Who do you believe Paul or Jesus?

@ TheVisitor

Your doctrine is wrong.

You must not contradict these two elements:

1) God is three Persons
2) The FULLNESS of the Godhead is in Christ

By glorifying Christ, we glorify God.

Romans 1
1Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God-- 2the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David

As you can see, Paul refers to the promise God made REGARDING His Son. Therefore you can not ignorantly say that they are the same. That would be foolishly saying that Jesus refers to Himself as His Son.
 
As I wrote on the subject of the "Original Sin" .......not everyone will see it.
The big denominations who preach the trinity have misled the masses for centuries, but when the Son of Man is revealed in the last days, these doctines will be brought to light and straightend out...for them who have a love of the truth.
 
Your doctrine is wrong.
-------
Where?.......what part of Mono-Theism do you not understand.
I will address your doctrine of the "trinity" and it's origins in Poly-Theism detail below.

You must not contradict these two elements:
----------
Who told you these "two" elements where so sacred.....?

1) God is three Persons
---------
Three persons in one God.......implies three personalities, making three God's.
This is no where supported in the bible, but was addding as doctrine in the Niciene Council meeting of 325 a.d. which is the beginning of the reign of darkness that lasted 1000 years by the Catholic church of Rome.
68 million people where put to death for disgreeing with the pope on this issue.

2) The FULLNESS of the Godhead is in Christ
------------
Sure it is -But that in no way supports the "Trinity" doctrine.
Every major heathen nation from Rome to Nimrod in Babylon have believed in a trinity of Gods.......Before Nimrod, the desendants of Noah who had spread over the earth believed in one God - Jehovah....in every nation.
Even Job's comforters who where oriental believed in Jehovah at that time.
Nimrod taught Man the art of war and poly-theism.
The fulness of God - who is a Spirit, was poured into Christ.
Who then became the fullness of the Godhead bodily.
He is one God - manifested in the Flesh....in the Lord Jesus Christ.


By glorifying Christ, we glorify God.
----------
And "God" is the Word. (1st John 1:1-14)
In the beginning was the Word ....the Word was with God....the Word was God.......and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.

Romans 1
1Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God-- 2the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David
As you can see, Paul refers to the promise God made REGARDING His Son. Therefore you can not ignorantly say that they are the same. That would be foolishly saying that Jesus refers to Himself as His Son.
---------
You miss the point entirely....... a "Son" of God is God manifested in flesh.
Adam fell, the rest of us fell.......Jesus did not.
He became the fullness of God manifest in the flesh of the Man Jesus....who was born one of us....a human to be the kinsmen redeamer.
He was God. The Son part was the flesh God dwelt in.
So......why don't you examine your baptism of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and that false "trinity" as it's so-called, which is nothing in the world but three offices of one God: titles.
No name of Father, there's no such a thing as name, Father, Son, Holy Ghost.
The name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is the Lord Jesus Christ. Examine your trinitarian baptism with the way everyone in the Bible was baptized.
In the "Name" of the Father, and the "Name" of the Son, and the "Name" of the Holy Ghost....is not even scriptural.
This is creation of the Roman Catholic Church.
The oringinal scripture said in the Name (singular) of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
There is One Name for all three titles...The Lord Jesus Christ.
 
Last edited:
1 John 2
22Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist--he denies the Father and the Son. 23No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

Wow, so much for your they are the same theory. The operative word there is "and", followed by another operative, "also", to indicate that your theory is indeed erroneous.

I hope you now see the error of your ways.

----

I will address your reply tomorrow.
 
The idea of a "trinty of Gods" did not start with Christianty.....
You don't have to believe me.....do some research of your own.
Try reading "50 Years in the Church of Rome", "Foxes book of Martyrs", or "The Two Babylons" for starters.....some of theses book have been around more than a hundred years.

The following is an exerpt.......on the true history of the idea of the "trinity".

"It was way back there in antiquity that the "one God in three persons" idea came into existence. How strange that our modern theologians have not spotted this; but evidently just as duped by Satan as their forebears were, they still believe in three persons in the Godhead. Let us be shown just one place in Scripture where there is any authority for that doctrine. Is it not strange that while the descendants of Ham went on their way in Satanic worship which involved a basic concept of three gods that there is not one trace of the descendants of Shem believing such a thing or having any ceremonial worship that involved even a type of it? It is not strange that the Hebrews believed, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is ONE God", if there were three persons in the Godhead? Abraham, the descendant of Shem, in Genesis 18 saw only ONE God with two angels.

Now how was this trinity expressed? It was expressed by an equilateral triangle even as it is expressed in Rome today. Strange, the Hebrews did not have such a concept. Now who is right? Is it the Hebrews or the Babylonians? In Asia the polytheistic idea of three gods in one came out in an image with three heads on one body. He is expressed as three intelligences. In India, they found it in their hearts to express him as one god in three forms. Now that really is good modern day theology. In Japan there is a great Buddha with three heads like the one we previously described. But the most revealing of all is that which sets forth the trinitarian concept of God in a triune form of: 1. The head of an old man symbolizing God the Father, 2. A circle which in the mysteries signified "Seed" which in turn means the Son. 3. The wings and tail of a bird (dove). Here was the doctrine of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, three persons in the Godhead, a veritable trinity. You can see the same thing in Rome. Now let me ask once again, is it not strange that the devil and his worshipers actually had more truth revealed than the father of faith, (Abraham) and his descendants? Is it not strange that the worshipers of Satan, knew more about God than the children of God? Now that is what modern theologians try to tell us when they talk about a trinity. Just remember this one thing from now on: these records are facts and this is a fact--Satan is a liar and the father of lies, and whenever he comes with any light it is still a lie. He is a murderer. And his doctrine of the trinity has destroyed the multitudes and will destroy until Jesus comes.

Since it was not necessary to worship the creator-father, it was only natural that worship swung to the "Mother and Child" as the objects of adoration. In Egypt there was the same combination of mother and son called Isis and Osiris. In India it was Isi and Iswara. (Note the similarity of names even.) In Asia it was Cybele and Deoius. In Rome and in Greece it followed suit. And in China. Well, imagine the surprise of some Roman Catholic missionaries as they entered China and found there a Madonna and Child with rays of light emanating from the head of the babe. The image could well have been exchanged for one in the Vatican except for the difference of certain facial features.
It now behooves us to discover the original mother and child. The original goddess-mother of Babylon was Semiramis who was called Rhea in the eastern countries. In her arms she held a son, who though a babe, was described as tall, strong, handsome and especially captivating to the women. In Ezekiel 8:14 he was called Tammuz. Amongst classical writers he was called Bacchus. To the Babylonians he was Ninus. What accounts for the fact that he is represented as a babe in arms and yet described as a great and mighty man is that he is known as the "Husband-Son". One of his titles was "Husband of the Mother", and in India where the two are known as Iswara and Isi, he (the husband) is represented as the babe at the breast of his own wife.

That this Ninus is the Nimrod of the Bible we can affirm by comparing history with the Genesis account. Pompeius said, "Ninus, king of Assyria, changed the ancient moderate ways of life by the desire for conquest. HE WAS THE FIRST WHO CARRIED WAR AGAINST HIS NEIGHBORS. He conquered all nations from Assyria to Lybia as these men knew not the arts of war." Diodorus says, "Ninus was the most ancient of Assyrian kings mentioned in history. Being of warlike disposition he trained many young men rigorously in the arts of war. He brought Babylonia under him while yet there was no city of Babylon." Thus we see this Ninus started to become great in Babylon, built Babel and took over Assyria, becoming its king, and then proceeded to devour other vast territories where the people were unskilled in war and lived in a moderate way as said Pompeius. Now in Genesis 10, speaking of the kingdom of Nimrod it says, "And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh in the land of Shinar. Out of that land went forth Asshur and builded Nineveh, and Calah etc." But the translators made a mistake in translating Asshur as a noun for it is a verb, and in the Chaldee means 'to make strong.' Thus it is Nimrod, who having been made strong (he established his kingdom by building the world's first army which he trained by drilling and through the rigors of hunting) went beyond Shinar with his strong army and subdued nations and built such cities as Nineveh, which was named after him, for even today a chief part of the ruins of that city is called Nimroud!
Since we have discovered who Ninus was, it is now necessary to discover who his father was. According to history it was Bel, the founder of Babylon. (Now it is to be noted here that Bel founded it in the sense that he started this whole move, but it was the son, Ninus, that established it and was the first king etc.) But according to the Scripture, the father of Nimrod was Cush: "And Cush begat Nimrod." Not only is this so but we find that Ham begat Cush. Now, in the Egyptian culture Bel was called Hermes, and Hermes means, "THE SON OF HAM". According to history Hermes was the great prophet of idolatry. He was the interpreter of the gods. Another name by which he was called was Mercury. (Read Acts 14:11-12)

Hyginus says this about that god who was known variously as Bel, Hermes, Mercury etc, "For many ages men lived under the government of Jove (not the Roman Jove, but Jehovah of the Hebrews who predates Roman history) without cities and without laws, and all speaking one language. But after that Mercury (Bel, Cush) interpreted the speeches of men (whence an interpreter is called Hermeneutes) the same individual distributed the nations. Then discord began." It is seen from this that Bel or Cush, the father of Nimrod, originally was the ring leader that led the people away from the true God and encouraged the people as the "interpreter of the gods" to take another form of religion. He encouraged them to go ahead with the tower which his son actually built. This encouragement is what brought the confusion and the division of men, so that he was both, "interpreter and confuser".

Cush, then, was the father of the polytheistic system and when men were deified by men, he of course, became the father of the gods. Now Cush was called Bel. And Bel in Roman mythology was Janus. He is pictured as having two faces and he carried a club by which he confounded and "scattered" the people. Ovid writes that Janus said concerning himself, "the ancients called me Chaos".


This is how your "Trinity " got started.............long before it was adopted as a doctrine in the Niciene Council of 325 A.D. as a compromise on the Word of God to appease the heathen population of the nations "Christianity" was beginning to overrun.
 
Last edited:
The theological term Trinity does not refer to three Gods. I was hoping even you would know that. So please stop arguing otherwise because it is common knowledge to even the atheists on this forum.
 
The theological term Trinity does not refer to three Gods. I was hoping even you would know that.
----------------------
Trinity does refer to three gods.............they try to call it "three persons in one God, then state it's to confusing for the laity to understand.
Three persons with three supposed different names makes three gods.

If you'd read my post you could see that, but seeing you can't refute my post and have to resort to slanderous little one liners, I believe we're pretty much through here.
 
SourStar: The theological term Trinity does not refer to three Gods. I was hoping even you would know that. So please stop arguing otherwise because it is common knowledge to even the atheists on this forum.
*************
M*W: The trinity concept was around long before and long after Jesus. When God made the universe, he created time, space and gravity, but it wasn't until the 20th century that Einstein figured out E=MC2.

Julius Caesar had the triumverate, and Hitler led the Third Reich. Baby Jesus was visited by three wise men who brought him gold, frankinsense and myrrh.

Corinthians in the new testament talks about faith, hope and charity that was allegedly written by Paul of Tarsus.

Wartime Americans remember the days of duty, honor and country, and they listened to music by the Andrews Sisters and McGuire Sisters. They watched a TV program called I Led Three Lives. They remembered General MacArthur's famous last words, "I shall return." They spoke of FDR, HST and DDE.

Those of us who are called the "Post-War Baby Boomers" liked such characters when we were kids as Huey, Dewey and Louie; Kukla, Fran and Ollie; three blind mice; the three Musketeers; the three little pigs; three stooges; three men in a boat; Wynken, Blynken and Nod; and Little Bo Peep; but, most of all, we needed to obey the three wise monkeys -- see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil, while we were learning our three R's -- reading, wRiting and aRithmetic in school.

Then the '60s came and we were teens. My mother warned me not to date every Tom, Dick and Harry. We lived through the assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK while LBJ escalated our presence in Southeast Asia. We listened to great music by Peter, Paul and Mary; Emerson, Lake and Palmer; Three Dog Night; Blood, Sweat and Tears; Crosby, Stills and Nash; and Bachman-Turner-Overdrive. One of my favorite songs is Once, Twice, Three Times A Lady. It was our generation that popularized sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll.

We watched those innocent sit-coms on TV like My Three Sons, and Charlie's Angels, and great movies like Three Coins in the Fountain and The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, and Tora, Tora, Tora. I remember my parents talking about the Triple Crown, and all of us watched baseball's three strikes you're out.

When we were young, it was a simple red, yellow and blue world. Then things started to become more complicated as we grew up and learned of a scientist named Dr. Timothy Leary who gave the world LSD, and life became a more psychedelic orange, purple and green.

Today, I'm more into the Three Tenors and learning about body, mind and spiritual matters. The religion I believe in is Maiden, Mother and Crone. That is my trinity. I drive an SUV and watch my DVD. Oh, by the way, for lunch today I had a BLT.

Life is Good.
 
Julius Caesar had the triumverate, and Hitler led the Third Reich. Baby Jesus was visited by three wise men who brought him gold, frankinsense and myrrh.
Click to expand...

And there was Hermes Trismegistus, the thrice great.
 
Medicine Woman said:
SourStar: The theological term Trinity does not refer to three Gods. I was hoping even you would know that. So please stop arguing otherwise because it is common knowledge to even the atheists on this forum.
*************
M*W: The trinity concept was around long before and long after Jesus. When God made the universe, he created time, space and gravity, but it wasn't until the 20th century that Einstein figured out E=MC2.
Click to expand...

That's why I said "theological term Trinity" instead of "the term Trinity".

I knew someone would hunt me down on that. Tom and Jerry weren't part of the "trinity concept" and neither was Batman and Robin, until Batgirl showed up and ruined the series for good..

Neither was:

Adam and Eve
Erbert & Roper
Siegfried and Roy
Mickey and Minnie Mouse
 
§outh§tar said:
That's why I said "theological term Trinity" instead of "the term Trinity".

I knew someone would hunt me down on that. Tom and Jerry weren't part of the "trinity concept" and neither was Batman and Robin, until Batgirl showed up and ruined the series for good..

Neither was:

Adam and Eve
Erbert & Roper
Siegfried and Roy
Mickey and Minnie Mouse
Click to expand...
*************
M*W: Like a typical ignorant christian, you're a misogynist, and it's obvious you don't know the difference between the trinity concept and duality.
 
Medicine Woman said:
*************
M*W: Like a typical ignorant christian, you're a misogynist, and it's obvious you don't know the difference between the trinity concept and duality.
Click to expand...

Wow I'm a misogynist because I say Batgirl wasn't made to fit in properly with the Batman series?

All I'm saying is that she just didn't fit in with the formula that the series had used previously. It doesn't mean she was a poor character or anything, after all Catwoman is coming out in theaters and I'm not going to miss it.

The list I made doesn't fit in with any description of duality. I'm afraid you are mistaken.

In Christ,
 
Yo SouthStar,

Originally Posted by 786
Hello,

I have some questions about Christianity. Please anwer if you can.
When you answer please provide as many quotes as possible, from the Bible.
When answering please tell me the number of the question so I know what you are answering. Or repeat the question when answering.

Trinity?

1. If Jesus was a God then why could people see him?

"No man hath seen God at any time," John 1:18

Quote SouthStar:
“No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”

“This distinguishes the Trinity, showing the relationship between the Father and the Son, which are furthermore described as One, in the sentence: "I and the Father are one". After all, before Jesus time, no one had seen God the Father but, if you actually took the time to read it, Jesus tells us that He came to BEAR witness of the Father, thus if you knew Jesus, you knew the Father.”

Here Jesus is one with God, they are “one”.

Quote SouthStar:
“That proves His divinity all the more, for if He chose to have His own way and the Father also to have His own way then there would be discord”

Here we have “two” distinct god personas. “He” and the “Father”, with “two” distinct potential opinions which could create discord.

Quote SouthStar:
“The theological term Trinity does not refer to three Gods. I was hoping even you would know that. So please stop arguing otherwise because it is common knowledge to even the atheists on this forum.”

Here we are back to a Trinity that reflects “one” god.

Some Texts reflecting two distinct personas:

"but of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." (Mark 13:32)
"for my Father is greater than I." (John 14:38)
"and this is life eternal, that they may know thee, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." (John 17:3)
"The Son can do nothing of himself." (John 3:19)
"Why callest thou me good? There is none good, but one, that is God." (Mark 10:18)
"Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name that is above every name." (Philippians 2:9)

I think these verses speak for themselves reflecting “two” distinct personas.
So, if Jesus is God and therefore “one” how do we resolve the texts above?

From SouthStars link: http://www.christiancourier.com/questions/inspirationQuestion.htm
First, “inspiration” of the Bible means that it had a divine origin. The term “inspiration” is found in the New Testament one time (2 Tim. 3:16).
“Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.”
I am still asking, with or without inspiration:
“How do we resolve the duality indicated in the verses above. For example: "but of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." (Mark 13:32)

If the Son and the Father are “one”, how come only the Father knows the day and the hour?

Allcare.
 
Statement 1: I jump.
Here we get the feeling of one destinct whole.

Statement 2: Arms go up and Legs go down. Legs will not go up of their own accord, and Arms will not go down unless they are ordered to.
Here we see a destinct difference between the "I" of statement 1, and "arms and legs".

Is it unfair or contradictory to connect statements 1 and 2?

What if statement 3 said specifically: I and the Arms and Legs are one? Why don't we say: "my arms and legs jump"?

?
 
Yo Jenyar,

I am with you Jenyar but still,

"but of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." (Mark 13:32)"

There is no way your explanation can account for the above text. Why will the "Son" understood to be "Jesus", who is understood to be "God", who is understood to be the "Father", not know the hour? This text explicitly and implicitly indicates two beings with seperate knowledge.

Allcare.
 
stretched said:
"but of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." (Mark 13:32)"

There is no way your explanation can account for the above text. Why will the "Son" understood to be "Jesus", who is understood to be "God", who is understood to be the "Father", not know the hour? This text explicitly and implicitly indicates two beings with seperate knowledge.
Click to expand...
Do your arms or legs "know" when they are going to move? Yet they move at precisely the right time nontheless. Should they care whether they know or not, or is that knowledge part of their existence?
 
Jenyar said:
Do your arms or legs "know" when they are going to move? Yet they move at precisely the right time nontheless. Should they care whether they know or not, or is that knowledge part of their existence?
Click to expand...

Atheletes who do a great deal of practice do notice a phenomena that is often called 'second nature' -- that their athletic reactions come without thought but with great intelligent appropriateness.

Actually, there is a great deal of thought involved, but it is at a subconscious level. I once had a dream which illustrated this. In the dream I was attacked similtaneously by a number of men. My perception of time became such that each second seemed to turn into about 10 seconds of subjective time. It is in that Different Mental Perception of Time that our educated and practiced physical reflexes operate.

I am unclear as to why it takes such a great deal of exposure to practice before this 'Second Nature' physical intelligence 'kicks in'. In some cases I think something in the order of adrenaline is involved -- I've been in a number of Motorcycle Accidents in which witnesses claim to have seen gyrating through the air to land on my feet, roll down forwardly, leap back upward to come down and roll again, until my forward speed was slowed to the point where I could run it out. To me it all happens in a flash and I just remember impact and then the next thing I know I am running down the road well past where the accident occured. It is not something anybody can 'practice'. But I think what is happening that at a certain level, the Intelligent Mind is shifted down (or up in Resolution) whereby each fraction of a second is stretched out over a great span of subjective time, so that each muscular action can be contemplated to the utmost degree. Like in my dream... at first I thought I was frozen -- it felt like I was paralyzed and that I could not move. But then I saw that everything had frozen in time. Then I realized that I could move, but very very slowly. It occured to me that I could put the utmost deliberation into each of my movements. I used this power of putting subjective minutes of deliberation into each second of actual movement in order to neutralize the men who came to attack me. Then in real life, when I would be in lifethreatening situations, I would notch down into that same Subjective Time Phase.
 
SourStar: ...after all Catwoman is coming out in theaters and I'm not going to miss it.
*************
M*W: Don't bother. Even Halle Berry couldn't help the ratings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top