Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not sure why this is even debatable. I and my Father are one. And I will send one in my place. As Jesus said all are one. As we are baptized in one Spirit. The whole hierarhcy thing is not part of the scripture. You either believe in Jesus or not.
You are the temple and the temple has three parts. Spirit, Soul, Body. Three that bear witness on earth are these and known as Blood, Water, and Spirit. The Three in Heaven Father Son and Holy Spirit. When you inherit the kingdom you will be as the angels are in heaven.
…20'Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me. 21'He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne. 22'He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.'"
Jesus did say--I and the Father are one--as a mortal--he also said--the Father is greater than I--as a mortal---Gods word also says all true followers will be one with them---proving one means in purpose--that purpose = living 24/7 365 to do Gods will. you are correct--there is no debate about it.
You will find out--Catholicism translated the trinity bibles--destroyed the originals to fit Catholicism council teachings--headed up by a pagan false god worshipping king-so Jesus wasn't there. guess who had the final say as to what was truth?--the greeks were refusing to go to a religion with a single mono God--they had many gods--they as well wanted their traditions in the celebrations--all this stuff was incorporated at Catholicism councils--read the ist council of Nicea--no trinity was taught--it came later.
The bible was kept in latin for 1000 years or so after that, no one was allowed to read it except clergy--no one had a clue by then--finally when men could read it--saw the crap and broke off--they never fixed it because they had no clue--errors in translation prevented it. they tried to fix some--but many major teachings are still in error--especially a trinity god--this is the true God Jesus taught--John 4:22-24--only the Father is God-Jehovah.
The doctrine of the Trinity was taught and defended long before the Council of Nicaea which was held in A.D. 325. Tertullian (c. AD.160-220) defended the doctrine of the Trinity in 'Against Praxeas' (c. AD. 200).
Against Praxeas
CHAPTER 3 -- SUNDRY POPULAR FEARS AND PREJUDICES. THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY IN UNITY RESCUED FROM THESE MISAPPREHENSIONS.
The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned,) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to the one only true God; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own oikonomia. The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a division of the Unity; whereas the Unity which derives the Trinity out of its own self is so far from being destroyed, that it is actually supported by it. They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to themselves pre-eminently the credit of being worshippers of the One God; just as if the Unity itself with irrational deductions did not produce heresy, and the Trinity rationally considered constitute the truth. Tertullian (Roberts-Donaldson)
Concerning John 1:1, every extant manuscript copy which contains John 1:1 say the exact same thing. ''In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.''
In his lecture at Wheaton College on Sept. 28, 2012, Dr. Daniel Wallace at 25:48 into the video below states that manuscript P66 which he says is dated to around AD. 175 reads at John 1:1, ''In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.''
Therefore, should you attempt to do so, no legitimate claim can be made that John 1:1 was altered at some later date in order to promote the deity of Christ.
The doctrine of the Trinity was taught and defended long before the Council of Nicaea which was held in A.D. 325. Tertullian (c. AD.160-220) defended the doctrine of the Trinity in 'Against Praxeas' (c. AD. 200).
Against Praxeas
CHAPTER 3 -- SUNDRY POPULAR FEARS AND PREJUDICES. THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY IN UNITY RESCUED FROM THESE MISAPPREHENSIONS.
The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned,) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to the one only true God; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own oikonomia. The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a division of the Unity; whereas the Unity which derives the Trinity out of its own self is so far from being destroyed, that it is actually supported by it. They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to themselves pre-eminently the credit of being worshippers of the One God; just as if the Unity itself with irrational deductions did not produce heresy, and the Trinity rationally considered constitute the truth. Tertullian (Roberts-Donaldson)
Concerning John 1:1, every extant manuscript copy which contains John 1:1 say the exact same thing. ''In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.''
In his lecture at Wheaton College on Sept. 28, 2012, Dr. Daniel Wallace at 25:48 into the video below states that manuscript P66 which he says is dated to around AD. 175 reads at John 1:1, ''In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.''
Therefore, should you attempt to do so, no legitimate claim can be made that John 1:1 was altered at some later date in order to promote the deity of Christ.
KJW47 has been told this repeatedly. He refuses to look at historical facts. Like all loyal JW's, he cannot go against the Governing Body for fear of disfellowship and shunning. It is easier for some JW's to keep repeating this lie than to get the boot.
The doctrine of the Trinity was taught and defended long before the Council of Nicaea which was held in A.D. 325. Tertullian (c. AD.160-220) defended the doctrine of the Trinity in 'Against Praxeas' (c. AD. 200).
Against Praxeas
CHAPTER 3 -- SUNDRY POPULAR FEARS AND PREJUDICES. THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY IN UNITY RESCUED FROM THESE MISAPPREHENSIONS.
The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned,) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to the one only true God; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own oikonomia. The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a division of the Unity; whereas the Unity which derives the Trinity out of its own self is so far from being destroyed, that it is actually supported by it. They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to themselves pre-eminently the credit of being worshippers of the One God; just as if the Unity itself with irrational deductions did not produce heresy, and the Trinity rationally considered constitute the truth. Tertullian (Roberts-Donaldson)
Concerning John 1:1, every extant manuscript copy which contains John 1:1 say the exact same thing. ''In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.''
In his lecture at Wheaton College on Sept. 28, 2012, Dr. Daniel Wallace at 25:48 into the video below states that manuscript P66 which he says is dated to around AD. 175 reads at John 1:1, ''In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.''
Therefore, should you attempt to do so, no legitimate claim can be made that John 1:1 was altered at some later date in order to promote the deity of Christ.
Ho Theos= THE GOD was in the second line--plain-theos was in the last line
the only word in greek for either-God or god is Theos--Ho Theos means the true almighty God( large G)--plain Theos=god( small g) carrying the biblical meaning--has godlike qualities. Because Gods power went through Jesus( Acts 2:22)--he didn't have have the power himself.
In fact alls it takes is believing Jesus words but 2 billion refuse to do it.
Last line-Lords prayer--The KINGDOM-POWER, AND GLORY--all belong to the Father----believe Jesus. Instead they believe some dead mans words who they in reality have 0 clue about.Just what trinity teachers tell them--either Jesus lied in the Lords prayer or Terrtilliun lied. And we all know Jesus didn't lie.
Ho Theos= THE GOD was in the second line--plain-theos was in the last line
the only word in greek for either-God or god is Theos--Ho Theos means the true almighty God( large G)--plain Theos=god( small g) carrying the biblical meaning--has godlike qualities. Because Gods power went through Jesus( Acts 2:22)--he didn't have have the power himself.
In fact alls it takes is believing Jesus words but 2 billion refuse to do it.
Last line-Lords prayer--The KINGDOM-POWER, AND GLORY--all belong to the Father----believe Jesus. Instead they believe some dead mans words who they in reality have 0 clue about.Just what trinity teachers tell them--either Jesus lied in the Lords prayer or Terrtilliun lied. And we all know Jesus didn't lie.
On the contrary. In Dr. Dan Wallace's book, Greek Grammar beyond the basics, on pp. 266-269 he addresses John 1:1 and whether it should be regarded as an indefinite, a definite, or a qualitative noun. Citing the weakness of the view that it should be regarded as either indefinite, or definite as some who misunderstand Colwell's rule do, Dr. Wallace then states that the most likely candidate for Θεὸς (Theos) is qualitative. This means that the Λόγος (Logos-Word) was not only with Θεόν (Theon) with reference to the Father, but that the Word was Himself Θεὸς (Theos-God). Not some created being with godlike powers.
As a qualitative noun, Theos means that the Word has the same qualities, the same essence as the Father - Theon. The Word is just as much God as the Father is.
Dr. Wallace states that before 1933 New Testament commentators viewed Θεὸς as qualitative and cites Robertson, Lange, Chmnitz, and Alford, as well as Luther who said, ''the Word was God' is against Arius; 'the Word was with God' against Sabellius.''
Regarding the fact that in John 1:1c Θεὸς is qualitative rather than definite, this stresses the fact that while Christ is not the person of the Father, their essence is identical. Dr. Wallace states, 'The idea of a qualitative Θεὸς here is that the Word had all the attributes and qualities that ''the God'' (of 1:1b) had. In other words, he shared the essence of the Father, though they differed in person. The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father.'
You can claim that the Jehovah's Witnesses are God's true teachers and that everyone who doesn't agree with them are false teachers and liars, but even in the English John 1:1 is clear. The Word was with God and the Word was God. Jesus Christ is eternal and infinite God. I know you will continue to disagree, and so I will leave it at that.
Excellent! I listened to the first part. It was really good. I'll listen to the next part now.
Hi Katie. I didn't see your post until this morning. Dr. Wallace has given a number of lectures which can be listened to on YouTube. You might enjoy them as well.
On the contrary. In Dr. Dan Wallace's book, Greek Grammar beyond the basics, on pp. 266-269 he addresses John 1:1 and whether it should be regarded as an indefinite, a definite, or a qualitative noun. Citing the weakness of the view that it should be regarded as either indefinite, or definite as some who misunderstand Colwell's rule do, Dr. Wallace then states that the most likely candidate for Θεὸς (Theos) is qualitative. This means that the Λόγος (Logos-Word) was not only with Θεόν (Theon) with reference to the Father, but that the Word was Himself Θεὸς (Theos-God). Not some created being with godlike powers.
As a qualitative noun, Theos means that the Word has the same qualities, the same essence as the Father - Theon. The Word is just as much God as the Father is.
Dr. Wallace states that before 1933 New Testament commentators viewed Θεὸς as qualitative and cites Robertson, Lange, Chmnitz, and Alford, as well as Luther who said, ''the Word was God' is against Arius; 'the Word was with God' against Sabellius.''
Regarding the fact that in John 1:1c Θεὸς is qualitative rather than definite, this stresses the fact that while Christ is not the person of the Father, their essence is identical. Dr. Wallace states, 'The idea of a qualitative Θεὸς here is that the Word had all the attributes and qualities that ''the God'' (of 1:1b) had. In other words, he shared the essence of the Father, though they differed in person. The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father.'
You can claim that the Jehovah's Witnesses are God's true teachers and that everyone who doesn't agree with them are false teachers and liars, but even in the English John 1:1 is clear. The Word was with God and the Word was God. Jesus Christ is eternal and infinite God. I know you will continue to disagree, and so I will leave it at that.
What else would a trinity follower say. Jesus and his real teachers in the nt contradict him and a trinity--that's proof.
the word was god--small g-- otherwise this has to be the trinity teaching in the 2nd line--( if the word was God)God was with God with another God over there.---(rev 3:12---- God has a God with another God over there--- Gods word is clear--one God.
What else would a trinity follower say. Jesus and his real teachers in the nt contradict him and a trinity--that's proof.
the word was god--small g-- otherwise this has to be the trinity teaching in the 2nd line--( if the word was God)God was with God with another God over there.---(rev 3:12---- God has a God with another God over there--- Gods word is clear--one God.
I'll have to go with what Katie said in post #44. Sad.
What does Paul say about Messianic Jewish beliefs?
(Gal 3:10-14) For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. 11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. 12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. 13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: 14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
So basically Paul is telling us that observing OT practices for salvation(works) will not only put you under a curse but will not give you the promise of the comforter, the Holy Ghost. Hence, this man is sadly not even saved.
Put your faith in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour without any self-righteous works. The just shall live by faith!
Paul kept the laws of Moses till he died and he went out of his way to prove that he kept the laws when liars said otherwise.
So if Paul speaks against keeping the laws of Moses, his words are of no use because he would be two faced, a man who proved he kept the laws and never taught anyone not to keep the laws.
If Stephen was teaching people not to keep the laws of Moses, then he deserved to die a sinner's death, but Stephen was innocent against the liars who were paid to lie against him.
The lie that says Jesus and his disciples came teaching people not to keep the laws of Moses.
The liars told this lie against Paul, and if Paul would have been found guilty of teaching Jews not to keep the laws, then Paul would deserve a sinner's death. If Jesus came teaching people not to keep the laws of Moses then he would be a sinner deserving death and could not be a sacrifice for anyone.
Jesus said himself that anyone who keeps the laws of Moses and teaches others to keep the laws will be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
If you don't believe Jesus, then you don't believe Jesus, but don't use the words of a two faced liar to prove Jesus wrong, because if you show a Paul who was accused of breaking the laws by teaching other Jews not to keep the laws, you show a man who lied and made sacrifices to God in a very unrighteous way. Paul made sacrifices decades after Jesus died just to prove that he never stopped keeping the law, and to prove the liars wrong, and the rumors wrong.
So is a Paul a man who teaches people not to keep the commandments of God?
A man that directly contradicts what Jesus said of the law, or were both Paul and Jesus two faced in saying one thing and doing another?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
