Sometimes I wonder about the Trinitarian view.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Yes it is. You say to take one verse literally then beat around the bush with another.

I haven't ever said Romans 10:4 shouldn't be taken literally for one thing, perhaps you are thinking of another member? For two, Romans 10:4 and the law vs grace debate has nothing to do with Christ affirming that the OT books spoke of Him. He said this twice on two occasions to two different groups of people.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Akragon

 

If Paul started Christianity then who were the Christians he was persecuting before converting to Christianity?

Followers of Jesus or his disciples obviously...

Those people were obviously a different type of Christian from Pauls Followers... who make up the majority of the churches people these days it seems

Paul started his own brand of the religion... based around Jesus' name only... not his lessons

Originally posted by Akragon

I still don't get it, sorry.

No need to apologise... Most Christians refuse to see the obvious flaws in their doctrine... No offence of course

No, I mean I still don't understand what you're trying to say. That Christianity is a tightly woven theology?

You've done complex maths, right? Get one bit wrong and the whole thing falls apart? Or looked at complex systems? Maybe I should recognize that not everyone is an engineer, lol.

It's actually a case for the rightness of Christianity, not for some perceived flimsiness.

reply to post by Akragon

Followers of Jesus or his disciples obviously...

Those people were obviously a different type of Christian from Pauls Followers... who make of the majority of the churches people these days it seems

Have you read Acts 15?

reply to post by adjensen

No, I mean I still don't understand what you're trying to say.

I already said what I meant though... there are tons of holes in the theology of Christianity...

And no, math doesn't work for me... but I can read.... and what I read is mainly the gospels, which I use as comparison for all other religious scripture...

and nothing else compares within the bible or otherwise...

The other texts in the NT barely follow the gospels... and the OT completely misses the mark...

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Akragon

 

Followers of Jesus or his disciples obviously...

Those people were obviously a different type of Christian from Pauls Followers... who make of the majority of the churches people these days it seems

Have you read Acts 15?

Many times... and I just reread it for the sake of this conversation

What about it?

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Akragon

 

Followers of Jesus or his disciples obviously...

Those people were obviously a different type of Christian from Pauls Followers... who make of the majority of the churches people these days it seems

Have you read Acts 15?

Many times... and I just reread it for the sake of this conversation

What about it?

Paul's concerts were Gentiles. Acts 15 was about the apostles coming together to decide what Gentile Christians should believe and how they should carry themselves as followers of Christ.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Oh, okay. I thought that since you agreed that you have had this conversation before that we were on the same page. Apparently not.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Akragon

 

Followers of Jesus or his disciples obviously...

Those people were obviously a different type of Christian from Pauls Followers... who make of the majority of the churches people these days it seems

Have you read Acts 15?

Many times... and I just reread it for the sake of this conversation

What about it?

Paul's concerts were Gentiles. Acts 15 was about the apostles coming together to decide what Gentile Christians should believe and how they should carry themselves as followers of Christ.

And at the end of that chapter you'll find them disagreeing with each other and going their separate ways...

Likely because Paul was teaching his own doctrine, like you'll find in his letters...

37 And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark.

38 But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work.

39 And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus;

40 And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God.

41 And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


What does this have to do with Paul creating his own doctrine separate from Jesus' teachings?

Why were the apostles arguing over circumcision? Was Jesus' message not thorough or complete enough that they had to argue over things? I personally think that Jesus said all that he needed to, the apostles arguing after his death goes to show that they were making their own doctrine up.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

He was mocking them correct, but His point remains that the OT testifies of Him. This is also apparent when He gives two disciples on the road to Emmaus a teaching after His resurrection showing them all the places in the OT starting with the Torah and through the prophets which spoke about Him. (Luke 24:27)

What is up with the capitalizing of the H's for Jesus? Is that on the newest video from your leader?
I capitalize the H's when I mean God, so as to not make it so confusing when I am talking about God and Jesus.
Maybe you should have capital and bold the H's for God, or do you think it doesn't matter since they are the same person in your heretical view?
You still haven't given me examples of the supposed prophecies about Jesus in the Old Testament.
If there are, they are very obscure and you wouldn't recognize them as such unless they had been already pointed out to you.
The way that it seems to work is that Jesus says it does, then you believe him without asking him to show you the text.
You are adding in your own interpretation rather than giving a straight quote, by putting in Torah, and OT. Those are not in the verses, so we don't know what the writer really meant, and for all we know, Jesus could have been talking about writings that do not exist anymore. Where in the OT does it say that Jesus has to be killed and on the third day resurrected? It doesn't. Now if you say it is in the story of Jonah, then what you have is a kind of free association that Jesus was doing, so he could have been reading anything and creating connections and interpretations to fit anything that happened.
The other explanation is that Luke was making this up. Another verse that is relevant to this scenario is,
(For they did not yet understand the scripture that Jesus must rise from the dead.)
John 20:9
Probably because it never said it in so many words. No one has found it yet, as far as I know.

reply to post by adjensen

As you are aware, there are no surviving original writings of Arius.

They do, and can be found in Athanasius' works, where he quotes Arius.
He wrote extensively in denunciation of Arius and quoting him where he thought he was in error, so if Arius did say that Jesus was created, then he would have said so.
So really, what I am asking is, where does Athanasius quote Arius saying that Jesus was created.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Dear jmdewey60,

I didn't know they did a DNA test of Jesus. Oddly enough over the past few years we have actually created babies that have two mothers and one father.

Originally posted by AllGloryIsGods
reply to post by AQuestion

 

Thank you for the reply. The answer is yes, if I was wrong about the trinity I would still love God with all my heart mind body and soul. He has given me everything I cannot imagine a better friend or father.

However I have visited several churches recently and this is all they teach "look at Jesus" "pray to Jesus". Absolutely nothing about the rest of the Bible. It disturbs me. The rest of the Bible is there for a reason. Anyhow that is another subject and as I said I did not set this thread up to debate I am only curious as to what others think God thinks about us debating it or whether he cares.

Dear AllGloryIsGods,

All of the bible is good for teaching and it all has meaning. The problem is that most don't understand that the difference in how God treated us was based on how we evolved and not a changing God. They asked Jesus and he told them the answers that mattered, have faith and anything is possible, love God and others fully and everything is attained that is worthy of being attained.

reply to post by AQuestion

I didn't know they did a DNA test of Jesus.

So are the genealogies in the Gospels completely meaningless.
That's genetics.

reply to post by AQuestion


Sorry man... but "the lord" changes dramatically... either that or my view is more valid... that being the idea of a completely different God in the OT, as compared to the one Jesus spoke of

Could you imagine Jesus saying this?

"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by AQuestion

 

I didn't know they did a DNA test of Jesus.

So are the genealogies in the Gospels completely meaningless.
That's genetics.

Dear jmdewey60,

Reread what I wrote, could Jesus have had DNA from 3? Simpler, could God have instilled Joseph's DNA, or at least part of it, in Jesus. You cannot use a biological argument to restrict what the God who created all genetics is capable of.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by AQuestion

 

Sorry man... but "the lord" changes dramatically... either that or my view is more valid... that being the idea of a completely different God in the OT, as compared to the one Jesus spoke of

Could you imagine Jesus saying this?

"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)

Dear Akragon,

We simply disagree and that is okay. One does not treat 2 year olds the same that one treats 20 year olds. God does not treat everyone the same and we all have different limits. I might spank a two year old for playing with matches and thank a 20 year old for starting a campfire. My father taught me something a long time ago. He had been in the Chosen Reservoir in Korea, he was one of "the Chosen Few", look it up for fun. He attended the opeining of the Korean War Memorial and he heard Generals and Privates discuss what the war meant. He said they were all wrong and all right, My father taught me something true about life, he said everyone fights their own war. The same is true in regards to our relationship with the lord, we choose our relationship and he responds as he sees fit to us. Job, David and Moses all met the same God; but, their relationship and experience was different and said more about them than about God.

reply to post by AQuestion


What do you make of this verse?

27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

IF no man knows the Son except the Father... and no man knows the Father save the son...

Before Jesus came on the scene, no man knew the true God...

Logical?

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by AQuestion

 

What do you make of this verse?

27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

IF no man knows the Son except the Father... and no man knows the Father save the son...

Before Jesus came on the scene, no man knew the true God...

Logical?

edit on 30-4-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)

Dear Akragon,

The verse says that there is none all knowing except the father and the son, they know each other fully. We know as looking through a glass dimly, we see part and that part is true; but, it is not all. Your last statement I disagree with because Adam knew God, Moses knew God and one prophet knew him so well that he walked with him and he talked with him and then he was and he was not for he was raptured. As humans we can only know aspects of God, Jesus knew all of God. In my understanding.