| Poster | Thread | wildbranch
Member
Joined: 2005/7/20
Posts: 138
| | Re: | | MikeH--------------You are accusing Nile (Matt) of the very thing that you say the first Jewish believers in Messiah did; that is throw out a strong, unshakeable belief at the drop of a hat, and start preaching a new one. As I said in my previous post, the notion of a 3 person God was absolutely foreign to the first Jewish believers in Messiah, and they would not have given up their pure Monotheism without much debate and questioning. The long awaited and expected Messiah was to be of the line of David, a mortal man, not YHWH, the Almighty God Himself. |
|  2007/10/25 8:31 | Profile |
| | Re: | | Whew, heavy stuff.
my understanding of the trinity is that it is three aspects, or facets of One God the Father. If all things are made by God, how can Jesus the Son not be part of God, and in fact, if we each will wait in faith upon the Holy Spirit, its part in us will come forth.
Jesus came as a personification of God to show us the way to salvation. But really, can anyone of us humans know the nature of God?
This whole thread seems to be speculation, human interpretation of the mystical nature of God, which we cannot hope to understand.
In short, it is enough to accept Christ as our savior and then leave His nature and relationship to God the Father alone. Let it be a mystery, because with our limited human comprehension it cannot be anything else.
bub |
| | 2007/10/25 10:26 | | Lkid
Member
Joined: 2007/7/6
Posts: 109
| | Re: | | Actually,as the bible clearly shows, the early jews for the most part rejected Jesus. If He was merely a man while being the Messiah then He would not be the stumbling stone that the builders rejected. They had Isaiah 53 or 54 whatever it is and they had the Psalm (can't remember which number) which says the Messiah must suffer. What then is it about Jesus that caused them to stumble over Him:
"Behold ye among the heathen, and regard, and wonder marvellously: for I will work a work in your days, which ye will not believe, though it be told you". Hab 1:5 |
| | 2007/10/25 11:06 | Profile | ginnyrose
Member
Joined: 2004/7/7
Posts: 7534
Mississippi
| | Re: | | Mike wrote:
Quote:
So it took you a week to abandon a key doctrine of the Christian faith? And another week and a half to start preaching it. I won't enter the fray on the doctrine, as I doubt that I would be any more successful than others at convincing you. However, I would question such a dramatic change of mind in such a short space of time, and furthermore, that you so boldly proclaim your new found position. My experience is that I have occasionally 'discovered' wonderful new doctrines, but it only takes a little while to realise their source, as the primary appeal is to my pride, not the edification of the body. I have changed my view on a particular doctrine, though not half as important as this one, but it took me 10 years to get there. Of course, you could just say that I am slow
You are right on...you are saying the same things that was going through my mind...
It seems to me the Pharisees understood who Jesus was better then moderns who have the entire Bible at their disposal for study. Consider John 5:18: "Therefore, the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, i][b]making himself equal with God."[/b][/i]." And if Jesus was not God how can Isa. 43:11 be true: I, even I, am the LORD; and beside, me there is no savior." Isa. 45:21: "Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time?, who hath told it from that time?, have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Savior; there is none beside me."
Or consider: Luke 2:11: the angel told the shepherds that a Savior was born in Bethleham.
Nile, you must study the scriptures as a whole. To suggest the writer Isaiah did not know about what was to come is denying the inspiration of the HS in supervising the writings of His people. Hope and pray you will reconsider why you are so willing to abandon basic tenets of scripture...
ginnyrose
_________________
Sandra Miller
|
| | 2007/10/25 12:10 | Profile |
| | Re: nature of God and Jesus | |
Ginny et. al.
please give this a rest. no matter which point of view you are espousing, that Jesus was fully God or the human Son of God, you are supposing to comprehend the very nature of God and the nature of Jesus.
can an ant understand the theory of relativity? faith requires that we accept the teachings, promises and saving Grace of Jesus, plain and simple. debating His nature is like the ants having an argument about relativity. it exists, but there really is no way that they can understand it. this kind of discussion can only lead to division amonst believers, and while those participating may have the best of intentions and believe in the merits of their position without malice or ego, it is a discussion that will only produce divisiveness.
bub
|
| | 2007/10/25 13:14 | | ginnyrose
Member
Joined: 2004/7/7
Posts: 7534
Mississippi
| | Re: | | Post deleted by ginnyrose
_________________
Sandra Miller
|
| | 2007/10/25 14:09 | Profile |
| | Re: | | Quote:
bubbaguy wrote:
Ginny et. al.
please give this a rest. no matter which point of view you are espousing, that Jesus was fully God or the human Son of God, you are supposing to comprehend the very nature of God and the nature of Jesus.
can an ant understand the theory of relativity? faith requires that we accept the teachings, promises and saving Grace of Jesus, plain and simple. debating His nature is like the ants having an argument about relativity. it exists, but there really is no way that they can understand it. this kind of discussion can only lead to division amonst believers, and while those participating may have the best of intentions and believe in the merits of their position without malice or ego, it is a discussion that will only produce divisiveness.
bub
That's true in a way, Bub - I would make the same plea if it was a matter of minor details and points of doctrine. However, this is something more, and there is a right division that has to be made. We have to make a distinction between light and darkness, truth and error.
You are right too, that we can't understnd God, but that is why it's so important to take what the [i]Bible[/i] says on a subject, not throw away Truth because we find it difficult to make sense of.
The Bible plainly states the following facts, which taken together don't make sense if we were merely using our "peanut brains", so let's just [i][u]believe[/u][/i] and not seek too much to analyse, let alone argue that it can't be true...
[u]The Bible says that[/u]:
God is One
The Father has the characteristics* of God
The Son has the characteristics* of God
The Spirit has the characteristics* of God
In addition, the Son, Jesus, became wholly man, flesh and blood like us, without losing the characteristics* of God.
By *"characteristics of God"* I don't mean primarily the things that men tend to think of when they speak of Him - like omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence - but His [i][u]Character[/u][/i], what He is like as a Person, (as mentioned in the previous post).
Characteristics such as perfect love and perfect righteousness.
The Bible says that Jesus (temporarily) laid down such things as omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience; but the love and righteousness never! Philippians 2 speaks of the depths to which He stooped in order to gain our salvation...
His pre-existence is undoubted (read Proverbs 8 for example, Isaiah 48:16, John 1:1-4 and John 8:58, which has already been quoted)
And the Greek of John 1:1 makes it absolutely [i][u]impossible[/u][/i] to translate as anything other than "the word was God").
The Father is God also, whom Jesus obeyed and to whom He prayed.
And I believe that the Spirit is God, although the Bible has less evidence on that point. The most convincing I can think of is that Jesus spoke of Him as "another comforter" (paraclete), "another" meaning another like ([i][u]of the same nature as[/u][/i]) Himself.
Yet God is One!
in Him
Jeannette
PS
No one has commented so far on my last post on this thread. I would really like answers to a couple of questions, especially the historical evidence and re Hellenistic thought. |
| | 2007/10/25 16:59 | | ginnyrose
Member
Joined: 2004/7/7
Posts: 7534
Mississippi
| | Re: | | Bubba,
When the Word is explicit in its teachings, we do well to make it our own. God has revealed Himself to us in ways we can comprehend. Failure to do so is our fault, not God's. I may be an ant but I would have you know the ants in Mississippi are not lazy and they can bite! and are smarter then humans often give them credit.
ginnyrose
_________________
Sandra Miller
|
| | 2007/10/25 21:51 | Profile | jimp
Member
Joined: 2005/6/18
Posts: 1481
| | Re: | | hi, "before abraham was,I am" jimp |
| | 2007/10/25 22:55 | Profile | MikeH
Member
Joined: 2006/9/21
Posts: 116
| | Re: | | Quote:
wildbranch wrote:
MikeH--------------You are accusing Nile (Matt) of the very thing that you say the first Jewish believers in Messiah did; that is throw out a strong, unshakeable belief at the drop of a hat, and start preaching a new one.
Firstly, I wasn't trying to accuse, but counsel, albeit probably not very well. Secondly, I don't think they threw things out 'at the drop of a hat'. Jesus was with them for three years and their understanding visibly changed during that time. Okay, that's slightly less than the 10 years I quoted, but I said I was slow :-) Similarly, the scriptures were not finalised for several years and Peter testifies that some things Paul wrote were (basically) beyond him. Thirdly, I am not sure they 'threw anything out' they just expanded their understanding, which took time to develop.
Now, I don't know Nile, I note he is 19 and engaged (congrats) and has been on the website for around 7 months. I don't know how long he has been a Christian. But my advice still stands, switching to a radically different doctrine and start preaching it within one week, is a dangerous thing to do. We are not talking about a salvation experience, but a doctrinal understanding, the implications of which are wide ranging and undermine many other doctrines within Christianity.
Quote:
wildbranch wrote:
...and they would not have given up their pure Monotheism without much debate and questioning.
I thought that trinity was Monotheism?
:-(
Mike |
| | 2007/10/26 2:45 | Profile |
|
