AND FAILING TO DO SO!

Also above I saw calculations that are incorrect in terms of the Trinity. 1+1+1 does indeed = 3 but it is a mistake to use this in reference to the Trinity. Although three DISTINCT Personages God is ONE. You may want to use the 1x1x1=1 for better understanding on this point.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, discussions on the trinity are in a few threads, you just need to do a search for it and then continue with one of the threads already formed.

 

If Jesus is God why did he say:-

 

To whom was Jesus calling to at:-

Matthew 27:46

�About the ninth hour Jesus called out with a loud voice, saying: "E�li, E�li, la�ma sa�bach�tha�ni?" that is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"�

Which is literally rendered "this is the God of me, God of me."-'The NASB-NIV parallel N.T. in Gk. & Eng.' with Interlinear Translated by Alfred Marshall*

 

Who is Jesus referring to at:-

 

John 20:17

�Jesus said to her: �Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, �I am ascending to my Father (Literal Gk. �Father of me�^) and YOUR Father and to my God (Literal Gk. �God of me�^) and YOUR God.��

^'The NASB-NIV parallel N.T. in Gk. & Eng.' with Interlinear Translated by Alfred Marshall

 

�my  poss[essive]. pron[oun]. (attrib.) 1 of or belonging to me. 2 affectionate, patronizing, etc. form of address (my dear boy). 3 in expressions of surprise (my God!; oh my!). 4 colloq. indicating a close relative etc. of the speaker (my Johnny's ill again).  my Lady (or Lord) form of address to certain titled persons. [from *mine1] .�-Oxford Dictionary

 

�god  n[oun]. 1 a (in many religions) superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature, human fortunes, etc. b image, idol, etc., symbolizing a god. 2 (God) (in Christian and other monotheistic religions) creator and ruler of the universe. 3 adored or greatly admired person. � .�-Oxford Dictionary

 

Jesus must have been calling to the Almighty (the Father, his God, see John 20:17, �my God�, (Lit. Gk. "God of me" 'The NASB-NIV parallel N.T. in Gk. & Eng.' with Interliner Translated by Alfred Marshall) quoting from Ps 22:1 where King David was, showing that God is somone other than himself. No, Jesus cannot be Almighty God if he plainly says in the above texts that he himself has a God! 

We can also add to the above, the following words, where Jesus is speaking from an exulted heavenly postion:-

Revelation 3:12-13

"�The one that conquers�I* will make him a pillar in the temple of my God**, and he will by no means go out [from it] anymore, and I* will write upon him the name*** of my God** and the name of the city of my God**, the new Jerusalem which descends out of heaven from my God**, and that new name of mine.  Let the one who has an ear hear what the spirit says to the congregations.��

*Jesus Christ

**Which in litrealy rendered "the God of me."-'The NASB-NIV parallel N.T. in Gk. & Eng.' With Interliner Translated by Alfred Marshall
***Jehovah

 

So we can ask again, who is Jesus talking to or about, as it cannot be himself?

 

 I feel that robin is writing against Trinity and perhaps against divinity of Jesus. Does any one note it? Please let me know. Thanks.

 

 

The Trinity is not in the Bible, it is a pagan adoption by apostate christians!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10 And straightening up, Jesus said to her, �Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?� 11 And she said, �No one, Lord.� And Jesus said, �Neither do I condemn you; go your way. From now on sin no more.�

The authority to forgive sin is granted to no one but God.

 

 Again it is a derived meaning. Please note it. Even Muhammad told us not to sin. Jesus did not say that he forgives. He said that he also does not condemn her. That was a very good thing to do. But did it mean that he was a God? Did he say he was a God? No dear.

Johnn 8 54-59 54Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. 56Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad." 57"You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!" 58"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" 59At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

 

 Not possible. The sentence should be "I was", that Jesus was before Abraham. It is a derived sentence, not a direct news. Please excuse me....

 

I AM was how God identified himself to the Jewish people. When Jesus says "before Abraham was born, I am!" he is setting himself equal to God. The Jews understood this and that is why they tried to stone him.

 

 

 The Jews may have accused Jesus for making himself as a god but i do not see any such thing in the words of Jesus. He should have told them, "Bloody fools, don't you know that i am God myself". But he did not do that.

Jesus did not come only as a prophet--a simple messenger, he came to form, through his death and 3 days later his victory over death, a covenant between God and all of humanity.

�Not possible. The sentence should be "I was", that Jesus was before Abraham.

 

TOTALY TRUE!

 

 

 

The trinity teaches that Jesus is God, this is divinity, you should know that!

 

Jesus like God and the angels is divine, but the trinity says he is Almighty, this is as lie drafted in from paganisum which paganizes christian teaching and make them of no value!

 

 

 

 

 

WHY IS THE USE OF PHILOSOPHICAL CONCEPTS TO INTERPRET THE BIBLE WRONG?

 

First what does the Bible say on this matter at Colossians 2:8:-

 

NWT �Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry YOU off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ; ��

 

E.S.V.  �See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.�

 

In the above text the uses of Philosophy is condemned, why?  The last clause in the text tells us �not according to Christ,� thus it is not Christian and of �the world� and �human� thinking!   How is this the case?  We will have a very brief look at the most influential philosopher on the early �Church Fathers�:-

 

    �Plato's influence extended far beyond the Academy. In his lifetime he was the most celebrated teacher of his day. After his death his ideas were taken up by countless other thinkers. Philo of Alexandria used Plato's ideas to give a philosophical framework to Judaism. Early Christian writers eagerly embraced Plato's thought as the best available instrument for explaining and defending the teachings of the Bible and church tradition. Of the Christian Platonists, St. Augustine of Hippo was the best known and most influential. � Platonism and some elements of Neoplatonism were absorbed and used by Christian teachers and blended with Biblical doctrine.�-Compton�s Interactive Encyclopaedia

 

What was Philosophy to the Greeks?

"Greek philosophy, which began as an attempt to understand the world without recourse to religious myth ended up as a rational theology which attempted to define in detail the relationship between God the soul, and the world. . . . . Greek philosophy was in no way indebted to Greek polytheism. it was rather the case that the religious consciousness of Greece was enhanced by her philosophers.  This process is particularly clear in Plato and Aristotle.  Plato wanted to refine religion, not reject it, and so he combined stringent criticism of the traditional stories about the gods with a reasoned presentation of the divine nature as totally honest and benevolent in word and deed.  Aristotle's extraordinary achievement in theology was to deduce an elevated and monotheistic view of the deity from the nature of the physical world."-'An introduction to Greek philosophy' by J.V. Luce pp.12 and 13

 

The above shows that Philosophy was a way to explain the  Gods or another Greek term for there theology!  So from where did Plato and other Greek philosophers get there ideas?  The following quotes will show this:-

 

A   "No country has affected the development of the Christian religion more than profoundly than has Egypt, or rather-to speak more exactly-no city has affected the development of the Christian religion more profoundly than Alexandria, the Greek-speaking capital of Egypt. . . . The outstanding legacy of Egypt to the Church, the legacy which has coloured all later history, has been scientific Platonizing theology which the catechetical school of Alexandria was beginning to fashion at the second Christian century and which the comprehensive genius of Origen carried to a successful issue in the first half of the third century."-'The Legacy of Egypt' edited by S.R.K. Gleanville's p. 300

 

B.   "Many of the theories of Egyptian religion modified and transformed no doubt, and penetrated into the theology of Christian Europe, and formed, as it were, part of the woof in the web of modern religious thought. Christian theology was largely organised and nurtured in the schools of Alexandria, and Alexandria was not only the meeting place of East and West, it was also the place where the decrepit theology of Egypt was revived by contact with the speculative philosophy of Greece.   The Egyptian, the Greek, and the Jew may here on equal terms, and the result was a theological system in which each has his share.   In Philo we are told, we find Moses Platonising; but the atmosphere in which he did so was that of the old Egyptian faith.  And what was true of the philosophy of Philo was still more true of the philosophy of Alexandrine Christianity.  . . . Perhaps, however the indebtedness of Christian theological theory to ancient Egyptian dogma is nowhere more striking than in the doctrine of the Trinity.  The very terms used of it by Christian theologians meet us again in the inscriptions and papyri of Egypt."-'The Religion of Ancient Egypt' by A.H. Sayce pp.229-30

 

C.  "Plato was initiated into the 'Greater Mysteries' at the age of 49.  The initiation took place in one of the subterranean hall of the Great Pyramid in Egypt.  The ISIAC TABLE formed the alter, before which the Divine Plato stood and received that which was always his, but which the ceremony of the Mysteries enkindled and brought from its dormant state.  With this ascent, after three days in the Great Hall, he was received by the Hierophant of the Pyramid (the Hierophant was seen only by those who had passed the three days, the three degrees, the three dimensions) and given verbally the Highest Esoteric Teachings, each accompanied with Its appropriate Symbol.  After a further three months' sojourn in the halls of the Pyramid, the Initiate Plato was sent into the world to do the work of the Great Order, as Pythagoras and Orpheus had been before him." .  .  .  Those familiar with the fundamental principles of Hermetic Philosophy will recognise in the Mensa Isiaca* the key to Chaldean, Egyptian, and Greek theology.""-'The Secret Teaching of All Ages' by Manly P. Hall p.LVII

*Tablet Of Isis

 

 

The above shows that Pagan Egyptian Theological concepts where use to form the Trinity Doctrines under the influence of Pagan Greek Philosophy.   Thus is the answer to the question that heads this article.

 

Power was, as you say, "granted" to him by the Almighty, Jesus thus is NOT Almighty, thus not part of an equal trinity!  

 

What you believe about the trinty is not from the Bible, but is the teaching and a "tradition" or man made doctrine, thus of no use in worshiping God:-

 

 

 

There are MANY other scriptures which also clearly state that Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit are one and the same.....this is the triune Godhead.  No mention of the word trinity is mentioned in the Bible, however, it is quite clear of the intention and assertion of one God comprise of three completely separate entities. 

 

Robin, you are trying to prove what Jehovah Witnesses believe...that Jesus is not God.  Even a good atheist knows you cannot prove a negative.  You should take a course in Quantam Physics. 

 

God is God; therefore, He can do anything.  Even create a Trinity, which He did choose to do and which does exist.    (Oh ye of little faith...where is your faith, Robin?)  Obviously it is not in the writings of the Holy Gospels.

 

God's Peace,

Patty

 

 

 

Does 1 John 5:6-8 teach the Trinity doctrine?

 

Please note the bold print and underlining in the following.   In the �King James Version� of the Bible 1 John 5:6-8 reads thus:-

 

�6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.�

 

The �Good News Bible� at 1 John 5:6-8 reads thus:-

 

�6 Jesus Christ is the one who came with the water of his baptism and the blood of his death. He came not only with the water, but with both the water and the blood. And the Spirit himself testifies that this is true, because the Spirit is truth.

7 There are three witnesses:

8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and all three give the same testimony.�

 

The �New International Version� at 1 John 5:6-8, excerpted from �Compton's Interactive Bible NIV� reads thus:-

 

�6 This is the one who came by water and blood--Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.

7 For there are three that testify:

8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.�

 

The �New Revised Standard Version� at 1 John 5:6-8 reads thus:-

 

�6 This is the one who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only, but with the water and the blood.  And the Spirit is the one that testifies, for the Spirit is the truth.

7 For there are three that testify:

8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three agree.�

 

            For many centuries 1 John 5:6-8 was used to prove that the trinity was a Bible Doctrine and still is by some churches.    But as noted by the bold type in the above, in these various translations there is a discrepancy in this text, as the K.J.V. has some extra words added (which are underlined), which are omitted by the others, why?

 

I connection with 1 John 5:6-8 we read in �THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARY COMMENTARY CLARKE�S COMMENTARY NT, VOLUME 6B I THESS. - REVELATION by Adam Clarke. AGES Software Albany, or USA Version 2.0 � 1996, 1997 THE NEW TESTAMENTOF OUR LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST THE TEXT CAREFULLY PRINTED FROM THE MOST CORRECT COPIES OF THE PRESENT AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION, WITH A COMMENTARY AND CRITICAL NOTES; DESIGNED AS A HELP TO A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE SACRED WRITINGS BY ADAM CLARKE, LL.D., F.S.A., etc FOR WHATSOEVER THINGS WERE WRITTEN AFORETIME FOR OUR LEARNING; THAT WE, THROUGH PATIENCE AND COMFORT OF THE SCRIPTURES, MIGHT HAVE HOPE.- ROMANS 15:4 VOLUME VI(B) THESSALONIANS TO THE REVALATION. SAGE Software Albany, Oregon 1996� from pages 904 - 907

 

            �1 John Ch. 5  "Verse 7. There are three that bear record� The FATHER, who bears testimony to his Son; the WORD or logov, Logos, who bears testimony to the Father; and the HOLY GHOST, which bears testimony to the Father and the Son. And these three are one in essence, and agree in the one testimony, that Jesus came to die for, and give life to, the world.

 

But it is likely this verse is not genuine. It is wanting in every MS. of this epistle written before the invention of printing, one excepted, the Codex Montfortii, in Trinity College, Dublin: the others which omit this verse amount to one hundred and twelve.

 

It is wanting in both the Syriac, all the Arabic, AEthiopic, the Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, Slavonian, etc., in a word, in all the ancient versions but the Vulgate; and even of this version many of the most ancient and correct MSS. have it not. It is wanting also in all the ancient Greek fathers; and in most even of the Latin. The words, as they exist in all the Greek MSS. with the exception of the Codex Montfortii, are the following:�

 

�6. This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness because the Spirit is truth. 7. For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one. 9. If we receive the witness of man, the witness of God is greater, etc.�

 

The words that are omitted by all the MSS., the above excepted, and all the versions, the Vulgate excepted, are these:�

 

([In heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one, and there are three which bear witness in earth.])

 

To make the whole more clear, that every reader may see what has been added, I shall set down these verses, with the inserted words in brackets.  

 

�6. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7.  For there are three that bear record ([in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. 8. And there are three that bear witness in earth,]) the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and these three agree in one. 9. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater, etc.� Any man may see, on examining the words, that if those included in brackets, which are wanting in the MSS. and versions, be omitted, there is no want of connection; and as to the sense, it is complete and perfect without them; and, indeed much more so than with them. I shall conclude this part of the note by observing, with Dr. Dodd, �that there are some internal and accidental marks which may render the passage suspected; for the sense is complete, and indeed more clear and better preserved, without it. Besides, the Spirit is mentioned, both as a witness in heaven and on earth; so that the six witnesses are thereby reduced to five, and the equality of number, or antithesis between the witnesses in heaven and on earth, is quite taken away. Besides, what need of witnesses in heaven? No one there doubts that Jesus is the Messiah; and if it be said that Father, Son, and Spirit are witnesses on earth, then there are five witnesses on earth, and none in heaven; not to say that there is a little difficulty in interpreting how the Word or the Son can be a witness to himself.�

 

It may be necessary to inquire how this verse stood in our earliest English Bibles. In COVERDALE�S Bible, printed about 1535, for it bears no date, the seventh verse is put in brackets thus:�

 

And it is the Sprete that beareth wytnes; for the Sprete is the truth. (For there are thre which beare recorde in heaven: the Father, the Woorde, and the Holy Ghost, and these thre are one.) And there are thre which beare record in earth: the Sprete, water, and bloude and these thre are one. If we receyve, etc.

 

TINDAL was as critical as he was conscientious; and though he admitted the words into the text of the first edition of his New Testament printed in 1526, yet he distinguished them by a different letter, and put them in brackets, as Coverdale has done; and also the words in earth, which stand in 1 John 5:8, without proper authority, and which being excluded make the text the same as in the MSS., etc.

 

Two editions of this version are now before me; one printed in English and Latin, quarto, with the following title:�

 

The New Testament, both in Englyshe and Laten, of Master Erasmus translation-and imprinted by William Powell-the yere of out Lorde M.CCCCC.XLVII. And the fyrste yere of the kynges (Edw. VI.) moste gratious reygne. 

 

In this edition the text stands thus:�

 

And it is the Spirite that beareth wytnes, because the Spirite is truth (for there are thre whiche beare recorde in heaven, the Father, the Worde, and the Holy Ghost, and these thre are one.) For there are thre which beare recorde, (in earth,) the Spirite, water, and blode, and these thre are one. If we receyve, etc.

 

The other printed in London �by William Tylle, 4to; without the Latin of Erasmus in M.CCCCC.XLIX. the thyrde yere of the reigne of our moost dreade Soverayne Lorde Kynge Edwarde the Syxte,� has, with a small variety of spelling, the text in the same order, and the same words included in brackets as above.

 

The English Bible, with the book of Common Prayer, printed by Richard Cardmarden, at Rouen in Normandy, fol. 1566, exhibits the text faithfully, but in the following singular manner:�

 

And it is the Spyryte that beareth witnesse, because the Spyryte is truthe. (for there are three which beare recorde in heaven, the Father, the Woorde, and the Holy Ghost; and these Three are One) And three which beare recorde* (in earth) the Spirite, and water, and bloode; and these three are one.

 

The first English Bible which I have seen, where these distinctions were omitted, is that called The Bishops� Bible, printed by Jugge, fol. 1568. Since that time, all such distinctions have been generally disregarded. Though a conscientious believer in the doctrine of the ever blessed, holy, and undivided Trinity, and in the proper and essential Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, which doctrines I have defended by many, and even new, arguments in the course of this work, I cannot help doubting the authenticity of the text in question; and, for farther particulars, refer to the observations at the end of this chapter.

 

Verse 8. The Spirit, and the water, and the blood� This verse is supposed to mean �the Spirit � in the word confirmed by miracles; the water � in baptism, wherein we are dedicated to the Son, (with the Father and the Holy Spirit,) typifying his spotless purity, and the inward purifying of our nature; and the blood � represented in the Lord�s Supper, and applied to the consciences of believers: and all these harmoniously agree in the same testimony, that Jesus Christ is the Divine, the complete, the only Savior of the world.� � Mr. Wesley�s notes.

 

By the written word, which proceeded from the Holy Spirit, that Spirit is continually witnessing upon earth, that God hath given unto us eternal life.

 

By baptism, which points out our regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost, and which is still maintained as an initiatory rite in the Christian Church, we have another witness on earth of the truth, certainty, importance, and efficacy of the Christian religion. The same may be said of the blood, represented by the holy eucharist, which continues to show forth the death and atoning sacrifice of the Son of God till he comes. See the note on 1 John 5:6."�

 

 

 

1 John 5:7-8 New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures published

by the Watchtower and Bible Tract Society (Jehovah's Christian Witnesses):-

"7  For there are three witness bearers, 

8 the spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are in agreement.

 

THE VULGATE (Latin) - Jerome. 

1 John 5:7 quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant   8 Spiritus et aqua et sanguis et tres unum sunt

 

DARBY TRANSLATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT by John Nelson Darby

7 For they that bear witness are three:

8 the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and the three agree in one.

 

THE AMERICAN STANDARD NEW TESTAMENT

7 And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.

8 For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one.

 

 WEYMOUTH�S THE NEW TESTAMENT IN MODERN SPEECH translated by Richard Francis Weymouth

7 For there are three that give testimony � the Spirit, the water, and the blood;

8 and there is complete agreement between these three.

 

To sum the above up we can do no better than:-

 

"The extra words* in the KJV rendering of this Passage are among the most poorly attested of all the disputed verses in the KJV and Textus Receptus.  The addition is not found in any Greek manuscripts or English translation until the sixteenth century and most scholars agree that it is a forgery."-The Accuracy of the NIV by Kenneth L. Barker p.101

 

*The "extra words in the KJV (King James Version)" that are "a forgery" are found in 1 John Ch. 5 verse 7 are as follows, "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

 

 

 

 

 robin, you are quoting complicated sentenses, verses. Why don't you tell us if Jesus is God or not? Be short and smart, in plain words please.

 

 

 

 

 

�My God� said Jesus.

 

To whom was Jesus calling to at:-

Matthew 27:46

�About the ninth hour Jesus called out with a loud voice, saying: "E�li, E�li, la�ma sa�bach�tha�ni?" that is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"�

Which is literally rendered "this is the God of me, God of me."-'The NASB-NIV parallel N.T. in Gk. & Eng.' with Interlinear Translated by Alfred Marshall*

 

Who is Jesus referring to at:-

 

John 20:17

�Jesus said to her: �Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, �I am ascending to my Father (Literal Gk. �Father of me�^) and YOUR Father and to my God (Literal Gk. �God of me�^) and YOUR God.��

^'The NASB-NIV parallel N.T. in Gk. & Eng.' with Interlinear Translated by Alfred Marshall

 

�my  poss[essive]. pron[oun]. (attrib.) 1 of or belonging to me. 2 affectionate, patronizing, etc. form of address (my dear boy). 3 in expressions of surprise (my God!; oh my!). 4 colloq. indicating a close relative etc. of the speaker (my Johnny's ill again).  my Lady (or Lord) form of address to certain titled persons. [from *mine1] .�-Oxford Dictionary

 

�god  n[oun]. 1 a (in many religions) superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature, human fortunes, etc. b image, idol, etc., symbolizing a god. 2 (God) (in Christian and other monotheistic religions) creator and ruler of the universe. 3 adored or greatly admired person. � .�-Oxford Dictionary

"�The one that conquers�I* will make him a pillar in the temple of my God**, and he will by no means go out [from it] anymore, and I* will write upon him the name*** of my God** and the name of the city of my God**, the new Jerusalem which descends out of heaven from my God**, and that new name of mine.  Let the one who has an ear hear what the spirit says to the congregations.��

*Jesus Christ

**Which in litrealy rendered "the God of me."-'The NASB-NIV parallel N.T. in Gk. & Eng.' With Interliner Translated by Alfred Marshall
***Jehovah

 

So we can ask again, who is Jesus talking about, as it cannot be himself"  He is talking about Almighty God, thus Jesus cannot be Almighty God!

 

However, I would like to hear your response as to how Jehovah Witnesses feel about Black people.  How your "chuch" teaches the Black race will become white, how being black is their punishment for the sins of Ham, how your "church" does not have high ranking Blacks within your religion partly because they do not believe Blacks are intelligent enough, etc. 

 

Please.....now is your chance to explain this prejudice within the Jehovah Witness cult.  (I won't even begin to go into the hate mongering you have for the likes of me, a devout Roman Catholic...let's just get your response on your "church's" feelings and beliefs about the good Black folks for now). 

 

Thanks for your response.

Patty

 

 

 robin, you have again a long winding lecture about Jesus is God or not. In the end you have said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jesus, The Son, is subordinate to God The Father thus he cannot be part of any trinity as in the trinity they are all equal in power (see A) which the bible does not teach (see B):-

 

 

 

 

 

Sir E. A. Wallis Budge further goes on to say the following about the Egyptian god Thoth and how it parallels Plato's Logos which was later absorbed into the Churches doctrines as Plato received his ideas via the Egyptians:-

"We are now able to sum up the attributes ascribed to Thoth, and to consider how he employed them in connection with the dead. In first place, he was held to be both the heart and the tongue of Ra, that is to say, he was the reason and the mental powers of the god, and also the means by which t their will was translated into speech ; from one aspect he was speech itself, and in later times he may well have represented, as Dr. Birch said, the logoV of Plato. In every legend in which Thoth takes a prominent part we see that it is he who speaks the word that results in the wishes of Ra being carried into effect, and it is evident that when he had once given the word of commend that command could not fail to be carried out by one means or the other."-'The gods of the Egyptians' by E.A. Wallis Budge Vol. 1 p.407

parallel to the above they conceived the nature of the "One Great God" is via the trinity concept as note in the book 'Before Philosophy' by H. Frankfort, Mrs. H. Frankfort, J.A. Wilson, T. Jacobsen page 75:-

"The fluidity of Egyptian concepts and the tendency to synthesize divergent elements have led some Egyptologists to believe that Egyptians were really monotheistic, that all gods were subsumed into a single god. In a moment we shall present a text that would seem to be a prime document for this thesis of essential monotheism, but we wish to preface it by insisting that it is not a matter of a single god but of single nature of observed phenomena in the universe, with the clear possibility of exchange and substitution. With relation to gods and men the Egyptians were monophysites : many men and many gods, but all ultimately one nature.

The text that we mentioned presents an Egyptian trinity : the three gods who were supremely important at one period of history all taken up into a single divinity. The purpose was to enlarge the god Amon by incorporating the other two gods into his being. 'All gods are three - Amon, Re, and Ptah - and they have no second'. Amon in the name of this single being, Re in his head, and Ptah in his body. 'Only he is : Amon and Re (and Ptah), togther three.' [Leyden Amon Hymn, 4:21-26.] Three gods are one, and yet the Egyptians elsewhere insists on the separate identity of each of the three."

Further to quote renowned Egyptian Archaeologist Sir W. M. Flinders Pertie:-

*"God is not Mind, or spirit or Light, but is the cause of Mind, Spirit, and Light No other so-called gods or daimons can be in any measure Good, but God only can be Good, as He is the same as Good. God also is the universal Father as Creator. . . . The gods were seen as stars. . . . As Kosmos is the Second God, so Man is the third living thing after the image of the Kosmos. He has feelings with the Second God, and a conception of the First God. Kosmos is by God and in God. Man is by Kosmos and in Kosmos. In none of these is Logos personified, nor Wisdom mentioned. . . . It seems probable that such works belng to 450-350 B.C., as they have none of the marks of later thought.

**We now enter on the next stage, in the Corp. Herm [Corpus Hermeticum], xiii, v, xiv, and i, where these writings introduce the personification of the Divine Logos, but not that of Divine Wisdom Thus it appears that the Logos literature precedes the Wisdom literature, in which the Logos is also found We will first notice the development of doctrine in these works . . . One of the earliest of this class must be "About the Universal Mind" (Corp. Herm., xiii) . . . it must be earlier than 332 B.C. . . . "Unto this Logos, son, thy adoration and thy worship pay."

The Logos also begins to appear in "The Cup" or rather "Font" (Corp. Herm., v). "With Logos (reason) not with hands did the Demiourgos make the universal Kosmos," "Man did excel by reason of the Logos," "Logos indeed among all men He hath distributed."

"The Secret Sermon" (Corp. Herm., xiv) seems to be of the same date [300 B.C.] or rather later. The Logos is a higher principle apparently, as we read "Rejoice, O Son, for by the Power of God thou art being purified for articulation of the Logos. Gnosis of God hath come to us." "Thy Logos sings through me thy praises." "Send thou oblation . . . acceptable to God . . . but add my son too 'through the Logos.' " The Logos seems in this Sermon to be the divine principle. Here we find a development of the doctrine of Conversion; it is no longer being baptized in the Divine Mind, but it is "the tradition of Re-birth"; . . . "How is the author of Re-birth? The Son of God, the One Man, by God's will." . . . At first sight this might be put down as Christian in source; but we have already seen in the Perfect Sermon, which can only be put to 340 B.C. "The Lord and Maker of all . . . from himself made the Second God, the Visible . . . whom he loved as his Son," and the Logos doctrine is far less developed than in Philon.

These allusions naturally bring next to this the "Shepherd of Men" or Poimandres, the best known Hermetic work (Corp. Herm., i) In that the Logos doctrine is further developed. In the Creation "a Holy Logos descends on that Nature, and upward to the light from Moist, Nature leaped pure fire" ; "Earth and water no one could discern, yet were they moved to hear by reason of the Logos pervading them" ; "The Logos that appeared from Mind is Son of God". . . Here the Logos holds the place afterwards taken by Wisdom or the Spirit. "Holy art Thou who didst by Logos make to consist the things that are"

Advanced as these statements may be, they scarcely reach the level of Philon, in such terms as the Son of God, the One Man, the Logos ; and as Philon thus decisively cuts them off from being necessarily of Christian origin, we need not hesitate at their being two or three centuries earlier . . .

Having now traced the growth of post-Alexandrine documents, we will turn back to summarise the general ideas and beliefs which we find in them, before proceeding to the later developments.

The treatise on "The Universal Mind" (Corp. Herm.,xiii) deals with several problems, which we here divide in to separate paragraphs.

Logos is only used by Man, animals have mere voice. logos is in Mind, and Mind in is God ; Mind also is in Soul, Soul in Form, and Form in Body, The other series of cosmic nature is God, in Mind, in Soul, in Air, in Matter. Kosmos continue for ever, and therefore it must Needs be a God ; it is filled full of Life, and is a Mighty God, image of the mightier God.

The Hymn of Re-birth is to be said in open air, facing south-west at sunset, and facing east at sun-rise. The earth is called on to open, every bolt of the abyss to be drawn (the Egyptian view of the twelve gates of the underworld) and heaven is to open. The praises of the Creator is to be sung by man, by nature, and by all the inner powers of man, The Logos sings through man and praise for God's indwelling. God's Mind shepherds the Logos in Man. The doctrine of the re-birth is to be secret or esoteric.

God the Mind--being light and fire, male and female--brought forth another Mind, God formed of fire and sprit. The second God formed seven rulers of the Kosmos, whose rule is fate.

God the Mind then brought forth heavenly Man, coequal with himself, and thus parallel to the Second God. God loved Man and gave him all his qualities. Man then saw the creations of his Brother the Second God, and they loved Man.

The Hermetic books as a whole seem to hang together, and to belong to one general period, 500-200 B.C., while the Logos only begins to appear in the latter, and Wisdom never appears."-Personal Religion in Egypt Before Christianity by W. M. Flinders Pertie Ch. V. The Undated Hermetic Writings pp.*87, **91 -102

"Now we come to the attitude of Philon*, which was by no means a product of his own mind, when he wrote about A.D. 40, but was the statement of a body of thought that had been growing up ever since the mixture of Greek and Jewish ideas. His views were necessarily based upon his national scripture; but, as far as he could, he accepted Greek philosophy. His attitude is best seen by the fact that some of his writings were for Jews who accepted their scripture, and other writings for Greeks who ignored the Jewish scriptures. His position was that of the Egypto-Greek theo-cosm-sophy adopted so far as was practicable compatible with Jewish scripture. His view was that God was incomprehensible, and that man can only recognise his existence, but not know of his personal being. . . in this we see the old Egyptian idea . . . "The Logos in God's likeness by whom the whole Kosmos was fashioned." . . . The Logos is called Dominion, and Name of God, and Reason, and Man-after-his-Likness, and Seeing Israel." . . . Thus far was the way prepared for later developments of doctrine and idea in Christianity."-Personal Religion in Egypt Before Christianity by W.M. Flinders Pertie Ch. V. The Undated Hermetic Writings pp.103-106

*Philo the Helenised Jewish Philosopher

 

   he who knows eveything but dose not know himself knows nothing.

 

 

 

 

 

The point is that the trinity is not of Biblical, it is pagan, and is thus a polution of demonic doctrines of Biblical teaching as God Is One!

I am still waiting your response to Jesus' admittance of God (Father) being greater than him while you  believe the three are equal in power.

Hasan

[/QUOTE]

 i guess there's a little pagen in all of us right!! stop the killing.[/QUOTE]

 

NO.   One is for God and not pagan or a little bit pagan and totaly rejected by God!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 i guess there's a little pagen in all of us right!! stop the killing.[/QUOTE]

 

NO.   One is for God and not pagan or a little bit pagan and totaly rejected by God!

 

NO.   One is for God and not pagan or a little bit pagan and totaly rejected by God!

 

Today there is no need for blood sacrifices.

 

Satan & his Demons have always copied true religion, as the cannot produce anything new or clean!

John Ch. 1:1-2 talks of Jesus in his heavenly postion next the God Almighty Jehovah and he is called:-

 

 

A subordinate divine (heavenly) being next to the Almighty God!

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://nasb.scripturetext.com/john/1.htm - New American Standard Bible http://www.lockman.org/ - (�1995) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. http://gwt.scripturetext.com/john/1.htm - GOD'S WORD� Translation http://www.godsword.org/ - (�1995) In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. http://kingjbible.com/john/1.htm - King James Bible In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. http://kjv.us/john/1.htm - American King James Version In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. http://asvbible.com/john/1.htm - American Standard Version In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. http://basicenglishbible.com/john/1.htm - Bible in Basic English From the first he was the Word, and the Word was in relation with God and was God. http://drb.scripturetext.com/john/1.htm - Douay-Rheims Bible IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. http://darbybible.com/john/1.htm - Darby Bible Translation In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. http://erv.scripturetext.com/john/1.htm - English Revised Version In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. http://websterbible.com/john/1.htm - Webster's Bible Translation In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. http://weymouthbible.com/john/1.htm - Weymouth New Testament In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. http://worldebible.com/john/1.htm - World English Bible In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. http://yltbible.com/john/1.htm - Young's Literal Translation In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;

http://gsb.biblecommenter.com/john/1.htm - Geneva Study Bible In {1} the {a} beginning {b} was {c} the Word, and the Word was {d} with God, and the {e} Word was God. (1) The Son of God is of one and the selfsame eternity or everlastingness, and of one and the selfsame essence or nature with the Father. (a) From the beginning, as the evangelist says in 1Jo 1:1; it is as though he said that the Word did not begin to have his being when God began to make all that was made: for the Word was even then when all things that were made began to be made, and therefore he was before the beginning of all things. (b) Had his being. (c) This word the points out to us a peculiar and choice thing above all others, and puts a difference between this Word, which is the Son of God, and the laws of God, which are also called the word of God. (d) This word with points out that there is a distinction of persons here. (e) This word Word is the first in order in the sentence, and is the subject of the sentence, and this word God is the latter in order, and is the predicate of the sentence. http://pnt.biblecommenter.com/john/1.htm - People's New Testament 1:1-3 The Beginning of Christ's Ministry SUMMARY OF JOHN 1: The Word Made Flesh. The Witness of John. John's Disciples Pointed to Christ. The Lord Calls His First Disciples. An Israelite Indeed. In the beginning was the Word, etc. The first fourteen verses are introductory. In order to set at rest all controversy the Divine nature of Jesus, John glances, in the first three verses, back to the beginning, recorded in Genesis, and affirms: (1) That he who was afterwards manifest as the Christ existed before creation began; (2) that he was present with God; (3) that he was divine; (4) that he was the Word; (5) that by or through him were all things made that were made (Joh 1:3). The first chapter of Genesis helps us to understand its meaning. God said, Let there be light (Ge 1:3), Let there be a firmament (Ge 1:6), Let the earth bring forth (Ge 1:11), etc. and it was done. God exhibits his creative power through the Word, and manifests his will through the Word. There are mysteries belonging to the divine nature and to the relation between the Son and the Father that we have to wait for eternity to solve. They are too deep for human solution, but this is clear: that God creates and speaks to man through the Word. As we clothe our thoughts in words, so God reveals his will by the Word, and when the Word is clothed in flesh, as the Teacher of men, we recognize it as Jesus Christ. Patty

 

 

 

 

 [Quote]

The following is a list of variant translations of John 1:1:

Interlineary Word for Word English Translation-Emphatic Diaglott, "In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word."

Edward Harwood, H KAINH DIAQHKH. The New Testament, collated with the most approved manuscripts; with select notes in English, critical and explanatory, and references to those authors who have best illustrated the sacred writings. To which are added, a Catalogue of the principal Editions of the Greek Testament; and a List of the most esteemed Commentators and critics. London, 1776, 2 vols; 2nd ed. 1784, 2 vols. 1768, "and was himself a divine person"

Newcome, 1808, "and the word was a god"

Crellius,as quoted in The New Testament in an Improved Version "the Word was God's"

La Bible du Centenaire, L�Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel,1928: "and the Word was a divine being."

John Samuel Thompson, The Montessoran; or The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists, Baltimore; published by the translator, 1829, "the Logos was a god

Goodspeed's An American Translation, 1939, "the Word was divine

Revised Version-Improved and Corrected, "the word was a god."

Prof. Felix Just, S.J. - Loyola Marymount University, "and god[-ly/-like] was the Word."

The Four Gospels�A New Translation, by Professor Charles Cutler Torrey, Second Edition, 1947, "the Word was god

New English Bible, 1961, "what God was,the Word was"

Moffatt's The Bible, 1972, "the Logos was divine"

International English Bible-Extreme New Testament, 2001, "the Word was God*[ftn. or Deity, Divine, which is a better translation, because the Greek definite article is not present before this Greek word]

Reijnier Rooleeuw, M.D. -The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ, translated from the Greek, 1694, "and the Word was a god"

Simple English Bible, "and the Message was Deity"

Hermann Heinfetter, A Literal Translation of the New Testament,1863, [A]s a god the Command was"

Abner Kneeland-The New Testament in Greek and English, 1822, "The Word was a God" Robert Young, LL.D. (Concise Commentary on the Holy Bible [Grand Rapids: Baker, n.d.], 54). 1885, "[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word"

Belsham N.T. 1809 "the Word was a god"

Leicester Ambrose, The Final Theology, Volume 1, New York, New York; M.B. Sawyer and Company, 1879, "And the logos was a god"

Charles A.L. Totten, The Gospel of History, 1900, "the Word was Deistic [=The Word was Godly]

J.N. Jannaris, Zeitschrift fur die Newtestameutlich Wissencraft, (German periodical) 1901, [A]nd was a god"

International Bible Translators N.T. 1981 "In the beginning there was the Message. The Message was with God. The Message was deity."

Samuel Clarke, M.A., D.D., rector of St. James, Westminster, A Paraphrase on the Gospel of John, London "[A] Divine Person."

Joseph Priestley, LL.D., F.R.S. (in A Familiar Illustration of Certain Passages of Scripture Relating to The Power of Man to do the Will of God, Original Sin, Election and Reprobation, The Divinity of Christ; And, Atonement for Sin by the Death of Christ [Philadelphia: Thomas Dobson, 1794], 37). "a God"

Lant Carpenter, LL.D (in Unitarianism in the Gospels [London: C. Stower, 1809], 156). "a God"

Andrews Norton, D.D. (in A Statement of Reasons For Not Believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians [Cambridge: Brown, Shattuck, and Company, 1833], 74). "a god"

Paul Wernle, Professor Extraordinary of Modern Church History at the University of Basil (in The Beginnings of Christianity, vol. 1, The Rise of Religion [1903], 16). "a God" "At the beginning of Creation, there dwelt with God a mighty spirit, the Marshal, who produced all things in their order."

21st Century NT Free "and the [Marshal] [Word] was a god." 21st Century Literal

George William Horner, The Coptic Version of the New Testament, 1911, [A]nd (a) God was the word"

Ernest Findlay Scott, The Literature of the New Testament, New York, Columbia University Press, 1932, "[A]nd the Word was of divine nature"

James L. Tomanec, The New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Anointed, 1958, [T]he Word was a God"

Philip Harner, JBL, Vol. 92, 1974, "The Word had the same nature as God"

Maximilian Zerwich S.J./Mary Grosvenor, 1974, "The Word was divine"

Siegfried Schulz, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1975, "And a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word"

Translator's NT, 1973, "The Word was with God and shared his nature ...with footnote, "There is a distinction in the Greek here between 'with God' and 'God.' In the forst instance, the article is used and this makes the reference specific. In the second instance there is not article, and it is difficult to believe that the omission is not significant. In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos (God) so that the phrae means 'The Word was divine'."

William Barclay's The New Testament, 1976, "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God"

Johannes Schneider, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1978, "and godlike sort was the Logos

Schonfield's The Original New Testament, 1985, "the Word was divine

Revised English Bible, 1989, "what God was, the Word was

Scholar's Version-The Five Gospels, 1993, "The Divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was

J. Madsen, New Testament A Rendering , 1994, "the Word was a divine Being"

Jurgen Becker, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1979, "a God/god was the Logos/logos"

Curt Stage, The New Testament, 1907, "The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being."

Bohmer, 1910, "It was strongly linked to God, yes itself divine Being/being"

Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme, 1919, "God of Kind/kind was the Word/word"

Baumgarten et al, 1920, "God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos"

Holzmann, 1926, "ein Gott war der Gedanke" [a God/god was the Thought/thought]

Friedriche Rittelmeyer, 1938, "itself a God/god was the Word/word"

Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology), 1945, "the Word was of divine kind"

Fredrich Pfaefflin, The New Testament, 1949, "was of divine Kind/kind"

Albrecht, 1957, "godlike Being/being had the Word/word"

Smit, 1960, "the word of the world was a divine being"

Menge, 1961, "God(=godlike Being/being) was the Word/word"

Haenchen, 1980, "God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos" [as mentioned in William Loader's The Christology of the Fourth Gospel, p. 155 cf. p.260]

Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 1982, "He was with God and in all like God"

Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk), 1984, "divine (of the category divinity)was the Logos"

Johannes Schulz, 1987, "a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was the Word/word." [As mentioned in William Loader's The Christology of the Fourth Gospel, p. 155 cf. p.260]

William Temple, Archbishop of York, Readings in St. John's Gospel, London, Macmillan & Co.,1933, "And the Word was divine."

John Crellius, Latin form of German, The 2 Books of John Crellius Fancus, Touching One God the Father, 1631, "The Word of Speech was a God"

Greek Orthodox /Arabic Calendar, incorporating portions of the 4 Gospels, Greek Orthodox Patriarchy or Beirut, May, 1983, "the word was with Allah[God] and the word was a god"

Ervin Edward Stringfellow (Prof. of NT Language and Literature/Drake University, 1943, "And the Word was Divine"

Robert Harvey, D.D., Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, Westminster College, Cambridge, in The Historic Jesus in the New Testament, London, Student Movement Christian Press1931 "and the Logos was divine (a divine being)"

Jesuit John L. McKenzie, 1965, wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.'

Dymond, E.C. New Testament, 1962 (original manuscript) "In the beginning was the creative purpose of God. It was with God and was fully expressive of God [just as wisdom was with God before creation]."

Buzzard/Hunting "In the beginning of God�s creative effort, even before he created the heavenly bodies and the earth, the mental power to reason logically already existed, and the Wisdom produced by it was known only to God, for the Wisdom was God�s Wisdom" (Pro. 8:22-30)

Barclay, W. The Daily Study Bible- The Gospel of John vol.1 "III. [Revised Edition ISBN 0-664-21304-9: Finally John says that "The Word was God". There is no doubt that this is a difficult saying for us to understand, and it is difficult because greek, in which John wrote, had a different way of saying things from the way in which english speaks. When the greek uses a noun it almost always uses the definite article with it. The greek for God is �theos�, and the definite article is �ho�. When greek speaks about God it does not simply say �theos�; it says �ho theos�. Now, when greek does not use the definite article with a noun that noun becomes much more like an adjective; it describes the character, the quality of the person. John did not say that the Word was �ho theos�; that would have been to say that the Word was identical with God; he says that the Word was �theos�- without the definite article- which means that the Word was, as we might say, of the very same character and quality and essence and being as God. When John said �The Word was God� he was not saying that Jesus is identical with God, he was saying that Jesus is so perfectly the same as God in mind, in heart, in being that in Jesus we perfectly see what God is like"

 

Is Christ God?

1. "Christ is God�s Son and is inferior to him." Given in support of this position are these verses: "And lo, a voice from heaven, saying, �This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased�" (Matt. 3:17). "I proceeded and came forth from God" (John 8:42). "If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God" (John 20:17). "The head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God" (1 Cor. 11:3). "When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one" (1 Cor. 15:28).

At first glance these citations seem imposing. It does seem that Christ is inferior to God the Father in some sense. But the New Testament also has verses which clearly show Christ and the Father to be equals. For example, there is John 10:30: "I and the Father are one." Or, "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). Or, "All that the Father has is mine" (John 16:15). Or, "The Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God" (John 5:18). Or, "[Jesus], though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped" (Phil. 2:6). These seem to contradict the other verses.

How do we make sense of all this? By keeping in mind that Jesus is both God and man. Some verses, such as these last five, refer exclusively to his Godhead. Others refer to his humanity. So far as he is God, Jesus is equal to the Father. Christ�s human nature, though, is created and is therefore inferior to the Father. But to focus on this aspect of Christ to the exclusion of his divine nature is a gross misunderstanding of who and what the Bible says Jesus Christ is. Other verses cited by the Witnesses, such as Matthew 3:17, show merely that Christ is God�s Son, not that he is inferior (in fact, John 5:18 shows that being God�s Son is being equal to God).

http://www.catholic.com/library/distinctive_beliefs_of_jehovahs.asp - http://www.catholic.com/library/distinctive_beliefs_of_jehovahs.asp

 

Have a good day,

Patty

 

�ONE� thing, as in harmony or unity, or person as one being?

 

John 10:30 . . .I and the Father are one.�

 

Example of the followers of Jesus being �one� with him and the God.

 

John 17:20-26 . . .�I make request, not concerning these only, but also concerning those putting faith in me through their word; ²¹ in order that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, in order that the world may believe that you sent me forth. ²² Also, I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one. ²³ I in union with them and you in union with me, in order that they may be perfected into one, that the world may have the knowledge that you sent me forth and that you loved them just as you loved me. ²⁴ Father, as to what you have given me, I wish that, where I am, they also may be with me, in order to behold my glory that you have given me, because you loved me before the founding of the world. ²⁵ Righteous Father, the world has, indeed, not come to know you; but I have come to know you, and these have come to know that you sent me forth. ²⁶ And I have made your name known to them and will make it known, in order that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them.�

 

1 John 1:3    that which we have seen and heard we are reporting also to YOU, that YOU too may be having a sharing with us. Furthermore, this sharing of ours is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.

 

1 John 3:24   Moreover, he who observes his commandments remains in union with him, and he in union with such one; and by this we gain the knowledge that he is remaining in union with us, owing to the spirit which he gave us.

 

 

In the above we see that �one� refers to a unity and not as suggested by some as one person as not only are Jesus and Jehovah said to be �one� but also Jesus disciples are INCLUDED in that �one� as John 17:20 say �those putting faith in me� so the oneness spoken of included all Jesus faithful followers and not just him and his Father.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"So far as he is God, Jesus is equal to the Father. Christ�s human nature, though, is created and is therefore inferior to the Father."

 

 

 

 

 

 

My Dear Hasan,

 

I will answer you tomorrow as best I can.  It is now midnight here in Maine, and I cannot hold my eyes open any longer.  I just don't want you to think I am avoiding the question.  Okay?  See you tomorrow.

 

God bless,

Patty

 

I know we differ in many thinks Hasan, but you are dead right in the above and you say just as The bible teaches.  The Bible disagrees with it as well!

 

 

Jesus never taught anything than what is above; "God is one"!

 

Trinity: Webster�s dictionary gives the following definition of trinity: �The union of three divine persons (or hypostases), the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in one divinity, so that all the three are one God as to substance, but three Persons (or hypostases as to individuality).� Synonyms sometimes used are triunity, trine, triality. The term �trinity� is formed from �tri,� three, and �nity,� unity. Triunity is a better term than �trinity� because it better expresses the idea of three in one. God is three in one. Hypostases is the plural of hypostasis which means �the substance, the underlying reality, or essence.�

The doctrine of the trinity is truly beyond human comprehension or the limits of our finite minds, but it is nevertheless a vital truth of the Bible. It is a doctrine that is closely connected to other key doctrines like the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit. In fact, our salvation is rooted in the mysterious nature of the Godhead who coexists as three distinct Persons all of whom are involved in our salvation in all its aspects, past, present, and future. It encompasses everything we know and practice as Christians�our sanctification, our fellowship, our prayer life, our Bible study, or our corporate worship. That this is true and a precious truth for us to rest in is evident in Paul�s closing benediction in http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=215# - 2 Corinthians 13:14 and in Peter�s salutation and doxology in http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=215# - 1 Peter 1:1-5 .

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=215# - 2 Cor. 13:14 . The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=215# - 1 Peter 1:1-5 . Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen 2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in fullest measure. 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, 5 who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

In I John there is this statement:

 

In Heaven there are three who bear record, God the Father, The Word, the Holy Spirit, AND THESE THREE ARE ONE.

 

Hasan, I am sure you have heard/read this before, but when St. Phillip asked Jesus to show him the Father, Jesus turned to him and said, Phillip, as much as you know me and still you have to ask....you have seen me, you have also seen the Father.....and Jesus also said, "the Father and I are ONE."  I am paraphrasing here.

 

So it boils down to a matter of faith and belief....belief in the Holy Bible.  I have studied the Latin Vulgate and it specifically states much about the trinity.  No "trinity" the word is not used....but the meaning is there.  As you are most likely aware the Latin Vulgate is the earliest bible.  I have studied, and am a personal friend of a Jesuit priest who is a biblical scholar.  He has written books on Flavius Josephus and the Jewish Antiquities.  Josephus wrote about Jesus' crucifixion just 30 years after Jesus' death.  Although Josephus was a Jew, he believed (or so he stated) that Jesus was the messiah.

 

I hope this is some help to you, or at least food for thought.  Please know that I believe with all my heart that all people who steadfastly and wholeheartedly attempt to do God's will shall one day see Him face to face in heaven.....the beatific vision.  You will surely be one of those, Hasan.

 

God Bless,

Patty

 

Oh, Hasan, Josephus was alive before the Crucifixion....what I meant was he did not write about it until 30 years later.  He was most certainly alive at the time of Jesus though.

 

I have known many Jews (and Muslims).  The Jewish people of the OT were told a Messiah would come to redeem them, to save them from their sins.  They were not expecting God to come down from Heaven.  They are still looking for the Messiah....the Chosen One.   Except for the Jews who have converted to Christianity that is.

 

Patty

 

The only person that suited the above description was MUHAMMAD Salallahualaihiwassalam.

 

He was a great man with all the qualities of a leader.

A loving husband, a devoted father, a doting grandfather, a good neighbour, a trustworthy friend, a wise teacher, a just judge, a humble and pious servant of God, a wonderful stateman, a brave warrior and many other traits of a human being.

 

I doubt there is a man that can ever be like him.

 

 Then you must follow Muhammad(The last Prophet) because he is prophecised by Jesus Christ himself.

 

 The Bible's Last Prophet

 

 

There are many verses in the OT where the Jews describe the Messiah as Jesus, and did believe it was he.  Many Jews became Christians.  Right now I am just too weary to discuss or post the verses.....verses from the Jewish books as well.  Tomorrow is Thanksgiving and I am very busy.

 

More later.

 

Patty

 

 

 

 

The Messiah was the Last Prophet sent by Allah as a perfect example of a human being. In him - Muhammad Rasulullah, we can find all the best quality of a man, that even Jesus cannot excel.

 

Indeed Jesus will return, that we both concede. However whether he return as a Jew or as a Christian or as a Muslim, only time will tell.

 

His coming to this world again, will be the point of reunion for all the Abrahamic faiths. The return of Isa alaihissalam will lead us all to worship the One Creator of The whole Universe, that created all faiths including you and me.

 

Salam.

 

Perhaps you can enlighten us Angela.

 

 

 

Angela, file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CRaheleh%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml -

 

Angela,

 

I totally respect your belief system too, as I do everyone here.  I have read that this is how you view "God", whom Mormons refer to as "Heavenly Father."  Can you elaborate and explain if this is your belief as a devout Mormon.  Thank you!

 

MORMON HENOTHEISM

Mormon theology belongs to the third category, the particular subset of polytheism called henotheism, while authentic Christian theology (like Judaism) is monotheistic. Mormons generally despise being called polytheists or henotheists, and claim to be monotheists on the grounds that they worship only one god ("Heavenly Father") and condemn the worship of other gods (in this world). But make no mistake, Mormons do believe in "plural gods" (just as they prefer the term "plural marriage" to "polygamy," Mormons prefer the term "plural gods" to "polytheism").

The god Mormons worship with adoration is usually called "Heavenly Father," their version of God the Father. "Heavenly Father" is, according to Mormon theology, the maker and supreme god of this world (not to be confused with the way the term is used in 2Cor. 4:3-4). Other worlds have their own supreme gods, each worshipped with adoration by the faithful people of his own world. Moreover, the supreme god of each world is believed to have once been a human man in some other world, who worshipped his own "Heavenly Father" (and so on in infinite regress). It would be impossible to number the gods Mormons believe may exist in various worlds: "there is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus gods" (Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, "Plurality of Gods").

Recall the limitations of polytheists' gods mentioned above. They are usually composed of and limited by natural things like time, matter, and space, and are not therefore -properly speaking- "supernatural." This is certainly true of the gods Mormons believe in ("Heavenly Father," his superiors, peers, and subordinates). For example, Mormons believe that "Heavenly Father" has a resurrected material body, i.e. that he is at least partially composed of matter that existed before him. This further requires spatial limitation, for although Mormons profess that his influence is far-reaching, they believe he can only be in one place at one time. The world "Heavenly Father" has made was not created by his word from nothing, but organized out of pre-existing material (like a carpenter makes a chair out of wood). When Mormons use words like "eternal," "almighty," and "creator" to describe God, they do not mean the same thing Jews, Christians, and Muslims mean by those words.

 

 

The Bible dosn't mention the word bible.  Does the Koran mention the word Koran?

 

The bible says Jesus is God, The Holy spirit is God, and God the Father is God, but there is only One God. 

 

Therefore we can not comprehend God. 

 

John 1:1  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:2  He was in the beginning with God.
John 1:3  All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

John 1:14  And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

 

John 15:26  "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,

 

Luke 12:11  "When they bring you before the synagogues and the rulers and the authorities, do not worry about how or what you are to speak in your defense, or what you are to say;
Luke 12:12  for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say."

According to the bible God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit all have the same attributes.  Thus the term Trinity.  You dont have to accept the word trinity, you have to except what the bible says about God!

 

 

 

You beleive the Koran to be 100% accurate.

 

          The Koran claims that it was written by the perfect, immutable God who created the universe and knows all things.  On the contrary, the Koran has a number of historical, theological, and other errors that contradict reality.  

 

 In the Koran, Abraham lived in a land ruled by King Nimrod.  In the story (Sura 21:58-69), Abraham destroys the idols of his people, and as a result, is thrown into a fire by Nimrod.  However, Nimrod (Sargon I?) was the great grandson of Noah and the founder of the cities of Babylon and Nineveh (Genesis 10:8-11), but Abraham was nine generations separated from Noah (Genesis 11:10-27) and came from Ur of the Chaldees.  How could Nimrod (a man who had been dead for many years) throw Abraham (a man who had not even been born yet) into a fire?!  Of course, the error stems from the fact that Muhammad got this story from a Jewish legend (i.e. Midrash Rabbah) rather than a revelation from God. 

 

 

Abraham and the Ka�bah

 

            According to the Koran, Abraham and his son Ishmael were the ones who built the Ka�bah in Mecca (Sura 2:127).  However, this contradicts all the history books known to man:

 

��there is no historical evidence for the assertion that Abraham or Ishmael was ever in Mecca, and if there had been such a tradition it would have to be explained how all memory of the Old Semitic name Ishmael (which was not in its true Arabian form in Arabian inscriptions and written correctly with an initial consonant Y) came to be lost.  The form in the Quran is taken either from Greek or Syriac sources.�

-Alfred Guillaume, Islam (Baltimore: Penguin Books Inc., 1956), pp.61-62.

 

The name of Abraham's father was not Azar, as the Koran states in Sura 6:74, but Terah (Genesis 11:26). The Koran further teaches that Pharaoh's wife adopted Moses (Sura 28:8,9), whereas Moses himself said he was adopted by Pharaoh's daughter (Exodus 2:5-10).

 

In several places the Koran associates Haman with a Pharaoh of Moses' time (Sura 28:6-7, 38; 40:24, 36), but from the Bible book of Esther (3:1-10), we know that Haman was a servant of Ahasuerus I, the 5th century BC Medo-Persian king (known to us all as Xerxes) who lost the battle of Marathon. So Haman was really born a thousand years afterMoses!

 

 

In Sura 20:85-88, 95, we are told that it was a Samaritan that deceived the Israelites into making the golden calf after the exodus out of Egypt.  However, there was no such thing as a Samaritan until the city of Samaria was founded several centuries after the events in Exodus, and the separate people called Samaritans (the implied definition in the Koran) did not exist until even later when Assyria invaded the Northern Kingdom.  This is yet another embarrassing time compression found in the Koran.

 

 

 Yes it does.Read section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran#Etymology_and_meaning - Etymology and meaning under wikipedia.

 

OneWay wrote: The bible says Jesus is God, The Holy spirit is God, and God the Father is God, but there is only One God.    Therefore we can not comprehend God.    John 1:1  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:2  He was in the beginning with God. John 1:3  All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. John 1:14  And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

 

 Bible doesnot say that.Here is response to John 1:1

  http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=61 - http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=61

 

OneWay wrote: John 15:26  "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,    Luke 12:11  "When they bring you before the synagogues and the rulers and the authorities, do not worry about how or what you are to speak in your defense, or what you are to say; Luke 12:12  for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say."

 

 These verses are talking about Prophet Muhammad.Here is detailed response:

  http://www.answering-christianity.com/predict.htm - http://www.answering-christianity.com/predict.htm

OneWay wrote: According to the bible God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit all have the same attributes.  Thus the term Trinity.  You dont have to accept the word trinity, you have to except what the bible says about God!

 

  http://www.usislam.org/69ecum.htm - The ecumenical councils of Church, and how Jesus was made part of the trinity.   Read what happened in the first 7 council.  Many Christians do not know about the important facts in this article.

 

  http://www.answering-christianity.com/bible_quran_differences.htm - http://www.answering-christianity.com/bible_quran_differences.htm

 

OneWay wrote:    Abraham and the Ka�bah               According to the Koran, Abraham and his son Ishmael were the ones who built the Ka�bah in Mecca (Sura 2:127).  However, this contradicts all the history books known to man:   ��there is no historical evidence for the assertion that Abraham or Ishmael was ever in Mecca, and if there had been such a tradition it would have to be explained how all memory of the Old Semitic name Ishmael (which was not in its true Arabian form in Arabian inscriptions and written correctly with an initial consonant Y) came to be lost.  The form in the Quran is taken either from Greek or Syriac sources.� -Alfred Guillaume, Islam (Baltimore: Penguin Books Inc., 1956), pp.61-62..

 

  Ka'bah as a place of worship in the history:

  http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/kaaba.html - http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/kaaba.html

 

  Ka'bah in the Bible:

  http://www.answering-christianity.com/paran.htm - http://www.answering-christianity.com/paran.htm

 

 

 Who are the Samaritans and what does recent historical analyses and scientific investigation into their origins tell us about their role in ancient history? Is the Qur'anic mention of al-Samiri (sometimes translated as "the Samaritan") during the time of Moses consistent with modern investigations into the ancestral origins of the Samaritan sect? A critical discussion of the evidence provided by II Kings 17 in light of the extant archaeological evidence calls into question the veracity of the biblical account.

  http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/samaritan.html - http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/samaritan.html

 

OneWay wrote: In Sura 19:7 we read:  �(It was said unto him): O Zachariah!  Lo! We bring thee tidings of a son whose name is John; we have given the same name to none before (him).�             -Sura 19:7   This translation (by an orthodox Muslim) and other translations quite clearly state that there was no one named John before John the Baptist. In reality, this claim is absolutely silly!  There were Johns long before John the Baptist (see 2 Kings 25:23, 1 Chronicles 3:15, 24, 6:9, 10, Ezra 8:12, King John Hyrcanus, John the Essene, John Maccabeus, etc.).  Modern Muslims have seen the obvious historical error, and so they have tried to say that the Arabic text doesn�t actually say what it says.

  

 

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/yahya.html - And No One Had The Name Yahya (= John?) Before: A Linguistic & Exegetical Enquiry Into Qur'an 19:7

 

OneWay wrote: In Sura 19:28, Mary, the mother of Jesus, is said to be the sister of Aaron and Moses and the daughter of Amram (Sura 66:12).  However, Jesus was not born for another 1400 years after Moses!  It is clear that Muhammad confused Miriam, the sister of Moses, with Mary the mother of Jesus and wife of Joseph.

 

 

  http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/mary.html - Mary, Sister Of Aaron?

  

OneWay wrote: Why did Mohammed mistakenly think  that Mary was the third member of the Christian trinity.  The third member is The Holy Spirit, not Marry.

 

 

  http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/marytrin.html - Mary & Tri-unity

 

OneWay wrote: (The Dead Sea Scrolls contradict the theory the old Testament has been changed)

 

 OneWay point outs �Errors� from the Quran but haven�t even solved 20% of the errors found in the Bible at http://www.1001errors.com/ -

 

Jesus came to correct the people who had gone astray. Of course some rejected this message because who wants to be told they are doing wrong.. lol

 

Jewish folks, like Muslim folk, reject that Jesus was the "son of God" that is so ingrained in Christianity these days.  But at the time the coming of the Messiah shall signal many things and did not happen.  Then some rejected cause they did not "like the message" of being told to clean up their acts..lol

 

Nur, Are you getting the words "prophet" and "messiah" mixed up? Heck I get all this stuff mixed up.. lol.. I have never heard Prophet Mohammed be called a Messiah before your post.

   

the Quran that Mary is the sister of Moses (as) not even Haroon (as). Thus, do not add anything to the Quran please. In Quran the verse says that her society called her �O, Sister of Haroon�. This is the way her society called her at that moment and the Quran is reporting it. It does not prove the Quran stating that Mary must have been the sister of the prophet Haroon (as), does it?"

 

Mary was from the tribe of Aaron, that is why she was called thus. I believe Biblically this is also correct, therefore making it pretty much impossible for Jesus to be the seed of David. But I digress....