I cant believe this Trinity lark

by Hamas 77 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  AGuest

  I have never called your spirit creature 'Beelzebub'

  Didn't you? True, you may not have written it here, but is it not what's in the heart that is TRUE? If he is not the Son of God, the Christ, who, then, is he?

  I have pointed out that I believe that you have "another Jesus" that the Apostle Paul warned about in 2 Corinthians 11:4.

  Is there another "Jesus"? True, I have not preached to you the NAME "Ieosus"... and I explained to you why that is. You, however, have a bit of trouble putting faith in that, so that you have let your heart mislead you... to showing hatred and hypocrisy. And perhaps even blasphemy.

  (NOTE: I find it "curious" that you use this verse, where Paul is talking to the Corinthians, et al., about how if someone came to them and preached a different *Jesus* Christ than he had preached to them... and they had put up with such ones, but were now having difficulty with him. It's "curious" because Paul himself preached a "different" *Jesus*... when he told that same congregation to mark and expel a man. It was Paul who was corrected... by the others... and who acknowledged his error on the basis of his zeal.)

  We disagree on a point, dear Hooberus. But it did not cause me to condemn you... or blaspheme the spirit. For I have no desire to "annihilate" you so that I can be "right." It does not matter to me what you accept or reject - your salvation does not lie with me. ALL I can do is be obedient to the spirit of my Father and my Lord that is IN me... and speak what I am told to speak. Whether you hear... or refrain.

  Again, my peace remains... if you receive it.

  A slave of Christ,

  SJ
• 

  AGuest

  1 Corinthians 15:35, 42-44 is not directly talking about the body of Jesus, but about the resurrection of man in general (though there are parallels).

  Really. And yet, in response to the question, "How are the dead to be raised; what TYPE of body"... it says...

  Nevermind.

  The passage that I have referred to is directly talking about the resurection of the body of Jesus.

  Yes, it is. I absolutely agree.

  The fact that his original body was rasied is important. It fulfilled the prophecy Jesus said in John 2:22. John Chapter 2 shows that the same body that was destroyed was to be raised. The word "this" is in the present tense, hense the same body that he had before the crucifixion was to be raised. the reason Jesus' resurrected body had wound holes because it was the body that was pierced by the nails, not because it was "a body" which was newly created for the occasion (Something that you and the Watchtower calim).

  I also agree that the SAME body raised. And changed. Into a SPIRIT body.

  [18] Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
  [19] Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

  Which he did...

  [20] Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
  [21] But he spake of the temple of his body.

  I agree. Which body... was changed. Into a SPIRIT body. Which could... and did... put on flesh. For the sake of Thomas' faith.

  [22] When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

  Indeed. As do I. I have grown weary of this subject, dear Hooberus. So, you will have to have it with yourself from this point. I will not respond, because we are going nowhere, and there is no benefit. Perhaps at some later point one of us will see the matter more clearly. Until that time... My peace remains... if you indeed receive it. Your servant, and a slave of Christ, SJ
• 

  DJ

  The only thing you are REQUIRED to do... is love me.

  I do Shelby and you know that. It is a gift that I have received and you have too. I would like to ask your permission to e-mail you about a matter that I think you may be able to assist me with. It is unrelated to anything on these threads. In Christ, dj
• 

  AGuest

  Absolutely, dear DJ... email away! And the greatest of love and peace to you!

  YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

  SJ
• 

  Lord Zagato

  Here is a good link to understand the Trinity: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm and the filioque clause (the double procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and Son) in the Creed: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm
• 

  Francois

  I was only about 11 years old when the WTBTS began releasing the partial translations of the New Testament. Stamped in Gold on the front covers of these bibles was the title "The New World Translation of the Greek-Aramiac Scriptures."

  I've never heard anyone challenge the fact that the "New Testament" was written in one of two languages: Greek and Aramiac.

  So what is the big deal about this? Why does anyone have their bra up around their neck about it?

  francois
• 

  AGuest

  Thank you, Franc... for that assistance... and peace to you!

  One fact that lends credence to WHY the gospels and epistles were changed... from Aramaic to Greek... is the "superior" thinking OF the Greeks of that time... and afterward. That they thought such then is a fact, because they were warned by Paul (?) NOT to think themselves more than the Jews in the letter to the Romans (Chapter 11). However, it seems that perhaps after some time they failed to heed that admonishment: thus, the establishment and support of the "Greek Orthodox" church, which (1) considers itself the "true" church (as all "established" religions do!)... and (2) contrary to Peter's word regarding the Father's LACK of "partiality"... can pretty much only boast those of Greek descent among its membership. The Greeks... follow [the teachings of] Paul, of course... which teachings, at times, DID show a measure of partiality.

  Ah, well... what can you expect when we put our trust... "in earthling man."

  Again, thank you, Francois.

  A slave of Christ,

  SJ
• 

  Lord Zagato

  [quote]One fact that lends credence to WHY the gospels and epistles were changed... from Aramaic to Greek... is the "superior" thinking OF the Greeks of that time... and afterward.[/quote]

  Actually, the simple reason why the Gospels and other New Testament books were written in Greek was that most of their audience were, in fact, Greek, or spoke Greek. Remember that Jewish Israel rejected Christ and His followers. The Apostles found more audience in the Jewish communities living out of Israel, as well as the Gentiles, than they did within Israel itself. So too did the Apostles fan out to different parts of the Roan Empire to preach the Gospel, so that they were then compelled to write in the language commonly used, and that was Greek, not Aramaic, of course.