23 Dec 09
2 edits
Originally posted by black beetle=============================
You claim repeatedly that the Christian Trinity is a “divine mystery”, so I am free to conclude that one cannot neither prove logically the existence of this mystery nor justify logically this metaphysic belief of that religious doctrine, for regarding this matter the science is useless and at the same time nothing in reality backs up your explanations. w due to different hermeneutics -hermeneutics that they are at least as …logical as yours
😵
OK, your conclusion is that "God came on a round trip".
====================================
That's Right !
What we have to realize is that God did not simply bring God into A man. He brought God into MAN.
We have to see that in the resurrection of Jesus Christ God not only brought A man into God. He exalted MAN into God.
On as smoggy day in California you cannot see to far. But if the air clears you can see not only the hills in the distance but mountains beyond them.
We need to see what Paul say. We need to have our spiritual eyes enlightend.
By round trip I mean that The God man, Jesus Christ , the object of the Christian worship came to produce many sons of God.
"For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and through whom are all things in leading many sons into glory, to make the Author of their salvation perfect through suffering." (Hebrews 2:10)
We should not be superfiscial about a passage like this. It does not mean Jesus is leading many sons into heaven. It means He is leading many sons of God into the glorious corporate expression of the Divine Being. Glory is God espressed. God's eternal purpose is to be expressed from within man.
Jesus came on a round trip not a one way trip. He came to bring back to with Him many sons to collectively express the mingling of God and man.
Here again:
"Because those whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the Firstborn among many brothers;
And those whom He predestinated, these He also called; and those whom He called, these He also justified; and those whom He justified, these He also glorified." (Rom. 8:29,30)
God became man so that man might become God, in life and nature, not in His Godhead, but in His life and nature. He created the universe as a stage in which the uncreated and eternal Divine Life of Himswelf could be dispensed into His creature man.
This total mingling of God and man is symbolically depicted in the end of the Bible in a city called New Jerusalem in Revelation 21 and 22. That is a sign of millions, probably billions of people mingled God to be a corporated expression of the incorporation of divinity in humanity.
This is why we were created - for the New Jerusalem. This is not elite knowledge. This is the revelation of the Bible for all mankind to see.
23 Dec 09
Originally posted by jaywillI never asked you to back down your beliefs. I honor your beliefs although we disagree. I spent my time debating with you in order to make clearer my view regarding the Christian Trinity just as you made your view clearer to me.
[b]===============================
You claim repeatedly that the Christian Trinity is a “divine mystery”, so I am free to conclude that one cannot neither prove logically the existence of this mystery nor justify logically this metaphysic belief of that religious doctrine, for regarding this matter the science is useless and at the same time nothing in ...[text shortened]... nd grant to you the gift of eternal life - a life to be enjoyed now and through eternity.
Prideful security is alien to me; I am ignorant; I only know myself and my self lacks of inherent being; what already exists does not arise; whatever does not exist does not arise; sinse existence and nonexistence do not arise together there is no arising and so there is no cessation; when the wave passes the Ocean remains; I inhale negativity and I exhale love; the Ocean is filled with afflictions but my mind is not moved even by thoughts of the void; this aletheia of mine lacks of inherent being;
I thank you for your honesty. I thank you for spending your sweet time and for sharing your thoughts with me.
Namaste
😵
23 Dec 09
Originally posted by black beetleYou're welcome. And I apologize for being sarcastic before.
I never asked you to back down your beliefs. I honor your beliefs although we disagree. I spent my time debating with you in order to make clearer my view regarding the Christian Trinity just as you made your view clearer to me.
Prideful security is alien to me; I am ignorant; I only know myself and my self lacks of inherent being; what already exist ...[text shortened]... ty. I thank you for spending your sweet time and for sharing your thoughts with me.
Namaste
😵
Do not let the simplicity of talking to God as a Person allude you.
"I love Jehovah because He hears My voice, my supplications, because He inclindes His ear to me ..." (Psalm 116:1)
You are very educated and a deep thinking intellect. God made you that way. There is nothing wrong with that.
But I beg you not to let the simplicity of speaking to God to let Him hear your voice and your supplication allude you for that sake of Plato, Socrates, and profound Eastern sanskrit.
23 Dec 09
Originally posted by jaywillNo reason to be sorry!
You're welcome. And I apologize for being sarcastic before.
Do not let the [b]simplicity of talking to God as a Person allude you.
"I love Jehovah because He hears My voice, my supplications, because He inclindes His ear to me ..." (Psalm 116:1)
You are very educated and a deep thinking intellect. God made you that way. There is not ...[text shortened]... your supplication allude you for that sake of Plato, Socrates, and profound Eastern sanskrit.[/b]
I know you fight for your God; I know that you are aware of the fact that your God transcends the Human thought; I am neither better nor worse nor more smart nor more fool than you; our paths are different on the same Mountain and at a given time we will all fall headfirst to a condition open to every seemingly and unseemingly possible and impossible outcome; following your intuition and your spirit in full awareness every second reveals your aletheia, and your aletheia is respectful.
Hopefully we will share more views in the future, Child of a noble family Jaywill. Be always well.
Namaste
😵
23 Dec 09
2 edits
Originally posted by galveston75======================================
Ex 33:20. " No man may see God and live!!!" How could God be Jesus on earth but man lived when seeing Jesus?
Ex 33:20. " No man may see God and live!!!" How could God be Jesus on earth but man lived when seeing Jesus?
========================================
You have to read the whole Bible galveston.
Didn't Jacob say that God Almighty appeared to him at Luz?
" And Jacob said to Joseph, The All sufficient God [Heb El Shaddai] appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan and blessed me. And He said to me, Behold, I am going to make you fruitful and multiply you ..." (Genesis 48:3,4)
So what are you going to do? Are you going to get a pair of scissors and cut Genesis 48:3,4 out of your Bible because Exodus 33:20 says no man may see God and live?
The 1901 American Standard reads - "And Jacob said unto Joseph, God Almighty appeared to me at Luz ..."
Did Jacob live ? He not only lived but received a blessing.
So I take all that the Bible says and not just the theology of some teachers pushing a view in a biased way.
23 Dec 09
Originally posted by jaywillThen if you believe all the Bible, you explain to me why there is this seeming contradiction. ""No man can see God and live"" It would seem one scripture says humans can see him but this says they can't. Go for it...
[b]======================================
Ex 33:20. " No man may see God and live!!!" How could God be Jesus on earth but man lived when seeing Jesus?
========================================
You have to read the whole Bible galveston.
Didn't Jacob say that God Almighty appeared to him at Luz?
" And Jacob said to Joseph, T ...[text shortened]... the Bible says and not just the theology of some teachers pushing a view in a biased way.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
23 Dec 09
An interesting discussion of Col 1:15 from a Catholic perspective:
Q:“
The Jehovah's Witnesses have stumped me again. In discussing the divinity of Christ they brought up the scriptural verse which says "He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation (Col 1:15)." They say this proves that Jesus was the first created being and therefore cannot be God. What should my response be?
”
A:
This is a common argument used by Jehovah's Witnesses and typical of their methodology. As usual they have taken a phrase out of its context in an attempt to prove their misguided theology.
The heart of the question is whether the term "first-born" implies that Jesus was included in or a part of creation and therefore a creature and not divine. Taken out of context it seems to imply that but read the verse before and the verses after to get the real picture.
The context (verse 15-20) makes it clear that Jesus is the agent of creation, which places him above it: "For in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities -- all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (Col 1:16-17)."
If "in him all things were created," and "all things were created through him," and "He is before all things" then Christ cannot possible be a thing, a creature.
The word "first-born" does not necessarily mean the first element inclusive in a series. In Scripture it frequently means "pre-eminent" or "supreme" rather than the temporal sense of "born before." The Psalms refer to David as "the first-born, the highest of the kings of the earth (Ps 89:27)." But we know that David wasn't the first king on earth. He wasn't even the first king of Israel. But in God's estimation he is the pre-eminent earthly king: Jesus is frequently called "Son of David."
There is however, a proper sense in which Christ is a part of creation. The eternal Word became incarnate, took on a human nature along with his divine nature in order to redeem humanity's fallen nature.
We would suggest you discuss the first chapter of the Letter to the Hebrews with your Jehovah's Witnesses friends when debating Christ's divinity. While they believe Christ to be an angel, in Hebrews we find:
For to what angel did God ever say, "Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee"? Or again, "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son"? And again, when he brings the first-born into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him." Of the angels he says, "Who makes his angels winds, and his servants flames of fire." But of the Son he says, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, the righteous scepter is the scepter of thy kingdom."
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/Jehovahs%20Witness/page2
24 Dec 09
Originally posted by black beetleYou know what's even more ironic? This post of yours holds more content than your usual blather.
Since when a Chosen of your caliber is ensured that free thinking became again the synonym of arrogance?
Save kisses to your beloved Cotton Mather -how many stones were used back then for Giles Cory’s peine forte et dure?
😵
Who would have thunk?
24 Dec 09
Originally posted by black beetleAre you channeling Yoda now?
No reason to be sorry!
I know you fight for your God; I know that you are aware of the fact that your God transcends the Human thought; I am neither better nor worse nor more smart nor more fool than you; our paths are different on the same Mountain and at a given time we will all fall headfirst to a condition open to every seemingly and unseemingly ...[text shortened]... share more views in the future, Child of a noble family Jaywill. Be always well.
Namaste
😵
First you contend that there is no truth; then you assert that Christianity doesn't offer truth; now you're affirming that we're all on the same mountain of eventual truth.
How in God's name do you ever order a pizza?
24 Dec 09
3 edits
Originally posted by Conrau Ktherefore a creature and not divine.
An interesting discussion of Col 1:15 from a Catholic perspective:
Q:“
The Jehovah's Witnesses have stumped me again. In discussing the divinity of Christ they brought up the scriptural verse which says "He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation (Col 1:15)." They say this proves that Jesus was the first created being and the srock/quickquestions/keyword/Jehovahs%20Witness/page2
this is not strictly true Conrau, for we hold that Christ is a divine being, yet a created one. as were for example the angels, divine, yet created. that is why, he carries the title of the 'only begotten son', for we hold, that he was the only being directly created by God, all other things being created for him and through him. He to us is the master worker of proverbs chapter eight. thus to state that we do not hold him as divine, is not strictly true.
Q - Does the Bible teach that all who are said to be part of the Trinity are eternal, none having a beginning?
Col. 1:15, 16, RS: “He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth.”
In what sense is Jesus Christ “the first-born of all creation”?
(1) Trinitarians say that “first-born” here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; thus Christ would be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created. If that is so, and if the Trinity doctrine is true, why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all creation? But the Bible applies this expression only to the Son. According to the customary meaning of “firstborn,” it indicates that Jesus is the eldest in Jehovah’s family of sons.
(2) Before Colossians 1:15, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals. What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof?
(3) Does Colossians 1:16, 17 (RS) exclude Jesus from having been created, when it says “in him all things were created . . . all things were created through him and for him”? The Greek word here rendered “all things” is panta, an inflected form of pas. At Luke 13:2, RS renders this “all . . . other”; JB reads “any other”; NE says “anyone else.” (See also Luke 21:29 in NE and Philippians 2:21 in JB.) In harmony with everything else that the Bible says regarding the Son, NW assigns the same meaning to panta at Colossians 1:16, 17 so that it reads, in part, “by means of him all other things were created . . . All other things have been created through him and for him.” Thus he is shown to be a created being, part of the creation produced by God.
Rev. 1:1; 3:14, RS: “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him . . . ‘And to the angel of the church in La-odicea write: “The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning [Greek, ar·khe;] of God’s creation.”’” (KJ, Dy, CC, and NW, as well as others, read similarly.) Is that rendering correct? Some take the view that what is meant is that the Son was ‘the beginner of God’s creation,’ that he was its ‘ultimate source.’ But Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon lists “beginning” as its first meaning of ar·khe;. (Oxford, 1968, p. 252) The logical conclusion is that the one being quoted at Revelation 3:14 is a creation, the first of God’s creations, that he had a beginning. Compare Proverbs 8:22, where, as many Bible commentators agree, the Son is referred to as wisdom personified. According to RS, NE, and JB, the one there speaking is said to be “created.&rdquo😉
Prophetically, with reference to the Messiah, Micah 5:2 (KJ) says his “goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” Dy reads: “his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity.” Does that make him the same as God? It is noteworthy that, instead of saying “days of eternity,” RS renders the Hebrew as “ancient days”; JB, “days of old”; NW, “days of time indefinite.” Viewed in the light of Revelation 3:14, discussed above, Micah 5:2 does not prove that Jesus was without a beginning.
abbreviations
RS Revised Standard Version
Kj King James Version
Dy Challoner-Douay Version
CC The New Testament, Confraternity of Christian Doctrine Revision
JB The Jerusalem Bible, Alexander Jones, general editor
NE The New English Bible
NW New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
24 Dec 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYour six can't grasp it😵
Are you channeling Yoda now?
First you contend that there is no truth; then you assert that Christianity doesn't offer truth; now you're affirming that we're all on the same mountain of eventual truth.
How in God's name do you ever order a pizza?
24 Dec 09
3 edits
Originally posted by galveston75No,no, no, no. Not this time. You don't challenge me this time.
Then if you believe all the Bible, you explain to me why there is this seeming contradiction. ""No man can see God and live"" It would seem one scripture says humans can see him but this says they can't. Go for it...
This time I challenge YOU.
Now which one is true Exodus 33:20 or Genesis 48:3,4 ?.
If you put the question to me I say that they are both the word of God and they are both true.
I choose to trust both passages as the true word of God. My Father who spoke them BOTH, I explicitly trust to tell me the truth. It is the way of greatest blessing.
24 Dec 09
Originally posted by jaywillI take that as you can't answer it. So I will for you.
No,no, no, no. Not this time. You don't challenge me this time.
This time I challenge YOU.
Now which one is true [b]Exodus 33:20 or Genesis 48:3,4 ?.
If you put the question to me I say that they are both the word of God and they are both true.
I choose to trust both passages as the true word of God. My Father who spoke them BOTH, I explicitly trust to tell me the truth. It is the way of greatest blessing.[/b]
John 1:18 confirms that no man has seen God at anytime as does the original scripture at Exodus.
So for this scripture at Genesis and John to not contradict the rest of the Bible, it must refer to something else such as a vision or the use of an angel to speak to Joseph for God . If you go on to verses 15,16 you will see that an angel was in contact with Joseph during this time.
I could bring up more experiances that ones talked to God and he talked to them by use of Angels but I don't think it will do any good.
24 Dec 09
Originally posted by galveston75no he cannot answer it, never has been able to answer it, nor ever will be able to answer it, the trinity is to be experienced not comprehended or understood! in other words its based on emotionalism and is the reason you cannot get a reasonable answer my friend!
I take that as you can't answer it. So I will for you.
John 1:18 confirms that no man has seen God at anytime as does the original scripture at Exodus.
So for this scripture at Genesis and John to not contradict the rest of the Bible, it must refer to something else such as a vision or the use of an angel to speak to Joseph for God . If you go on t ...[text shortened]... es talked to God and he talked to them by use of Angels but I don't think it will do any good.