Originally posted by robbie carrobieUnfortunently I see a theme here with trinitarians and evolutionist. They strongly believe these things but neither have any proof that these things exist. And when you really pin them down to prove either, you start to get explinations that make no sence and finally they revert back to the expliantion that it's not explainable but we just have to believe and accept it as fact. And then usually after they run out of theories they start to attack us verbaly.
no 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!
The Bible says that "accurate knowledge" is what God accepts not just knowledge as even athiest have knowledge of the Bible. But it has to go beyond just the basics of the Bible. It has to be the truth in the Bible....
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by galveston75It doesn't say that at all.
Matt 12:31,32. Mark 3: 28-30.
How do trinitarians explain these scriptures? It would seem like a conflict of interests if Jehovah and Jesus forgives sins but the Holy Spirit doesn't. How do they work with that issue?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethis 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.
therefore a creature and not divine.
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 ...[text shortened]... es, general editor
NE The New English Bible
NW New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
Remember that this is a Catholic apologetic site. Terminology will differ. By 'divine', a Catholic means 'omnipotent, omniscient, uncreated, infinite, perfect and blessed', the properties of a divine being.
(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.
Firstly, Trinitarians do not necessarily say that 'first-born' means 'most excellent.' As a Trinitarian, professing the Nicene Creede I believe in Christ 'begotten of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, of one being with the Father, through Him all things were made.' However, while being the first-born, he is the only begotten. Secondly, the author of this article does supply one example where first-born means something like 'most excellent': Psalms 89:28: 'I myself make him firstborn, Most High over the kings of the earth.'
(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.
I do not think that translation is justified. In the other examples you give, 'pan' co-occurs with an article and except for Phil 2:21 modifies another noun. In Col: 1:15, however, panta occurs alone. In this context, it really does mean 'everything'.
I quote conrau,
The word "first-born" does not necessarily mean the first element inclusive in a series. In Scripture it frequently means "pre-eminent" or "supreme" , evidently in this instance it is being touted as prime most supreme, is it not? Cmon my learned friend, lets be honest here.
secondly the reference and the reasoning that was cited from the psalms must be the weakest that i have heard, and i mean that with all due respect. first the citation cannot be talking about David, for he was the youngest of Jesse's sons. secondly although i have not researched it, on the surface it appears to be a messianic utterance with reference to Christ, rather than David, although i have as yet not given it much thought, which naturally does not contradict our understanding, for Christ is excellent, he just also happens to be a created entity. David was never the most high over Kings of the earth.
the translation is justified, the reasons for doing so were given. again i could research other translations where this has also occurred.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe word "first-born" does not necessarily mean the first element inclusive in a series. In Scripture it frequently means "pre-eminent" or "supreme" , evidently in this instance it is being touted as prime most supreme, is it not? Cmon my learned friend, lets be honest here.
I quote conrau,
The word "first-born" does not necessarily mean the first element inclusive in a series. In Scripture it frequently means "pre-eminent" or "supreme" , evidently in this instance it is being touted as prime most supreme, is it not? Cmon my learned friend, lets be honest here.
secondly the reference and the reasoning that was ci ...[text shortened]... g so were given. again i could research other translations where this has also occurred.
Honestly, was David the firstborn?
secondly the reference and the reasoning that was cited from the psalms must be the weakest that i have heard, and i mean that with all due respect. first the citation cannot be talking about David, for he was the youngest of Jesse's sons. secondly although i have not researched it, on the surface it appears to be a messianic utterance with reference to Christ, rather than David, although i have as yet not given it much thought, which naturally does not contradict our understanding, for Christ is excellent, he just also happens to be a created entity. David was never the most high over Kings of the earth.
Obviously you have missed the point. David is the youngest of Jesse's sons which is why God says 'I make him firstborn'. Clearly we have to understand 'firstborn' in this example to mean 'supreme' or 'eminent' because a person cannot be made firstborn; they must be born that way.
If you read the context, it is clearly God referring to David:
I have chosen David, my servant; with my holy oil I have anointed him.
22
My hand will be with him; my arm will make him strong.
23
No enemy shall outwit him, nor shall the wicked defeat him.
24
I will crush his foes before him, strike down those who hate him.
25
My loyalty and love will be with him; through my name his horn will be exalted.
26
7 I will set his hand upon the sea, his right hand upon the rivers.
27
He shall cry to me,'You are my father, my God, the Rock that brings me victory!'
28
8 I myself make him firstborn, Most High over the kings of the earth.
29
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/psalms/psalm89.htm
Originally posted by galveston75=================================
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.
I take that as you can't answer it. So I will for you.
==================================
Your challenge is "You cannot logically reconcile this contradiction".
Well, maybe I can. Maybe I cannot. But that is a secondary point. The major point with me is that God Has Spoken Both.
1.) No man has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son has declared Him - that is the Apostle John.
2.) God Almighty appeared to Jacob at Luz. That is the prophet Jacob.
Both are the word of God.
3.) And let me not forget that no man can see God and live - in Exodus.
What seems uppermost in your attitude is human logic.
What is uppermost in my mind is WHAT did God tell us.
I can reconcile the two passages. I believe that I can present a satisfactory reconciliation. But if I COULD NOT .... I would not say one of the passages is not the truth.
Paul told Timothy "Consider what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in all things." (2 Tim. 2:7)
I leave room for the understanding that comes from the Lord with greater spiritual growth. I do not exploit difficult passages to reconcile as a boast that there are no mysteries in the Bible and that others have to rely on my theology.
Jacob said that "God Almighty appeared" to him. I am not going to change it into "God Almighty did [NOT] appear" unto him because of another passage in Exodus or John.
So I think I can reconcile them and even John's bold passage that no one has EVER seen God, but the Son has declared Him.
However, my point stands that the true lover of the Scripture should trust God in WHATEVER He has told us, even if understanding is to come down the road with more spiritual maturity.
Originally posted by Conrau KQuite helpful. Thankyou.
[b]The word "first-born" does not necessarily mean the first element inclusive in a series. In Scripture it frequently means "pre-eminent" or "supreme" , evidently in this instance it is being touted as prime most supreme, is it not? Cmon my learned friend, lets be honest here.
Honestly, was David the firstborn?
secondly the reference and the ...[text shortened]... kings of the earth.
29
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/psalms/psalm89.htm
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
Originally posted by jaywillWrong. I can think of at least 3 men and one woman that has seen God.
...
1.) No man has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son has declared Him - that is the Apostle John.
....
Nice try. The rest of what you purport is just as errant.
Originally posted by BadwaterBadwater,
Wrong. I can think of at least 3 men and one woman that has seen God.
Nice try. The rest of what you purport is just as errant.
There is no use telling me that it was a nice try. It wasn't MY try. It is what the Bible said.
You don't think I can't point to people in the Bible who had a vision of God ??
I already told you what Jacob said in Genesis 48.
Look fellas, my main point is that I find the greatest blessing in trusting that God has spoken to me in the word of God even if there seems some parodoxes and contradictions.
I don't trust any kind of human pride that teaches "You have to come to us boy because there is no mystery to us. We have solved all the mysteries and you just say "mystery" cause you're not so smart and knowledgeable as us."
I like the contradictions in the Bible.
Now I'll come back to John's bold sentence. He says NO ONE has seen God at anytime. The onlybegotten Son Who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.
First of all I am positive that John knew the Hebrew Bible. Of course he must have known that God Almighty appeared to Jacob at Luz according to Genesis 48.
What John is saying in paraphrase is this:
"All those appearances of God in the Bible have been superceded now. They are all rendered not really seeing God. In fact they are so superceded by the incarnation of God in the man Jesus that no appearance of God in the Hebrew Bible qualifies. Nothing come up to the level of this most profound manifestation of God.
The Son, Jesus Christ has declared God. The man Jesus Christ has explained God, manifested God, and made God visible to man. This is the true SEEING of God in the life of Jesus. Here is the eternal life of the Divine God declared, explained, manifested, and testified to in the life of Jesus.
No man has seen God ever, at any time. Forget about what Jacob or Moses saw. Forget about what Abraham or Isaiah saw. This is how God ultimately wants to be seen - as united and blended with the man Jesus Christ.
He is the explaination of God."
So I can joyfully believe Genesis, Exodus, and the Gospel of John.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by BadwaterThe verses simply say that whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven. It does not say that the Son forgives but the Holy Spirit cannot (although I would actually agree with that statement.) Presumably neither the Father nor the Son nor the Holy Spirit can forgive this sin.
Explain what your understanding of these verses are, then.
Q: Why does Jehovah refer to “David my servant” as firstborn, when David was not a firstborn son?
A: In Psalm 89 Jehovah refers to “David my servant” and reviews the covenant for the kingdom that was made with him. In the midst of this is the statement: “I myself shall place him as firstborn, the most high of the kings of the earth.” (Ps 89:20, 27) David was not a firstborn son. (1Ch 2:13-15) So it seems that Jehovah was referring prophetically to the one foreshadowed by David, God’s own “firstborn” Son in heaven upon whom He confers kingship more exalted than that of any human ruler.
—Compare Eze 34:24, where Messiah is spoken of as “my servant David.”
Jesus Christ is shown to be “the firstborn of all creation” as well as “the firstborn from the dead”—not merely most distinguished in relation to those created or those resurrected but the first one actually created and the first raised from the dead to endless life. (Col 1:15, 18; Re 1:5; 3:14) On earth he was the firstborn child of Mary and was presented at the temple in accordance with Jehovah’s law. (Lu 2:7, 22, 23) The apostle Paul speaks of the followers of Jesus Christ who have been enrolled in the heavens as “the congregation of the firstborn,” the first ones accepted by God as sons on the basis of their faith in Jesus’ sacrifice and the first of Christ’s followers to be resurrected with no need to die again.—Heb 12:23.