Quote:
Originally Posted by muhsin
What kind of answer are you looking for anyway?
Personally, I never really understand why someone asked such question. If you then became satisfied that you finally be able to decide to believe or not, so what?
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by muhsin
What kind of answer are you looking for anyway?
Personally, I never really understand why someone asked such question. If you then became satisfied that you finally be able to decide to believe or not, so what?
In speaking of THREE EQUAL PERSONS WHO are EACH, wholly GOD, there is no anomily to reckon with. The FATHER never emptied HIMSELF. The SON emptied HIMSELF, but this does not mean HE nullified HIS DEITY - HIS emptying involved humble submission to HIS EQUAL. A woman is no less than her husband. If the couple has children, the father may keep working and be head of the household, while, as a concession to serve the care of children, the mother sets aside many rights of adulthood to act as mother. She entrusts her lot to her husband in so doing, living off of hie provision to some degree, yet her work for the children is a replication of her husband's own parental concern that the children have a good mother, no less than her own original sentiment enacted (if he is a godly father). The LORD JESUS CHRIST, being spoken of in Scripture as the WISDOM of GOD, in feminine cases grammatically, did in an infinite way what many a great, self-sacrificing mother does. Her acting in this concessional way does not weaken her husband's worldly connections, nor her ability to regain what she laid aside later, once a mighty work has been accomplished. Great is the Work of the SON, which proves the Virtue of the FATHER, in that the SON acted in concert with HIM in Heart.
Stop quoting verses??!!!! We are talking about relgioun, we are not going to throw them behind our backs and talk from our minds, are we?
Sites were to give example, sorry if it wasnt leagal to put sites. Youo can all go to Protestant church and catholic church and buy both bibles and check what i said, dont enter in sites if you want. ( before i wrote wrongly that catholic and protestant have 2 varses more in bible, i am sorry i meant catholic and orthodox, protestans dont haav 13 and 14 of Daniel.
Verses i quote show so clear that they were fabricated and changed, my idea is clear. A seriuos verses were fabricated, and they present the base of christianity, if there is something not clear i will try to make it more clear.
Beside if we are not going to use verse then what we are going to use, its religious talk, and verses are best who can talk.
The question of where Jesus pbuh said i am God or worship me, because in every relgioun God present him self directly in so clear way, because God is base of religioun, and if you read verses of sending Hello from God in Paul's writings you will find names, so clear names, check it. While one single verse that Jesus is God, all what we saw is canceling dangerous verses, trintiy, begotten, son of God, prophecys.
While we see so clear that Father presented him self as God in more than one verse, and that Jesus pbuh is massenger.
Thats why its not logic to worship someone didnt present him so clearly. Go back to posts before.
About trinity, In your example father and mother they are 2 persons, are there 2 Gods son and Father? beside, If God is The Father and the son, my question simple, DId the Father died? Did the holy spirit died?
In every example you give you will arrive to the conclusion or there are more than one God, as in example of now, or they are 3 parts as you said that the Father is not the only one God. Always priests say The Father is whole God so and Son is whole God, so and Holy Spirit, but they are not 3 Gods they are one, While you said Father is not the only one God (so clear, or there are more than one God, or Father is part of God, there are no other choices, you cant create third choice to explain this phrase).
Try to use the verses that made you arrive to the trintiy. You said that its the thing that you will conclude trintiy, please show me verses, and how you concluded.
I say again if there is something not clear please point it.
A note to everyone:
Please keep cutting and pasting verse from texts to a minimum.
"These forums are not here for preaching, or attempts to convert, nor promote other religiously affiliated websites."
Sword and Shield, please understand that no example can perfectly explain a belief and understand that sometimes an example that makes sense to one person will not be relevant to another.
"Come near to Me, listen to this: From the first I have not spoken in secret, From the time it took place, I was there. And now the Lord GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit." (Isaiah 48:16)
ve-'atah adonay YHWH shelacha-niy ve-rucho
How can God simultaneously exist as both singular and plural? It is a logical impossibility if God were restricted to the three dimensions of space and one dimension of time of our physical universe. However, the attributes of God, given by the Bible, provide a reasonable explanation of how this paradox can be resolved. God transcends time and space(this is biblical) and therefore cant be restrained to our knowledge of our physical universe.
But i have concluded once and for all.
My point was that trinity every one explain it as he like, not only here i saw explinations. Only wanted to asy that there is no one definition that gather all christians, some say they are parts, some say they are three complete but not three they are one, and watching the explination of the second opinion will arrive to that they are 3 parts, or they are 3 persons (gods). My point was that trinity verse gone, and any one who take the bible that people use nowadays and read it (wihtout having previuos opinions, or knowledge about trinity or that Jesus pbuh is God) he wont arrive to any conclusion of trinity, or that Jesus pbuh is God, especially if he know that seriuos verses vanished.
Me too learned more and more through this thread, i searched more in bible and learned new things. All i hope that you didnt feel any offence Rufioag or any christian here, or attacking your religioun, because me too believe that Jesus pbuh is equal to Muhammed, and believe that he is one of the greatest prophets, and his birth was a miracle made by Allah ( if Allah say to something be and its, he is not son of God, he was an alive miracle of Allah), and i believe that his mother Mary pbuh is one of the greatest women on earth she is pure and vergion(first miracle in islam that Jesus made was that he talked when he was baby and showed that his mother is innocent from what people said about here (that she made adultery) all in Mary chapter in quran 19), i believe that Jesus pbuh had a book from God called vangele (Muslims dont believe its what we have nowadays). So all what i wrote wasnt to attack Jesus pbuh, and ho could attack him or any prophet of God they all are pure and most honest they didnt mistake or were drank or made adultry God protected them, we pray to God that he gather us all with his prophets in paradise. At the end i say even if i believe in Muhammed peace be upon as prophet and refuse Jesus peace be upon him as prophet then i am out of islam and wont enter paradise, same thing if i refuse any other prophet that Holy Quran talked about or didnt talk. May Allah guide us all to right path.
No offense taken Shield and Sword. Just as you adamently(really) believe that Jesus was a prophet equal in status to Muhammed and that the Holy Bible has been changed, I strongly believe that Jesus lived life without sin and represents the 2nd part of the Trinity. You are clearly entitled to your beleifs and your points were well taken. I honestly cant explain all your questions becuase I have never asked them myself. And, just as you searched for answers, so will I.
Rufioag only i pray that Allah guide us all to right path, only my advice in searching is to use compleatly the mind, and consider all parts, not to leave emotions contol us. Only adviiiiiiiiice ;) . was nice talking, a little bit strong , but nice. I think me too cncluded here.
That is good!
Ok.... Here goes, for a third time.
There are amazingly interesting views on this in Sigmund Freud's
The Future of an Illusion.
It's a book. It's literature, actually. This forum is entitled "religious texts" I believe, so... this post should be ok.
Nothing else about the Freud. I won't say anything at all...
I love Jesus. Jesus is also a great guy, thought I'd throw that in there too...
I've just re-read my post, from the top to here. THIS ONE SHOULD NOT BE EDITED. I AM SURE OF IT. DON'T WORRY WITH IT, I ALREADY CHECKED IT OUT. IT'S FINE.
Those that say the TRINITY are each only modes of one PERSON, or THREE PERSONS that are only each partially GOD, or GOD in descending order of degrees neither agree with the internally agreeing statements on the TRINITY in the Bible, nor with the unanimous Testimony of the early Church Fathers. Many unschooled Laity that mean well have in recent centuries tried to flatter opponents of the TRINITY and have influenced even the private judgements of some of the Clergy that were once their pupils. I can demonstrate from the whole early Church all that I say. Many of the silly explanations given - even sometimes more recently parroted by Catholics - are originally from sects that were never part of the Church, and whose views were thought satanic novelties from the beginning by all the early Christians. The Catholic Church did not form in some obscure corner. It was publicly conspicuous from the beginning, and incurred Roman censure almost right away. All of the other groups that claimed to be Christian only lend credibility to the Catholic Church. The Valentinians pretended a secret Apostolic Succession along the pattern of the Catholic one, and imitated the Sacraments of the Catholic Church, with ludicrous modifications to them. They used the Writings that made it into the Catholic New Testament, but allegorized everything written in them, showing that they felt a need to make due with the accepted Books, accepted before the Valentinian sect existed. What similarities existed superficially between Valentinians and Catholics shows the preeminance of the Catholic Church, which had like Rites abroad well before the Valentinian sect developed in a dark corner in a single, limited locale. How could every Catholic Parish on earth copycat an obscure, secret sect in a place of no significance to most Dioceses? Even Arius, whom "jehovah's witnesses" try to use as their ancient champion acknowledged that the Catholic Church had always been, and, while still suspected of holding heresy in his heart, was in utter terror of being excommunicated from the People of the TRINITY. I could go on and on. My point is that the contradictory versions of the "Trinity" are all from non-Catholic opinion, but that the pure Catholic Doctrine, as delivered in the beginning, remains for ever true, and the one, unanimous word on the TRINITY. One who has not learned the whole Teaching on the TRINITY might mistake a sermon on one aspect of the TRINITY for the Teaching on the whole of the matter, and mistake the ommissions as denials of the rest through silence - while it might just be that the rest has no immediate bearing in substantiating the aspect under discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shield&Sword
When in doubt, tell the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by subterranean
Look at the aforesaid qoute, what do you grasp?
hahahahaha!!!