The Trinity Glue

originally posted by: Anansi
a reply to: ChesterJohn

The words of the scripture is a passage of truth, cant see a nutjob understanding by just making quotes about what is written..

If everything is destroyed and burned, you only need one bible and one "prophet" to rebuild it..

Well im off the see what the wolves are doing

These are important words; God’s reconciliation to the human race took place when the human race was actively his enemy, not after the human race repented. The entire human race is guilty when it comes to human merit, performance, and production and all fall short continually coming short of the righteousness of God himself. All of the human race are in need of a justification that will come totally apart from anything that they do. Paul wants the human race to know at one point in time something was true, but now something else is true.

BUT NOW, no longer does the human race have to strive to attain and maintain God’s acceptance on the basis of who they are and what they can do. Our decree of judicial perfection in the eyes of God comes not through Christ’s death for our sins, but through our union with Christ’s resurrection life. If a person believes Christ died for their sins, but does not believe that God’s justice was satisfied, when Christ died for those sins, that person has not believed Christ died for their sins. 


God purchased the human race out of sins dominion, never to be returned to the market place of sin again. By removing the sin issue from the table of God’s justice, God effectively canceled Satan’s ownership of all the human race. Satan can lay claim to no person based on that persons sinfulness. 


It was God’s plan before the creation of the world, that humankind’s fingerprints would not be found on humankind's salvation. Reconciliation has to do with God’s justice being satisfied for sins, and that means all of them and that means for all the world, reconciliation is a sin issue. Justification is something entirely different, it has to do with a judicial decree of the very righteousness of God himself freely attributed to the believer’s account.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
Newnature1, where is all your scriptural proof for all this stuff?

Are you just parroting someone else that you have been reading and not the Bible?

Many modern people get the idea that the word “Christ” or “Messiah” in itself signifies divinity, but it doesn’t. The “Messiah” in Jesus’ day was simply some Israelite figure who would rise up and take over the throne of David and reestablish the kingdom of Israel. Those who believe Jesus was purely human tended to understand the Israelites history. 


They know the monotheism of Israel does not and cannot evolve from polytheism, because the two are based on radically divergent world-views, radically divergent intuitions about reality. The monotheism of Israel was not, it could not be the natural outgrowth of the polytheism of an earlier age, it was a radical break with it. Monotheism was a revolution, not an evolution. More history one must deal with.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
Jesus declared that this

John10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

This is JW 101 circle logic using scripture that Jesus is no god or not god. You will need to study about the humanity of Christ being fully God and fully man. In his manifestation, that is in his fleshly body, though being fully God, he limited his power and glory for a purpose that was set before the world began. Only once on earth did he take on his full appearance

Matt 17:1 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, 2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. 3 And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him. 4Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.

compare that appearance with that in the OT and in the book of Revelation

In order to take the resurrection seriously, we must also take death seriously. The person who does not know what death is, does not know either what resurrection is. The Christian belief in the resurrection of the body did not arise from philosophical speculations or wishful thinking like the notion of the immortality of the soul. It arose from the conviction that such an event had actually already taken place with the resurrection of Jesus from among the dead. The dead in Christ, what is risen at Christ’s coming is not just dead bodies but dead people; it is the whole person who will resurrected and reunited with Christ. 


The resurrection of Jesus Christ is not only a historical event that we look back to with satisfaction and joy; it is the greatest event in history. We are sealed by the resurrection power of God. Just as the resurrection itself was impossible for anyone but God, the power behind the resurrection will take us into situations that are impossible for us to deal successfully with on our own. In Christ, we are a new creation; God’s resurrection power dwells within us; Paul desired to know more about the resurrection power he already had within himself. 


One of the most disturbing things is someone unable to express confidence about whether they can know if they will have eternal life or not. Was Paul uncertain of his salvation, concerned that he might not qualify for the resurrection of the body of believers sealed in Christ? The proof, the standard of God’s power according to Paul is the resurrection of Jesus Christ from among the dead. Paul knew death is the cessation of life for the total person. The death of the body is the death of the soul, because the body is the outer form of the soul. Paul knew the meaning of death, he could quote Ecclesiastes 3:19 for the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other.

Paul believed that the whole person, body and soul, would have “perished” without the guarantee of Christ’s resurrection. Scripture sees the body as an essential aspect of the whole person, which is not detachable from the soul nor can be cast aside, the body is the outward, visible part of the person. Paul does not explain how people through disobedience forfeited the possibility of becoming immortal; his concern is to show how Christ has redeemed us from the tragic consequence of sin, death. 


Death applies to both the body and the soul, because the two are inseparable; the body is the outward form of the soul and the soul is the inner form of the body. The body is the physical reality of human existence, the soul is the vitality and personality of human existence. People’s soul is in their blood and indeed their blood is their soul: the body is a person as a concrete being, the soul is a person as a living individual; the breath of life is a person as having their source in God. Plants are not souls because they do not have organs that allow them to breathe, to feel pain and joy, or to move about in search of food. 


Both people and animals are souls, their soul is the whole of them and comprises their body as well as their mental powers. What distinguishes the human soul from that of animals is that humans were created in God’s image, that is, with godlike possibilities unavailable to animals. Both people and animals both are conscious beings, they both share the same life-breath. The body and the soul are not two different substances (one mortal and the other immortal) abiding together within one human being, but two characteristics of the same person.

originally posted by: malevolent
a reply to: newnature1

how does worshipping Zeus and Apollo and Artemis have anything to do here, don't get pissy i'm just asking?

Alexander the Great also used what is called ‘religious syncretism,’ Alexander took this tendency of syncretism, of mixing together different religious traditions from different places, and he used it as a self-conscious propaganda technique. Alexander even started claiming divine status for himself. Alexander went around passing out rumors that his mother had actually been impregnated by the god Apollo, when he appeared as a snake in her bed. So, Alexander is putting himself forward as divine. Why? This is not a Greek tradition, but it’s very much a tradition in the East for kings to be considered by their people to be gods.

Alexander says, “Well, if they can be gods, I can be a god.” So Alexander starts spreading rumors that he is divine himself. Alexander probably even believed it; and so he had a god father, he had a human mother, and so then he would identify himself with whoever was a god in the different places. So Alexander would identify himself as a Greek god with a Persian god. Alexander would identify the goddess Isis with some Greek goddess; and so all the time these different gods from different places were basically all said to be simply different cultural representations, different names, for what were generally the same gods all over the place.

Also, though, what they would do is sometimes they wouldn’t try to simply say these gods are the same. What they would just do is add on more gods. They’d get to Syria, “Look at all these god that the Syrians worship. Well, we’ll just add those into our pantheon of gods too.” And this is part of what ancient religion was like, is that people were not exclusive.

You didn’t have to worry. Just because you worshiped one god, doesn’t mean you couldn’t worship another god or several gods or five gods or a hundred gods. Gods knew who everybody was-they weren’t particularly jealous, in that sense. So this is the way people did it. But what Alexander and his successors did, was they made sort of a conscious, propagandistic decision to use religious syncretism to bind together their kingdoms.

a reply to: newnature1

Winter solstice

The followers of the Nicene Creed added the conscious survival of the soul and its reattachment to the body at the resurrection. Cheating people out of being caught to meet the Savior in the air, when the Age of Grace is over.

Paul never alluded to the conscious survival of the soul and its reattachment to the body at the resurrection, that is a notion totally foreign to Paul and to Scripture as a whole. Paul did not think the question of the status of the person between death and resurrection was a question that needed to be considered.

The reason is that for Paul, those who die in Christ, their relationship with Christ is one of immediacy, because they have not awareness of the passing of time between their death and resurrection.

As believers, we do not possess the life that Jesus got when God raised him from among the dead as an inherent quality any more than we possess God’s righteousness as a property in our own nature. Just as in the midst of our sinfulness, we are righteous, so in the midst of our self-evident mortality, we are going to get the life God gave to Jesus.

Wholeness and meaning in life are not the products of what we have or do not have, what we have done or have not done, we are already a whole person and possess a life of infinite meaning and purpose because of who we are in Christ. Our understanding of the identity that Adam had before the fall, that identity has been restored to us, that restored identity is the critical foundation for our belief structure and our behavior patterns.

originally posted by: Anansi
a reply to: newnature1

Winter solstice

Dig in, it might be cold! Gentile Kingdom believers are putting the cart before the horse. You have to survive the ‘sunteleia’ before you get to the ‘telos’. The Day of Yahweh (Yahweh - The Israelite’s God) will be a prolonged period; it must not be confined to “seven years,” as is so often done.

After the Body of Christ is lifted off the earth, the whole period of the Day of Yahweh is called the final meeting of the ages, or the Greek word “sunteleia”; but, the crisis in which it culminates is called the end of the age, or the Greek word “telos.” These two Greek words are rendered “end” in the New Testament, but the use of these two words must be carefully distinguished.

Sunteleia denotes a finishing or ending together, or in conjunction with other things. It implies that several things meet together, and reach their end during the same period; whereas telos is the point of time at the end of that period. The sign of the telos is the setting up of “the abomination of desolation” spoken of by Daniel the prophet.

Thus the telos, those who endure to this, the same shall be saved, and will be among the overcomers specially referred to in these seven letters during the Great Tribulation; to whom these promises are made, and to whom they peculiarly refer.

The Great Tribulation, which is the central subject, but Daniel is not permitted to do much more than make known the fact of the Great Tribulation out of which Daniel’s people, the Israelites were to be delivered. The particulars and the circumstances of that day, were not to be made known at that time by Daniel.

The Day of Yahweh will be a prolonged period; it must not be confined to “seven years,” as is so often done. These events may occupy a period of thirty-three years; and if to these we add the seven years of the last week of Daniel, we have a period of forty years. Matt. Chapter 24, “What shall be the sign of your coming, and of the sunteleia of the age?”

Jesus describes four of those seals, and adds, “All these are a beginning of sorrows.” This fixes these first four seals as the “beginning” of the sunteleia of the Day of Yahweh. This “beginning” may be spread over some years before the Great Tribulation, proper, comes on. Not one of these seals has yet been opened, nor can any period of history be pointed out in which these first four seals have been in operation simultaneously.

a reply to: newnature1

Oh wow, the message is be a f****** human.. False prophets got hung in the old days, sure do miss those times

originally posted by: Anansi
Geez this thread became a nuthouse, the glue is faith nothing else, the other parts of the trinity is "concept and Institution"

Next part you need to make the concept into a paradigm or dogma which last for a couple of centuries at least, you need the institutions to teach the concept to the broader masses, which sooner or later becomes a faith in whatever s*** you want the masses to think is reality..

Jesus taught the message of humanity.. Did Jesus exist no idea but there was a man who was called his brother named James, who actually were a priest who got murdered who taught the message of "take a guess?"

religion/religio = to bind/ or to go through again

But i know you like Aliens, Nibiru, Area 51, Hollow moon, Vampires and all the other stuff more.. Make a story with that instead... geez

You see, the Law of Moses had a relationship claim on every member of the human race. If the law has a rightful claim on you, God cannot have a rightful claim on you. If Christ has a rightful claim on you, the law has no rightful claim on you whatsoever. People have such a hard time when their motivation is based on the false assumption that God gave to Israel a law contract in order to provide for them the motivation necessary for them to live righteously. God designed the law to make sin show its hand, to make sin abound, so that they could look at that picture of the law and look at themselves and say, “These pictures do not match up,” so that they could see that their sin was exceedingly sinful.

People must rid themselves of the tendency to think that God is dealing with people as he has dealt in time past, when the law program was the order of the day. Paul wants us to understand and understand fully that motivation to do righteousness is the exact opposite of what our natural minds suppose it to be.

originally posted by: Anansi
a reply to: newnature1

Oh wow, the message is be a f****** human.. False prophets got hung in the old days, sure do miss those times

No one has a self defense plea that will successfully excuse them from being counted worthy of God’s wrath. The natural person is the person who can only perceive things that fit in with their own human reasoning. The natural person has their mind tuned in only to the channel of their own human perspective; satisfying the lust of their flesh; the lust of their eyes; and the pride of life. If something is not logical to the natural person’s way of thinking, they refuses to believe it, whether God said it or not, they want to remain in their comfort zone.

a reply to: Anansi

i think your getting a little harsh there cool your # ok? as for Zoroastrianism Ahriman is my god.

originally posted by: newnature1

originally posted by: malevolent
a reply to: newnature1

how does worshipping Zeus and Apollo and Artemis have anything to do here, don't get pissy i'm just asking?

Alexander the Great also used what is called ‘religious syncretism,’ Alexander took this tendency of syncretism, of mixing together different religious traditions from different places, and he used it as a self-conscious propaganda technique. Alexander even started claiming divine status for himself. Alexander went around passing out rumors that his mother had actually been impregnated by the god Apollo, when he appeared as a snake in her bed. So, Alexander is putting himself forward as divine. Why? This is not a Greek tradition, but it’s very much a tradition in the East for kings to be considered by their people to be gods.

Alexander says, “Well, if they can be gods, I can be a god.” So Alexander starts spreading rumors that he is divine himself. Alexander probably even believed it; and so he had a god father, he had a human mother, and so then he would identify himself with whoever was a god in the different places. So Alexander would identify himself as a Greek god with a Persian god. Alexander would identify the goddess Isis with some Greek goddess; and so all the time these different gods from different places were basically all said to be simply different cultural representations, different names, for what were generally the same gods all over the place.

Also, though, what they would do is sometimes they wouldn’t try to simply say these gods are the same. What they would just do is add on more gods. They’d get to Syria, “Look at all these god that the Syrians worship. Well, we’ll just add those into our pantheon of gods too.” And this is part of what ancient religion was like, is that people were not exclusive.

You didn’t have to worry. Just because you worshiped one god, doesn’t mean you couldn’t worship another god or several gods or five gods or a hundred gods. Gods knew who everybody was-they weren’t particularly jealous, in that sense. So this is the way people did it. But what Alexander and his successors did, was they made sort of a conscious, propagandistic decision to use religious syncretism to bind together their kingdoms.

it sounds like one of the Gilgamesh stories, a human that tried to be A god

originally posted by: malevolent
a reply to: Anansi

i think your getting a little harsh there cool your # ok? as for Zoroastrianism Ahriman is my god.

He ranted to much about privelegies

Romans 1:16 - What a marvelous plan God had for us! God has kept the fingerprints of the guilt-worthy off of the righteousness he designed for the guilt-worthy. God has committed to us the ministry of reconciliation, to tell the world God is not imputing their trespasses unto them; so we see the world still thinks he is. This ministry of reconciliation is not to the saved, we know we are reconciled, but now all have access to God, a change in status for the entire world. Does this mean the entire world is save? No.

There are those who mistakenly suppose that reconciliation is the same thing as justification. These people have jumped to the conclusion that Jesus Christ taking the sin issue off the table of God’s justice through his becoming sin for the human race is that which makes a person as righteous as God; they have mistaken reconciliation for justification. Being declared righteous is God’s gift to the believing sinner and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the sinner himself doing anything to deserve or merit that righteous standing.

What God was doing through his son; God knew about what he intended to do before the world was ever formed, yet, God had kept this secret from ages and generations until it was time for the ascended Jesus Christ to reveal it to the apostle Paul. God no longer views us in our human flesh, he views us in our identity in the second Adam (Jesus Christ), he views us in our glorified identity. In our identity in Christ, now we can bear fruit unto God, but it is only in our identity in Christ, not through this fleshly body in which we dwell. The Nicene Creed is clearly a added doctrine, wake up!

a reply to: newnature1

Exodus 3:13-14 - Moses said to God, “When I come to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” And God said to Moses, “Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh.” He continued, “Thus shall you say to the Israelites, ‘Ehyeh sent me to you.’ ”


You quoted correctly according to the JPS 1962 Tanakh but then when I read my JPS 1917 Tanakh it does translate as "Lord". If that is so important (in English) then why are two of the same Jewish sources different?

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: newnature1

Exodus 3:13-14 - Moses said to God, “When I come to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” And God said to Moses, “Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh.” He continued, “Thus shall you say to the Israelites, ‘Ehyeh sent me to you.’ ”


You quoted correctly according to the JPS 1962 Tanakh but then when I read my JPS 1917 Tanakh it does translate as "Lord". If that is so important (in English) then why are two of the same Jewish sources different?

Let's look at history, in Second Temple times, as an expression of reverence, Israelites began to avoid uttering it, substituting “adonai” and other surrogates. (As a reminder to do so, in printed Hebrew Bibles the consonants are accompanied by the vowels of the surrogate words, leading to such hybrid English forms as Jehovah [I.e., “Yehovah” or the consonants Y-H-V-H with the vowels from “adonai”].)

originally posted by: newnature1

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: newnature1

Exodus 3:13-14 - Moses said to God, “When I come to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” And God said to Moses, “Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh.” He continued, “Thus shall you say to the Israelites, ‘Ehyeh sent me to you.’ ”


You quoted correctly according to the JPS 1962 Tanakh but then when I read my JPS 1917 Tanakh it does translate as "Lord". If that is so important (in English) then why are two of the same Jewish sources different?

Let's look at history, in Second Temple times, as an expression of reverence, Israelites began to avoid uttering it, substituting “adonai” and other surrogates. (As a reminder to do so, in printed Hebrew Bibles the consonants are accompanied by the vowels of the surrogate words, leading to such hybrid English forms as Jehovah [I.e., “Yehovah” or the consonants Y-H-V-H with the vowels from “adonai”].)

Here is the history how it was done = Alexander the Great also used what is called ‘religious syncretism,’ Alexander took this tendency of syncretism, of mixing together different religious traditions from different places, and he used it as a self-conscious propaganda technique. Alexander even started claiming divine status for himself. Alexander went around passing out rumors that his mother had actually been impregnated by the god Apollo, when he appeared as a snake in her bed. So, Alexander is putting himself forward as divine. Why? This is not a Greek tradition, but it’s very much a tradition in the East for kings to be considered by their people to be gods.

Alexander says, “Well, if they can be gods, I can be a god.” So Alexander starts spreading rumors that he is divine himself. Alexander probably even believed it; and so he had a god father, he had a human mother, and so then he would identify himself with whoever was a god in the different places. So Alexander would identify himself as a Greek god with a Persian god. Alexander would identify the goddess Isis with some Greek goddess; and so all the time these different gods from different places were basically all said to be simply different cultural representations, different names, for what were generally the same gods all over the place.

Also, though, what they would do is sometimes they wouldn’t try to simply say these gods are the same. What they would just do is add on more gods. They’d get to Syria, “Look at all these god that the Syrians worship. Well, we’ll just add those into our pantheon of gods too.” And this is part of what ancient religion was like, is that people were not exclusive.

You didn’t have to worry. Just because you worshiped one god, doesn’t mean you couldn’t worship another god or several gods or five gods or a hundred gods. Gods knew who everybody was-they weren’t particularly jealous, in that sense. So this is the way people did it. But what Alexander and his successors did, was they made sort of a conscious, propagandistic decision to use religious syncretism to bind together their kingdoms.

The roots of the doctrines of the followers of the Nicene Creed.
Basic structures are part of any kind of Greek city in the Ancient World. And what Alexander the Great and his successors did was they took that basic Greek structure, and they transplanted it all over the Eastern Mediterranean, whether they were in Egypt or Syria or Asia Minor or anyplace else. One can travel right now to Turkey or Syria or Israel or Jordan or Egypt, and one can see excavations of towns, and it’s remarkable how they all look so much alike, because they’re all inspired by this originally Greek model of the city. 


Alexander and his successors Hellenized the entire eastern Mediterranean, and that meant, every major city would have a certain commonality to it. It would have a certain koine to it; that is, a Greek overlay, over what may be also be there, the original indigenous kind of cultures and languages. 



The Romans, when they came on the scene, in the East, and they gradually became more and more powerful, they destroyed Corinth in a big battle in 144BC. Pompey was the Roman general who took over Jerusalem in 63BC. So the Romans were in charge of Judah from 63BC on. And this is very important, because the Romans, as their power grew in the East, they simply moved increasingly into the eastern Mediterranean and they adopted the whole Greek system, the Greek world, and they didn’t even try to make it non-Greek. 


So Romans didn’t go around trying to get people in the East to speak Latin. They might put up an official inscription in an Eastern City in Latin, but they’d almost always, if it was an official inscription, it would also be listed in Greek, So Romans who ruled in the East were expected to speak Greek. And by this time all educated Roman men were expected to be able to speak Greek, well if possible. 


So the Romans didn’t try to make the East Roman, in that sense, culturally, nor did they try to change the language. Greek language, culture, and religions, different religions and the syncretism, Greek education, the polis structure-all of these things remained in the East throughout the Roman rule of the East, all the way up until the time you had a Christian emperor with Constantine, and later. From this point on the creeds of man enter.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
Newnature1, where is all your scriptural proof for all this stuff?

Are you just parroting someone else that you have been reading and not the Bible?

Yes, all this material is being copied across wholesale from the member's favourite blogsite.
That's the source of the fake erudition, the long passages of text which don't necessarily relate to the discussion in hand.

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
Newnature1, where is all your scriptural proof for all this stuff?

Are you just parroting someone else that you have been reading and not the Bible?

Yes, all this material is being copied across wholesale from the member's favourite blogsite.
That's the source of the fake erudition, the long passages of text which don't necessarily relate to the discussion in hand.

No, I wrote that blog. Those long passages of text shows history and context of the Nicene Creed.

a reply to: newnature1
Even the blogger did not write the whole of that blog; sometimes he gets his material from someone who writes "Jesus", and sometimes from somebody who writes "Yeshua". Bit of a give-away, that.
Either way, there are rules on this site about "cross-posting" material.