Lewis Carrol which appears in one of the "Alice" stories. That phrase is "When I use a word, it uses precisely that whihc I wish it to mean, nothing more, nothing less."

So what really matters is not what the writer of some lexicon may have decided it means, but what the writer intended it to mean. That means letting context over-rule your lexicon in many places.

Overall context of scripture shows that words translated as "eternal" rarely, if ever, meant "without end".

For instance there is s difference between "eternal life" and "immortality".

Immortal is used to mean without end, though it is sometimes used to mean no beginning either.

Eternal in scripture always has a beginning and the possibility, if not certainty of being brought to an end.

Eternal life, as offered to Adam and Eve meant that they could, had they been faithful, have lived forever, however their disobedience meant that God brought that life slowly to an end from the day they became unrepentantly disobedient.

That, of course, makes the relevance of Christ's statement at John 17:3 much stronger.

He said there "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one you sent forth, Jesus Christ".

Was is it so important? Because without getting to know them, you will be extremely unlikely ever to understand how they have used words.

Of course, since scripture, despite being inspired is not all verbatim, it also means getting to know the personalities of God's servants to enable you to understand correctly how they worded things.

This of course also means coming to understand the culture at that time.

A big ask? Yes very, but that is why God promises to assist all those who go at the task with honest hearts and full reliance on Him. No human can do it alone.
Interestingly, these decisions also remind me of another scriptural asying:

1 Corinthians 1:26-31
26 For YOU behold his calling of YOU, brothers, that not many wise in a fleshly way were called, not many powerful, not many of noble birth; 27 but God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put the wise men to shame; and God chose the weak things of the world, that he might put the strong things to shame; 28 and God chose the ignoble things of the world and the things looked down upon, the things that are not, that he might bring to nothing the things that are, 29 in order that no flesh might boast in the sight of God. 30 But it is due to him that YOU are in union with Christ Jesus, who has become to us wisdom from God, also righteousness and sanctification and release by ransom; 31 that it may be just as it is written: "He that boasts, let him boast in Jehovah

Why is this the case?

Because those are too wise get too lost in the meanings of individual words, and tie themselves up in knots because they forget all about overall context. They really cannot see the wood for the (individual) trees.

So how do you "boast in Jehovah"?

By accepting that all you have, including knowledge and understanding of His word comes from Him not from within you. You cannot take any credit for it.

Those who feel they can do it without the aid through holy spirit are fooling themselves and are prey for Satan and his hordes.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2013 5:09:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
By the Bible, do you mean only the Gospel or both testaments?Shouldn't the OT constitute the base on which you can understand NT ?
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2013 5:10:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/15/2013 4:52:00 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

For instance there is s difference between "eternal life" and "immortality".

But isn't there such a thing as conditional immortality? You know, like the elves on Lord of the Rings?
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
rjohnson741
Posts: 215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2013 5:22:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/15/2013 5:10:37 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 6/15/2013 4:52:00 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

For instance there is s difference between "eternal life" and "immortality".

But isn't there such a thing as conditional immortality? You know, like the elves on Lord of the Rings?

Does eternal life and immortality mean the same thing?
If believers receiving eternal life now means living forever, why do believers have to put on immortality at The Consummation(1Corinthians 15:53-55)?
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2013 5:31:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/15/2013 5:09:53 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
By the Bible, do you mean only the Gospel or both testaments?Shouldn't the OT constitute the base on which you can understand NT ?

I do not believe you can separate the two so called testaments, which is why I usually say "scripture" because that includes everything from Genesis to Revelation.

Yes, in a way you are right, because what we now wrongly call the OT is all that Jesus and his Apostles had to teach from, however, as the relatively small number of followers Jesus managed to collect shows, it is not easy to understand what the OT is saying without help either.

An example?

OK, tell me where Matthew got what he said at Matthew 2:23 " 23 and came and dwelt in a city named Nazareth, that there might be fulfilled what was spoken through the prophets: "He will be called a NazareneR42;."

Where does scripture say that?

Would Matthew have been able to understand what he did without the assistance of holy spirit?

It is far from the only example of how even they needed the guidance given them through holy spirit, but it is one of the most mind twisting ones. There is certainly no way I would have made the connection.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2013 5:33:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/15/2013 5:10:37 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 6/15/2013 4:52:00 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

For instance there is s difference between "eternal life" and "immortality".

But isn't there such a thing as conditional immortality? You know, like the elves on Lord of the Rings?

No. Conditional immortality is Eternal life/ Once God promises someone that they will never be destroyed He doesn't break promises.

Eternal life, no matter who it applies to, even God's own son, is always conditional on obedience. There is always that "if".
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2013 5:42:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/15/2013 5:31:43 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/15/2013 5:09:53 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
By the Bible, do you mean only the Gospel or both testaments?Shouldn't the OT constitute the base on which you can understand NT ?

I do not believe you can separate the two so called testaments, which is why I usually say "scripture" because that includes everything from Genesis to Revelation.

Yes, in a way you are right, because what we now wrongly call the OT is all that Jesus and his Apostles had to teach from, however, as the relatively small number of followers Jesus managed to collect shows, it is not easy to understand what the OT is saying without help either.

An example?

OK, tell me where Matthew got what he said at Matthew 2:23 " 23 and came and dwelt in a city named Nazareth, that there might be fulfilled what was spoken through the prophets: "He will be called a NazareneR42;."

Where does scripture say that?

Would Matthew have been able to understand what he did without the assistance of holy spirit?

It is far from the only example of how even they needed the guidance given them through holy spirit, but it is one of the most mind twisting ones. There is certainly no way I would have made the connection.

I agree there need to be the Guidance from God to interpret scriptures, but you can never know if a person who interprets is guided or no. All you know is they are not a prophet from God, and they can do mistakes, I can always tell I received the holy ghost , and start interpreting, why would you believe me ?!Also, The OT came before NT , so by the time Jesus was sent, the Jews had already studied the scriptures, I understand they cannot know the interpretation of each and every verse, especially the ones that deal with prophecies. But for sure they should be able to know what the correct creed is , the faith that they need to have.Why does the Christian faith oppose the Jew faith ? if they are sent from the same God , doesn't this show an error in interpretation, that is more likely to come from the interpreters of the NT?
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2013 5:54:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/15/2013 5:22:32 PM, rjohnson741 wrote:
At 6/15/2013 5:10:37 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 6/15/2013 4:52:00 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

For instance there is s difference between "eternal life" and "immortality".

But isn't there such a thing as conditional immortality? You know, like the elves on Lord of the Rings?

Does eternal life and immortality mean the same thing?
If believers receiving eternal life now means living forever, why do believers have to put on immortality at The Consummation(1Corinthians 15:53-55)?

We are talking here about two different "classes" of believers.

First there are those anointed with holy spirit.

They are the ones who come under the "Covenant for a kingdom" which was constituted by Christ at what we often call the "last supper".

These ones have the promise of, when the time is right, not only be transformed into spirit creatures, but also being granted immortality to rule with Christ in that kingdom.

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and there were those who sat down on them, and power of judging was given them. Yes, I saw the souls of those executed with the axe for the witness they bore to Jesus and for speaking about God, and those who had worshipped neither the wild beast nor its image and who had not received the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand. And they came to life and ruled as kings with the Christ for a thousand years.

2 Timothy 2:12 if we go on enduring, we shall also rule together as kings; if we deny, he also will deny us;

Revelation 1:6 and he made us to be a kingdom, priests to his God and Father"yes, to him be the glory and the might forever. Amen.

Revelation 3:21 To the one that conquers I will grant to sit down with me on my throne, even as I conquered and sat down+ with my Father on his throne.

That number is, of necessity, limited, and each one has to undergo much harsher "testing" to show themselves worth of such a privilege. Many have been tortured, or in more recent time, burnt at the stake for their attempts at obedience to the urgings of the spirit.

The others, like I hope me, have the hope of becoming a part of the fulfilment of God's original plans for the earth and His creation, in that they too, whether by faithfully surviving the Armageddon which is soon to come, or by being resurrected onto the earth in perfect human bodies, that was originally given to Adam and Eve, that of begin able to live forever on earth as long as they remain faithful.

However that too will be contingent on passing the final test, as described in Revelation 20, at the end of Christ's 1,000 year reign when he hands the kingdom over to his Father.

It is up to us whether or not we have a part in that, God's demands aren't all that high, though it will not be easy, Satan will make sure of that, but with full reliance on God and Christ, whatever we face, we can do it.

This brings to mind Abraham's obedience in being prepared to go through with sacrificing his son. I often wonder what would have happened had he not been prepared to obey the harshest of commands, history would have been very different indeed. But No, Abraham, Knew what God had promised would come through his son, and trusted God to make sure it happened, even if he did not understand how it would, so he went ahead and waited to see what God would do. We know the story.

Hebrews 11:17-19 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, as good as offered up Isaac, and the man that had gladly received the promises attempted to offer up [his] only-begotten [son], 18 although it had been said to him: "What will be called "your seed" will be through Isaac." 19 But he reckoned that God was able to raise him up even from the dead; and from there he did receive him also in an illustrative way.

We who wish to remain faithful may have to overcome similar obstacles to be successful.

I have to admit that Revelation is my favourite section of scripture, though I love all of it. However it applies to our time, and represents the fulfilment of all of God's promises, including those made in the Garden of Eden. It is however in language as rich in symbolism as any prophecy so is not always easy to understand. However there are many things in it that are recognisable from recent history.
rjohnson741
Posts: 215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2013 6:12:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/15/2013 5:54:06 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/15/2013 5:22:32 PM, rjohnson741 wrote:
At 6/15/2013 5:10:37 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 6/15/2013 4:52:00 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

For instance there is s difference between "eternal life" and "immortality".

But isn't there such a thing as conditional immortality? You know, like the elves on Lord of the Rings?

Does eternal life and immortality mean the same thing?
If believers receiving eternal life now means living forever, why do believers have to put on immortality at The Consummation(1Corinthians 15:53-55)?

We are talking here about two different "classes" of believers.

First there are those anointed with holy spirit.

They are the ones who come under the "Covenant for a kingdom" which was constituted by Christ at what we often call the "last supper".

These ones have the promise of, when the time is right, not only be transformed into spirit creatures, but also being granted immortality to rule with Christ in that kingdom.

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and there were those who sat down on them, and power of judging was given them. Yes, I saw the souls of those executed with the axe for the witness they bore to Jesus and for speaking about God, and those who had worshipped neither the wild beast nor its image and who had not received the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand. And they came to life and ruled as kings with the Christ for a thousand years.

2 Timothy 2:12 if we go on enduring, we shall also rule together as kings; if we deny, he also will deny us;

Revelation 1:6 and he made us to be a kingdom, priests to his God and Father"yes, to him be the glory and the might forever. Amen.

Revelation 3:21 To the one that conquers I will grant to sit down with me on my throne, even as I conquered and sat down+ with my Father on his throne.

That number is, of necessity, limited, and each one has to undergo much harsher "testing" to show themselves worth of such a privilege. Many have been tortured, or in more recent time, burnt at the stake for their attempts at obedience to the urgings of the spirit.

The others, like I hope me, have the hope of becoming a part of the fulfilment of God's original plans for the earth and His creation, in that they too, whether by faithfully surviving the Armageddon which is soon to come, or by being resurrected onto the earth in perfect human bodies, that was originally given to Adam and Eve, that of begin able to live forever on earth as long as they remain faithful.

However that too will be contingent on passing the final test, as described in Revelation 20, at the end of Christ's 1,000 year reign when he hands the kingdom over to his Father.

It is up to us whether or not we have a part in that, God's demands aren't all that high, though it will not be easy, Satan will make sure of that, but with full reliance on God and Christ, whatever we face, we can do it.

This brings to mind Abraham's obedience in being prepared to go through with sacrificing his son. I often wonder what would have happened had he not been prepared to obey the harshest of commands, history would have been very different indeed. But No, Abraham, Knew what God had promised would come through his son, and trusted God to make sure it happened, even if he did not understand how it would, so he went ahead and waited to see what God would do. We know the story.

Hebrews 11:17-19 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, as good as offered up Isaac, and the man that had gladly received the promises attempted to offer up [his] only-begotten [son], 18 although it had been said to him: "What will be called "your seed" will be through Isaac." 19 But he reckoned that God was able to raise him up even from the dead; and from there he did receive him also in an illustrative way.

We who wish to remain faithful may have to overcome similar obstacles to be successful.

I have to admit that Revelation is my favourite section of scripture, though I love all of it. However it applies to our time, and represents the fulfilment of all of God's promises, including those made in the Garden of Eden. It is however in language as rich in symbolism as any prophecy so is not always easy to understand. However there are many things in it that are recognisable from recent history.

So back to my question. If eternal(aionios) life means living for ever, why do believers need to put on immortality? Or:

Does the eternal(aionios) life of the believer come to an end?

Blessings.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2013 6:18:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/15/2013 5:42:54 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 6/15/2013 5:31:43 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/15/2013 5:09:53 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
By the Bible, do you mean only the Gospel or both testaments?Shouldn't the OT constitute the base on which you can understand NT ?

I do not believe you can separate the two so called testaments, which is why I usually say "scripture" because that includes everything from Genesis to Revelation.

Yes, in a way you are right, because what we now wrongly call the OT is all that Jesus and his Apostles had to teach from, however, as the relatively small number of followers Jesus managed to collect shows, it is not easy to understand what the OT is saying without help either.

An example?

OK, tell me where Matthew got what he said at Matthew 2:23 " 23 and came and dwelt in a city named Nazareth, that there might be fulfilled what was spoken through the prophets: "He will be called a NazareneR42;."

Where does scripture say that?

Would Matthew have been able to understand what he did without the assistance of holy spirit?

It is far from the only example of how even they needed the guidance given them through holy spirit, but it is one of the most mind twisting ones. There is certainly no way I would have made the connection.

I agree there need to be the Guidance from God to interpret scriptures, but you can never know if a person who interprets is guided or no. All you know is they are not a prophet from God, and they can do mistakes, I can always tell I received the holy ghost , and start interpreting, why would you believe me ?!Also, The OT came before NT , so by the time Jesus was sent, the Jews had already studied the scriptures, I understand they cannot know the interpretation of each and every verse, especially the ones that deal with prophecies. But for sure they should be able to know what the correct creed is , the faith that they need to have.Why does the Christian faith oppose the Jew faith ? if they are sent from the same God , doesn't this show an error in interpretation, that is more likely to come from the interpreters of the NT?

That is certainly the biggest problem and one that scripture warns us of many times. It is all very well them being inspired, but who are they inspired by? We cannot take it on face value. That is why scripture praises those who check out what they are told against scripture.

Those who believed in Thessalonica simply took the Apostle's word for what they were told. As it happens they were not wrong to do so, but none the less Paul prised more highly those in Beroea, because they listened, took in what they were told, and then went back to their own scrolls to see if it was so.

The point being that, since they were relying on God's word, and making honest enquiry they also got the help from spirit.

That is why I always direct people back to scripture, and why I encourage all to check out what I say, in any translations they like.

One should never take the word of men, no matter how well intentioned, and I certainly don't want to be anyone's leader, that is Christ's job not mine.
After all, that is why John told us, at 1 John 4:1, Brothers, do not believe every inspired expression (or whoever tells you it) but test the inspired expression to see that it originates with God.

If you trust 100% in God and Christ, as I do, t is actually to their advantage to make sure you don't go stray ion any way that matters. That is also why I always boast in Jehovah, as Paul said we should, never in myself. I am simply a messenger, nothing more.

I always keep these words of Christ in mind. (Luke 17:10) So YOU, also, when YOU have done all the things assigned to YOU, say, "We are good-for-nothing slaves. What we have done is what we ought to have done.""
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2013 6:26:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/15/2013 6:18:36 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/15/2013 5:42:54 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 6/15/2013 5:31:43 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/15/2013 5:09:53 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
By the Bible, do you mean only the Gospel or both testaments?Shouldn't the OT constitute the base on which you can understand NT ?

I do not believe you can separate the two so called testaments, which is why I usually say "scripture" because that includes everything from Genesis to Revelation.

Yes, in a way you are right, because what we now wrongly call the OT is all that Jesus and his Apostles had to teach from, however, as the relatively small number of followers Jesus managed to collect shows, it is not easy to understand what the OT is saying without help either.

An example?

OK, tell me where Matthew got what he said at Matthew 2:23 " 23 and came and dwelt in a city named Nazareth, that there might be fulfilled what was spoken through the prophets: "He will be called a NazareneR42;."

Where does scripture say that?

Would Matthew have been able to understand what he did without the assistance of holy spirit?

It is far from the only example of how even they needed the guidance given them through holy spirit, but it is one of the most mind twisting ones. There is certainly no way I would have made the connection.

I agree there need to be the Guidance from God to interpret scriptures, but you can never know if a person who interprets is guided or no. All you know is they are not a prophet from God, and they can do mistakes, I can always tell I received the holy ghost , and start interpreting, why would you believe me ?!Also, The OT came before NT , so by the time Jesus was sent, the Jews had already studied the scriptures, I understand they cannot know the interpretation of each and every verse, especially the ones that deal with prophecies. But for sure they should be able to know what the correct creed is , the faith that they need to have.Why does the Christian faith oppose the Jew faith ? if they are sent from the same God , doesn't this show an error in interpretation, that is more likely to come from the interpreters of the NT?

That is certainly the biggest problem and one that scripture warns us of many times. It is all very well them being inspired, but who are they inspired by? We cannot take it on face value. That is why scripture praises those who check out what they are told against scripture.

Those who believed in Thessalonica simply took the Apostle's word for what they were told. As it happens they were not wrong to do so, but none the less Paul prised more highly those in Beroea, because they listened, took in what they were told, and then went back to their own scrolls to see if it was so.

The point being that, since they were relying on God's word, and making honest enquiry they also got the help from spirit.

That is why I always direct people back to scripture, and why I encourage all to check out what I say, in any translations they like.

One should never take the word of men, no matter how well intentioned, and I certainly don't want to be anyone's leader, that is Christ's job not mine.
After all, that is why John told us, at 1 John 4:1, Brothers, do not believe every inspired expression (or whoever tells you it) but test the inspired expression to see that it originates with God.

If you trust 100% in God and Christ, as I do, t is actually to their advantage to make sure you don't go stray ion any way that matters. That is also why I always boast in Jehovah, as Paul said we should, never in myself. I am simply a messenger, nothing more.

I always keep these words of Christ in mind. (Luke 17:10) So YOU, also, when YOU have done all the things assigned to YOU, say, "We are good-for-nothing slaves. What we have done is what we ought to have done.""

Sorry, I felt I had explained that, but in the end I don;t suppose they have to, that is just a reward for their faithfulness. After all God's son wasn't immortal until it was conferred on him for his faithfulness so I suppose that it is a case of since they are tested in similar ways they deserve the same reward.

Why was immortality conferred on Jesus for his faithfulness?

I suppose it is a case of what do you give the the being who has everything else?

Like all the angels he had eternal life in view, He had his Father's love and was primary in his Father's service from the day he was created and became God's "first-born son" His "only begotten son".

There really was nothing else his Father could give him as a reward.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2013 6:33:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/15/2013 6:12:51 PM, rjohnson741 wrote:


Does the eternal(aionios) life of the believer come to an end?

Blessings.

Sorry I missed this bit.

Only if they prove unfaithful.

That is the only reason for the difference, faithful - they live, unfaithful - they die.
Immortality is simply a case of God's promise that they will never die, no matter what. Once that promise has been given it cannot be rescinded, God keeps His word no matter how inconvenient.

If all had been given immortality then there would be no control.

Just imagine if Satan were immortal? There would be nothing God could do to stop him.
question4u
Posts: 492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2013 6:53:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/15/2013 4:52:00 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
This actually comes from an answer on another thread, but I felt it worth making into it's own.

It is based around two scriptures:

1 Corinthians 1:26 For YOU behold his calling of YOU, brothers, that not many wise in a fleshly way were called, not many powerful, not many of noble birth; 27 but God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put the wise men to shame; and God chose the weak things of the world, that he might put the strong things to shame; 28 and God chose the ignoble things of the world and the things looked down upon, the things that are not, that he might bring to nothing the things that are, 29 in order that no flesh might boast in the sight of God. 30 But it is due to him that YOU are in union with Christ Jesus, who has become to us wisdom from God, also righteousness and sanctification and release by ransom; 31 that it may be just as it is written: "He that boasts, let him boast in Jehovah."

and

Proverbs 3:5 Trust in Jehovah with all your heart and do not lean upon your own understanding. 6 In all your ways take notice of him, and he himself will make your paths straight.

I am no grammarian, but one of the biggest confusions that other-language speakers find about English is that words can and often are their own antonyms.

The original language meaning of the word may not, but when translating it others have chosen to add in alternative meanings. I come across that a lot in scriptural discussion which frequently remind me of a saying of Lewis Carrol which appears in one of the "Alice" stories. That phrase is "When I use a word, it uses precisely that whihc I wish it to mean, nothing more, nothing less."

So what really matters is not what the writer of some lexicon may have decided it means, but what the writer intended it to mean. That means letting context over-rule your lexicon in many places.

Overall context of scripture shows that words translated as "eternal" rarely, if ever, meant "without end".

For instance there is s difference between "eternal life" and "immortality".

Immortal is used to mean without end, though it is sometimes used to mean no beginning either.

Eternal in scripture always has a beginning and the possibility, if not certainty of being brought to an end.

Eternal life, as offered to Adam and Eve meant that they could, had they been faithful, have lived forever, however their disobedience meant that God brought that life slowly to an end from the day they became unrepentantly disobedient.

That, of course, makes the relevance of Christ's statement at John 17:3 much stronger.

He said there "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one you sent forth, Jesus Christ".

Was is it so important? Because without getting to know them, you will be extremely unlikely ever to understand how they have used words.

Of course, since scripture, despite being inspired is not all verbatim, it also means getting to know the personalities of God's servants to enable you to understand correctly how they worded things.

This of course also means coming to understand the culture at that time.

A big ask? Yes very, but that is why God promises to assist all those who go at the task with honest hearts and full reliance on Him. No human can do it alone.
Interestingly, these decisions also remind me of another scriptural asying:

1 Corinthians 1:26-31
26 For YOU behold his calling of YOU, brothers, that not many wise in a fleshly way were called, not many powerful, not many of noble birth; 27 but God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put the wise men to shame; and God chose the weak things of the world, that he might put the strong things to shame; 28 and God chose the ignoble things of the world and the things looked down upon, the things that are not, that he might bring to nothing the things that are, 29 in order that no flesh might boast in the sight of God. 30 But it is due to him that YOU are in union with Christ Jesus, who has become to us wisdom from God, also righteousness and sanctification and release by ransom; 31 that it may be just as it is written: "He that boasts, let him boast in Jehovah

Why is this the case?

Because those are too wise get too lost in the meanings of individual words, and tie themselves up in knots because they forget all about overall context. They really cannot see the wood for the (individual) trees.

So how do you "boast in Jehovah"?

By accepting that all you have, including knowledge and understanding of His word comes from Him not from within you. You cannot take any credit for it.

Those who feel they can do it without the aid through holy spirit are fooling themselves and are prey for Satan and his hordes.

Not in a christian perspective, you will never understand the so called old , if you say you do,then you understand there is and never was a purpose for a new...testament, old testament confuse most christans that's why they read new most of the time. The two together makes no sense, unless you try to make, more confusion, prophecy of jesus is all u need then why keep rest of it....drive a christian mad,
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2013 7:43:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/15/2013 6:53:53 PM, question4u wrote:
At 6/15/2013 4:52:00 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
This actually comes from an answer on another thread, but I felt it worth making into it's own.

It is based around two scriptures:

1 Corinthians 1:26 For YOU behold his calling of YOU, brothers, that not many wise in a fleshly way were called, not many powerful, not many of noble birth; 27 but God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put the wise men to shame; and God chose the weak things of the world, that he might put the strong things to shame; 28 and God chose the ignoble things of the world and the things looked down upon, the things that are not, that he might bring to nothing the things that are, 29 in order that no flesh might boast in the sight of God. 30 But it is due to him that YOU are in union with Christ Jesus, who has become to us wisdom from God, also righteousness and sanctification and release by ransom; 31 that it may be just as it is written: "He that boasts, let him boast in Jehovah."

and

Proverbs 3:5 Trust in Jehovah with all your heart and do not lean upon your own understanding. 6 In all your ways take notice of him, and he himself will make your paths straight.

I am no grammarian, but one of the biggest confusions that other-language speakers find about English is that words can and often are their own antonyms.

The original language meaning of the word may not, but when translating it others have chosen to add in alternative meanings. I come across that a lot in scriptural discussion which frequently remind me of a saying of Lewis Carrol which appears in one of the "Alice" stories. That phrase is "When I use a word, it uses precisely that whihc I wish it to mean, nothing more, nothing less."

So what really matters is not what the writer of some lexicon may have decided it means, but what the writer intended it to mean. That means letting context over-rule your lexicon in many places.

Overall context of scripture shows that words translated as "eternal" rarely, if ever, meant "without end".

For instance there is s difference between "eternal life" and "immortality".

Immortal is used to mean without end, though it is sometimes used to mean no beginning either.

Eternal in scripture always has a beginning and the possibility, if not certainty of being brought to an end.

Eternal life, as offered to Adam and Eve meant that they could, had they been faithful, have lived forever, however their disobedience meant that God brought that life slowly to an end from the day they became unrepentantly disobedient.

That, of course, makes the relevance of Christ's statement at John 17:3 much stronger.

He said there "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one you sent forth, Jesus Christ".

Was is it so important? Because without getting to know them, you will be extremely unlikely ever to understand how they have used words.

Of course, since scripture, despite being inspired is not all verbatim, it also means getting to know the personalities of God's servants to enable you to understand correctly how they worded things.

This of course also means coming to understand the culture at that time.

A big ask? Yes very, but that is why God promises to assist all those who go at the task with honest hearts and full reliance on Him. No human can do it alone.
Interestingly, these decisions also remind me of another scriptural asying:

1 Corinthians 1:26-31
26 For YOU behold his calling of YOU, brothers, that not many wise in a fleshly way were called, not many powerful, not many of noble birth; 27 but God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put the wise men to shame; and God chose the weak things of the world, that he might put the strong things to shame; 28 and God chose the ignoble things of the world and the things looked down upon, the things that are not, that he might bring to nothing the things that are, 29 in order that no flesh might boast in the sight of God. 30 But it is due to him that YOU are in union with Christ Jesus, who has become to us wisdom from God, also righteousness and sanctification and release by ransom; 31 that it may be just as it is written: "He that boasts, let him boast in Jehovah

Why is this the case?

Because those are too wise get too lost in the meanings of individual words, and tie themselves up in knots because they forget all about overall context. They really cannot see the wood for the (individual) trees.

So how do you "boast in Jehovah"?

By accepting that all you have, including knowledge and understanding of His word comes from Him not from within you. You cannot take any credit for it.

Those who feel they can do it without the aid through holy spirit are fooling themselves and are prey for Satan and his hordes.

Not in a christian perspective, you will never understand the so called old , if you say you do,then you understand there is and never was a purpose for a new...testament, old testament confuse most christans that's why they read new most of the time. The two together makes no sense, unless you try to make, more confusion, prophecy of jesus is all u need then why keep rest of it....drive a christian mad,

Not from the perspective of what we see as Christianity all round us at the moment, but all that proves is how wrong they are.

You literally cannot separate the two in reality. It is only Apostate teachings that confuse, and in fact without the "OT" you cannot truly understand the "NT" because you don't know where it came from.

Christ and the Apostles taught from it and quoted it incessantly.

Everything in the "NT" is in fulfilment of parts of the "OT". Revelation is mainly an explanation of prophecies in Isaiah, Ezekiel and others, with a few extra details.

Even the "New Covenant" was foretold in the "OT"

Jeremiah 31:31,32 "Look! There are days coming," is the utterance of Jehovah, "and I will conclude with the house of Israel+ and with the house of Judah a new covenant; 32 not one like the covenant that I concluded with their forefathers in the day of my taking hold of their hand to bring them forth out of the land of Egypt, "which covenant of mine they themselves broke, although I myself had husbandly ownership of them," is the utterance of Jehovah."

That was precisely what Christ did with his disciples at that last supper.

Yes the New Covenant was with the Hose of Judah, but few took advantage of it, and so Judiasm as a whole, and a "New Israel" was founded which eventually became known as Christianity. However the door was, and still is, open for any who wish to come out of Judaism into the "New Israel" it is just going to be much harder for them to find it since the Apostasy took such a massive hold.

What about all the prophecy in the "OT" about what Jesus would achieve, and the world he will bring about soon? Much of that is in the "OT", though repeated and expanded in Revelation admittedly.

No, I cannot say it too often, without the "OT" you cannot understand the "NT".

You wouldn't be able to understand properly why Jesus sacrifice was needed, let alone anything else
question4u
Posts: 492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2013 9:12:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/15/2013 7:43:30 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

Not in a christian perspective, you will never understand the so called old , if you say you do,then you understand there is and never was a purpose for a new...testament, old testament confuse most christans that's why they read new most of the time. The two together makes no sense, unless you try to make, more confusion, prophecy of jesus is all u need then why keep rest of it....drive a christian mad,

Not from the perspective of what we see as Christianity all round us at the moment, but all that proves is how wrong they are.

You literally cannot separate the two in reality. It is only Apostate teachings that confuse, and in fact without the "OT" you cannot truly understand the "NT" because you don't know where it came from.

Christ and the Apostles taught from it and quoted it incessantly.

Everything in the "NT" is in fulfilment of parts of the "OT". Revelation is mainly an explanation of prophecies in Isaiah, Ezekiel and others, with a few extra details.

Even the "New Covenant" was foretold in the "OT"

Jeremiah 31:31,32 "Look! There are days coming," is the utterance of Jehovah, "and I will conclude with the house of Israel+ and with the house of Judah a new covenant; 32 not one like the covenant that I concluded with their forefathers in the day of my taking hold of their hand to bring them forth out of the land of Egypt, "which covenant of mine they themselves broke, although I myself had husbandly ownership of them," is the utterance of Jehovah."

That was precisely what Christ did with his disciples at that last supper.

Yes the New Covenant was with the Hose of Judah, but few took advantage of it, and so Judiasm as a whole, and a "New Israel" was founded which eventually became known as Christianity. However the door was, and still is, open for any who wish to come out of Judaism into the "New Israel" it is just going to be much harder for them to find it since the Apostasy took such a massive hold.

What about all the prophecy in the "OT" about what Jesus would achieve, and the world he will bring about soon? Much of that is in the "OT", though repeated and expanded in Revelation admittedly.

No, I cannot say it too often, without the "OT" you cannot understand the "NT".

You wouldn't be able to understand properly why Jesus sacrifice was needed, let alone anything else

Oh I understand, you are the one that do not know which christianity was the truth or which one is the false, and how can you say the christianity that you now know was not the false...many christians dont know just take in on faith...but I guess no matter how much division and confusion, long as you believe in the death and resurrection and the Lamb sitting at the right hand all christians should get into heaven, but your god is not the author of confusion but it has been confusion since the beginning of christianity...
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2013 3:38:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/15/2013 9:12:25 PM, question4u wrote:
At 6/15/2013 7:43:30 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

Not in a christian perspective, you will never understand the so called old , if you say you do,then you understand there is and never was a purpose for a new...testament, old testament confuse most christans that's why they read new most of the time. The two together makes no sense, unless you try to make, more confusion, prophecy of jesus is all u need then why keep rest of it....drive a christian mad,

Not from the perspective of what we see as Christianity all round us at the moment, but all that proves is how wrong they are.

You literally cannot separate the two in reality. It is only Apostate teachings that confuse, and in fact without the "OT" you cannot truly understand the "NT" because you don't know where it came from.

Christ and the Apostles taught from it and quoted it incessantly.

Everything in the "NT" is in fulfilment of parts of the "OT". Revelation is mainly an explanation of prophecies in Isaiah, Ezekiel and others, with a few extra details.

Even the "New Covenant" was foretold in the "OT"

Jeremiah 31:31,32 "Look! There are days coming," is the utterance of Jehovah, "and I will conclude with the house of Israel+ and with the house of Judah a new covenant; 32 not one like the covenant that I concluded with their forefathers in the day of my taking hold of their hand to bring them forth out of the land of Egypt, "which covenant of mine they themselves broke, although I myself had husbandly ownership of them," is the utterance of Jehovah."

That was precisely what Christ did with his disciples at that last supper.

Yes the New Covenant was with the Hose of Judah, but few took advantage of it, and so Judiasm as a whole, and a "New Israel" was founded which eventually became known as Christianity. However the door was, and still is, open for any who wish to come out of Judaism into the "New Israel" it is just going to be much harder for them to find it since the Apostasy took such a massive hold.

What about all the prophecy in the "OT" about what Jesus would achieve, and the world he will bring about soon? Much of that is in the "OT", though repeated and expanded in Revelation admittedly.

No, I cannot say it too often, without the "OT" you cannot understand the "NT".

You wouldn't be able to understand properly why Jesus sacrifice was needed, let alone anything else

Oh I understand, you are the one that do not know which christianity was the truth or which one is the false, and how can you say the christianity that you now know was not the false...many christians dont know just take in on faith...but I guess no matter how much division and confusion, long as you believe in the death and resurrection and the Lamb sitting at the right hand all christians should get into heaven, but your god is not the author of confusion but it has been confusion since the beginning of christianity...

i know, the only way anyone can know. What I teach comes from scripture, all of scripture, and what we know of as Christianity now goes against it.

If it doesn't fit in with what Christ and the Apostles taught, how can it be Christianity?

Even though Apostate Christianity has struggled to change scripture, they have not been allowed to do so to an extent which completely changes the true meaning, all they have been allowed to do has introduced contradictions which make it obvious where they have mistranslated or simply mis-interpreted. Even worse, they have removed God's self-chosen name from scripture.

And why have they done this?

To try, with very limited success, if any, and back up that most God-dishonouring of all doctrines, the Trinity.

No God is not the author of confusion, the confusions has been deliberately caused by the one who is trying to prove his claim that no human will willingly serve God.

He is trying his best not to truly give them the option, or to make the option of doing so more attractive. He must be, metaphorically, laughing in his bots that the most awful doctrine of hell-fire and torment has not only been accepted by many, but clung to desperately.

The thing is in their case he wins either way.

If it puts them off worshipping God properly he wins in their case.

If they cling to the false teaching, he wins in their case.

The only way to escape Satan's traps is to trust 100% in God and do what Christ said at John 17:3

Once you get to know them both you will know there is no way either would countenance any form of lasting torment. You will also realise how ridiculous the Trinity really is.
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2013 9:06:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/16/2013 3:38:43 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/15/2013 9:12:25 PM, question4u wrote:
At 6/15/2013 7:43:30 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

Not in a christian perspective, you will never understand the so called old , if you say you do,then you understand there is and never was a purpose for a new...testament, old testament confuse most christans that's why they read new most of the time. The two together makes no sense, unless you try to make, more confusion, prophecy of jesus is all u need then why keep rest of it....drive a christian mad,

Not from the perspective of what we see as Christianity all round us at the moment, but all that proves is how wrong they are.

You literally cannot separate the two in reality. It is only Apostate teachings that confuse, and in fact without the "OT" you cannot truly understand the "NT" because you don't know where it came from.

Christ and the Apostles taught from it and quoted it incessantly.

Everything in the "NT" is in fulfilment of parts of the "OT". Revelation is mainly an explanation of prophecies in Isaiah, Ezekiel and others, with a few extra details.

Even the "New Covenant" was foretold in the "OT"

Jeremiah 31:31,32 "Look! There are days coming," is the utterance of Jehovah, "and I will conclude with the house of Israel+ and with the house of Judah a new covenant; 32 not one like the covenant that I concluded with their forefathers in the day of my taking hold of their hand to bring them forth out of the land of Egypt, "which covenant of mine they themselves broke, although I myself had husbandly ownership of them," is the utterance of Jehovah."

That was precisely what Christ did with his disciples at that last supper.

Yes the New Covenant was with the Hose of Judah, but few took advantage of it, and so Judiasm as a whole, and a "New Israel" was founded which eventually became known as Christianity. However the door was, and still is, open for any who wish to come out of Judaism into the "New Israel" it is just going to be much harder for them to find it since the Apostasy took such a massive hold.

What about all the prophecy in the "OT" about what Jesus would achieve, and the world he will bring about soon? Much of that is in the "OT", though repeated and expanded in Revelation admittedly.

No, I cannot say it too often, without the "OT" you cannot understand the "NT".

You wouldn't be able to understand properly why Jesus sacrifice was needed, let alone anything else

Oh I understand, you are the one that do not know which christianity was the truth or which one is the false, and how can you say the christianity that you now know was not the false...many christians dont know just take in on faith...but I guess no matter how much division and confusion, long as you believe in the death and resurrection and the Lamb sitting at the right hand all christians should get into heaven, but your god is not the author of confusion but it has been confusion since the beginning of christianity...

i know, the only way anyone can know. What I teach comes from scripture, all of scripture, and what we know of as Christianity now goes against it.

If it doesn't fit in with what Christ and the Apostles taught, how can it be Christianity?

Even though Apostate Christianity has struggled to change scripture, they have not been allowed to do so to an extent which completely changes the true meaning, all they have been allowed to do has introduced contradictions which make it obvious where they have mistranslated or simply mis-interpreted. Even worse, they have removed God's self-chosen name from scripture.

And why have they done this?

To try, with very limited success, if any, and back up that most God-dishonouring of all doctrines, the Trinity.

No God is not the author of confusion, the confusions has been deliberately caused by the one who is trying to prove his claim that no human will willingly serve God.

He is trying his best not to truly give them the option, or to make the option of doing so more attractive. He must be, metaphorically, laughing in his bots that the most awful doctrine of hell-fire and torment has not only been accepted by many, but clung to desperately.

The thing is in their case he wins either way.

If it puts them off worshipping God properly he wins in their case.

If they cling to the false teaching, he wins in their case.

The only way to escape Satan's traps is to trust 100% in God and do what Christ said at John 17:3

Once you get to know them both you will know there is no way either would countenance any form of lasting torment. You will also realise how ridiculous the Trinity really is.

I was wondering if I could bother you a moment but I most certainly am not looking to derail anything here, just curious. Actually me asking you a question is my way of saying I respect your views lol.
I've read some of your material and I was interested in your view of the so-called "Trinity", now of course we know the term trinity is nowhere used in the scripture but isn't it just a word to describe the nature of God the Father, Son and Spirit? and to describe their unity?
I'm young but I've been around the religious block many times over so I do understand the few opposing views on the subject but the line is a bit hazy for me because for example I have no objection to the term "Trinity" but yet I believe the three Beings are separate, but the One does the perfect will of the other so they are "unified" as in the sense of the same unifying in Acts. When I use the term trinity I am simply conferring with the scripture such as Philippians 2:5-11 and John 35-40 1 John 5:7 ect...

Now when I was a teen I was affiliated with a group who believed that the three where just one single unit but since I had actually been reading through scripture since the age of 9 I had already a clear understanding of what I read and I knew that they were indeed separate Beings but I also was well aware of their "Oneness" and purpose and status. However I assumed for the most part that the term was just used as a shortcut to convey a simple doctrine or teaching so I was wondering if you could outline a brief description of what you believe and what the falsity is and where the line would be drawn, thanks.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2013 10:09:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/16/2013 9:06:55 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:


I was wondering if I could bother you a moment but I most certainly am not looking to derail anything here, just curious. Actually me asking you a question is my way of saying I respect your views lol.
I've read some of your material and I was interested in your view of the so-called "Trinity", now of course we know the term trinity is nowhere used in the scripture but isn't it just a word to describe the nature of God the Father, Son and Spirit? and to describe their unity?
I'm young but I've been around the religious block many times over so I do understand the few opposing views on the subject but the line is a bit hazy for me because for example I have no objection to the term "Trinity" but yet I believe the three Beings are separate, but the One does the perfect will of the other so they are "unified" as in the sense of the same unifying in Acts. When I use the term trinity I am simply conferring with the scripture such as Philippians 2:5-11 and John 35-40 1 John 5:7 ect...

Now when I was a teen I was affiliated with a group who believed that the three where just one single unit but since I had actually been reading through scripture since the age of 9 I had already a clear understanding of what I read and I knew that they were indeed separate Beings but I also was well aware of their "Oneness" and purpose and status. However I assumed for the most part that the term was just used as a shortcut to convey a simple doctrine or teaching so I was wondering if you could outline a brief description of what you believe and what the falsity is and where the line would be drawn, thanks.

Never be afraid of asking questions, or of checking up on the answers.

As for the trinity, I believe it is along way from the truth and does not in the least describe God, Christ or holy spirit.

God is the creator.

The first of his creations was a son, who later came to earth as Jesus Christ. The fact that he was created by his Father is what makes him God's "only begotten son"

John 1:18 (King James Version) 18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Since God created everything why was his son His only begotten?

Because once he had created His son, that son joined him in creating all other things.

Colossians 1:13-16 (King James Version) 13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: 14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

After the rebellion in the Garden of Eden God gave His son overall control of and care for His creation.

That makes the one who became Christ God's 2nd in Command.

Holy spirit is a little more difficult to deal with, however, the simple fact is that holy spirit is not a sentient being but simply the power God uses for all His work, and also gives to those faithful ones, human or spirit in whatever measure they need in order to carry out His purposes.

The best way I can explain that is to copy and paste here a passage I agree with 100% from a JW publication known as the "reasoning Book":

Does the Bible teach that the "Holy Spirit" is a person?
Some individual texts that refer to the holy spirit ("Holy Ghost," KJ) might seem to indicate personality. For example, the holy spirit is referred to as a helper (Greek, pa"raR42;kle"tos; "Comforter," KJ; "Advocate," JB, NE) that "teaches," "bears witness," "speaks" and "hears." (John 14:16, 17, 26; 15:26; 16:13) But other texts say that people were "filled" with holy spirit, that some were "baptized" with it or "anointed" with it. (Luke 1:41; Matt. 3:11; Acts 10:38) These latter references to holy spirit definitely do not fit a person. To understand what the Bible as a whole teaches, all these texts must be considered. What is the reasonable conclusion? That the first texts cited here employ a figure of speech personifying God"s holy spirit, his active force, as the Bible also personifies wisdom, sin, death, water, and blood.
The Holy Scriptures tell us the personal name of the Father"Jehovah. They inform us that the Son is Jesus Christ. But nowhere in the Scriptures is a personal name applied to the holy spirit.
Acts 7:55, 56 reports that Stephen was given a vision of heaven in which he saw "Jesus standing at God"s right hand." But he made no mention of seeing the holy spirit. (See also Revelation 7:10; 22:1, 3.)
The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits: "The majority of N[ew] T[estament] texts reveal God"s spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God." (1967, Vol. XIII, p. 575) It also reports: "The Apologists [Greek Christian writers of the second century] spoke too haltingly of the Spirit; with a measure of anticipation, one might say too impersonally.""Vol. XIV, p. 296.

Please feel free to check out all the scripture mentioned, in any translation you wish and see if you agree with what they say there. You should never take the word of any human uncorroborated by scripture.

I was particularly interested in your last paragraph. I too enjoyed reading scripture as a young child, and I too formed the opinion that I still hold now, that there was no way in which Christ was equal to his Father. He didn't think so, and neither did the Apostles.

Over the years I have filled that belief out somewhat but never found anything reliable to counter it.

Feel free to ask any question you wish, either in a thread or PM.
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2013 11:15:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/16/2013 10:09:50 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/16/2013 9:06:55 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:


I was wondering if I could bother you a moment but I most certainly am not looking to derail anything here, just curious. Actually me asking you a question is my way of saying I respect your views lol.
I've read some of your material and I was interested in your view of the so-called "Trinity", now of course we know the term trinity is nowhere used in the scripture but isn't it just a word to describe the nature of God the Father, Son and Spirit? and to describe their unity?
I'm young but I've been around the religious block many times over so I do understand the few opposing views on the subject but the line is a bit hazy for me because for example I have no objection to the term "Trinity" but yet I believe the three Beings are separate, but the One does the perfect will of the other so they are "unified" as in the sense of the same unifying in Acts. When I use the term trinity I am simply conferring with the scripture such as Philippians 2:5-11 and John 35-40 1 John 5:7 ect...

Now when I was a teen I was affiliated with a group who believed that the three where just one single unit but since I had actually been reading through scripture since the age of 9 I had already a clear understanding of what I read and I knew that they were indeed separate Beings but I also was well aware of their "Oneness" and purpose and status. However I assumed for the most part that the term was just used as a shortcut to convey a simple doctrine or teaching so I was wondering if you could outline a brief description of what you believe and what the falsity is and where the line would be drawn, thanks.

Never be afraid of asking questions, or of checking up on the answers.

As for the trinity, I believe it is along way from the truth and does not in the least describe God, Christ or holy spirit.

God is the creator.

The first of his creations was a son, who later came to earth as Jesus Christ. The fact that he was created by his Father is what makes him God's "only begotten son"

John 1:18 (King James Version) 18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Since God created everything why was his son His only begotten?

Because once he had created His son, that son joined him in creating all other things.

Colossians 1:13-16 (King James Version) 13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: 14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

After the rebellion in the Garden of Eden God gave His son overall control of and care for His creation.

That makes the one who became Christ God's 2nd in Command.

Holy spirit is a little more difficult to deal with, however, the simple fact is that holy spirit is not a sentient being but simply the power God uses for all His work, and also gives to those faithful ones, human or spirit in whatever measure they need in order to carry out His purposes.

The best way I can explain that is to copy and paste here a passage I agree with 100% from a JW publication known as the "reasoning Book":

Does the Bible teach that the "Holy Spirit" is a person?
Some individual texts that refer to the holy spirit ("Holy Ghost," KJ) might seem to indicate personality. For example, the holy spirit is referred to as a helper (Greek, pa"raR42;kle"tos; "Comforter," KJ; "Advocate," JB, NE) that "teaches," "bears witness," "speaks" and "hears." (John 14:16, 17, 26; 15:26; 16:13) But other texts say that people were "filled" with holy spirit, that some were "baptized" with it or "anointed" with it. (Luke 1:41; Matt. 3:11; Acts 10:38) These latter references to holy spirit definitely do not fit a person. To understand what the Bible as a whole teaches, all these texts must be considered. What is the reasonable conclusion? That the first texts cited here employ a figure of speech personifying God"s holy spirit, his active force, as the Bible also personifies wisdom, sin, death, water, and blood.
The Holy Scriptures tell us the personal name of the Father"Jehovah. They inform us that the Son is Jesus Christ. But nowhere in the Scriptures is a personal name applied to the holy spirit.
Acts 7:55, 56 reports that Stephen was given a vision of heaven in which he saw "Jesus standing at God"s right hand." But he made no mention of seeing the holy spirit. (See also Revelation 7:10; 22:1, 3.)
The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits: "The majority of N[ew] T[estament] texts reveal God"s spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God." (1967, Vol. XIII, p. 575) It also reports: "The Apologists [Greek Christian writers of the second century] spoke too haltingly of the Spirit; with a measure of anticipation, one might say too impersonally.""Vol. XIV, p. 296.

Please feel free to check out all the scripture mentioned, in any translation you wish and see if you agree with what they say there. You should never take the word of any human uncorroborated by scripture.

I was particularly interested in your last paragraph. I too enjoyed reading scripture as a young child, and I too formed the opinion that I still hold now, that there was no way in which Christ was equal to his Father. He didn't think so, and neither did the Apostles.

Over the years I have filled that belief out somewhat but never found anything reliable to counter it.

Feel free to ask any question you wish, either in a thread or PM.

Okay thanks I think I understand, you're saying that the "Holy Spirit" is not a separate Entity and that Jesus is no equal to the Father? Cool but I would then assume that you would not be in agreement with portions of the NT or at least versions of it? such as the Philippians passage chapter 2:5-11?
I have no issue of Jesus being subject to the Father, I think that is pretty evident, but it seems to me evident as well God gave equal status and would it really matter Trinity or not when Jesus is the way to salvation (for example John 14:1-16) and the way to the Father? I mean at least in terms of being "saved"?

I've always understood the Holy Spirit as being the Spirit of God available to believers for whatever purpose and in that sense the "Spirit" of God would be separate from the Father in that degree, but as far as Them being a separate Entity I would have to agree that the matter is slightly unclear, well at least to me anyway but my question in the end would be again does it matter "Trinity" or not when applying the Spirit to ones life? We need God the Father for all that exists, Jesus as the way to salvation, and the Spirit to guide and teach do we not need all 3?
I guess my aim would be to find a common ground here, I never really separated myself to such an extreme degree with other believers with whether or not they think God is three or if God is alone, it seems to me that we need it all.... I've always considered those aspects to be One in nature and therefore it really wouldn't matter if you look at Romans 8:16 because it would almost imply that this passage is speaking of two here, why didn't it just say "God testifies with our spirit that we are God's children"? If the basic concept of the Trinity is that the three are one or at least of one accord, then I am still left confused as to why such a harsh split?
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2013 11:53:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/16/2013 11:15:18 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:

Okay thanks I think I understand, you're saying that the "Holy Spirit" is not a separate Entity and that Jesus is no equal to the Father? Cool but I would then assume that you would not be in agreement with portions of the NT or at least versions of it? such as the Philippians passage chapter 2:5-11?
I have no issue of Jesus being subject to the Father, I think that is pretty evident, but it seems to me evident as well God gave equal status and would it really matter Trinity or not when Jesus is the way to salvation (for example John 14:1-16) and the way to the Father? I mean at least in terms of being "saved"?

I've always understood the Holy Spirit as being the Spirit of God available to believers for whatever purpose and in that sense the "Spirit" of God would be separate from the Father in that degree, but as far as Them being a separate Entity I would have to agree that the matter is slightly unclear, well at least to me anyway but my question in the end would be again does it matter "Trinity" or not when applying the Spirit to ones life? We need God the Father for all that exists, Jesus as the way to salvation, and the Spirit to guide and teach do we not need all 3?
I guess my aim would be to find a common ground here, I never really separated myself to such an extreme degree with other believers with whether or not they think God is three or if God is alone, it seems to me that we need it all.... I've always considered those aspects to be One in nature and therefore it really wouldn't matter if you look at Romans 8:16 because it would almost imply that this passage is speaking of two here, why didn't it just say "God testifies with our spirit that we are God's children"? If the basic concept of the Trinity is that the three are one or at least of one accord, then I am still left confused.

As far as Philippians 2:5-11 goes it does depend a lot on what the translator of the bible you are using decided it translated to. However it is important to remember that all currently available translations were made after the trinity became an accepted teaching in the 4th Century. This means that intentionally or not translations are going to be biased towards their belief.

There are a number of scriptures which make it appear that holy spirit could be a sentient being, but none that state it specifically, and other things are personified also.

However I find it interesting that in John 17:3 Jesus makes no mention of a need to get to know holy spirit, simply his Father and himself. Surely if the were equal parts of a trinity it would be just as important to get to know holy spirit also.

Scripture mentions salvation as being through both God and Christ, and in fact both are true. Without God there would be nothing in existence to save, and without the loyalty and obedience of His son, there would be no course open to save us. However Luke quotes Joel 2:32 which says "And it must occur that everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will get away safe; for in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will prove to be the escaped ones, just as Jehovah has said, and in among the survivors, whom Jehovah is calling." when writing Acts (Acts 2:21) as does Paul when writing to the Romans (Romans 10:13).

Satan has inspired men to make scripture as confusing as they can, though God also gave it some protection so that they have failed to make it completely confusing. This all fits in with the Apostasy that was foretold to set in after the death of the Apostles, and did so, very quickly.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2013 11:54:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/16/2013 11:17:56 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
And thanks for your reply :)

You are very welcome, it really is my pleasure.
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2013 12:34:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/16/2013 11:53:25 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/16/2013 11:15:18 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:

Okay thanks I think I understand, you're saying that the "Holy Spirit" is not a separate Entity and that Jesus is no equal to the Father? Cool but I would then assume that you would not be in agreement with portions of the NT or at least versions of it? such as the Philippians passage chapter 2:5-11?
I have no issue of Jesus being subject to the Father, I think that is pretty evident, but it seems to me evident as well God gave equal status and would it really matter Trinity or not when Jesus is the way to salvation (for example John 14:1-16) and the way to the Father? I mean at least in terms of being "saved"?

I've always understood the Holy Spirit as being the Spirit of God available to believers for whatever purpose and in that sense the "Spirit" of God would be separate from the Father in that degree, but as far as Them being a separate Entity I would have to agree that the matter is slightly unclear, well at least to me anyway but my question in the end would be again does it matter "Trinity" or not when applying the Spirit to ones life? We need God the Father for all that exists, Jesus as the way to salvation, and the Spirit to guide and teach do we not need all 3?
I guess my aim would be to find a common ground here, I never really separated myself to such an extreme degree with other believers with whether or not they think God is three or if God is alone, it seems to me that we need it all.... I've always considered those aspects to be One in nature and therefore it really wouldn't matter if you look at Romans 8:16 because it would almost imply that this passage is speaking of two here, why didn't it just say "God testifies with our spirit that we are God's children"? If the basic concept of the Trinity is that the three are one or at least of one accord, then I am still left confused.

As far as Philippians 2:5-11 goes it does depend a lot on what the translator of the bible you are using decided it translated to. However it is important to remember that all currently available translations were made after the trinity became an accepted teaching in the 4th Century. This means that intentionally or not translations are going to be biased towards their belief.

There are a number of scriptures which make it appear that holy spirit could be a sentient being, but none that state it specifically, and other things are personified also.

However I find it interesting that in John 17:3 Jesus makes no mention of a need to get to know holy spirit, simply his Father and himself. Surely if the were equal parts of a trinity it would be just as important to get to know holy spirit also.

Scripture mentions salvation as being through both God and Christ, and in fact both are true. Without God there would be nothing in existence to save, and without the loyalty and obedience of His son, there would be no course open to save us. However Luke quotes Joel 2:32 which says "And it must occur that everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will get away safe; for in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will prove to be the escaped ones, just as Jehovah has said, and in among the survivors, whom Jehovah is calling." when writing Acts (Acts 2:21) as does Paul when writing to the Romans (Romans 10:13).

Satan has inspired men to make scripture as confusing as they can, though God also gave it some protection so that they have failed to make it completely confusing. This all fits in with the Apostasy that was foretold to set in after the death of the Apostles, and did so, very quickly.

Okay thanks.
In John 17 Jesus did not need to mention the Spirit because he was speaking in the present, the Spirit had not been sent but is mentioned later in John 16:7-14 and elsewhere throughout the Gospels and by Paul. I've heard you specifically talk about having the Spirit so I am confused by what you are saying here.
I know you do not think that the Holy Spirit is an Entity, but you do agree that we should have the Spirit right? For example John 3:1-6, Romans 8:9-11, 1 Corinthians 2:10-14. Whether or not one believes that the "Spirit" is an Entity or not my question again is does it really matter when a believer applies the Spirit to their life, unless of course you do not believe that believers do not have access to God's Spirit?

Sorry I'm not arguing with you here I'm just trying to understand what all the fuss is about lol. In other words is it really such an issue that believers should divide themselves from one another rather than reason and try to understand? Don't get me wrong I believe in finding the truth but it seems to me that both views express the same result. Whether or not the "Spirit" is an Entity both views should agree on 1 Corinthians 2:10-14, correct?
And what do you mean "depends on what the translator decided to do"? Is there another version that omits Philippians 2:5-11 lol?
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2013 12:36:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/16/2013 12:34:05 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 6/16/2013 11:53:25 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/16/2013 11:15:18 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:

Okay thanks I think I understand, you're saying that the "Holy Spirit" is not a separate Entity and that Jesus is no equal to the Father? Cool but I would then assume that you would not be in agreement with portions of the NT or at least versions of it? such as the Philippians passage chapter 2:5-11?
I have no issue of Jesus being subject to the Father, I think that is pretty evident, but it seems to me evident as well God gave equal status and would it really matter Trinity or not when Jesus is the way to salvation (for example John 14:1-16) and the way to the Father? I mean at least in terms of being "saved"?

I've always understood the Holy Spirit as being the Spirit of God available to believers for whatever purpose and in that sense the "Spirit" of God would be separate from the Father in that degree, but as far as Them being a separate Entity I would have to agree that the matter is slightly unclear, well at least to me anyway but my question in the end would be again does it matter "Trinity" or not when applying the Spirit to ones life? We need God the Father for all that exists, Jesus as the way to salvation, and the Spirit to guide and teach do we not need all 3?
I guess my aim would be to find a common ground here, I never really separated myself to such an extreme degree with other believers with whether or not they think God is three or if God is alone, it seems to me that we need it all.... I've always considered those aspects to be One in nature and therefore it really wouldn't matter if you look at Romans 8:16 because it would almost imply that this passage is speaking of two here, why didn't it just say "God testifies with our spirit that we are God's children"? If the basic concept of the Trinity is that the three are one or at least of one accord, then I am still left confused.

As far as Philippians 2:5-11 goes it does depend a lot on what the translator of the bible you are using decided it translated to. However it is important to remember that all currently available translations were made after the trinity became an accepted teaching in the 4th Century. This means that intentionally or not translations are going to be biased towards their belief.

There are a number of scriptures which make it appear that holy spirit could be a sentient being, but none that state it specifically, and other things are personified also.

However I find it interesting that in John 17:3 Jesus makes no mention of a need to get to know holy spirit, simply his Father and himself. Surely if the were equal parts of a trinity it would be just as important to get to know holy spirit also.

Scripture mentions salvation as being through both God and Christ, and in fact both are true. Without God there would be nothing in existence to save, and without the loyalty and obedience of His son, there would be no course open to save us. However Luke quotes Joel 2:32 which says "And it must occur that everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will get away safe; for in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will prove to be the escaped ones, just as Jehovah has said, and in among the survivors, whom Jehovah is calling." when writing Acts (Acts 2:21) as does Paul when writing to the Romans (Romans 10:13).

Satan has inspired men to make scripture as confusing as they can, though God also gave it some protection so that they have failed to make it completely confusing. This all fits in with the Apostasy that was foretold to set in after the death of the Apostles, and did so, very quickly.

Okay thanks.
In John 17 Jesus did not need to mention the Spirit because he was speaking in the present, the Spirit had not been sent but is mentioned in John 16:7-14 and elsewhere throughout the Gospels and by Paul. I've heard you specifically talk about having the Spirit so I am confused by what you are saying here.
I know you do not think that the Holy Spirit is an Entity, but you do agree that we should have the Spirit right? For example John 3:1-6, Romans 8:9-11, 1 Corinthians 2:10-14. Whether or not one believes that the "Spirit" is an Entity or not my question again is does it really matter when a believer applies the Spirit to their life, unless of course you do not believe that believers do not have access to God's Spirit?

Sorry I'm not arguing with you here I'm just trying to understand what all the fuss is about lol. In other words is it really such an issue that believers should divide themselves from one another rather than reason and try to understand? Don't get me wrong I believe in finding the truth but it seems to me that both views express the same result. Whether or not the "Spirit" is an Entity both views should agree on 1 Corinthians 2:10-14, correct?
And what do you mean "depends on what the translator decided to do"? Is there another version that omits Philippians 2:5-11 lol?

Fixed
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2013 12:55:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/16/2013 12:34:05 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:

Okay thanks.
In John 17 Jesus did not need to mention the Spirit because he was speaking in the present, the Spirit had not been sent but is mentioned later in John 16:7-14 and elsewhere throughout the Gospels and by Paul. I've heard you specifically talk about having the Spirit so I am confused by what you are saying here.
I know you do not think that the Holy Spirit is an Entity, but you do agree that we should have the Spirit right? For example John 3:1-6, Romans 8:9-11, 1 Corinthians 2:10-14. Whether or not one believes that the "Spirit" is an Entity or not my question again is does it really matter when a believer applies the Spirit to their life, unless of course you do not believe that believers do not have access to God's Spirit?

Sorry I'm not arguing with you here I'm just trying to understand what all the fuss is about lol. In other words is it really such an issue that believers should divide themselves from one another rather than reason and try to understand? Don't get me wrong I believe in finding the truth but it seems to me that both views express the same result. Whether or not the "Spirit" is an Entity both views should agree on 1 Corinthians 2:10-14, correct?
And what do you mean "depends on what the translator decided to do"? Is there another version that omits Philippians 2:5-11 lol?

Where do you get the idea that the spirit has not been sent?

Matthew 1:18 But the birth of Jesus Christ was in this way. During the time his mother Mary was promised in marriage to Joseph, she was found to be pregnant by holy spirit before they were united.

Luke 1:14 And you will have joy and great gladness, and many will rejoice over his birth; 15 for he will be great before Jehovah. But he must drink no wine and strong drink at all, and he will be filled with holy spirit right from his mother"s womb; 16 and many of the sons of Israel will he turn back to Jehovah their God.

Here Luke is talking about John the Baptiser.

Psalm 51:11 Do not throw me away from before your face;
And your holy spirit O do not take away from me.

Somewhat before John 17:3 I suspect.

No, holy spirit has been around as long as God has, simply because it is the power He uses to do everything from creation to communication.

That is why there is no need to get to know it. There is nothing to get to know.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2013 12:58:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/16/2013 12:36:18 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:

Sorry I'm not arguing with you here I'm just trying to understand what all the fuss is about lol. In other words is it really such an issue that believers should divide themselves from one another rather than reason and try to understand? Don't get me wrong I believe in finding the truth but it seems to me that both views express the same result. Whether or not the "Spirit" is an Entity both views should agree on 1 Corinthians 2:10-14, correct?
And what do you mean "depends on what the translator decided to do"? Is there another version that omits Philippians 2:5-11 lol?

Fixed

Truth is the most important thing there is, and to drag God down to the level of Christ, or to give Christ the glory that is due to his Father is very important to them.

The trinity teaching is the most God dishonouring teaching that there is., and you cannot get to know God and Christ without knowing that for a start.

No almost certainly not, but there are versions that translate it in different ways.
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2013 2:14:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/16/2013 12:55:59 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/16/2013 12:34:05 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:

Okay thanks.
In John 17 Jesus did not need to mention the Spirit because he was speaking in the present, the Spirit had not been sent but is mentioned later in John 16:7-14 and elsewhere throughout the Gospels and by Paul. I've heard you specifically talk about having the Spirit so I am confused by what you are saying here.
I know you do not think that the Holy Spirit is an Entity, but you do agree that we should have the Spirit right? For example John 3:1-6, Romans 8:9-11, 1 Corinthians 2:10-14. Whether or not one believes that the "Spirit" is an Entity or not my question again is does it really matter when a believer applies the Spirit to their life, unless of course you do not believe that believers do not have access to God's Spirit?

Sorry I'm not arguing with you here I'm just trying to understand what all the fuss is about lol. In other words is it really such an issue that believers should divide themselves from one another rather than reason and try to understand? Don't get me wrong I believe in finding the truth but it seems to me that both views express the same result. Whether or not the "Spirit" is an Entity both views should agree on 1 Corinthians 2:10-14, correct?
And what do you mean "depends on what the translator decided to do"? Is there another version that omits Philippians 2:5-11 lol?

Where do you get the idea that the spirit has not been sent?

Matthew 1:18 But the birth of Jesus Christ was in this way. During the time his mother Mary was promised in marriage to Joseph, she was found to be pregnant by holy spirit before they were united.

Luke 1:14 And you will have joy and great gladness, and many will rejoice over his birth; 15 for he will be great before Jehovah. But he must drink no wine and strong drink at all, and he will be filled with holy spirit right from his mother"s womb; 16 and many of the sons of Israel will he turn back to Jehovah their God.

Here Luke is talking about John the Baptiser.

Psalm 51:11 Do not throw me away from before your face;
And your holy spirit O do not take away from me.

Somewhat before John 17:3 I suspect.

No, holy spirit has been around as long as God has, simply because it is the power He uses to do everything from creation to communication.

That is why there is no need to get to know it. There is nothing to get to know.

Lol I was never disputing that the Holy Spirit was always there, I meant "sent" to believers in reference to John 15:25,26! WHOM I WILL SEND UNTO YOU FROM THE FATHER lol. Also the others I left in Romans and John.

My apologies, I might have you confused with another person on here I thought you understood what the Spirit was, I thought I read somewhere on here that you mentioned some believers receiving the Spirit. Somehow you managed to avoid my main objections and some of my questions nor did you discus the Corinthians passage I left. You do not agree on those verses?

Also what other supposed translations contradict Philippians 2:5-11 and which of those verses do you not agree with?

And again, the basic concept of the trinity is that there are three functions of God, whether they are three or just two beings it shares the same purpose in describing the nature of God, as far as salvation is concerned and the believers life. For example one of the "functions" of the Spirit is in Romans 8:5-16 particularly verse 16.
If the Spirit has no purpose then why did it not just say "God HIMSELF bears witness with our Spirit, that we are the children of God. No, it says The SPIRIT Itself bears witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
Here is another function of the Spirit in John 16:13,14 "However when HE, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth: for HE shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak: and He will show you things to come.
Here in this passage above the Spirit is spoken of as a separate source.

Like I said before, I have no objections to Jesus being subject to the Father, and I also said that I agreed with you about the Holy Spirit being God's power or ability in action, however the scripture makes a distinction between God and His Spirit and if you read the scripture you should be well aware of that. The reason it makes a distinction is because the Spirit of God has a purpose in our lives and I think that the basic understanding of the trinity is to describe that purpose. That would be the side that I would lean towards anyway.
I am in no way promoting the trinity concept as truth, I just want to be clear about where the line is drawn and to avoid believers telling other believers that they are going to hell and cannot be saved and this and that because one thinks that God has three parts and another thinks there is only God and His Son. Lets be honest and at least admit that the scripture makes a clear distinction between God the Father, Son and Spirit, or at minimum mentions them separately, you cannot avoid it.
Personally I do not subscribe to any particular religious doctrine, but I think it would be worth both views working towards one goal like in Acts.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2013 2:32:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/16/2013 2:14:57 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 6/16/2013 12:55:59 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/16/2013 12:34:05 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:

Okay thanks.
In John 17 Jesus did not need to mention the Spirit because he was speaking in the present, the Spirit had not been sent but is mentioned later in John 16:7-14 and elsewhere throughout the Gospels and by Paul. I've heard you specifically talk about having the Spirit so I am confused by what you are saying here.
I know you do not think that the Holy Spirit is an Entity, but you do agree that we should have the Spirit right? For example John 3:1-6, Romans 8:9-11, 1 Corinthians 2:10-14. Whether or not one believes that the "Spirit" is an Entity or not my question again is does it really matter when a believer applies the Spirit to their life, unless of course you do not believe that believers do not have access to God's Spirit?

Sorry I'm not arguing with you here I'm just trying to understand what all the fuss is about lol. In other words is it really such an issue that believers should divide themselves from one another rather than reason and try to understand? Don't get me wrong I believe in finding the truth but it seems to me that both views express the same result. Whether or not the "Spirit" is an Entity both views should agree on 1 Corinthians 2:10-14, correct?
And what do you mean "depends on what the translator decided to do"? Is there another version that omits Philippians 2:5-11 lol?

Where do you get the idea that the spirit has not been sent?

Matthew 1:18 But the birth of Jesus Christ was in this way. During the time his mother Mary was promised in marriage to Joseph, she was found to be pregnant by holy spirit before they were united.

Luke 1:14 And you will have joy and great gladness, and many will rejoice over his birth; 15 for he will be great before Jehovah. But he must drink no wine and strong drink at all, and he will be filled with holy spirit right from his mother"s womb; 16 and many of the sons of Israel will he turn back to Jehovah their God.

Here Luke is talking about John the Baptiser.

Psalm 51:11 Do not throw me away from before your face;
And your holy spirit O do not take away from me.

Somewhat before John 17:3 I suspect.

No, holy spirit has been around as long as God has, simply because it is the power He uses to do everything from creation to communication.

That is why there is no need to get to know it. There is nothing to get to know.

Lol I was never disputing that the Holy Spirit was always there, I meant "sent" to believers in reference to John 15:25,26! WHOM I WILL SEND UNTO YOU FROM THE FATHER lol. Also the others I left in Romans and John.

My apologies, I might have you confused with another person on here I thought you understood what the Spirit was, I thought I read somewhere on here that you mentioned some believers receiving the Spirit. Somehow you managed to avoid my main objections and some of my questions nor did you discus the Corinthians passage I left. You do not agree on those verses?

Also what other supposed translations contradict Philippians 2:5-11 and which of those verses do you not agree with?

And again, the basic concept of the trinity is that there are three functions of God, whether they are three or just two beings it shares the same purpose in describing the nature of God, as far as salvation is concerned and the believers life. For example one of the "functions" of the Spirit is in Romans 8:5-16 particularly verse 16.
If the Spirit has no purpose then why did it not just say "God HIMSELF bears witness with our Spirit, that we are the children of God. No, it says The SPIRIT Itself bears witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
Here is another function of the Spirit in John 16:13,14 "However when HE, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth: for HE shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak: and He will show you things to come.
Here in this passage above the Spirit is spoken of as a separate source.

Like I said before, I have no objections to Jesus being subject to the Father, and I also said that I agreed with you about the Holy Spirit being God's power or ability in action, however the scripture makes a distinction between God and His Spirit and if you read the scripture you should be well aware of that. The reason it makes a distinction is because the Spirit of God has a purpose in our lives and I think that the basic understanding of the trinity is to describe that purpose. That would be the side that I would lean towards anyway.
I am in no way promoting the trinity concept as truth, I just want to be clear about where the line is drawn and to avoid believers telling other believers that they are going to hell and cannot be saved and this and that because one thinks that God has three parts and another thinks there is only God and His Son. Lets be honest and at least admit that the scripture makes a clear distinction between God the Father, Son and Spirit, or at minimum mentions them separately, you cannot avoid it.
Personally I do not subscribe to any particular religious doctrine, but I think it would be worth both views working towards one goal like in Acts.

Unfortunately that is impossible because there is only one truth, and in fact can only possibly be one truth.

That is why Paul said, as recorded at 1 Corinthians 1:10 Now I exhort YOU, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that YOU should all speak in agreement, and that there should not be divisions among YOU, but that YOU may be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought. 11 For the disclosure was made to me about YOU, my brothers, by those of [the house of] ChloR42;e, that dissensions exist among YOU

Unity is vital for all who truly follow Christ.

Matthew 7:13,14.
Sower4GS
Posts: 1,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2013 5:04:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The more accurate word Is Scriptures. The word Bible is not found in the Scriptures. The word Scriptures is, over and over and over and over again. I was going to put the amount of times it appears but did not want to embarrass Mad biker publicly. Also, MB of course you can understand the Scriptures! DUH!!
You need to be Obedient to Torah First and then Know the Son of God is eternal. Then you need to Be Obedient to His Commands which are Torah, a simple word study will show the similarity with the two words. A simple Word study will show this all to be true. JW's get confused real easy, ecspecially those who deny they are directly JW's but use JW NWT and read their garbage. You have a loooong way to goto Understanding Scripture! WOOW, a loong way. :( Pride will cause you to try and prove me wrong and argue with me like you do me and others in the past.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 6:10:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/16/2013 5:04:49 PM, Sower4GS wrote:
The more accurate word Is Scriptures. The word Bible is not found in the Scriptures. The word Scriptures is, over and over and over and over again. I was going to put the amount of times it appears but did not want to embarrass Mad biker publicly. Also, MB of course you can understand the Scriptures! DUH!!
You need to be Obedient to Torah First and then Know the Son of God is eternal. Then you need to Be Obedient to His Commands which are Torah, a simple word study will show the similarity with the two words. A simple Word study will show this all to be true. JW's get confused real easy, ecspecially those who deny they are directly JW's but use JW NWT and read their garbage. You have a loooong way to goto Understanding Scripture! WOOW, a loong way. :( Pride will cause you to try and prove me wrong and argue with me like you do me and others in the past.

Of course the word bible is not found in scripture, do you even know what bible means

In fact it means "library" thus it is s collection of writings which together comes under the heading of "scripture" whihc in itself means "writings".

Again you parade your ignorance.