14 Dec 09
Originally posted by jaywillI agree with J-will on this. You just need Jesus 🙂 We can argue & fight but you will never fully get the trinity anyway but that does not excuse us from what is written. Dude people can laugh but Jesus loves us more than we can comprehend. He stands at the door and knocks. He wants to fellowship or as I like to put it in certain way kick it with you! LOL He will be with you forever. I think I get so heated because I see the Majesty of Christ in the scriptures is all.
[b]==============================
Well I think your wrong on this as both Col 1:15 and Rev 3:14 are both very clear where it says he, Jesus, was the "Firstborn" of all creation. I know you guys sideskirt this all the time and I'm sure you will here too but this only means one thing and one thing only. Jesus was the first thing that God brought forth o ...[text shortened]... doctrinal answers. You need your heart softened to love the One who died for you.
Manny
14 Dec 09
Originally posted by menace71the concept is not inferred, it is an entirely pagan concept borrowed from the Greeks, not mentioned by Christ, nor Paul, nor any of Gods worshippers in the entire biblical cannon. There are Egyptian trinities, Hindu trinities, Babylonian trinities, and yes Pagan/christian trinity. It really annoys me this aspect, when persons knowlingly stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that the trinity is pre Christian and borrowed from polytheistic Greeks during the Hellenistic period. God is one, almighty and above every other personage in the universe, including Jesus Christ!
Actually G-75 I agree the word trinity is not used in the bible. The concept is inferred. It's like 1+1 will = what? 1+1=2 inferred. You are right the Jews did not believe in a trinity either. You see however the pluralistic nature of God even in the old testament. He is one God but for example in Genesis Let Us? and Our? I read somewhere that it's calle ...[text shortened]... and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
Manny
14 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by menace71Jaywill is talking nonsense , in every instance up until the use of the term 'firstborn', it is with reference to progeny , as the first born of a family, the first born of Pharaoh, the first born of Ruben etc etc you people try to justify and twist scripture, ignoring this fact because you have come to scripture with preconceived dogma, and thus are completely reprehensible. And now look, it suddenly changes to mean something else at colossians 1:15, i really dont think so. Yes we shall never get it, for its not in the Bible, never has been and never will be!
I agree with J-will on this. You just need Jesus 🙂 We can argue & fight but you will never fully get the trinity anyway but that does not excuse us from what is written. Dude people can laugh but Jesus loves us more than we can comprehend. He stands at the door and knocks. He wants to fellowship or as I like to put it in certain way kick it with you! LOL H ...[text shortened]... nk I get so heated because I see the Majesty of Christ in the scriptures is all.
Manny
14 Dec 09
By the way R.C. I did not go there in this forum G-75 opened up this Pandora's box so to speak. I've intentionally tried to stay away. You guys should know this will happen.
I admitted I think there is some room for debate about the nature of God but I think we agree more on most subjects than not. We believe in a sovereign supreme God who rules the universe. What more can I say.
I apologize for trying to egg you guys on I was merely reacting to G-75's post here.
I knew it was coming when I say the title though.
Manny
14 Dec 09
Originally posted by menace71Actually Manny i knew that you post was a reactionary response to Galvos post, but no need to apologise for i know you really dont believe it anyway 😉
By the way R.C. I did not go there in this forum G-75 opened up this Pandora's box so to speak. I've intentionally tried to stay away. You guys should know this will happen.
I admitted I think there is some room for debate about the nature of God but I think we agree more on most subjects than not. We believe in a sovereign supreme God who rules the unive ...[text shortened]... reacting to G-75's post here.
I knew it was coming when I say the title though.
Manny
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
14 Dec 09
2 edits
Originally posted by galveston75Well I think your wrong on this as both Col 1:15 and Rev 3:14 are both very clear where it says he, Jesus, was the "Firstborn" of all creation. I know you guys sideskirt this all the time and I'm sure you will here too but this only means one thing and one thing only. Jesus was the first thing that God brought forth or created. And this was before anything else was ever created.
Well I think your wrong on this as both Col 1:15 and Rev 3:14 are both very clear where it says he, Jesus, was the "Firstborn" of all creation. I know you guys sideskirt this all the time and I'm sure you will here too but this only means one thing and one thing only. Jesus was the first thing that God brought forth or created. And this was before anythi it or not.
Firstborn means Firstborn.... He is not and has never been Almighty God himself.
No one is going to 'sideskirt' it. The Nicene creed, which you derided earlier, explicitly acknowledges this: 'We believe in Jesus Christ the only son of God, begotten not made of one being with the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God'. In Nicene creed embraces Col 1:15 as proof that the Father and Son are not the same person. The Son is only born from the Father. However, in acknowledging this, they also affirm the divinity of Jesus Christ. The Son is begotten from the Father and the Son is God too. The explanation of this is as follows: God's nature is perfect, omnipotent and omniscient; anything that is begotten of something must have a similar nature (i.e. a human conceives a human); ergo, Jesus Christ begotten of the Father must have those same properties of perfection; ergo, Jesus Christ is God.
14 Dec 09
6 edits
I have been through this before.
Firstborn in Revelation is the Firstborn of the new creation, the creation that issues from resurrection:
" And He is the Head of the Body, the church; He is THE BEGINNING, the Firstborn from the dead ..." (Col. 1:18)
The Firstborn of from the dead - the BEGINNING. Resurrection - the beginning of the creation of God.
This Firstborn is distinct from the Firstborn in 15 - "Who is the image of the invisible God, the Firstborn of all creation.".
Christ is the Firstborn of the old creation.
Christ is the Firstborn of the new creation in resurrection - the beginning as the Head of the church.
In both the old creation and in the new creation He has the first place in all things. In either realm, in both realms He is has the First place.
JWs never talk about Jesus the Firstborn of resurrection as the beginning of the creation which is initiated by resurrection. All they want to talk about is Christ being the first creature God created. That is the only Firstborn that they know about.
Yet Col. 1:15 does not say Christ is the first creature created by God. As God incarnate in flesh, as a man, man - a creation of God (Gen. 1:26,27) Christ is preeminent, the top, the most exalted and important because God joined Himself to His creation in incarnation. The Firstborn of all creation.
But where is the love for Christ in Galveston's theology. These JWs are totally obsessed with taking their broom and sweeping Christ into a corner.
He died for them. But there is only a cold heart in them towards Christ. Paul said Christ loved him. And Paul ended Ephesians by writing:
"Grace be with all those who love our Lord Jesus Christ in incorruptibility" (Eph. 6:24)
"WHO LOVE OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST IN INCORRUPTIBILITY."
Where is the LOVE for Jesus Christ in these Jehovah's Witnesses? Where is their love for our Lord Jesus Christ?
There is only a ice cold doctrinal heart putting down Christ, making Him an angel, a temporary king. It is rebellion. It is even rebellion against Jehovah.
14 Dec 09
Originally posted by menace71=====================================
I agree with J-will on this. You just need Jesus 🙂 We can argue & fight but you will never fully get the trinity anyway but that does not excuse us from what is written. Dude people can laugh but Jesus loves us more than we can comprehend. He stands at the door and knocks. He wants to fellowship or as I like to put it in certain way kick it with you! LOL H ...[text shortened]... nk I get so heated because I see the Majesty of Christ in the scriptures is all.
Manny
I agree with J-will on this. You just need Jesus We can argue & fight but you will never fully get the trinity anyway but that does not excuse us from what is written. Dude people can laugh but Jesus loves us more than we can comprehend. He stands at the door and knocks. He wants to fellowship or as I like to put it in certain way kick it with you! LOL He will be with you forever. I think I get so heated because I see the Majesty of Christ in the scriptures is all.
==========================================
Manny, do you know what there is no love from these men ? Do you know why there is no love for our Lord Jesus Christ in these Jehovah's Witnesses?
I'll tell you exactly why. It is because they have never tasted forgiveness. He who is forgiven much loves much.
They have not believed into Christ. Therefore they have not tasted the forgiveness. So they have not experienced that redeeming love of Christ in the removal of the stain of their sins.
If they sensed the forgiveness of the Savior God in reality they would love Christ the Savior.
Doctrinally they have a lot, a lot, a lot to teach about Trinity and Jesus and Michael. But they have not tasted redemption. They have not tasted the real forgiveness that the Holy Spirit imparts to those who receive Christ.
I would welcome to be proven wrong. But I have not seen any love for the Savior Jesus.
Maybe if they truly experienced forgiveness in Christ they would have love for Christ.
14 Dec 09
the holy spirit ( or ghost ) is not a third person but rather a power emanting from god in the same way that a wave sloshes onto the beach from ocean ( god ).
their is either only one god ( with the christ as a material manifestation with limited abiltie in the material domain ) or two gods, a god and a first created sub-being known as the christ.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
14 Dec 09
Originally posted by reinfeldthe holy spirit ( or ghost ) is not a third person but rather a power emanting from god in the same way that a wave sloshes onto the beach from ocean ( god ).
the holy spirit ( or ghost ) is not a third person but rather a power emanting from god in the same way that a wave sloshes onto the beach from ocean ( god ).
their is either only one god ( with the christ as a material manifestation with limited abiltie in the material domain ) or two gods, a god and a first created sub-being known as the christ.
This is the heresy of modalism which posits that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are just modes of God, ways of expressing and revealing Himself, otherwise known as Sabellianism. The Nicene Council rejects this definitively.
their is either only one god ( with the christ as a material manifestation with limited abiltie in the material domain ) or two gods, a god and a first created sub-being known as the christ.
The ecumenical councils explicitly repudiated this dichotomy -- both are wrong. The first would be modalism, the second would be Arianism. The early Church taught that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are separate persons (thus rejecting the idea that each is 'manifestation of God'😉 but at the same time taught that they are one in being (thus rejecting the second idea that one is a sub-being to the other.)
14 Dec 09
3 edits
Originally posted by reinfeld=====================================
the holy spirit ( or ghost ) is not a third person but rather a power emanting from god in the same way that a wave sloshes onto the beach from ocean ( god ).
their is either only one god ( with the christ as a material manifestation with limited abiltie in the material domain ) or two gods, a god and a first created sub-being known as the christ.
the holy spirit ( or ghost ) is not a third person but rather a power emanting from god in the same way that a wave sloshes onto the beach from ocean ( god ).
========================================
The Holy Spirit is God, is the Father, and is the Son in a form that the Person may dwell in the believers.
So the Holy Spirit may have power for this and that, the New Testament speaks of Him as Christ in His pneumatic form:
"And the Lord is the Spirit ..." (2 Cor. 3:17)
The Lord is the Spirit. Who is the Lord there?
"For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord ..." (4:5)
Did you see that? Christ Jesus as LORD. Okay? The Lord in Second Corinthians is Christ Jesus. Am I right ?
"Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." (1:2)
Now in chapter 3 we are told - "And the Lord is the Spirit" (v.17)
The Lord Jesus Christ, Christ Jesus the Lord is the Spirit. That is what it teaches.
Who is the Spirit there in chapter 3? It is the Spirit that gives life, the Holy Spirit of the new covenant:
"How shall not the ministry of the Spirit not be in glory?" (v.8) The new covenant is the new testament ministry of the Spirit.
"The letter kills but the Spirit gives life" (v.6)
This Holy Spirit imparts divine and eternal life into those who receive Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Spirit. The Spirit is the Lord Jesus Christ in a form in which He may enter into man and impart life.
Christ became a life giving Spirit - "the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)
That is the same "Spirit that gives life". That Spirit that is the life giving Spirit is the Lord Jesus Christ.
Do you see? Can you say the Lord is just a power ? The Lord is a Person. So the Spirit is also a Person.
"The Lord is the Spirit" because the Lord Jesus Christ as " the last Adam became a life giving Spirit." That is what the Bible says.
15 Dec 09
Originally posted by menace71Well, Jesus is never actually called Immanuel (or Emmanuel) in the Bible. The only reference to that name in the NT is Matthew’s re-worded quotation from Isaiah 7:14. In Isaiah, it is the child’s mother who will call him Immanuel; in Matthew it is an ambiguous “they” who will call him Immanuel.
Also the name to be given to Christ was Emanuel which means God with us. How about this? "Oh wait it means a lil baby god right?"
Manny
Since there is no evidence that anyone ever actually called Jesus Immanuel during his lifetime (and his parents named him—Jesus), maybe that is why Matthew had to re-word the prophecy in Isaiah. Nobody else in the NT refers to Jesus as Immanuel either. Of course, Matthew intended to apply this prophecy to Jesus (it came, according to Matthew, in a dream to Joseph)—and contemporary Jewish readers would likely have recognized his re-wording as a not unacceptable midrashic “spin”, whether they agreed or not about the messiahship of Jesus.
So, presumably, Christians eventually became the “they” who would subsequently call Jesus Immanuel. Whether or not this necessarily supports a Trinitarian view is another matter altogether (and one that I do not intend to engage).
15 Dec 09
Originally posted by jaywillAnswer the question unless you just can't explain it?
[b]==============================
Well I think your wrong on this as both Col 1:15 and Rev 3:14 are both very clear where it says he, Jesus, was the "Firstborn" of all creation. I know you guys sideskirt this all the time and I'm sure you will here too but this only means one thing and one thing only. Jesus was the first thing that God brought forth o ...[text shortened]... doctrinal answers. You need your heart softened to love the One who died for you.