Results 21 - 40 of 300
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Truthfinder Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Does the Bible say protect Israel | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 79899 | ||
Hi Searcher, I believe it's common knowledge that when the temple and genealogical records were lost or destroyed in 70 C. E. by the Romans under General Titus, that all the Jewish claims of ancestory remain unproven. And too, over the millenniums, the ancient Jewish religion has developed and changed. Today Judaism is practiced by millions of Jews in the Republic of Israel and the Diaspora (dispersion around the world) Truthfinder |
||||||
22 | Does the Bible say protect Israel | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 79960 | ||
Hi Searcher You asked: Were all genealogical records kept in the Temple? Didn't people keep their own? Didn't people memorize their own genealogical records? Nonetheless, there are prophecies unfulfilled by Israel ... Romans 9-11 is one example. Evidently, all the nations genealogical records were kept in the Temple. Regarding the destruction of the temple and the archives, the book History of the Jewish People by Max Margolis and Alexander Marx says on pages 202, 203: “Titus hastened to inspect the Temple. But soon the sacred edifice was the prey of the flames which the Romans kept alive. Titus had the quarter occupied by his soldiers burned down: the council house, the hall of archives, the whole of the lower city down to the Pool of Siloam.” The Bible Cyclopædia by M’Clintock and Strong states: “But there can be little doubt that the registers of the Jewish tribes and families perished at the destruction of Jerusalem, and not before.” Concerning Romans 9:11, “for when they had not yet been born nor had practiced anything good or vile, in order that the purpose of God respecting the choosing might continue dependent, not upon works, but upon the One who calls,” Jehovah’s selection of Jacob over Esau shows that God’s choosing does not depend on man’s dictates. The apostle Paul uses this incident as an illustration of the fact that the true children of Abraham are not necessarily those of fleshly descent, nor those who depend on their own works, but those of the faith of Abraham. Ro 9:6-12 says, “However, it is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all who [spring] from Israel are really “Israel.” 7 Neither because they are Abraham’s seed are they all children, but: “What will be called ‘your seed’ will be through Isaac.” 8 That is, the children in the flesh are not really the children of God, but the children by the promise are counted as the seed. 9 For the word of promise was as follows: “At this time I will come and Sarah will have a son.” 10 Yet not that case alone, but also when Re·bek´ah conceived twins from the one [man], Isaac our forefather: 11 for when they had not yet been born nor had practiced anything good or vile, in order that the purpose of God respecting the choosing might continue dependent, not upon works, but upon the One who calls, 12 it was said to her: “The older will be the slave of the younger.” Esau is set forth as a warning example to Christians so that they will not be guilty, as was Esau the materialist, of lack of appreciation for sacred or spiritual things. Heb 12:16 helps us to appreciate this where it says, “16 that there may be no fornicator nor anyone not appreciating sacred things, like E´sau, who in exchange for one meal gave away his rights as firstborn”. Truthfinder |
||||||
23 | Was the wine Jesus drank fermented? | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 80279 | ||
Hi IHS, There are a number of original-language terms that usually designate some kind of wine (Heb., ti·rohsh´ [Ge 27:28, 37; Ho 2:8, 9, 22]; Heb., che´mer [De 32:14; Isa 27:2] and its corresponding Aramaic term chamar´ [Da 5:1, 2, 4, 23]; as well as Gr., gleu´kos [Ac 2:13]). But the Hebrew word ya´yin is found most frequently in the Scriptures. It first appears in Genesis 9:20-24, where the reference is to Noah’s planting a vineyard after the Flood and then becoming intoxicated on the wine. The Greek word oi´nos (basically corresponding to the Hebrew term ya´yin) first occurs in Jesus’ comments on the inadvisability of using old wineskins for new, partially fermented wine, as the pressure developed through fermentation would burst the old wineskins.—Mt 9:17; Mr 2:22; Lu 5:37, 38. So, clearly wine was wine. Truthfinder |
||||||
24 | Was the wine Jesus drank fermented? | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 80329 | ||
Hi Justme, From my studies of both sides of arguments as to the most honest and the most accurate translations of what the original manuscripts must have been I have come to appreciate the NWT as my favorite. I likewise respect your and others' choice in both theology beliefs and convictions as to what Bible translations are preferred. My extensive dialogues in the months past show for the most part JW's beliefs but certainly mine. More clearly, I do not totally agree with 100 per cent of their teaching. I have my own mind, abilities, and experience. I am an old man now and have devoted a considerable part of it to Bible study and still love it. Truthfinder |
||||||
25 | Was the wine Jesus drank fermented? | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 80333 | ||
Hi IHS, Yes, in ancient Israel dishonest merchants would add water to the wine to make it go farther, but Jehovah used this to illustrate moral and spiritual corruption saying: "Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water." (Isa. 1:22) Tasty wine that gives joy of heart should not be adulterated with water. If you know of other instances please quote them. So again certainly wine was not merely grape juice but fermented to wine. Truthfinder |
||||||
26 | Was the wine Jesus drank fermented? | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 80379 | ||
Hi Tim, Tim argues that the “wine” spoken of in some Bible texts was ordinary grape juice. McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia, however, reminds us that “the Bible makes no distinction between intoxicating and non-intoxicating wines—never refers or alludes to such a distinction.” And seems to me that this is also consistent with the Bible. Notice: Genesis 9:21; Luke 1:15; Deuteronomy 14:26; Proverbs 31:4, 6. If I had some texts of the eleventh example (aciyc) translated as wine, I would review it. The same with the tenth example (chemer), is it translated wine? The second Hebrew word (tiyrowsh) and (yayin) the first Hebrew word Tim gave are commented on as examples of non-fermented beverages. Again, Tim give me the specific verses and let me look at them. Interestingly, Jesus’ first miracle was to convert water into wine. The Bible account says: “When, now, the director of the feast tasted the . . . wine but did not know what its source was, . . . [he] called the bridegroom and said to him: ‘Every other man puts out the fine wine first, and when people are intoxicated, the inferior. You have reserved the fine wine until now.’” (John 2:9, 10) Yes, “the fine wine” Jesus produced was real wine. Self-righteous religious leaders in Jesus’ day criticized him for occasionally drinking wine. Said Jesus: “John the Baptist has come neither eating bread nor drinking wine, but you say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of man has come eating and drinking, but you say, ‘Look! A man gluttonous and given to drinking wine!’” (Luke 7:33, 34) What would have been the point of contrast between Jesus’ drinking and John’s not drinking if Jesus had merely been drinking nonalcoholic grape juice? Remember, it was said of John in contrast, that he was to “drink no wine and strong drink at all.”—Luke 1:15. Obviously, Jesus did not condemn the drinking of alcoholic beverages in moderation. In his day the drinking of wine was a part of the celebration of the Passover. And real wine continued to be a part of the Lord’s Evening Meal, which replaced the Passover. Truthfinder |
||||||
27 | Did Jesus Drink Wine? | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 80388 | ||
Hi Tim, I am writting in a hurry not proofing anything so please understand. Matt 26:29 indicates to me Jesus drank wine. Jesus drank the wine at the annual Passover celebration but not at the Lord’s Supper where he offered it to the eleven apostles. Lu 22:15-18, 20. Also Joh 19:28-30 and Lu 23:36, 37 indicates to me that Jesus drank wine. I wrote in the above post: Self-righteous religious leaders in Jesus’ day criticized him for occasionally drinking wine. Said Jesus: “John the Baptist has come neither eating bread nor drinking wine, but you say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of man has come eating and drinking, but you say, ‘Look! A man gluttonous and given to drinking wine!’” (Luke 7:33, 34) What would have been the point of contrast between Jesus’ drinking and John’s not drinking if Jesus had merely been drinking nonalcoholic grape juice? Remember, it was said of John in contrast, that he was to “drink no wine and strong drink at all.”—Luke 1:15. Truthfinder |
||||||
28 | Was the wine Jesus drank fermented? | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 80414 | ||
Hi Justme, Thank you for your kindness. I don't mind at all, go ahead and ask. I ask questions too because I want to try and figure why a person has such strong convictions about a matter that I though have such strong convictions totally opposite. I have learned a lot here on the forum, and hope to continue to learn. Truthfinder |
||||||
29 | Was the wine Jesus drank fermented? | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 80447 | ||
Hi Justme, Before you read this let me warn you that what I say is “strong” language contrary to popular opinion. Allow me to explain how I feel as a result of reading and explaining posts on this forum. I observe that many propagate the idea that the JW translation committee initiated certain verse translation to fit a certain theology, saying bias played a role in its translation. Even some “experts” assert this same idea. Yet, it is shown again and again how grammatically it is just as acceptable to translate verses such as John 1:1 the way they are in the NWT and in the dozens or other translations. Hey, these were experts too and some were even “trinitarians”. Additionally, I have shown that other “experts” in the Greek language support the translation. In fact, I have quoted them from both sides of the argument and you can run a search on this forum and see that. I have also given numerous examples of prior translations that had translated verses such as John 1:1 different from the “mainstream” translations of today. I have also given numerous example of manuscript additions and changes with the sole purpose of supporting the “trinity doctrine”. If the trinity were true why would this atrocity be needed? My unequivocal conviction is theology played a definite role in these “mainstream” translations and thus have mislead many. You know as well as I do that each and every one of those “scholars” of the NABV or the NIV knew what they were doing by taking God’s personal name out of their translations. It remains my unequivocal conviction that the unseen wicked spirit influence of God’s chief adversary Satan has been behind this hoax from its beginning, during our Lord Jesus’ time here on earth. An accurate understanding of the first prophesy of the Bible Ge 3:15 tells us that there would be enmity between Satan and Jesus. The greatest indignity modern translations and schools of theology can possibly render to the author of the Bible is to remove or conceal the personal name and true identity of our God and Father Jehovah. It amazes me how so-called “learned” “Christians” have come to even despise the most holy name in the universe. Truthfinder |
||||||
30 | Was the wine Jesus drank fermented? | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 80489 | ||
Hi Justme, Your approach and complimentary remarks are refreshing and add that pinch of salt for peaceful dialogue. I believe Jesus is the "Son of God". This is a most honorable position. As the One and Only Son "only begotten" Son or God (either/and), he is differentiated from all other sons since he (Jesus) was the one that made them(all other sons). I believe that for eons of time there was only the Father-Jehovah and His Son-Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Then, other sons (angels) were made by Jesus, Jehovah and the Holy Sirit (all three). Then in time Gen. 1:1 came into play and again God is acredited the action of "creating" but Jesus and the Holy Spirit accomplished it. As Solomon built his timeple but he didn't really, but gets the credit. I am merely asserting my beliefs now but would be more that happy to argue them with scripture later. Lastly, I know the NWT and it does present matters this way. I feel it presents matters more accurately than any other translation, but has its flaws. Truthfinder |
||||||
31 | April 16, 2003 | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 80617 | ||
Hi all, Easter, Christmas, or Memorial of Jesus’ death? Most Christians I know and most here on this forum doubtless celebrate the Memorial of Jesus’ death (Lord’s Supper) but perhaps not Easter nor Christmas. The reason being, they feel the early first century Christians did not observe the latter two, yet realize Jesus plainly told his followers to observe a memorial of his death. Jesus’ command is found in two different places in the Bible. At 1 Cor. 11:24-26, “and, after giving thanks, he broke it and said: “This means my body which is in YOUR behalf. Keep doing this in remembrance of me.” 25 He did likewise respecting the cup also, after he had the evening meal, saying: “This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood. Keep doing this, as often as YOU drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as YOU eat this loaf and drink this cup, YOU keep proclaiming the death of the Lord, until he arrives.” And secondly at Luke 22:1920, “Also, he took a loaf, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them, saying: “This means my body which is to be given in YOUR behalf. Keep doing this in remembrance of me.” 20 Also, the cup in the same way after they had the evening meal, he saying: “This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood, which is to be poured out in YOUR behalf. One of the finest ways we can show appreciation for the ransom is by attending the Memorial of Christ’s death and of course this year it falls on April 16 after sundown. Unquestionably, Jesus Christ’s death, over 1,900 years ago was the most important event in human history. Truthfinder |
||||||
32 | Was the wine Jesus drank fermented? | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 80929 | ||
Hi Justme, Both gospel accounts of Matthew and Luke state clearly that Jesus' mother Mary was then a virgin who became pregnant through the operation of God's holy spirit.-Mt 1:18-25; Lu 1:26-35. So, I believe just that. "Fully divine and fully human." you ask? Certainly, as the words "fully divine" mean to me. Jesus is as John 1:1 states in some translations "divine", "god-like", "a god", "God". The last translation though intends to make the Logos the same person as his father and as the self-same verse already tells us that he was "with" God, so the "theos" must be understood "mighty one", as "theos" and "elohim" means in several other places in scripture. This is in harmony with the rest of the scriptures as I see them. Jesus likewise had to have been fully human to fulfull the role as an equal for Adam, a perfect human. What a loving, unselfish "sacrifice" this was on the Father's part to give his "Son", allow his "Son" to suffer on our behalf, for redemption. This to me would not have been the case if it were Almighy God himself who came to the earth and "proved" obedience to "himself". ??? I wonder Justme why you say that I do not meet your expected answers? Please comment. In regards to the NWT having its flaws, one might notice Mat 27:40 and then study the Greek word "stauros". If one were to study lexicons (such as the Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, p256, Latin dictionaries, history books, (such as that of Livy on Roman punishishment), a better translation than the NWT might be merely "stake" as opposed to the NWT "torture stake". I believe it was more of an executional stake eventhough torture was endured, it was death that resulted. Sorry, but "cross" does not even come close to being an accurate translation. John 1:1 might even be better translated "divine" instead of "a god", except for the fact that there is a Greek word for divine, even if it is take from "theos". So, more than likely the Greek writer would have used "theios" if we were to understand it as his nature. Both mean the same to me and both translations are as far as I am concerned, acceptable. Have you Justme ever done an in-depth study of the Greek word "stauros"? Just wondering. Truthfinder |
||||||
33 | Was the wine Jesus drank fermented? | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 80956 | ||
Hi Justme, More about me. Fact is, I "enjoy reading", I enjoy "studying". I have no real hobbies other than reading. My work is that of building fine cabinetry for both the public and home builders. I have three sons that work with me. Basically, a JW is not a JW if he cannot believe and accept "all" the organizational understanding of congregational proceedure. Most JWs I know, do not study non JW publications, manuscript studies, Hebrew and Greek language, etc, as this is very time consuming. I am sometimes dogmatic in my comments but wished I wasn't. One can believe something for years and preach it as gospel, then suddenly come to a totally different understanding and prospective. The hypostasis of the Holy Spirit is one of the deepest Biblical concepts we humans are faced with according to my understanding. And by the way, I don't want to go there right now, thank you. I just think there are some things our finite minds just aren't capable of grasping. Most anything else suits me though. Gotta go, later. Truthfinder |
||||||
34 | Wescott and Hort? | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 81099 | ||
Hi Justme, For the longer version: Actually I started out short but as you can see it got longer and longer. Sorry. By a comparative study of hundreds of existing Bible manuscripts Joe, scholars have prepared what is called master texts. These printed editions of original-language texts suggest the best readings available while drawing attention to variations that may exist in certain manuscripts. Included among the master texts of the Christian Greek Scriptures are those published by Westcott and Hort as well as by Nestle and Aland. The Christian Greek Scriptures for the NASV, NWT, and NIV is based on the Westcott and Hort Greek text, whereas the King James Version was based on what is referred to as a Textus Receptus or "Received Text." These Cambridge University scholars B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, date to 1881. This text is also the foundation for the following translations into English: The Emphasised Bible, the American Standard Version, An American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed), and the Revised Standard Version. This last translation also used Nestle's text as did the NWT. Nestle's Greek text (the 18th edition, 1948) was also used by the New World Bible Translation Committee for the purpose of comparison. The committee also referred to those by Catholic Jesuit scholars José M. Bover (1943) and Augustinus Merk (1948). The United Bible Societies text of 1975 and the Nestle-Aland text of 1979 were consulted to update the footnotes of the 1984 Reference Edition. It’s interesting too that in addition to the Greek manuscripts, there are also available for study today many manuscripts of translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures into other languages. There are about 30 fragments of Old Latin versions and thousands of manuscripts of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. The New World Bible Translation Committee referred to these when their translation was made as well as to the Coptic, Armenian, and Syriac versions. From at least the 14th century onward, translations of the Greek Scriptures into the Hebrew language have been produced. These are of interest to me because they as does the NWT restore God’s name to where it was originally. The site found at http://www.nazarene.net/hrv/ provides some interesting information concerning restoring the Divine name in the New Testament. From the site: The Hebraic Roots Version (HRV) of the New Testament is now in Distribution. Unlike previous Messianic translations the HRV is translated from ancient Hebrew and Aramaic New Testament manuscripts rather than the Greek. Not that you would find it interesting but it supports some of the reasons why the NWT and over a hundred and fifty other translations have resotred the Divine Name in the New Testament. Truthfinder |
||||||
35 | revelation 6:9-11 | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 83069 | ||
Hmmmmmm Radioman2, Who told you that? The Bible didn't. That is totally scarry. That is so so archaic. What is the resurrections? Acts 24:15; John 5:28, 29. On the other hand, if you mean, if we are resurrected to life, whether a spirit creature or to a future earthly resurrection, then certainly. But if we don't really die, but some part of us (the soul perhaps) continues on living, simply is not true according to the Bible. Expain Ezk. 18:4; Gen. 2:7; Eccl. 9:5-10; 1 Cor. 15:53; Acts 24:15; John 5:28, 29 Truthfinder |
||||||
36 | Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 not Satan! | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 83412 | ||
Well put Student7300, The context clearly shows that the Hebrew here is Not referencing Satan, but is a descriptive designation applied to the “king of Babylon.” (Isa 14:4, 12) The Hebrew expression is thus properly translated in the NWT, Ro, Yg) “shinning one” and comes from a root meaning “shine.” (Job 29:3) The rendering “Lucifer” (KJ, Da) is derived from the Latin Vulgate and is in error. The “shining one” is represented as saying in his heart: “Above the stars of God I shall lift up my throne, and I shall sit down upon the mountain of meeting.” (Isa 14:13) Biblical evidence points to Mount Zion as the “mountain of meeting.” So, since stars can refer to kings (Nu 24:17; Re 22:16), “the stars of God” must be the kings of the Davidic line who ruled from Mount Zion. The “king of Babylon” (the dynasty of Babylonian kings), reflecting the attitude of Satan the god of this system of things, indicated his ambition to lift up his throne “above the stars of God” by desiring to make the kings of the line of David mere vassals and then finally to dethrone them. Like stars that shed light, the “king of Babylon” shone brightly in the ancient world and could be termed “shining one.” Truthfinder |
||||||
37 | Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 not Satan! | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 83414 | ||
Well said again, Student7300, but allow me to elaborate a bit. Human sin and imperfection were, of course, preceded by sin and imperfection in the spirit realm, as Jesus' words at John 8:44 and the account in chapter 3 of Genesis reveal. The dirge recorded at Ezekiel 28:12-19, though directed to the human "king of Tyre," evidently parallels the course taken by the spirit son of God who first sinned. The pride of "the king of Tyre," his making himself 'a god,' his being called a "cherub," and the reference to "Eden, the garden of God," certainly correspond to Biblical information concerning Satan the Devil, who became puffed up with pride, is linked to the serpent in Eden, and is called "the god of this system of things." see 1Ti 3:6; Ge 3:1-5, 14, 15; Re 12:9; 2Co 4:4. Truthfinder |
||||||
38 | Where is eden located? | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 83415 | ||
The traditional site is in eastern Turkey, about 140 miles (225 kilometers) southwest of Mount Ararat and a few miles south of Lake Van. Truthfinder |
||||||
39 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 87509 | ||
The Encyclopedia Americana notes that the doctrine of the Trinity is considered to be “beyond the grasp of human reason.” Many who accept the Trinity view it that same way. Monsignor Eugene Clark says: “God is one, and God is three. Since there is nothing like this in creation, we cannot understand it, but only accept it.” Cardinal John O’Connor states: “We know that it is a very profound mystery, which we don’t begin to understand.” And Pope John Paul II speaks of “the inscrutable mystery of God the Trinity.” Thus, A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge says: “Precisely what that doctrine is, or rather precisely how it is to be explained, Trinitarians are not agreed among themselves.” We can understand, then, why the New Catholic Encyclopedia observes: “There are few teachers of Trinitarian theology in Roman Catholic seminaries who have not been badgered at one time or another by the question, ‘But how does one preach the Trinity?’ And if the question is symptomatic of confusion on the part of the students, perhaps it is no less symptomatic of similar confusion on the part of their professors.” The truth of that observation can be verified by going to a library and examining books that support the Trinity. Countless pages have been written attempting to explain it. Yet, after struggling through the labyrinth of confusing theological terms and explanations, investigators still come away unsatisfied. In this regard, Jesuit Joseph Bracken observes in his book What Are They Saying About the Trinity?: “Priests who with considerable effort learned . . . the Trinity during their seminary years naturally hesitated to present it to their people from the pulpit, even on Trinity Sunday. . . . Why should one bore people with something that in the end they wouldn’t properly understand anyway?” He also says: “The Trinity is a matter of formal belief, but it has little or no [effect] in day-to-day Christian life and worship.” Yet, it is “the central doctrine” of the churches! Catholic theologian Hans Küng observes in his book Christianity and the World Religions that the Trinity is one reason why the churches have been unable to make any significant headway with non-Christian peoples. He states: “Even well-informed Muslims simply cannot follow, as the Jews thus far have likewise failed to grasp, the idea of the Trinity. . . . The distinctions made by the doctrine of the Trinity between one God and three hypostases do not satisfy Muslims, who are confused, rather than enlightened, by theological terms derived from Syriac, Greek, and Latin. Muslims find it all a word game. . . . Why should anyone want to add anything to the notion of God’s oneness and uniqueness that can only dilute or nullify that oneness and uniqueness?” How could such a confusing doctrine originate? The Catholic Encyclopedia claims: “A dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation.” Catholic scholars Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler state in their Theological Dictionary: “The Trinity is a mystery . . . in the strict sense . . . , which could not be known without revelation, and even after revelation cannot become wholly intelligible.” However, contending that since the Trinity is such a confusing mystery, it must have come from divine revelation creates another major problem. Why? Because divine revelation itself does not allow for such a view of God: “God is not a God of confusion.”—1 Corinthians 14:33, Revised Standard Version (RS). In view of that statement, would God be responsible for a doctrine about himself that is so confusing that even Hebrew, Greek, and Latin scholars cannot really explain it? Furthermore, do people have to be theologians ‘to know the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent’? (John 17:3, JB) If that were the case, why did so few of the educated Jewish religious leaders recognize Jesus as the Messiah? His faithful disciples were, instead, humble farmers, fishermen, tax collectors, housewives. Those common people were so certain of what Jesus taught about God that they could teach it to others and were even willing to die for their belief.—Matthew 15:1-9; 21:23-32, 43; 23:13-36; John 7:45-49; Acts 4:13. Needless to say, the trinity doctrine is not a Bible teaching. Truthfinder |
||||||
40 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 87522 | ||
Well, hi Tim, Since elohim/theos means a mighty one, anything that is venerated, anything that is honored, how can you say Jesus is not "a god" (an honored one, a venerated one). Certainly he is. Also, truth dictates that the true God is not omnipresent, for he is spoken of as having a location. (1Ki 8:49; Joh 16:28; Heb 9:24) His throne is in heaven. (Isa 66:1) He is all-powerful, being the Almighty God. (Ge 17:1; Re 16:14) “All things are naked and openly exposed to the eyes of him,” and he is “the One telling from the beginning the finale.” (Heb 4:13; Isa 46:10, 11; 1Sa 2:3) His power and knowledge extend everywhere, reaching every part of the universe.—2Ch 16:9; Ps 139:7-12; Am 9:2-4 You wrote: "the Scriptures themselves are quite clear" then why the controversy? IF THE Trinity were true, it should be clearly and consistently presented in the Bible. Why? Because, as the apostles affirmed, the Bible is God’s revelation of himself to mankind. And since we need to know God to worship him acceptably, the Bible should be clear in telling us just who he is. First-century believers accepted the Scriptures as the authentic revelation of God. It was the basis for their beliefs, the final authority. For example, when the apostle Paul preached to people in the city of Beroea, “they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.”—Acts 17:10, 11. What did prominent men of God at that time use as their authority? Acts 17:2, 3 tells us: “According to Paul’s custom . . . he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving by references [from the Scriptures].” Jesus himself set the example in using the Scriptures as the basis for his teaching, repeatedly saying: “It is written.” “He interpreted to them things pertaining to himself in all the Scriptures.”—Matthew 4:4, 7; Luke 24:27. Thus Jesus, Paul, and first-century believers used the Scriptures as the foundation for their teaching. They knew that “all Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.”—2 Timothy 3:16, 17; see also 1 Corinthians 4:6; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 1:20, 21. Since the Bible can ‘set things straight,’ it should clearly reveal information about a matter as fundamental as the Trinity is claimed to be. But do theologians and historians themselves say that it is clearly a Bible teaching? To me they are indeed clear and logical and the Son of God is not the Almighty Jehovah but his son. Truthfinder |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [15] >> |