Questions and Statements about God...

[3rd Eye Vision]

1. A personal secretary, Luke probably, assisted with the writing

2. It incorporates earlier material

3. The letters are personal. Not communal like Ephesians or Romans, the 2 examples you gave

4. The subject matter of the pastoral epistles are unique, which accounts for the linguistic differences.

Thanks for the study. God bless.

Great theory, now show me a biblical scholarly article that does a better job at proving it.

And the subject matter of the pastoral epistles is only unique due to time, but like I said, if you want to talk more about Paul, make another thread.

Peace

 

[geechee slim]

lol. and to think about it, god created everything from nothing, meaning non living>living. but it won't count because you don't really have to make sense or have proof when the bible is involved.

Well why don't we skip a step and assume that all things, living or not, posses the potential for life (atoms, protons and neutrons which are alive in a way)

 

[geechee slim]

Man, Thats deep... Scientology?

Naw, just open food for thought.

 

[blue falcon]

So now the trinity is three people? Are you turning God into a human? And the holy spirit is a person? The truth is Genesis 1:26 indicates that there is someone (or more than one someone) God is talking to when making man. And btw, the numbers 3, 33, 30, and multiples of those numbers are used throughout much esoteric writings of those times as well as all times of history, as these numbers were considered to have spiritual truth in them seen by Kabbalists. The trinity, was a concept established by the Roman CATHOLIC church, so stop falling for this trick.

Read the Gospel of Thomas, as Jesus tells you what the Holy Spirit really is.

1. Person doesn't necessarily mean human being but God in Genesis 18 did appear as three men to Abraham (totally refuting the muslim idea that God cannot or doesn't enter into His own creation).

2. What was even the point of stating that?

3. Actually I could give you more than 5 ante-nicene church fathers that attested to the trinity. I don't know why people insist nobody believed the trinity before the Catholics, I mena when Jesus said to be baptized in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost you would think it would occur to people that Jesus didn't say NAMES and it would be pointless to be baptized into those names if they weren't GOD.

4. So first you tell me not to listen to catholic doctrine but then I should listen to gnostic gospels (which came well after the NT and were never apart of any canon of scripture or even cited by any early church father) as authoritative. Makes perfect sense

 

[blue falcon]

i dont think blue falcon believes in god either. If he did, he wouldnt be spending this ridiculous amount of time trying to convince of otherwise.

No I do. I guess we could say that atheist believe in God for spending time trying to convince others not to believe.

 

[longmeat]

Well why don't we skip a step and assume that all things, living or not, posses the potential for life (atoms, protons and neutrons which are alive in a way)

well if all things have the potential for life, then you can put to rest the creation science proponents argument that life couldn't have formed from non-living matter since since everything has the potential to form life.

 

[geechee slim]

^^^

*epiphany*

 

[3rd Eye Vision]

1. Person doesn't necessarily mean human being but God in Genesis 18 did appear as three men to Abraham (totally refuting the muslim idea that God cannot or doesn't enter into His own creation).

2. What was even the point of stating that?

3. Actually I could give you more than 5 ante-nicene church fathers that attested to the trinity. I don't know why people insist nobody believed the trinity before the Catholics, I mena when Jesus said to be baptized in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost you would think it would occur to people that Jesus didn't say NAMES and it would be pointless to be baptized into those names if they weren't GOD.

4. So first you tell me not to listen to catholic doctrine but then I should listen to gnostic gospels (which came well after the NT and were never apart of any canon of scripture or even cited by any early church father) as authoritative. Makes perfect sense

1. What do you think it means then?

2. The number 3 has meaning in esoteric lore that dates all the way back to ancient kmt. We are accepting what is said about the 3 men God appeared as on the surface and not thinking beneath the surface.

3. I don't care who you give me the fact is the doctrine of the trinity wasn't convened until the 4th century A.D.

4. The Gnostics weren't exactly a group that were adored by the church. And without me even explaining why I believe you should take the gnostic gospels into account you accuse me of telling you to believe in them. The Jesus which is depicted in the Gospel of Thomas simply gives us another look at the holy spirit which we can't ignore.

Everything I said I stand by.

 

[DoUwant2go2Heaven]

Great theory, now show me a biblical scholarly article that does a better job at proving it.

And the subject matter of the pastoral epistles is only unique due to time, but like I said, if you want to talk more about Paul, make another thread.

Peace

A simple google search will tickle your fancy my brother. Your not the first to dispute the authorship of the pastoral epistles by Paul, you know?

 

[edeeesq]

Hey sweetie what's up?

Hey hon! Wutitdo?

 

[3rd Eye Vision]

A simple google search will tickle your fancy my brother. Your not the first to dispute the authorship of the pastoral epistles by Paul, you know?

All you have to do is look at what the pastoral epistles teach and then compare it to the Pauline letters I refer to (Corinthians, Romans, etc) and you will clearly see that there are two distinct philosophies.

Now no more Paul. Make another thread or no other response will be heard from me here lol.

 

[cwill 420]

And people say the trinity isn't in the old testament. lol.

He said there were two 'g-ds' in the "bible" not three.

 

[cwill 420]

1. Person doesn't necessarily mean human being but God in Genesis 18 did appear as three men to Abraham (totally refuting the muslim idea that God cannot or doesn't enter into His own creation).

I'm sorry, but that's not true. ‘g-d’ appeared with two “angels”/ messengers. Read Gen. 19.1

 

[3rd Eye Vision]

I'm sorry, but that's not true. ‘g-d’ appeared with two “angels”/ messengers. Read Gen. 19.1

This, but we already know that zealots tend to have selective comprehension when it comes to the bible.

 

[blue falcon]

1. What do you think it means then?

2. The number 3 has meaning in esoteric lore that dates all the way back to ancient kmt. We are accepting what is said about the 3 men God appeared as on the surface and not thinking beneath the surface.

3. I don't care who you give me the fact is the doctrine of the trinity wasn't convened until the 4th century A.D.

4. The Gnostics weren't exactly a group that were adored by the church. And without me even explaining why I believe you should take the gnostic gospels into account you accuse me of telling you to believe in them. The Jesus which is depicted in the Gospel of Thomas simply gives us another look at the holy spirit which we can't ignore.

Everything I said I stand by.

1. In that instance God did apprear as three humans to Abraham. But when I say God in 3 persons, persons in that context can mean 3 entities. Which isn't to say there is 3 Gods but rather 3 entities who are collectively known as God. John 1:1 states that in the beginnng was the word, the word was WITH God and the Word WAS God.

2. So because the number 3 had special meaning in Egypt (I'd like to see proof for this) that doesn't prove CAUSATION.

3. Actually yes it was. It was around since the beginning of christianity in the 1st century. The Council of Nicea was basically to listen to a man named Arian who denied the divinity of Christ.

4. The gnostics weren't adored by the apostles either. When Paul told Timothy to oppose science falsely so called. The word science in greek is gnosis, and that is exactly what gnosticism is false knowledge. THey change the God of the bible for satan and satan for god. The bible pronounces a curse on those that would trade good for evil and evil for good. We cannot ignore it but it most certianly doesn't make it true. The gnostics were heretics, occutlist and flat out WRONG.

 

[blue falcon]

I'm sorry, but that's not true. ‘g-d’ appeared with two “angels”/ messengers. Read Gen. 19.1

Expalin to me how the two angels appearing to Lot in Sodom in anyway correlates to God appearing to Abraham in the desert in 3 persons.

 

[Hyde Parke]

No I do. I guess we could say that atheist believe in God for spending time trying to convince others not to believe.[/QUOTE

agreed. there is no difference between the two. same thing. belief in a concept or lackthereof.

 

[3rd Eye Vision]

1. In that instance God did apprear as three humans to Abraham. But when I say God in 3 persons, persons in that context can mean 3 entities. Which isn't to say there is 3 Gods but rather 3 entities who are collectively known as God. John 1:1 states that in the beginnng was the word, the word was WITH God and the Word WAS God.

2. So because the number 3 had special meaning in Egypt (I'd like to see proof for this) that doesn't prove CAUSATION.

3. Actually yes it was. It was around since the beginning of christianity in the 1st century. The Council of Nicea was basically to listen to a man named Arian who denied the divinity of Christ.

4. The gnostics weren't adored by the apostles either. When Paul told Timothy to oppose science falsely so called. The word science in greek is gnosis, and that is exactly what gnosticism is false knowledge. THey change the God of the bible for satan and satan for god. The bible pronounces a curse on those that would trade good for evil and evil for good. We cannot ignore it but it most certianly doesn't make it true. The gnostics were heretics, occutlist and flat out WRONG.

Now to sidetrack the thread even more lol...

1. I agree with that assessment, but assuming that's the holy spirit is reaching, unless you can prove further.

2. Oh come now, I shouldn't have to acquaint you with the concept of the Egyptian triad. If you want to know further, make a thread about it and I will acquaint you

3. Interesting, this is something I would like to explore further, can you grant me that?

4. Your understanding of gnosis is a bit mislead, but it's ok, take a gander at this http://www.gnosis.org/overview.html

-The rest is your opinion based on biblical speculation and I won't entertain that.

 

[Focal Point]

God said it and I believe it.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" 2 Timothy 3:16

God closed the cannon of scripture with 66 divinely inspired books that were written by 40 Holy Ghost filled authors.



"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Peter 1:20-21

sorry man, but you're still making a claim to what is correct and what isn't, you weren't around and you can't make that call

 

[Focal Point]

wait a min, CWill is back lol all we missing is Ras, the Celtic fan, BluntOne, and Zul and this could get interesting