"WHY DID MAN CREATE GOD?"
There you go Sea Breeze - I fixed it for you.
You're welcome.
jesus is the creator god, but why did he create us?
what say you?.
"WHY DID MAN CREATE GOD?"
There you go Sea Breeze - I fixed it for you.
You're welcome.
that's what the word says.
.
colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..
@joey jojo
You noted that if the Trinity were "cut and dry," it wouldn’t require extensive explanation. However, the complexity of the Trinity arises because it attempts to articulate the nature of God—a being beyond full human comprehension.
If articulation of the nature of god is too complex for human minds, why do you insist on your point of view being the correct one? You are admitting that no one can understand it.
Maybe the complexity of the trinity arises because it makes no logical sense.
that's what the word says.
.
colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..
There are walls of text on this topic in this thread. There are even charts supplied by Sea Breeze. Surely if the trinity doctrine was so cut and dry - even obvious, none of this would be necessary.
A lot of the scriptures 'supporting' the trinity are bible commentators saying what they believe to be the case, not quotes directly from jesus and these are mostly from John. Objectively speaking, that raises concerns.
The most basic example of this paradox is Jesus (the word) himself saying, ' the father is greater than I'. Then you have John, who says, 'the word was god'.
What about the quote from jesus at Matt 24:36? 'No one knows the day or hour but the father'? How can anyone possibly read that verse and decide it means that jesus = god, without serious mental gymnastics?
Im waiting for the 3000 word reply. Please include more charts - there can never be enough.
that's what the word says.
.
colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..
peacefulpete
I see someone gave me a negative. Was something in the comment incorrect?
It wasnt me.
The Jewish religion almost universally rejects the notion of a trinity. There are hints of polytheism in the old testament but that is completely different than a trinity.
Gen 1:26 is an interesting scripture in the context of this discussion. To use the phrase 'like one of us' almost sounds like man is equal to god. Believers of the trinity certainly extrapolate more meaning into other verses with far less substance to support the idea that jesus = god.
that's what the word says.
.
colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..
Why dont Jews believe in a trinity? I would think that the voice of the people that wrote the old testament would carry some weight and be taken into consideration by christians?
that's what the word says.
.
colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..
You write your replies in a way that makes it seem like the trinitarian belief was a foregone conclusion in early christianity.
It wasnt. There is no specific, defined trinity doctrine that originated from Jesus. This is undisputed fact.
Belief in the trinity leans heavily on John, written late and containing a different type of gospel than the other 3 - that doesnt concern you?
It is hardly surprising that Ignatius, Polycarp, Hippolytus and Ireaneus, all followers of John are mentioned. They essentially are part of the 'school of John'.
Personally, I dont care, I just find the debate interesting from a historical point of view. I am always astonished how some people feel that a 'belief' that was agreed upon by men nearly 2000 years ago is the best we could come up with and it doesnt need any clarifications and to question it today indicates gross heresy. There arent a lot of other beliefs that have withstood the test of time since then, why is faith different?
To me its as ridiculous as arguing whether Zeus or Mars wore white or red robes.
that's what the word says.
.
colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..
aqwsed12345
The wisdom that "orders all things gently" did not permit the great mystery to blaze forth fully at once. The "sun" of this truth, at the moment of its rising, was not allowed to reach its zenith immediately, dazzling and intimidating all with its brightness. Instead, its early rays, filtering through the clouds of restraint, needed to accustom souls gradually, preparing them step by step to receive the full understanding of the mystery.
These are essentially the same words that the GB uses when they make stuff up too.
that's what the word says.
.
colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..
aqwsed - Im not an expert on this subject but your responses are clear manifestations of your faith. Faith does not require proof- just belief.
This subject has been argued for and against. There is no clear, undeniable proof that jesus is god- equal to the father and if it was true, there should be absolutely no doubt about the subject. Jesus himself would have made it crystal clear. But he didnt.
I say this with respect, this subject is a matter of faith.
that's what the word says.
.
colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..
peacefulpete
joey...The Gospel of John, counter to the order of writing, may in fact represent a branch of Christianity more primitive than the other Gospels. Sure, much of the narrative is derived from the Synoptics yet it also relies upon sources independent from that
I dont know a lot about this stuff, although it is very interesting. From what Ive read, logos,as used by the Greeks speaks about an abstract idea that involved the way god created the universe. The gospel of john attaches a distinct identity to this, which is actually a radical change.
John seems to take an idea and develop it, weaving it into the jesus story. It seems like there is more to it than simply an honest re-telling of events about jesus.
that's what the word says.
.
colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..
John is the gospel that differs from the other three with respect to the amount of interest it has in the nature of jesus and his relationship with god. John was also the last gospel written (around 100 ce). That means that John may have been written up to 30 years after the others.
The differences in style and the late date should arouse suspicions. John is the most quoted book in relation to the trinity and the father/son nature of jesus. It may reflect a bias toward a teaching or movement that started after the first 3 gospels were written.
This is a known, debated historical fact. It isnt just me saying it. If you are heavily relying on one book, John, above all others to 'prove' a trinity, then, are you being honest with yourself? It definitely raises questions if John has such a point of difference to the other 3 books. Why dont the other 3 gospels address this extremely important topic like John does? Something fishy going on here.
John reads like it is making statements of faith and taking liberties rather than documenting events like the first 3 gospels.