Topic: The Religion Thread

[leomarley]

intersting point by sir barrister. if based sa bible, yes, he is not omnipresent but he sees everything. tama ba yon?

[dpogs]

Sir Barrister, do you believe in Trinity?

[Nelson de Leon]

Sir Barrister, do you believe in Trinity?

yes I think he does:

http://www.pinoydvd.com/index.php/topic,193367.msg2156340.html#msg2156340

[shrek7]

@ sir barrister

i respect yung paniniwala mo sir!  Pero Ganyan pala sir ka-limited ang pagkakakilala mo sa kanya.

[barrister]

Sir Barrister, do you believe in Trinity?

yes I think he does:

No, I don't. 

Iba yung naniniwala sa tatlo, iba yung naniniwala sa Trinity.
 
Hindi dahil lang may tatlo, ay Trinity na nga rin yon. For example --- barrister, Nelson and dpogs. Tatlo ba sila? Yes. Trinity ba sila? No.

May technical meaning kasi ang salitang "Trinity."

Sir Barrister, do you believe in Trinity?

No, I don't believe in the Trinity, since it's not biblical.

In the Trinitarian doctrine, there are three persons in one God ("hypostasis"). The three persons are co-equal and co-eternal, one in essence, nature, power, action, and will.

For example, si Mr. Cruz, holding 2 positions in a corporation --- president and gen. manager. Kung sino yung president, siya rin yung gen. manager. Therefore, kung ano ang alam ng president, alam din ng gen. manager, kasi si Mr. Cruz din yon.

This is nonsense, and can be demonstrated by the following verses:

1. When the disciples asked Jesus when the end of the age will come, He answered:

But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (Mt. 24:36)

If the Father knows something that the Son does not know, it means they are not co-equal. Who is greater? The Father, of course. Kaya nga alam ng Father, hindi alam ng Son.

2. That's why Jesus said:

... for the Father is greater than I. (Jn. 14:28)

Meron ba namang co-equal and one in essence and power, tapos one is greater than the other? Maliwanag na mali ang Trinity doctrine.

[barrister]

intersting point by sir barrister. if based sa bible, yes, he is not omnipresent but he sees everything. tama ba yon?

Yes, that's my belief.
 
For example, pag nanood ka ng Eat Bulaga sa living room mo, nakikita mo si Vic Sotto. 
 
Does this mean you are in 2 places at the same time?  No.  You are in your living room, but you are not in the Broadway studio.
 

[barrister]

@ sir barrister

i respect yung paniniwala mo sir!  Pero Ganyan pala sir ka-limited ang pagkakakilala mo sa kanya.

 
I also respect your beliefs. 
 
Pero kung tinatamad kang umintindi ng bibliya, at mas gusto mo yung basta tinatanggap na lang ang doktrinang itinuro sa iyo, OK lang sa akin yon.

[shrek7]

 
I also respect your beliefs. 
 
Pero kung tinatamad kang umintindi ng bibliya, at mas gusto mo yung basta tinatanggap na lang ang tinuro sa iyong doktrina, OK lang sa akin yon.

kaya nga sir i dont want to be tagged as catholic nor christian, dahil sa mga doktrina nila at dahil sa literal na pag suri nila ng bibliya, the way you do. di rin ako tinatamad sir intindhin, literal lang po siguro yung pagkaintindi nyo. I would rather be spiritual than religious.

but I like your point sir sa holy trinity.

[barrister]

but I like your point sir sa holy trinity.

Kung tama ang interpretation ko, bakit ganito naman ang sinasabi sa 1 John 5:7? --- 
 
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
 
 

[shrek7]

sir, though I like your interpretation,  It doesn't mean that I agree with you. it just shows that you have taken their meaning literally and use your logic and your left brain to assess what you believe is true :-)

some people search the answers from external source like texts, data, research etc. and base their judgement on every word that is written. there are also some people who search from within, who does not need words nor logic, only gives trust to his heart and believe....

[barrister]

sir, though I like your interpretation,  It doesn't mean that I agree with you. it just shows that you have taken their meaning literally and use your logic and your left brain to assess what you believe is true :-)

I didn't say you agreed with me.
 
I said, supposing my interpretation is correct, how can it be reconciled with 1 John 5:7.
 
If you can't answer it, just say so.  No need to beat around the bush.
 
 

some people search the answers from external source like texts, data, research etc. and base their judgement on every word that is written. there are also some people who search from within, who does not need words nor logic, only gives trust to his heart and believe....

My view is that God caused His word to be written so that we can have a basis for checking whether or not a certain doctrine is correct.
 
Your view is that we don't need to study the bible.  All we need to do is trust our hearts. 
 
That's the lazy way to do it.  That's why we have all these baseless, contradictory doctrines going around.

[leomarley]

bakit kasi di na lang lagyan ni god ng disclaimer per verse/chapter/book ang bible

[Nelson de Leon]

bakit kasi di na lang lagyan ni god ng disclaimer per verse/chapter/book ang bible

Haha! Maski lagyan yun ng disclaimer kung hindi naman babasahin ni Shrek. Hehe!

[sirhc]

^Atty, more of the omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent please.

[Nelson de Leon]

Kung tama ang interpretation ko, bakit ganito naman ang sinasabi sa 1 John 5:7? --- 
 
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
 
 

In your presumption, sa tingin ko, it does not clash with 1 John 5:7 because it talks about the oneness of the Three Personas.

[rexFi]

AFAIK

*sir barrister does not believe in Sola Fide, Sola Deo Gloria etc
*does not believe in The Trinity...
*tapos yan pang Omni...

Ano po "denomination" or flavor niyo sir?

[dpogs]

@ Sir Barrister... i see... usually kasi ang hindi naniniwala sa "Trinity" or "God in 3 person" can easily say that God is not omnipresen and omniscient...

(KJV) John 1:1 "n the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

we all know that "the Word" is Jesus Christ... and John 1:1 says "the Word was God".

In the Trinitarian doctrine, there are three persons in one God ("hypostasis"). The three persons are co-equal and co-eternal, one in essence, nature, power, action, and will.

i am more convince sa term na "God in 3 person" .... rather than "3 person in one God"
also the word Trinity is just a term... we can't see that exact word in the Bible...

   
Hindi dahil lang may tatlo, ay Trinity na nga rin yon. For example --- barrister, Nelson and dpogs. Tatlo ba sila? Yes. Trinity ba sila? No.

For example, si Mr. Cruz, holding 2 positions in a corporation --- president and gen. manager. Kung sino yung president, siya rin yung gen. manager. Therefore, kung ano ang alam ng president, alam din ng gen. manager, kasi si Mr. Cruz din yon.

barrister, nelson and dpogs ay 3 persons yet they are all human.
- nelson is the employer and dpogs is the employee but it does not mean that nelson is greater than me for being a human.
- they have different role in this world but their essence of being human are equal.

God, Jesus Christ and Holy Spirit ay 3 persons yet they are God.
- these Three have different role in our life and in this world, yet their essence of being God are equal.
- these Three have different roles in the great plan of salvation, Father commands the Son, Father and Son commands the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit to believers.

"different role same essence"

2. That's why Jesus said:

... for the Father is greater than I. (Jn. 14:28)

Meron ba namang co-equal and one in essence and power, tapos one is greater than the other? Maliwanag na mali ang Trinity doctrine.

(KJV) Hebrews 2:9 "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, ..."

in order to finish the plan of salvation... Jesus subjected Himself to the will of the Father while in human form.

the "greatness" na sinasabi dito ni Jesus pertains to different roles in plan of salvation not the essence of being God.

[dpogs]

1. When the disciples asked Jesus when the end of the age will come, He answered:

But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (Mt. 24:36)

If the Father knows something that the Son does not know, it means they are not co-equal.

Jesus voluntarily limiting Himself as being in human nature. Sinabi niya ito while in human form.

When He spake to Simon son of Jonas after His resurrection (John 21) Jesus never corrected Simon when Simon say "Lord, thou knowest all things;" because wala na sa human form dito si Jesus... He freely exercise His divine power to appear and reappear sa kung saan niya gusto.

[shrek7]

I didn't say you agreed with me.
 
I said, supposing my interpretation is correct, how can it be reconciled with 1 John 5:7.
 
If you can't answer it, just say so.  No need to beat around the bush.

Sir, I am not beating around the bush, it is clear that I don't agree with the first statement, though I like the way you explain it, So why would I bother reconciling it with 1John 5:7?

I do like the way you contradict your statement, I honestly don't know what side you are in

Your first statement Says that the Holy trinity are not equal, second statement says they are one and the same,  and since you asked it, It has come to me that you already know the answer, please do enlighten me...
 

   
My view is that God caused His word to be written so that we can have a basis for checking whether or not a certain doctrine is correct.
 
Your view is that we don't need to study the bible.  All we need to do is trust our hearts. 
 
That's the lazy way to do it.  That's why we have all these baseless, contradictory doctrines going around.

I didn't say that we should not study the Bible. there are just some people who choose to experience the essence of the bible from the heart, and there are people who just choose to know the word. Sir Barrister, there will always be the other side of the story.

Sorry for the laziness but my laziness has basis

"1 Corinthians 3:16

Do you not know that your body is the temple of The Spirit of Holiness who dwells within you, whom you have received from God, and you are not your own? "

My Laziness points me "within" which according to you is baseless. I do respect that, because I know that you only acknowledge the written text and not the essence of it.

[shrek7]

Haha! Maski lagyan yun ng disclaimer kung hindi naman babasahin ni Shrek. Hehe!

agree!!! hehehe!
binabasa ko naman minsan...

[barrister]

My Laziness points me "within" which according to you is baseless. I do respect that, because I know that you only acknowledge the written text and not the essence of it.

It is unfortunate that you fail to comprehend something so simple.

I stated clearly that I do not believe in the Trinity doctrine and explained why.  Then I cited 1 John 5:7, the point being to show that 1 John 5:7 does not contradict my view even if it seems to do so at first glance.

Interpret 1 John 5:7 literally, and it proves the Trinity.  Interpret it non-literally, and it does not prove the Trinity.

Which interpretation did I choose?  The non-literal interpretation.

Yet you say I interpret literally.  You really don't seem to know what you're talking about.
 
===============================================
 
You say you just trust your heart.

The bible says the unpardonable sin is "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit."

So give us the interpretation that your heart says ----

What is the meaning of the term, "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit"?

[barrister]

@ Sir Barrister... i see... usually kasi ang hindi naniniwala sa "Trinity" or "God in 3 person" can easily say that God is not omnipresen and omniscient...

OK lang yon sir.

Hindi na ako makikipagtalo sa iyo because I know you have given a lot of time and effort in enriching your own beliefs by diligent study.

All I ask is that you hear me out, even if you have a different viewpoint.

[shrek7]

It is unfortunate that you fail to comprehend something so simple.

I stated clearly that I do not believe in the Trinity doctrine and explained why.  Then I cited 1 John 5:7, the point being to show that 1 John 5:7 does not contradict my view even if it seems to do so at first glance.

Interpret 1 John 5:7 literally, and it proves the Trinity.  Interpret it non-literally, and it does not prove the Trinity.

Which interpretation did I choose?  The non-literal interpretation.

Yet you say I interpret literally.  You really don''t seem to know what you're talking about.

. sorry if this is the case, but please do enlighten me why the 2nd statement is not contradictory to the 1st? isn't it much easier to just tell your reason why it is not contradictory at the first place rather than asking someone like me to interpret and reconcile both statements for you? wherein you already know the answer?
please do explain, im really interested. TIA

[barrister]

. sorry if this is the case, but please do enlighten me why the 2nd statement is not contradictory to the 1st? isn't it much easier to just tell your reason why it is not contradictory at the first place rather than asking someone like me to interpret and reconcile both statements for you? wherein you already know the answer?
please do explain, im really interested. TIA

Sorry if I misunderstood.

I normally don't explain to those who are not interested. 

In your case, I thought you had a closed mind.  It turns out hindi naman pala.  My mistake.
 

======================================
 
You're talking about  1 John 5:7?

That verse is the one that is most frequently cited by those who believe in the Trinitarian doctrine. 

There are 2 reasons why that verse does not prove the Trinity:

1.  The majority view among bible scholars is that 1 John 5:7 is a fake addition, called an "interpolation."

Bible scholars call it the "Johannine Comma." http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html

2.  Assuming that the Johannine Comma is authentic, the phrase "these three are one" does not automatically point to the Trinitarian doctrine.  It only means that they are "united." 

That is why the bible says husband and wife become "one flesh" (Eph. 5:31) even if they are literally separate and distinct.  It means they are spiritually "one" or spiritually "united."   

[barrister]

In your presumption, sa tingin ko, it does not clash with 1 John 5:7 because it talks about the oneness of the Three Personas.

Ayan na yung sagot ko sa previous post ko sir.   The more important reason is that the verse is a fake addition.

Si sir Nelson ang matiyagang pumapatol sa mga tanong ko, even if we have some differences in doctrinal views...   
 

[barrister]

AFAIK

*sir barrister does not believe in Sola Fide, Sola Deo Gloria etc
*does not believe in The Trinity...
*tapos yan pang Omni...

Ano po "denomination" or flavor niyo sir?

I am not a member of any denomination.  That is why I have no vested interest in denominational doctrines.

Pag ang isang tao kasi ay indoctrinated na sa isang view, mahirap nang kumbinsihin yon na mali ang doktrina niya.  In my case, I can readily accept the views I think are correct, wala kasi akong pinagtatanggol na religious sect.

I used to be a devout Catholic, then I left the Catholic Church, then I became an atheist, then I studied the bible and was convinced that it is the Word of God.

[barrister]

^Atty, more of the omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent please.

Pasensiya ka na sir, natabunan na yung tanong mo, bigla kasing dumami ang mga post dito.

 
=================================================

Walang problema sa "omnipotent."  Maliwanag sa bible na all-powerful Siya.

So, sa omniscient muna tayo.  Example, yung Adam and Eve story.

Just use your logic ---

Assuming alam ng Diyos na kakainin ni Adan ang forbidden fruit.  Ginawa pa niya si Adam, tapos nilagyan ng forbidden fruit ang Garden of Eden, tapos pinagbawal ang fruit na yon, ang penalty = death pag kinain niya.

Alam naman pala Niya na kakainin ni Adan, bakit ginawa pa Niya ang lahat na yon?  Dahil nilalaro lang Niya ang tao?  Alam Niya na kakainin, tapos nang kinain, paparusahan ng death penalty?  E di niloloko lang Niya tayo?

Ang sagot ay simpleng-simple.  Hindi alam ng Diyos kung kakainin ni Adan o hindi, that's why God had to test Adam.

Here's another proof that God is not omniscient, which I had already posted previously:
 

The story would be perfectly clear if you recognize that, contrary to popular belief, God is not omniscient; otherwise, the story would not make any sense.

The Genesis story of Abraham and Isaac is one proof that God is not omniscient regarding matters concerning human free will. 

To test Abraham, God commanded him to slay his only son Issac as an offering.  As Abraham was about to slay his son with a knife, God said to Abraham through an angel:

Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me. (Gen. 22:12)

God did not say that He knew what Abraham was going to do even before he was tested.  God said "now I know", meaning that God knew only at that moment, not beforehand.

How did God know?  Because God is omniscient? 

No.  God knew only when He saw that Abraham was ready to slay his son.

And that is why we are on this earth.  We are here to be tested, in order to find out if we are worthy to be with God in heaven.  Why does God have to test us to find out if we should be in heaven or in hell?  Because God is not omniscient. 

 
So you will see that God is not omniscient in only one aspect --- man's free will.

If God knows everything, including what we will decide using our free will before we decide it, that will be tantamount to negating our free will.

[leomarley]

I used to be a devout Catholic, then I left the Catholic Church, then I became an atheist, then I studied the bible and was convinced that it is the Word of God.

Would just like to know how you were convinced since you were an atheist before, if it's ok to ask?

[Moks007]

I used to be a devout Catholic, then I left the Catholic Church, then I became an atheist, then I studied the bible and was convinced that it is the Word of God.

Sir, i am so happy for you. Congrats for finding the Word of God. Keep it up. It is a start.


Here is from the book of Luke
Luke 15:1-7  New International Version (NIV)The Parable of the Lost Sheep

15 Now the tax collectors and sinners were all gathering around to hear Jesus. 2 But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.”

3 Then Jesus told them this parable: 4 “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? 5 And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders 6 and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’ 7 I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

[Nelson de Leon]

1.

Ayan na yung sagot ko sa previous post ko sir.   The more important reason is that the verse is a fake addition.
 

Sir, based on the link you provided, from the latin vulgate translation, it was translated to greek, then duon nadagdag?

It is also true na madaming addition to the bible from hebrew. Ang alam ko, this is because most of the original manuscripts were intentionally burnt or lost. I dunno who ordered the burning and if it's true. However, since super daming translations and copies that were already out, these copies/translations were collected and dun kinuha yun books. Any "spurious" addition made within the bible should not affect the idea, concept or message of the bible.

2.
Before we talk about the Trinitarian doctrine, atty., pwede ba paki-share yun Trinitarian doctrine and specifically the definition of co-equal?

3.

The story would be perfectly clear if you recognize that, contrary to popular belief, God is not omniscient; otherwise, the story would not make any sense.

The Genesis story of Abraham and Isaac is one proof that God is not omniscient regarding matters concerning human free will. 

To test Abraham, God commanded him to slay his only son Issac as an offering.  As Abraham was about to slay his son with a knife, God said to Abraham through an angel:

Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me. (Gen. 22:12)

God did not say that He knew what Abraham was going to do even before he was tested.  God said "now I know", meaning that God knew only at that moment, not beforehand.

How did God know?  Because God is omniscient? 

No.  God knew only when He saw that Abraham was ready to slay his son.

And that is why we are on this earth.  We are here to be tested, in order to find out if we are worthy to be with God in heaven.  Why does God have to test us to find out if we should be in heaven or in hell?  Because God is not omniscient.   

In Gen 17:15

15 God also said to Abraham, “As for Sarai your wife, you are no longer to call her Sarai; her name will be Sarah. 16 I will bless her and will surely give you a son by her. I will bless her so that she will be the mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her.”

So prior to testing Abraham, God already told Abraham that he will be given a son. Abraham already knew the destiny of Isaac so despite God commanding Abraham to sacrifice his son, Abraham probably know that this is a test of faith. I also agree with you that this is still a test of faith because kung ako si Abraham, sasabihin ko "Bakit i-sacrifice ko si Isaac? How will You establish a covenant with him and for his descendants?

19 Then God said, “Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac.[d] I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.

But because Abraham is faithful, he followed God's command.

4.

Walang problema sa "omnipotent."  Maliwanag sa bible na all-powerful Siya.

So, sa omniscient muna tayo.  Example, yung Adam and Eve story.

Just use your logic ---

Assuming alam ng Diyos na kakainin ni Adan ang forbidden fruit.  Ginawa pa niya si Adam, tapos nilagyan ng forbidden fruit ang Garden of Eden, tapos pinagbawal ang fruit na yon, ang penalty = death pag kinain niya.

Alam naman pala Niya na kakainin ni Adan, bakit ginawa pa Niya ang lahat na yon?  Dahil nilalaro lang Niya ang tao?  Alam Niya na kakainin, tapos nang kinain, paparusahan ng death penalty?  E di niloloko lang Niya tayo?

Ang sagot ay simpleng-simple.  Hindi alam ng Diyos kung kakainin ni Adan o hindi, that's why God had to test Adam.

Here's another proof that God is not omniscient, which I had already posted previously:
 
 
So you will see that God is not omniscient in only one aspect --- man's free will.

If God knows everything, including what we will decide using our free will before we decide it, that will be
tantamount to negating our free will.

In Acts 2:23

23 This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,[a] put him to death by nailing him to the cross.

Hindi kaya mag-contradict yun? Or, hindi kaya during the genesis, God chose not to use His omniscience over Adam & Eve since they were His precious creations to test the limits of man's free will? On the other hand, magiging circular naman kung sasabihin ko na God already knows the limits of man's free will, why test it?