What Happened to God?

a reply to: Deetermined
If one loves the father with ALL ones heart, soul and mind then how can there be any left for anything or anyone else?
It is not logical.

a reply to: Deetermined
Oh right... so you don't read the bible itself.... just interpretations.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

That has to be your silliest question yet. That's like asking how anyone could possibly love their father because they love their mother so dearly.

a reply to: Deetermined
ALL means all.......

If you gave ALL your money away how much money would you have left to spend?

a reply to: Deetermined
Some translations of Luke 14 :26 say that you have to abandon the family to be Jesus's disiple.

a reply to: Deetermined

It's pointless and it opens the door to unfamiliar spirits that can lead you astray.

Can you elaborate a little more on what you mean by this?

Are you talking about worshipping something other than God or perhaps Jesus? Who or what might that be?

Led astray in what way? Are you talking about just wasting your time/prayers on something that is not "holy" as the bible describes it or are you talking about something more "active" like satan or demonic possession?

a reply to: Deetermined

Good heavens, there's a huge difference and a big leap between asking living people to pray for you rather than asking those who are dead and moved on to pray for you. That's a silly statement.

Dead? Remember the person nailed to the cross beside Jesus? Remember what Jesus said to him?

“Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.”

So... Is he dead? He certainly can't be dead and in paradise at the same time. That's a BIG contradiction. If this sinner goes to paradise the same day he perishes, what of the prophets? Disciples? Believers? Christians?

You should revert back to your first response. The one that tells you what NOT to be. I'm sure you'll find a few words in there that might describe you.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Sheye

Learn your Bible. I can't put it much simpler than that. We have it for a reason.

Glass house buddy.

You're not being very christian.

originally posted by: Lucky109
I do not see a single prophecy that has come true. I don't know what you are seeing here.

Then you're not looking in the right place. You might start with the bible. All but the prophecies of the very last days have been fulfilled.

a reply to: whereislogic

I like the "naked archeologist". It's very skeptical and gives you many sides to consider. In the end, you make your own speculation but the evidence is VERY strong towards the bible being 100% factual and even the discrepancies turn out making sense because of timelines and persons involved that were often pointing to two different people that get confused as the same person.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Deetermined
Which Bible are you reading?
Please share (quote) your version of Luke 14:26...... I would be very interested in reading it.

I read all these versions:
biblehub.com...
The majority state that one must hate mother, father, wife etc.


It also says to hate mother and father in the Gospel of St Thomas.

“If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters— yes, even his own life— he cannot be My disciple. 27And whoever does not carry his cross and follow Me cannot be My disciple.…

I agree that what you are saying is true but the idea appears and may be taken out of context because of one of the main points....

Jesus didn't come to save the righteous, he came to save sinners. The disciples were sinners who may have had a lot of hate in their hearts. So yes, what is written is true but you're missing the meaning behind it. It would be the same as saying "If you steal from others, follow me". The purpose is to save the sinner, not the righteous.

I remember when Jehovah Witnesses came to your door. Now they come to your internet.

Seriously this post is nothing but pushing propaganda.

Prophecy? Hardly. Just people making their beliefs reality.

Oh well, at least you're not bothering me during sex like the old door knockers did I suppose.

a reply to: Riffrafter

I'm not talking about demonic possession, but anytime you're praying to anyone other than God/Jesus, you're inviting in other demons/spirits in to wreak havoc in your life, even if you're not worshiping them. Jesus said to pray to his heavenly Father or to ask the Father for blessings through His name (Jesus), none others.

While I know that Catholics insist that they don't worship Mary, I don't think they realize how dangerous it is to try and summon God through other names. I honestly believe that some Catholics deceive people with the level of devotion they truly hold for Mary, just like Pope John Paul II. It's wrong.

Pope St. John Paul II was well known for having a deep and abiding love for the Blessed Virgin Mary. His devotion to her was evident in all that he did: his teaching, his prayer life, even his papal motto and coat of arms were dedicated to the Blessed Mother.

When he was nearly fatally shot during his papacy he credited the intercession of the Virgin Mary, specifically Our Lady of Fatima, with the miraculous save of his life.

www.catholiccompany.com...

If I'm not mistaken, I think the current Pope may deep in Mary devotion too.

a reply to: StallionDuck

Dead? Remember the person nailed to the cross beside Jesus? Remember what Jesus said to him?

Dead as in anyone who has died a human death. ALL humans except for Jesus were fallible.

NOWHERE in the Bible does it say it's alright to pray to dead prophets, disciples, or anyone else. In fact, the Bible tells us not to try and reach the dead (those who lived human lives and died).

a reply to: Deetermined

If I'm not mistaken, I think the current Pope may deep in Mary devotion too.

The current (and former) pope is a Marist?!?

Heaven help us!...[pun sort of intended]

Truth be known, I'm a failed Catholic.

My current spiritual beliefs are an amalgam of beliefs taken from Christianity, Judaism and some eastern religions (Hinduism,Buddhism etc). If I had to pigeon-hole myself today I would probably say I'm a Taoist.

But I believe there is room for Moses, Jesus, Muhammed, Siddhartha, Lao Tzu as well as heaven, hell & reincarnation. Why limit our thinking?

I'd like to believe that all have a few pieces of the greater truth.

Whatever that is.

Send up a flare if you figure it out...

a reply to: StallionDuck

Compare the wikipedia entry for "Expelled:..." with that of "The Naked Archaeologist" and you may notice that only 1 of those 2 is heavily criticized and discredited by whoever wrote those entries. That says a lot given the biases that are often apparent on wikipedia (in favor of philosophical naturalism, evolutionary myths, false religion, counterfeit forms of Christianity, promoting pseudoscience as science and vice-versa, basically doing the Isaiah 5:20,21 thingy).

Also note that "The Naked Archaeologist" has been picked up by The History Channel, similar to the earlier mentioned National Geographic or The Discovery Channel for "The Story of God". This is another sign that this documentary is catering to the market described at 2 Timothy 4:3,4 (which covers both the religious and nonreligious, the atheists, theists and agnostics, or any other terminology one may come up with to describe their views, they come in all shapes and sizes, but they have at least 1 thing in common described in my earlier quotation of it). It's always a good idea not to take documentaries on the History Channel too seriously anyway:

The truth* is not mainstream nor popular in this system of things (especially not on wikipedia or popular TV channels like The History Channel). *: crucial truths that is. Matthew 7:13,14:

13 “Go in through the narrow gate, because broad is the gate and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are going in through it; 14 whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are finding it.

After all:
“The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.” (1 John 5:19)
And:
He is a liar! (part 1 of 2)

Btw, note that the "Expelled:..." documentary that I mentioned isn't the whole truth and still has a few flaws in it, that's why it's still reasonably popular. But like I said, it's still quite "informational, educational, beneficial and interesting". It helps if you can see past the flaws.

This has been confirmed by most approved parties in the know, if you know what i mean. It has to do with the meaning of reality and what's actually happening in the world, the real world, around us, not the "real world" that MTV portrayed years ago. Get it? If you don't, figure it out.

originally posted by: Sheye

Jesus, the son of God who became man, and who was the greatest of all prophets

Jesus , son of God, saviour to mankind in dying for their transgressions, was not merely a prophet but a part of the Trinity.

The doctrine of the Trinity is the central doctrine of religions of Christendom. According to the Athanasian Creed, there are three divine Persons (the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost), each said to be eternal, each said to be almighty, none greater or less than another, each said to be God, and yet together being but one God. Other statements of the dogma emphasize that these three “Persons” are not separate and distinct individuals but are three modes in which the divine essence exists. Thus some Trinitarians emphasize their belief that Jesus Christ is God, or that Jesus and the Holy Ghost are Jehovah. It is however not a Bible teaching.

So what is the origin of the Trinity doctrine?

The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.

According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.

John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.

Even though, as Trinitarians acknowledge, neither the word “Trinity” nor a statement of the Trinitarian dogma is found in the Bible, are the concepts that are embodied in that dogma found there?

- Does the Bible teach that the “Holy Spirit” is a person?

Some individual texts that refer to the holy spirit (“Holy Ghost,” KJ) might seem to indicate personality. For example, the holy spirit is referred to as a helper (Greek, pa·raʹkle·tos; “Comforter,” KJ; “Advocate,” JB, NE) that ‘teaches,’ ‘bears witness,’ ‘speaks’ and ‘hears.’ (John 14:16, 17, 26; 15:26; 16:13) But other texts say that people were “filled” with holy spirit, that some were ‘baptized’ with it or “anointed” with it. (Luke 1:41; Matt. 3:11; Acts 10:38) These latter references to holy spirit definitely do not fit a person. To understand what the Bible as a whole teaches, all these texts must be considered. What is the reasonable conclusion? That the first texts cited here employ a figure of speech personifying God’s holy spirit, his active force, as the Bible also personifies wisdom, sin, death, water, and blood. (See also the paragraph on this page under the heading “What is the holy spirit?”)

The Holy Scriptures tell us the personal name of the Father—Jehovah. They inform us that the Son is Jesus Christ. But nowhere in the Scriptures is a personal name applied to the holy spirit.

Acts 7:55, 56 reports that Stephen was given a vision of heaven in which he saw “Jesus standing at God’s right hand.” But he made no mention of seeing the holy spirit. (See also Revelation 7:10; 22:1, 3.)

The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits: “The majority of N[ew] T[estament] texts reveal God’s spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God.” (1967, Vol. XIII, p. 575) It also reports: “The Apologists [Greek Christian writers of the second century] spoke too haltingly of the Spirit; with a measure of anticipation, one might say too impersonally.”—Vol. XIV, p. 296.

- Does the Bible agree with those who teach that the Father and the Son are not separate and distinct individuals?

Matt. 26:39, RS: “Going a little farther he [Jesus Christ] fell on his face and prayed, ‘My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.’” (If the Father and the Son were not distinct individuals, such a prayer would have been meaningless. Jesus would have been praying to himself, and his will would of necessity have been the Father’s will.)

John 8:17, 18, RS: “[Jesus answered the Jewish Pharisees:] In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true; I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me.” (So, Jesus definitely spoke of himself as being an individual separate and distinct from the Father.)

See also the paragraph on this page under the heading Is Jehovah in the “Old Testament” Jesus Christ in the “New Testament”?

- Does the Bible teach that all who are said to be part of the Trinity are eternal, none having a beginning?

[continued in next comment]

a reply to: Sheye

- Does the Bible teach that all who are said to be part of the Trinity are eternal, none having a beginning?

Col. 1:15, 16, RS: “He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth.” In what sense is Jesus Christ “the first-born of all creation”? (1) Trinitarians say that “first-born” here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; thus Christ would be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created. If that is so, and if the Trinity doctrine is true, why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all creation? But the Bible applies this expression only to the Son. According to the customary meaning of “firstborn,” it indicates that Jesus is the eldest in Jehovah’s family of sons. (2) Before Colossians 1:15, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals. What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof? (3) Does Colossians 1:16, 17 (RS) exclude Jesus from having been created, when it says “in him all things were created . . . all things were created through him and for him”? The Greek word here rendered “all things” is panʹta, an inflected form of pas. At Luke 13:2, RS renders this “all . . . other”; JB reads “any other”; NE says “anyone else.” (See also Luke 21:29 in NE and Philippians 2:21 in JB.) In harmony with everything else that the Bible says regarding the Son, NW assigns the same meaning to panʹta at Colossians 1:16, 17 so that it reads, in part, “by means of him all other things were created . . . All other things have been created through him and for him.” Thus he is shown to be a created being, part of the creation produced by God.

Rev. 1:1; 3:14, RS: “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him . . . ‘And to the angel of the church in La-odicea write: “The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning [Greek, ar·kheʹ] of God’s creation.”’” (KJ, Dy, CC, and NW, as well as others, read similarly.) Is that rendering correct? Some take the view that what is meant is that the Son was ‘the beginner of God’s creation,’ that he was its ‘ultimate source.’ But Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon lists “beginning” as its first meaning of ar·kheʹ. (Oxford, 1968, p. 252) The logical conclusion is that the one being quoted at Revelation 3:14 is a creation, the first of God’s creations, that he had a beginning. Compare Proverbs 8:22, where, as many Bible commentators agree, the Son is referred to as wisdom personified. According to RS, NE, and JB, the one there speaking is said to be “created.”)

Prophetically, with reference to the Messiah, Micah 5:2 (KJ) says his “goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” Dy reads: “his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity.” Does that make him the same as God? It is noteworthy that, instead of saying “days of eternity,” RS renders the Hebrew as “ancient days”; JB, “days of old”; NW, “days of time indefinite.” Viewed in the light of Revelation 3:14, discussed above, Micah 5:2 does not prove that Jesus was without a beginning.

- Does the Bible teach that none of those who are said to be included in the Trinity is greater or less than another, that all are equal, that all are almighty?

Mark 13:32, RS: “Of that day or that hour no ones knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Of course, that would not be the case if Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were coequal, comprising one Godhead. And if, as some suggest, the Son was limited by his human nature from knowing, the question remains, Why did the Holy Spirit not know?)

Matt. 20:20-23, RS: “The mother of the sons of Zebedee . . . said to him [Jesus], ‘Command that these two sons of mine may sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.’ But Jesus answered, . . . ‘You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.’” (How strange, if, as claimed, Jesus is God! Was Jesus here merely answering according to his “human nature”? If, as Trinitarians say, Jesus was truly “God-man”—both God and man, not one or the other—would it truly be consistent to resort to such an explanation? Does not Matthew 20:23 rather show that the Son is not equal to the Father, that the Father has reserved some prerogatives for himself?)

Matt. 12:31, 32, RS: “Every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” (If the Holy Spirit were a person and were God, this text would flatly contradict the Trinity doctrine, because it would mean that in some way the Holy Spirit was greater than the Son. Instead, what Jesus said shows that the Father, to whom the “Spirit” belonged, is greater than Jesus, the Son of man.)

John 14:28, RS: “[Jesus said:] If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.”

1 Cor. 11:3, RS: “I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” (Clearly, then, Christ is not God, and God is of superior rank to Christ. It should be noted that this was written about 55 C.E., some 22 years after Jesus returned to heaven. So the truth here stated applies to the relationship between God and Christ in heaven.)

1 Cor. 15:27, 28 RS: “‘God has put all things in subjection under his [Jesus’] feet.’ But when it says, ‘All things are put in subjection under him,’ it is plain that he is excepted who put all things under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one.”

The Hebrew word Shad·daiʹ and the Greek word Pan·to·kraʹtor are both translated “Almighty.” Both original-language words are repeatedly applied to Jehovah, the Father. (Ex. 6:3; Rev. 19:6) Neither expression is ever applied to either the Son or the holy spirit.

- Does the Bible teach that each of those said to be part of the Trinity is God?

[concluded in next comment]