Do you know the truth? Is Jesus God? Find out here!

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: DeathSlayer



Even the trinity is non-biblical but what do I know...

Matthew28:18-20

18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

How do you presume that Jesus claimed that he was capable of being "with you always"?

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: iTruthSeeker
Why are texts which pre-date the Bible discounted? Wouldn't one want the oldest info possible?

The source of the information is more important than the age; if age was the criterion, flat-earthers would have to win the argument.
The premise of Biblical theology is that the Bible is the most important source, and discussions proceed from there.

And yet I could not find a single direct quotation from the bible on the entire 1st page including the OP. The closest thing that came to a direct quotation I saw in the OP (without mentioning a bible chapter and verse reference) was what Isaac Newton and many other researchers already discovered to be a 'corruption of Scripture' (one of 2, the other was also mentioned in the OP but that sounded even less as a quotation).

An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture - Wikipedia:

An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture is a dissertation by the English mathematician and scholar Sir Isaac Newton. ... Newton describes this letter as "an account of what the reading has been in all ages, and what steps it has been changed, as far as I can hitherto determine by records",[1] and "a criticism concerning a text of Scripture".[2] He blames "the Roman church" for many abuses in the world[1] and accuses it of "pious frauds".[2] He adds that "the more learned and quick-sighted men, as Luther, Erasmus, Bullinger, Grotius, and some others, would not dissemble their knowledge".[3]
...
In the King James Version Bible, 1 John 5:7 reads:

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

Using the writings of the early Church Fathers, the Greek and Latin manuscripts and the testimony of the first versions of the Bible, Newton ... demonstrated that the words "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one," that support the Trinity doctrine, did not appear in the original Greek Scriptures.
...
The shorter portion of Newton's dissertation was concerned with 1 Timothy 3:16, which reads (in the King James Version):

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Newton argued that, by a small alteration in the Greek text, the word "God" was substituted to make the phrase read "God was manifest in the flesh." instead of "which was manifested in the flesh.".[n 1]
...
Modern translations of 1 Timothy 3:16 following the Critical Text now typically replace "God" with "He" or "He who", while the literal Emphasized has "who".[10]

It's all a bit more convincing when you see how that "small alteration" was made by looking at the actual manuscripts, copies and translations and compare them through the centuries and seeing with your own eyes some of what Newton also discovered. Which can be done below starting at 8:33 regarding 1 Timothy 3:16 and the often repeated phrase found in the OP but not in honest accurate translations of the bible: "God in the flesh".

This phrase was used a couple of times on the first page as well, also not found in honest accurate translations of the bible (and more importantly, not what the bible really teaches):
"God came to us in the flesh..."

originally posted by: Milkweed

None of the scriptures you provided show Jesus' claiming he was God. We have to remember that these text are not Jesus' writings. The Gospels were written 70 - 80 years after his death by disciples who believed he was God.

The Old Testament even shows that Jesus is God. I'll refer back to the other verses I pointed to earlier, but adding two more...

Zechariah 13:6-9

6 And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.

7 Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones.

8 And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the Lord, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein.

9 And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The Lord is my God.

Who do you think the "wounds in thy hands" is referring to?

a reply to: whereislogic

Why do you always flood Christian threads when you dont even believe in the divinity of Jesus?

www.truthnet.org...

The year of 1874, having since past Russell noticed the group believed Christ returned invisibly in 1874. The magazine was failing, as many readers refused to accept the invisible Second coming. The summer of 1876, Russell became the financial backer of the magazine. He was added to the masthead as assistant editor, and he contributed articles and money to the publication. Russell’s and Barbour’s groups became affiliates. Since the Lord returned “invisibly” in 1874 they believed the saints would be “Caught away bodily” three and half years later, to be with the Lord in the spring of 1878. (Zion’s Watch Tower, July 15, 1906, Page 3823 Society’s reprints) When the “Catching away” (The rapture) did not occur as expected Barbour and Russell split. Barbour had “New Revelations” to account for the lack of the rapture but Russell and others rejected his “Revelations” .

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight
Without acknowledging to your 'when did you stop beating your wife'-type of question but regarding my reason for commenting on ATS in general...

A major clue can be found at the end of my signature. Here's another.

2 Corinthians 11:11-15

11 For what reason? Because I do not love you? God knows I do.

12 But what I am doing I will continue to do, in order to eliminate the pretext of those who are wanting a basis for being found equal to us in the things about which they boast. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself keeps disguising himself as an angel of light. 15 It is therefore nothing extraordinary if his ministers also keep disguising themselves as ministers of righteousness. But their end will be according to their works.

But I'm well aware of Proverbs 15:12

12 The scoffer does not love the one correcting* him. [Or “reproving.”]

He will not consult the wise.

And 1 Timothy 6:2b-5

Keep on teaching these things and giving these exhortations. 3 If any man teaches other doctrine and does not assent to healthful words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, nor to the teaching that accords with godly devotion, 4 he is puffed up [with pride], not understanding anything, but being mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words. From these things spring envy, strife, abusive speeches, wicked suspicions, 5 violent disputes about trifles on the part of men corrupted in mind and despoiled of the truth, thinking that godly devotion is a means of gain.

And other verses about slander and mudslinging techniques.

Btw, regarding your incorrect claim that I "dont even believe in the divinity of Jesus"...

Many Greek scholars and Bible translators acknowledge that John 1:1 highlights, not the identity, but a quality of “the Word.” Says Bible translator William Barclay: “Because [the apostle John] has no definite article in front of theos it becomes a description . . . John is not here identifying the Word with God. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God.” Scholar Jason David BeDuhn likewise says: “In Greek, if you leave off the article from theos in a sentence like the one in John 1:1c, then your readers will assume you mean ‘a god.’ . . . Its absence makes theos quite different than the definite ho theos, as different as ‘a god’ is from ‘God’ in English.” BeDuhn adds: “In John 1:1, the Word is not the one-and-only God, but is a god, or divine being.” Or to put it in the words of Joseph Henry Thayer, a scholar who worked on the American Standard Version: “The Logos [or, Word] was divine, not the divine Being himself.”

Jesus made a clear distinction between him and his Father

Does the identity of God have to be “a very profound mystery”? It did not seem so to Jesus. In his prayer to his Father, Jesus made a clear distinction between him and his Father when he said: “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.” (John 17:3) If we believe Jesus and understand the plain teaching of the Bible, we will respect him as the divine Son of God that he is. We will also worship Jehovah as “the only true God.”

Source: Is Jesus God?

I believe in the divinity of Jesus because I believe that he is the divine Son of God.

originally posted by: whereislogic
And yet I could not find a single direct quotation from the bible on the entire 1st page including the OP.

No, the OP was naming early church writers who were themselves using the Bible as the authority for their statements (e.g. Tertullian, Irenaeus), so the dependence upon the Bible was indirect.

My own understanding of "became flesh" is derived from John ch1, as described in the thread TheWord became flesh

originally posted by: DISRAELI
No, the OP was naming early church writers who were themselves using the Bible as the authority for their statements (e.g. Tertullian, Irenaeus), so the dependence upon the Bible was indirect.

Pay no attention to when they don't use the Bible as the authority for their statements and even contradict direct and crystal clear statements in the bible about for example the "soul"? “The soul that is sinning—it itself will die.” (Ezekiel 18:4) Or inventing things like teaching abstinence from wine, marriage, and possessions as Tatian did? Or any of the stuff discussed in the articles that either contradicts the bible or just isn't taught in the bible. Btw, the video I put in my response to you is littered with bible quotations and references that contradict what the so-called Apostolic Fathers, Church Fathers and apologists (Tertullian, Justin, etc.) taught (or what can be found in their writings) or what's summarized in the OP under 1 and 1A, and the articles also cover 4 and 5 (the OP swapped out the word "soul" with "spirit", a common thing discussed in further detail in my thread "One myth leads to another" where Seede was doing something similar, but I won't bother you with any more details now).

I don't think I can ignore it and attribute it merely (or exclusively) to an overzealous attitude. Besides, did you notice what was mentioned about Tatian for example? Let's repeat it for good measure cause I do admit I couldn't keep it short again the last time (I wanted to bold it before cause it's significant regarding the Trinitarian argument that Jesus is the eternal God without a beginning to his existence).

He believed that the Word, or the Logos, came into existence as the firstborn of the heavenly Father’s works and thereafter was used in the creation of the material universe. (John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:13-17)

In other words:




More:
Re: Does Col 1:15 Prove Jesus was created?
Col 115 p2.wmv
Another Look At Col 1:15-18 A Response To MCO4HELP Part1
Another Look At Col 1:15-18 A Response To MCO4HELP part 2
21Crosscheck21 and Colossians (Trinitarian Issue)
Bill and his commentaries Colossians 1

a reply to: whereislogic

This is what gnosticism does......twist the truth.

At the end of Tatian life he was misled and converted to gnosticism but you knew that already, right?

originally posted by: DeathSlayer
6. There is a hell.

I might as well do nr.6 now, it's one of the trickier ones (in my thread "One myth leads to another" the subject is discussed under "Myth 2: The Wicked Suffer in Hell", which does require some background information about "Myth 1: The Soul Is Immortal", which I've already shared the tip of the iceberg of in the articles I've been quoting and Ezekiel 18:4):

What the h*ll is HELL anyway? Are you going there?

a reply to: DeathSlayer
So would you agree that Tatian "did not stand fast in the truth" when he as you claim "converted to gnosticism"?

Jesus said of the Devil: “He did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of the lie.” (John 8:44) Satan pretends to be “an angel of light,” and the demons masquerade as “ministers of righteousness.” In reality, they are deceivers intent on trapping people in a web of deceit. (2 Corinthians 11:14, 15)

On one occasion, Jesus said in prayer to God: “Your word is truth.” (John 17:17) The Bible, written under divine inspiration, reveals truth that provides both reliable guidance and a sure hope for the future—everlasting life.—2 Timothy 3:15-17. Not the writings of Tatian, Justin, Tertullian and Athanasius who is one of the more influential so-called Church Fathers. But they are useful for comparison and to see where it all went wrong reminding some people of 1 Cor. 1:19,20:

19 For it is written: “I will make the wisdom of the wise men perish, and the intelligence of the intellectuals I will reject.”* [Or “shove aside.”] 20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe?* [That is, an expert in the Law.] Where is the debater of this system of things?* [Or “this age.” See Glossary.] Has not God made the wisdom of the world foolish?

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
I do think Twain got it right in regards to religion:

This "cute" joke still does not disprove that Christianity or Jesus is the son of God and a part of the trinity.

a reply to: Freth

I loved your post but I see too many Christians losing their faith and "falling away" from truth through EXCUSE and DECEPTION and gnosticism is the biggest enemy against the Christian faith and it is so well hidden with a mixture of truth with lies that many Christians no longer know the history of the church in Jerusalem and the early disciples of Christ.

The bible is my most precious book of teachings from the prophets and God but understand, that when Christ ascended to heaven.... out came the rats in larger numbers meaning those who spoke lies and/or twisted the scriptures either intentionally or not...... the fact is what the Apostle's and their DIRECT disciples taught is being down played in the Christian community. My reason for writing this OP .... to remind Christians weak in faith ... that there are MANY books and letters written by ancient church fathers in Jerusalem NOT in Rome ...... long before the Vatican was even considered and they are not in the bible!

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: DeathSlayer



Even the trinity is non-biblical but what do I know...


www.patheos.com...

Though the Trinity is one of the most fundamental doctrines of Christianity, the Bible says nothing about it directly. Did Paul and the apostles define God in a trinitarian fashion? If the Trinity is essential to a proper understanding of Christianity as the modern church claims, the ancients’ silence on the matter suggests that it is a later invention.

www.ucg.org...

Another gnosticism lie.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

No actually, Arianism.

Guess what, that great Roman dictator that solidified the new State religion of Christianity was baptized by a Arian bishop

en.wikipedia.org...

At the regional First Synod of Tyre in 335, Arius was exonerated.[5] Constantine the Great was baptized by the Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia.[6][7] After the deaths of both Arius and Constantine, Arius was again anathemised and pronounced a heretic again at the Ecumenical First Council of Constantinople of 381.[8] The Roman Emperors Constantius II (337–361) and Valens (364–378) were Arians or Semi-Arians, as was the first King of Italy, Odoacer (433?–493), and the Lombards were also Arians or Semi-Arians until the 7th century.

Jesus, like freemasonry, is an experience. Try it... Before babbling Bible Babel.

Free Will... The above statement is not for angels or mankind... But rather instead for you. Decide.

If in doubt... Remember that the Father sees all and that you are his son and that the holy spirit, if unbroken, will fill you up with the heaven that is from the Father. The spirit is the flag of the Father and all that it encompasses. Lands, seas, and skies, and dominion over all life. The soul.
Furthermore... You can inherit the following:
Power (over your enemies)
Glory (the prevalence of the people over darkness)
Honor (from all the women)😂
Riches (self explanatory)
Life everlasting (soul)
And as many virgins as can fulfill your lust.

Gnostic or mystic is the attempt to stray you from being God's special little creature.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer

originally posted by: DeathSlayer
I3. Angels and mankind have FREE WILL to make up their own minds (soul).

Just curious if angels also have a way to seek forgiveness from God (perhaps in a way unique to them) and regain their salvation (or place in Heaven, if you will)? Or does God reserve that gift only for us mere mortals? If it is indeed possible would it not stand to reason that even Satan himself could one day feel moved to seek forgiveness? But then that wouldn't fit the narrative of his arc so is his role a sort of self fulfilling prophecy or was his fate predestined by God?

If angels can't seek redemption, what does that say about God's just, but ultimately all loving nature? What would happen if all the angels fell, and left God's side. If there is no way for them to seek redemption, what then? We would have to ask ourselves why God would allow an angel who has sinned, to be damned forever?

Interesting questions. What does the Bible say?
What are your thoughts on the subject?

Good questions and they have been clearly answered in both the bible and in the teachings of the apostles.

Like in the OP .... both men and angels are given free will to make their own decisions and as stated angels found women on earth attractive and a few decided they wanted a woman for themselves. They even made a pact amongst themselves before approaching the women. These angels thought this was a good idea because there were a few angels that had left heaven much earlier and everyone in heaven witnessed this .... including God and Jesus. Do the names of the angels mean something to you? Must you know their names? If so why? I do not like mentioning their names. It shows recognition.

So what did God do? He decided to punish them if different ways. Those that fell from heaven he had a special place made for them. It is called Tartarus - a place of punishment. Arrested and in jail awaiting judgement. I believe these fallen ones will one day be totally destroyed by Jesus along with their followers BUT God can make any decision he wants for who is willing to challenge its creator? Answer is...... a FOOL with a taste for death.

Many refuse to believe in a heaven and a hell because if they believe then they must make big changes in their lives and beliefs and many refuse to change so instead they make excuses and mix lies with truth for their own desire....

Let those with spirit of discernment see the enemy of temptation and lust that caused mankind to fall. Attempting to control temptation and lust will cause daily suffering to many which also includes myself.

a reply to: whereislogic

Again here we have gnosticism - a mixture of truths with lies. You speak of second century why? Speak of the days of Christ until the second century and then I will talk.....

You attempt to bring to light teachings of gnosticism which was common in second century.

I wonder why so many start their posts about God or teachings of God with late second and third century teachings? Why? Because by then gnosticism teachings were "the norm" .... Christ and the apostles are dead and the ORIGINAL disciples of the last living apostle (John) are dying off by late first century ..... early second century .... those who were anointed with DAILY miracles being shown to those who ask. Scared the hell out of those wanting to destroy that faith but had to wait ...... they had seen what the apostles can do... think of Ananias and how he and his wife fell over dead simply for lying to Peter and the Holy Spirit. So those who were against the truth or more importantly ..... seeking attention ... had to wait for those powerful ones to die off....

Stop using late 2nd century and 3rd century teachings as your baseline if you want to teach concerning the Christians faith. It all started with Christ and his apostles and not Rome.

a reply to: whereislogic

Another cheap tactic because unfortunately Tertullian fell away from the faith in his last days of life... so again teachings of gnosticism is alive and well.

Everything you wrote on tis thread is misleading and nothing more than gnosticism.

You can not see the truth.

a reply to: Deetermined

I see that many here can see and understand but not all.

It fills my heart to see many true Christians here at ATS.... since becoming a member I see many who really seek truth..... not gnosticism....

God blinds those who have rejected him. He turns his face away from their prayers. If they properly repent and mean it ... then God will turn back to that child and listen to his pleas....

Its not rocket science.

God bless you.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: whereislogic

Why do you always flood Christian threads when you dont even believe in the divinity of Jesus?

www.truthnet.org...

The year of 1874, having since past Russell noticed the group believed Christ returned invisibly in 1874. The magazine was failing, as many readers refused to accept the invisible Second coming. The summer of 1876, Russell became the financial backer of the magazine. He was added to the masthead as assistant editor, and he contributed articles and money to the publication. Russell’s and Barbour’s groups became affiliates. Since the Lord returned “invisibly” in 1874 they believed the saints would be “Caught away bodily” three and half years later, to be with the Lord in the spring of 1878. (Zion’s Watch Tower, July 15, 1906, Page 3823 Society’s reprints) When the “Catching away” (The rapture) did not occur as expected Barbour and Russell split. Barbour had “New Revelations” to account for the lack of the rapture but Russell and others rejected his “Revelations” .

There are many who insist on spreading lies (gnosticism) either intentionally or unintentionally.

You mention the Jehovah Witnesses, (a Christian cult) ..... I studied with them and went to their Kingdom Halls for two years. False prophets combined with false teachings and its leaders and teachers will be held responsible in front of God. The majority of JW are honest and upstanding people seeking God but being misled at the same time.

The cult of the Jehovah Witnesses falsely teach that Jesus did not resurrect in a physical body. They also teach Jesus was not God incarnate but an angel in heaven called Michael.

Epistle to Smyraeans 3 - Jesus had a real physical body after the resurrection.

Epistle to Smyraeans 5 - Only unbelievers say he (Jesus) did not have a real body.

Mathetes (a disciple of John) - Epistle to Diognetus 7 - Jesus is God come in the flesh, the very creator of all things, and is not an angel.

In the name of Jesus let the blinds fall off all those who honestly seeks truth and find God. He is not far away.