Originally posted by robbie carrobieHow about the teaching of Jesus being an angel?
that explains practically nothing about the content of the Ghosts text,
its not there because its a mystery
its not there because we don't need to know
its not there BECAUSE ITS NOT A BIBLE TEACHING
How about this angel being your co-saviour along with Jehovah.
And this Angel also being "Mighty God"?
**you keep avoid my posts on this.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieKeep flapping. I hear your cult worships chickens, too. 😛
yes indeed its entirely extra biblical, pagan in origin, was unknown to Christ and the apostles and relies for its efficacy on dubious translation of the original text and ignores a plethora of scriptures which refute it outright.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt's not my fault you don't understand the Bible enough to come up with an actual, even semi-realistic, translation, and a dogma, based on actual scripture instead of hot air.
that explains practically nothing about the content of the Ghosts text,
its not there because its a mystery
its not there because we don't need to know
its not there BECAUSE ITS NOT A BIBLE TEACHING
Originally posted by divegeesterJust as he and roigam both keep ignoring my posts asking them about Isaiah 43:11.
How about the teaching of Jesus being an angel?
How about this angel being your co-saviour along with Jehovah.
And this Angel also being "Mighty God"?
**you keep avoid my posts on this.
Originally posted by Suzianneyou don't know the first thing about accurate translation, this we have established many times.
It's not my fault you don't understand the Bible enough to come up with an actual, even semi-realistic, translation, and a dogma, based on actual scripture instead of hot air.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
'The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia acknowledges that “ ‘trinity’ is a second-century term found nowhere in the Bible, and the Scriptures present no finished trinitarian statement” (1988, Vol. 4, “Trinity,” p. 914).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is well known that the word "trinity" is not in the Bible. And "Trinity" found its usage many years latter after the writing of the NT.
But it is a useful term because God is described as the Father, God is described as the Son, and God is described as the Holy Spirit, in the Bible and especially the New Testament.
So for the defense of the ancient Christian brothers against those who opposed the teaching of the New Testament, someone/s began to use the word. Bill Freeman in "The Testimony of Church History Regarding the Mystery of the Triune God" informs me that the word "Trinity" first used by Theophilus of Antioch (A.D. 115 - 188) in [i]Theophilus to Antoycus.[/b].
"In like manner also the tree days which were before the luminaries are types of the Trinity, of God and His Word, and His Wisdom.'
"The use of the word "Trinity" here implies that it had already become a familiar term, and was accepted at its face value without the addition of all the technical language which later was brought in to attempt to explain it." - Bill Freeman
It further states that “church fathers crystallized the doctrine in succeeding centuries”—long after the apostles had passed from the scene.'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is what I basically said above. But that one God with a Name - Father - Son - Holy Spirit is a mysterious three - one God is evidenced in the Greek NT text of Matthew.
" Go therefore and disciple all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.
And behold, I am with you all the days until the consummation of the age." (Matt. 28:19,20)
Matthew did not write "names" [plural] but "into the name". That is ONE name. And that name is Father - Son - Holy Spirit.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Seems to this atheist that Trinitarians are searching for something in the bible that isn't there in its teachings, and is simply a later construct, - If God truly was 3 persons, why would the biblical message be so vague about this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When you received Jesus Christ as Lord you have must less bafflement that the Son is God, the Spirit is God, and the Father is God. The Trinity is for man's experience. The Trinity is not mainly that men may have a mental doctrine to debate about.
Athiest, should first believe that God is. For you have to believe that God is to come forward to God. Next they should see that the barrier between God as an experiential Person and themselves is the problem of their sins. When we confess Jesus as Lord, without knowing that much theology, the obstacle of our sins is removed. The forgiveness of sins comes with Jesus. And justification in Jesus then causes God in His mysterious nature to become experiential and enjoyable to man quite subjectively and corporately, and truly.
Isaiah 9:6 is a prophecy long before the church age. And the prophet in has two lines there.
1.) The child born is called Mighty God.
2.) The Son given is called Eternal Father.
Isaiah 9:6,7 -
"For a child is born to us,
A son is given to us;
And the government is upon His shoulder;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
To the increase of His government And to His peace there is no end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom to establish it and to uphold it
In justice and righteousness from now to eternity, The zeal of Jehovah of hosts will accomplish this."
So the FACT of the Wonderful three-one God is very much seen in Scripture before the church fathers coined the term "Trinity".
Originally posted by robbie carrobieApparently, you're the people who don't quite grok what an accurate translation looks like.
you don't know the first thing about accurate translation, this we have established many times.
At least my dogma comes from my Bible. So where does yours come from, coming, as it did, long before you created your Bible? And why does your translation, which came after your dogma was established, happen to mimic your already-made dogma precisely? Any thinking person can only assume that the translation was made to echo the dogma, regardless of any actual "translating" going on. So much for "accuracy". You folks have your cart before the horse, and that is why everyone rightly assumes that your translation is simply made up to fit your dogma. You have it precisely backwards. People scorn you because they can see you're busted. There's no "there" there.