by BFD 142 Replies latest watchtower bible
And to fully understand Col. 2:9 review Col. 1:15-20. And note Vss. 5, 9, 13 of Chapter 1 in Hebrews.
"Image - a reproduction of the appearance of someone or something."
"Represent - to serve as the official and authorized delegate or agent for; act as a spokesman for."
Yah and I suppose whenever jesus was shouting ," my God my God why have you forsaken me", when he was dying , was only to confuse us even more .
Yah and I suppose whenever jesus was shouting ," my God my God why have you forsaken me", when he was dying , was only to confuse us even more .
Not if you understand the manner in which the Father forsook of Jesus. Do you know the manner in which the Father forsook Jesus? I can tell you, but I'm just curious if you know. In other words, was the forsaking metaphysical or moral?
Look man if he was God in the flesh then there's no point whatsoever for him to cry out with that . I know the WTBTS says he cried out because God had removed his holy spirit from jesus so he could die as a man equal to that of adam. Which really was the whole point anyway . The whole trinity crap is just convoluted nonsense that even people that believe claim they don't understand it anyway.
ook man if he was God in the flesh then there's no point whatsoever for him to cry out with that . I know the WTBTS says he cried out because God had removed his holy spirit from jesus so he could die as a man equal to that of adam. Which really was the whole point anyway . The whole trinity crap is just convoluted nonsense that even people that believe claim they don't understand it anyway.
Your answer is similar to the average Christian's, that's OK. Most Christians couldn't tell you what the Trinity is if you put a gun to their heads and threatened to pull the trigger.
The seperation that occured at the cross was moral and not metaphysical. Sounds like semantics, but it really is key in understanding what happened at the cross. Secondly, you seem to think the terms God and Father are interchangable. Common mistake. They are not. God is the "what", Father is the "who." Is it difficult to comprehend? Yes, it is. However, I would rather worship a God that I can't fully comprehend, then some impotent, capricious god like the one described in the bird cage liners, the WT$ calls books and magazines.
Good points Pahpa and Heathen, Christ had to work to gain his god like status so it wasn't his to begin with. We don't labour to get what already belongs to us. Christians are invited to conquer and sit upon the throne of Christ just as He conquered and sat upon the throne of God.
I guess I should've known I would open a can of worms with this topic but I'm glad I did. I like what you said, Greendawn.
BFD
BFD wrote: "I am reading the bible for the first time. I read Revelations ealier this week (whoa) and last night I read John I, II,and III. (KJV).Anyway, 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."
Sounds like a trinity to me. Am I missing something here?
Any thoughts or comments will be greatly appreciated.
BFD
Mad writes: "The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost" were not found in the earliest manuscripts. And "Ghost" is a terrible MisTranslation, anyways. If those words belong there- there STILL is no problem understanding them; God, His Son, and the Holy Spirit work together in perfect harmony. They both accomplish great works thru the Holy Spirit- the Power (not Ghost, or 'Trinitarian' God-Thing) of the Most High. And as one pointed out- Jesus simply ISN'T God; he was GIVEN his authority in Heaven & Earth. God already HAD it- NOONE can give it to HIM!
With all due respect, Mad,ito me it seems Jesus was born of God through the Holy spirit, no? So is He not of God?
BFD
Heathen:
The trinity makes no sense and it is easier to remove the one or two scriptures that allegedly support it .
And you wonder why, after comments like that, that noone takes your theology seriously?
Why don't we similarly provide a translation where we just take out the few verses that are difficult to a Trinitarian view? That way we can have two distinct bibles so people can believe exactly what they want with no challenge to their small minds
In the context of the canon of 66 books, both a Unitarian and a Trinitarian view take a stretch of the mind. That you dismiss the Trinitarian view merely because you don't understand it is a pretty poor show. I know you've clambered beyond the WTS view on so many things, so why don't you give this one a genuine shot as well. You likely will still not believe it, but at least you wont be touting your ignorance as a "sound argument" for said beliefs.
