PinoyDVD: The Pinoy Digital Video & Devices Community
Community => Big Talk => Chit-Chat => Religion => Topic started by: jerix on Jul 29, 2014 at 08:58 AM
-
To all who believes:
If the Holy Trinity postulates 3 equal Gods which existed co-equally even prior to creation, and Jesus Christ, the God with flesh, is supposed to be God the son, then who was God the son before the birth of Christ?
Thanks to anybody who will respond. :)
-
For what I believe there is no biblical basis on the Holy Trinity doctrine. There is no single person in the entire Bible that ever used "One God in three persons", "God the Son", "God the Holy Spirit" and of course "Holy Trinity".
-
To all who believes:
If the Holy Trinity postulates 3 equal Gods which existed co-equally even prior to creation, and Jesus Christ, the God with flesh, is supposed to be God the son, then who was God the son before the birth of Christ?
Thanks to anybody who will respond. :)
I am not an expert on Catholicism but from what I know, your premise (Holy Trinity postulates 3 equal Gods which existed co-equally even prior to creation) is wrong. There is only one God, albeit in three persons.
-
I am not an expert on Catholicism but from what I know, your premise (Holy Trinity postulates 3 equal Gods which existed co-equally even prior to creation) is wrong. There is only one God, albeit in three persons.
I believe this is also a false belief.
There is only one God -
Deu 4:35 Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him.
Deu 4:39 Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.
There is none like God -
Exo 8:10 And he said, To morrow. And he said, Be it according to thy word: that thou mayest know that there is none like unto the LORD our God.
Jesus Christ and God (The Father) are two distinct being -
Joh 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
-
Form NIV:
Genesis 1:26 New International Version (NIV)
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
Sino ang kausap dito?
-
Form NIV:
Genesis 1:26 New International Version (NIV)
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
Sino ang kausap dito?
God might be referring to angels as it would contradict with other scriptures such as this:
KJV
Isaiah 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
There is nothing in Genesis 1:26 about three persons in God.
-
I cant respond based on biblical verses...I am just reading all your posts. This was my question to our religion teacher in Baste' way back during college days. Sabi ng Prof ko -- you should have faith to believe...according to him the Holy trinity is a mystery.
-
I am not an expert on Catholicism but from what I know, your premise (Holy Trinity postulates 3 equal Gods which existed co-equally even prior to creation) is wrong. There is only one God, albeit in three persons.
So three persons in one God. Granting this to be true, God the son should be with the God the father and God the Holy spirit even the beginning of times. So the question would be the same, who was god the son before the birth of Christ?
-
Aliens... It was always Aliens.
nbc
-
Aliens... It was always Aliens.
nbc
Great answer... ;D
-
So three persons in one God. Granting this to be true, God the son should be with the God the father and God the Holy spirit even the beginning of times. So the question would be the same, who was god the son before the birth of Christ?
Hindi mo yata binabasa post ko sir jerix, God is God alone.
-
So three persons in one God. Granting this to be true, God the son should be with the God the father and God the Holy spirit even the beginning of times. So the question would be the same, who was god the son before the birth of Christ?
i think what sir jerix is trying to ask is: Is there a Holy Trinity before Christ was born?
-
Sabi ng Prof ko -- you should have faith to believe...according to him the Holy trinity is a mystery.
kakaiba talaga ang sagot. pag di na masagot yung tanong, sasabihin na lang "basta you must have faith!". what a cop-out.
-
i think what sir jerix is trying to ask is: Is there a Holy Trinity before Christ was born?
Baka nga siguro, or he wasn't asking about the validity of the Holy Trinity doctrine.
-
God might be referring to angels as it would contradict with other scriptures such as this:
KJV
Isaiah 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
There is nothing in Genesis 1:26 about three persons in God.
Isaiah 6:8
8 Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for Us?”
Isaiah 9:6
For to Us a child is born,
to Us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Who is the child they are referring to as Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
-
Psalm 110:1
Announcement of the Messiah’s Reign
1 The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at My right hand,
Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”
2 The Lord shall send the rod of Your strength out of Zion.
Rule in the midst of Your enemies!
Sino ang magkausap dito? I'm sure hindi angels because hindi pwedeng tawaging Lord ang angels.
-
The word Psalms come from the greek word psalmos which means song to which King David authors most of the Book of Psalms. Now this Psalms were sang by Levites in the Temple (of David).
The Lord [God] said to my master [King David] “Sit thou at my right hand…” (Psalm 110:1).
To understand the above statement we must go back to original text to which the verse were translated. In the original text (Hebrew) the first word is the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) to which we know is God, the second word adonee means “to my master” or “to my lord.”
The Hebrew word adonee never refers to God anywhere in the Bible. It is used only to address a person, never God. That is to say, God, the Creator of the universe, is never called adonee in the Bible. There are many words reserved for God in the Bible; adonee, however, is not one of them.
-
The same word adonee was used in the following verses:
Genesis 32:4 And he commanded them, saying, Thus shall ye speak unto my lord Esau; Thy servant Jacob saith thus, I have sojourned with Laban, and stayed there until now:
-
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 14:16-17
And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
To all who believes:
If the Holy Trinity postulates 3 equal Gods which existed co-equally even prior to creation, and Jesus Christ, the God with flesh, is supposed to be God the son, then who was God the son before the birth of Christ? "the Word"
Thanks to anybody who will respond. :)
God the Son before the birth of Christ: "In the beginning was the Word..."
God the Son is the Word of God.
-
st augustine has wrote a theology about the holy trinity. for those who have questions regading its existence can seach his study and explanations about it.
but before doing so, let me share to you a short story about the most questioned personas of our lord:
One day st augustine was walking along a beach when he came across a little boy running to the waters edge, filling his pail, and then running to a hole he had dug in the sand and putting the water in. When Gus asked him what he was doing, he said, 'I am pouring the sea into this hole in the sand.' 'Can't be done'' said Gus, 'the sea is too large and the hole is too small.' The boy answered, ' So it is with you and the Trinity. The Mystery is too large and your mind is too small'. With these words, he vanished.........
-
Great readings... ;)
-
Hindi mo yata binabasa post ko sir jerix, God is God alone.
Of course reading all your posts bro...I am in fact enjoyin it.
-
i think what sir jerix is trying to ask is: Is there a Holy Trinity before Christ was born?
This is another very interesting question that i want to explore...
-
st augustine has wrote a theology about the holy trinity. for those who have questions regading its existence can seach his study and explanations about it.
but before doing so, let me share to you a short story about the most questioned personas of our lord:
One day st augustine was walking along a beach when he came across a little boy running to the waters edge, filling his pail, and then running to a hole he had dug in the sand and putting the water in. When Gus asked him what he was doing, he said, 'I am pouring the sea into this hole in the sand.' 'Can't be done'' said Gus, 'the sea is too large and the hole is too small.' The boy answered, ' So it is with you and the Trinity. The Mystery is too large and your mind is too small'. With these words, he vanished.........
Nice story... but why do you think God wanted this Trinity to be mysterious as we are thinking it now to be?
-
has science already answered (based on empirical facts) the questions about what's at the edge and more importantly, the other side of the universe?
if anybody can give the answer, i'll rest my case on the Trinity mystery.
otherwise, prehas lang ang relihiyon at agham, a feeble mind (mine included) can never fathom both mysteries
-
jerix, You are forgetting that all three persons are under one other entity: Mary, the mother of Jesus.
God the Father (is of course the Father, through the Holy Spirit) and Mary is the mother.
Since God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is just one God, in three persons, it would mean that Mary who is God's (the Father) daughter as we (all men) all are, was impregnated by the same God (through the Holy Spirit) and borne Jesus Christ who is also the same God but in a different person (the Son)
So Mary is the daughter, wife 9so to speak) and mother of this one God in three different persons.
and Jesus would be his own father, his own Son and his mother is his daughter also.
Kinda reminds me of old Hercules and Zeus.
-
has science already answered (based on empirical facts) the questions about what's at the edge and more importantly, the other side of the universe?
if anybody can give the answer, i'll rest my case on the Trinity mystery.
otherwise, prehas lang ang relihiyon at agham, a feeble mind (mine included) can never fathom both mysteries
they have theories based on mathematics and simulations. not yet tested though.
science and religion are, of course, different.
science gathers evidence first, tests the theory thourgh experimentations and/or observations, and upholds it as true if the theory holds. they change it once new evidence are found that negates the previous theory. they also doesn't claim knowledge over everything. otherwise, why practice science if they think they already know everything?
religion, on the other hand, does not accept anything other than what's written, and translated from one language to another multiple times, millenniums ago. they claim to know everything already and when asked something that they cannot answer they just simply say: "that's why it's called faith."
-
they have theories based on mathematics and simulations. not yet tested though.
science and religion are, of course, different.
science gathers evidence first, tests the theory thourgh experimentations and/or observations, and upholds it as true if the theory holds. they change it once new evidence are found that negates the previous theory. they also doesn't claim knowledge over everything. otherwise, why practice science if they think they already know everything?
religion, on the other hand, does not accept anything other than what's written, and translated from one language to another multiple times, millenniums ago. they claim to know everything already and when asked something that they cannot answer they just simply say: "that's why it's called faith."
as Tim Michin said:
"Science adjusts it's beliefs based on what's observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
-
Nice story... but why do you think God wanted this Trinity to be mysterious as we are thinking it now to be?
i dont think god wants us to think about the mystery of the trinity. the 2 persona were not in question, being the god the father and son unless you qustion the divinity of the two. the 3rd is the spirit sent by god to guide the apostles into "all the truths". the next thing is, if you believe and interpret the bible verses that mention the holy spirit as the gift and guide of the faithful, believing that what has god sent us is his spirit in the name of his son.....
some biblical verses that myt be of interest to you..
John 14:26
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.
John 14:15-17
“If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.
Acts 19:1-6
And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John's baptism.” And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Luke 1:35
And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God.
-
Frankly there are many events and characters in the Bible both in the OT and NT that requires investigation, not only the Trinity.
-
Frankly there are many events and characters in the Bible both in the OT and NT that requires investigation, not only the Trinity.
From my point of view, the Bible has no contradictory statements from the beginning till the end. But of course I fully respect your opinion sir.
-
From my point of view, the Bible has no contradictory statements from the beginning till the end. But of course I fully respect your opinion sir.
As I do yours, sir.
-
From my point of view, the Bible has no contradictory statements from the beginning till the end. But of course I fully respect your opinion sir.
It's a hodgepodge of different books written in different eras. Add the fact that most, if not all, passages are subject to interpretation, you can find anything you want in the Bible--whether it be contradiction or explanation/confirmation.
-
Can we change the subject of this thread to BIBLE QUESTIONS or QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BIBLE instead?
-
From my point of view, the Bible has no contradictory statements from the beginning till the end. But of course I fully respect your opinion sir.
From my point of view, the Bible has no contradictory statements from the beginning till the end. But of course I fully respect your opinion sir.
+100 master
if we believe that the guide and basis of our faith is the holy bible, questioning it will also undermine our faith. it is the book in which almost all mainstream religions are based. it was interpreted the way the founders of every religion wanted it to be understood to favor their advancement and hopefully convince the faithful thet theirs is the ONE. here we go full circle, if we belive the holiness and the iffalability of the scriptures, then we believe that holy spirit,which is sent by god to guide the apostles in teachings and writing his words, is one with the father and the son.....
-
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
Will this be a good law in the Philippines?
-
I read that not all rules in the OT should be followed in the NT or even in the current times.
-
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
Will this be a good law in the Philippines?
hahahahaha. malamang makarami si cedric lee nya bossing. ;D ;D ;D bka ako tatlo! ;D ;D ;D
-
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
Will this be a good law in the Philippines?
That verse is true sir. And it applies to God's people, the israelites. The command was given to them, not to us gentiles. And in my opinion, it will not be a good law here.
I read that not all rules in the OT should be followed in the NT or even in the current times.
Good question sir. Can you site a specific law that you think should not be followed?
-
It's a hodgepodge of different books written in different eras. Add the fact that most, if not all, passages are subject to interpretation, you can find anything you want in the Bible--whether it be contradiction or explanation/confirmation.
That is true sir from your point of view. The way i see it naman, it's also a compilation of different events, prophesies and prophesy fulfillment. Hindi din po ako theologian kaya hirap din ako minsan so I always pray to God before reading the Bible for enlightenment. the Bible is "God-breathe".
2 Timothy 3:16-17New International Version (NIV)
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Hence it should not be contradicting. The interpretations should glorify God. For me sir, Christianity is supposedly not a religion. It's a personal relationship with God our creator.
-
My aunt explained this to me when I asked her about it, simply add the word AS as part of the Holy Trinity:
God as the Father
God as the Son
and, God as the Holy Spirit
Just as I am
M as the son of my parents
M as the husband of my wife
M as the father of my child
M as the brother of my siblings
M as the friend of my friends
Etc etc..
3 persons in 1 being. I am one person but a different person to many. Just as at times we relate to God as our Father, or sometimes as our Friend and Brother, and so on.
I believe that it truly is a mystery and these are the things that I believe not by sight, but with my faith which is what I hold dear the most. The way I see it, God has always been God since He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning, end, and everything in between and beyond. Just as I was a child to my parents in the beginning, I was already a brother to my siblings, a friend to many, and now, a husband and a father to my family which is now my present, and how it will be with my end.
But M as a son cannot be the M as the father also of the same person. You (a father) cannot beget a son (who is you also).
-
From NIV:
Genesis 1:26 New International Version (NIV)
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
Sino ang kausap dito?
God might be referring to angels as it would contradict with other scriptures such as this:
KJV
Isaiah 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
There is nothing in Genesis 1:26 about three persons in God.
Just to add sir. If we consider angels, I think it's impossible for angels to create man. The word used is "Let Us" meaning gumawa tayo. God cannot co-create man with angels because only God can create man.
-
^That's why in verse 27, "27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
not they
-
^That's why in verse 27, "27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
not they
Yes sir. Exactly sir. Verse 26 was a conversation. verse 27 was the act of creation. So yun kausap niya sa verse 26 is also a God who can create. But if you will ask me, bakit siya lang nag-create kung may kausap din siya? I cannot answer that because for me, mystery na yan. ;D So dun sa 2 verses na yun, assuming na you would accept na hindi angel ang kausap niya based on my explanation above, we can see the plurality of God, but singularity sa creation.
-
Yes sir. Exactly sir. Verse 26 was a conversation. verse 27 was the act of creation. So yun kausap niya sa verse 26 is also a God who can create. But if you will ask me, bakit siya lang nag-create kung may kausap din siya? I cannot answer that because for me, mystery na yan. ;D So dun sa 2 verses na yun, assuming na you would accept na hindi angel ang kausap niya based on my explanation above, we can see the plurality of God, but singularity sa creation.
In Colossians, Jesus was panganay sa lahat ng nilalang so nilalang din siya. A God created another god who can create?
So there are more than one God, is this what you are saying?
-
In Colossians, Jesus was panganay sa lahat ng nilalang so nilalang din siya. A God created another god who can create?
So there are more than one God, is this what you are saying?
Can you site the specific verse sir sa Colossians?
There is 1 God in 3 persona sir. That is what i'm saying.
-
Can you site the specific verse sir sa Colossians?
There is 1 God in 3 persona sir. That is what i'm saying.
Forgive me but I can't accept plurality in one, unless we are talking of multiple personalities but even so refer to one single entity still.
-
Forgive me but I can't accept plurality in one, unless we are talking of multiple personalities but even so refer to one single entity still.
No worries sir! There are a lot of things like me and you, as mere mortals, cannot comprehend. After all we are not God so we all cannot think like a God, otherwise, hindi na siya Diyos if we can think like Him. Ang important for us is we can share our beliefs with respect and without hatred, and let the readers decide for themselves. Afterall, we also respect this forum where ang dami natin nakilala and natutunan.
Sabi nga sa ABS-CBN, To God be the Glory!
-
No worries sir! There are a lot of things like me and you, as mere mortals, cannot comprehend. After all we are not God so we all cannot think like a God, otherwise, hindi na siya Diyos if we can think like Him. Ang important for us is we can share our beliefs with respect and without hatred, and let the readers decide for themselves. Afterall, we also respect this forum where ang dami natin nakilala and natutunan.
Sabi nga sa ABS-CBN, To God be the Glory!
Thanks, sir. It's nice to find another person and a thread where discussions don't go beyond the topic and sooner or later go to attacks on persons and personalities.
After all a benevolent God would probably understand how limited our way of thinking is even on matters concerning Him.
In fact I believe that God (if He exists) would even pity the Atheists (not that they want it) because he would understand that their disbelief is based on evidence that they couldn't find.
-
Thanks, sir. It's nice to find another person and a thread where discussions don't go beyond the topic and sooner or later go to attacks on persons and personalities.
After all a benevolent God would probably understand how limited our way of thinking is even on matters concerning Him.
In fact I believe that God (if He exists) would even pity the Atheists (not that they want it) because he would understand that their disbelief is based on evidence that they couldn't find.
Amen sir. It's up for God to judge the atheists and not for us. It's only up to us to fulfill The Great Commission. May mga guidelines din naman ang mga christians as to how to evangelize, love and respect non-believers. I believe it is contained in one of the letters of Paul. nakalimutan ko lang which one specifically. hehe!
-
share ko lang po..
Colossians 1:15- the firstborn of all creation
gen 1:26,27-god is talking to jesus..-since he is the firstborn of all creation..and in
1 cor 8:6 -there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him
proverbs 8:30-tells us that jesus is master worker,-he never laid claim to the title of co-Creator
mathew 19:4-only god is the creator
-
Yes sir. Exactly sir. Verse 26 was a conversation. verse 27 was the act of creation. So yun kausap niya sa verse 26 is also a God who can create. But if you will ask me, bakit siya lang nag-create kung may kausap din siya? I cannot answer that because for me, mystery na yan. ;D So dun sa 2 verses na yun, assuming na you would accept na hindi angel ang kausap niya based on my explanation above, we can see the plurality of God, but singularity sa creation.
i believe boss na when the lord talks about creation, jesus was already in heaven before his birth on earth. when god say us, he myt be talking with jesus. we just speculate but definitely he was there already.
John 6:38-40
For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me; and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Can you site the specific verse sir sa Colossians?
Colossians 1:17
He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
John 8:58
“I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”
This verses blatantly say that he is before all things.
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was god.
John 1:14
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[ 1:14 Or the Only Begotten] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
So Jesus was with God in the beginning. the existence of jesus in human form is the culmination of the prophecy. from the very beginning GOD knew that he will be sending his son to save his creation.
-
i believe boss na when the lord talks about creation, jesus was already in heaven before his birth on earth. when god say us, he myt be talking with jesus. we just speculate but definitely he was there already.
I believe Jesus was just a plan at that time and the plan came to fruition when he was born.
The only justification for God in creating Adam and Eve knowing they would commit sin is the fact that he has jesus in mind even before creating anything thus "The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created"
I believe he was created too and distinct from God.
Jesus proved what Adam can not, man is created by God to live in his holiness and not in sin.
If Jesus came from the Father, then he is distinct from him from whom he came from.
-
I believe Jesus was just a plan at that time and the plan came to fruition when he was born.
The only justification for God in creating Adam and Eve knowing they would commit sin is the fact that he has jesus in mind even before creating anything thus "The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created"
I believe he was created too and distinct from God.
Jesus proved what Adam can not, man is created by God to live in his holiness and not in sin.
If Jesus came from the Father, then he is distinct from him from whom he came from.
This would contradict this:
John 8:58 New International Version (NIV)
58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”
-
Buhat pa ng walang PASIMULA sya (Jesus Christ) ay nailabas o nailuwal na sa sinapupunan ng Ama sa langit....
-
This would contradict this:
That could be interpreted differently as I see nothing wrong with Jesus as planned before Abraham was.
-
Buhat pa ng walang PASIMULA sya (Jesus Christ) ay nailabas o nailuwal na sa sinapupunan ng Ama sa langit....
Again this proves he is distinct from the one whom he came from. I agree that's why he is called the Son of God but the Son is not the Father. They are distinct from each other.
-
if Jesus came from the Father, then he is distinct from him from whom he came from.
yes sir. There is only one God - so even as we talk about the three persons of the trinity we are talking about one God. All three persons of the trinity are God. If you want to look at some verses, you could look at Deuteronomy 6:4, Galatians 1:1, John 1:1-18, and Matthew 28:19.
There is relationship in the trinity - the Son (Jesus) is obedient to the Father (Luke 22:42); the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son (John 16:15ff).
So the three persons of the trinity are the same God, but they are each distinct. They have different roles, but each action any member of the trinity might do is God’s action, regardless of who did it.
We see this distinction / unity when Jesus identifies himself with the Father, saying that he and the Father ‘are one’ (John 10:38, 17:11,21), and that he is in the Father and vice versa (John 14:11). Jesus does not say that he IS the Father, or that he and the Father are the SAME, but that they are ONE. So they are distinct, yet unified.
ang gulo gulo..... but im a believer :) :)
-
Ang gulo-gulo nga, hahahahahaha
Anyway, I respect your reasons for believing what you believe.
-
Ang gulo-gulo nga, hahahahahaha
Anyway, I respect your reasons for believing what you believe.
thse verses show the distinction of father and son but considered as one:
john 10:38 "But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father"
John 17:11" I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you.Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one."
Matthew 28:19" go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,"
pitstop muna ako mga bossings. nakakasakit ng ulo! ayos na lang muna gallery para relax! ;D ;D
-
Ang gulo-gulo nga, hahahahahaha
Anyway, I respect your reasons for believing what you believe.
Haha! Magulo talaga kung iisipin mo. Maski ako eh. Talagang mystery. Pero we cannot deny their existence of the three persona and their power. They all have the power to forgive and omnipresence sila. Hence judging by their powers kaya some of us believe that the 3 are all God, in 1 persona. As the saying goes, "tao lamang po.". Though we may prove the existence of the three, it would be safe for some of us to conclude, judging from their powers, that they are God.
-
Haha! Magulo talaga kung iisipin mo. Maski ako eh. Talagang mystery. Pero we cannot deny their existence of the three persona and their power. They all have the power to forgive and omnipresence sila. Hence judging by their powers kaya some of us believe that the 3 are all God, in 1 persona. As the saying goes, "tao lamang po.". Though we may prove the existence of the three, it would be safe for some of us to conclude, judging from their powers, that they are God.
I don't deny the three. I don't deny the powers either. I just see that the source (Father) is greater than than the other two thus He alone is God for me. The powers of the two are from God, kumbaga representatives.
-
Here's my view.
There is God the Father.
He became the Son when he came down on earth.
He is a spirit. A holy one.
-
1 corinthians 14:33:-Sapagkat ang Diyos ay isang Diyos, hindi ng kaguluhan, kundi ng kapayapaan..
tama naman na maging isa ang diyos at si jesus,pero ang pagiging isa nila ay hindi sa pagka diyos..ito ay pagiging isa sa layunin.kung paanong gusto ni jesus na maging kaisa din nila ng diyos ang mga tao(juan 17:11)..
but the core foundation of trinity if im not mistaken is that they share equality in sovereignity..pantay pantay..pero may mga bagay na hindi alam ni jesus,mathew 24:36-Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father
meron ding hindi kayang gawin si jesus-mathew 20:23- He said to them: “YOU will indeed drink my cup, but this sitting down at my right hand and at my left is not mine to give, but it belongs to those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”
-
here's my point of view (and i'm agnostic, btw) and basing this only from a somewhat scientific point of view. God may be an entity that lives in a place with 4 (or more) dimensions (as described in string or M-theory) and thus the reason why he's omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.
he might be a higher dimensional being.
-
Haha! Magulo talaga kung iisipin mo. Maski ako eh. Talagang mystery. Pero we cannot deny their existence of the three persona and their power. They all have the power to forgive and omnipresence sila. Hence judging by their powers kaya some of us believe that the 3 are all God, in 1 persona. As the saying goes, "tao lamang po.". Though we may prove the existence of the three, it would be safe for some of us to conclude, judging from their powers, that they are God.
magulo talaga :)
may mga konsepto tayo paano ipapaliwanag yan pero di pa rin natin masasabing tama o accurate.
baka ang vatican alam nila, ayaw lang ipaliwanag dahil di rin natin maiintindihan. hehe.
hintayin na lang natin pagbabalik ni Jesus at ma re reveal din yang mystery na yan ;)
-
naguluhan yata ako.
created ba yung iniluwal ?
Quote from: china-man on Today at 04:27 PM
Buhat pa ng walang PASIMULA sya (Jesus Christ) ay nailabas o nailuwal na sa sinapupunan ng Ama sa langit....
Again this proves he is distinct from the one whom he came from. I agree that's why he is called the Son of God but the Son is not the Father. They are distinct from each other.
I believe Jesus was just a plan at that time and the plan came to fruition when he was born.
The only justification for God in creating Adam and Eve knowing they would commit sin is the fact that he has jesus in mind even before creating anything thus "The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created"
I believe he was created too and distinct from God.
Jesus proved what Adam can not, man is created by God to live in his holiness and not in sin.
If Jesus came from the Father, then he is distinct from him from whom he came from.
-
Again this proves he is distinct from the one whom he came from. I agree that's why he is called the Son of God but the Son is not the Father. They are distinct from each other.
Opo bakit pa sya titingala sa langit sa tuwing mananalangin kung siya din pala yung Ama....kaya yang idea na TRINITY is not written in the bible, so this is a wrong idea...
Question: Will you RESPECT the WRONG IDEA? it will lead all the listeners in WRONG TEACHING... :)
-
naguluhan yata ako.
created ba yung iniluwal ?
Quote from: china-man on Today at 04:27 PM
I believe Jesus was just a plan at that time and the plan came to fruition when he was born.
The only justification for God in creating Adam and Eve knowing they would commit sin is the fact that he has jesus in mind even before creating anything thus "The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created"
I believe he was created too and distinct from God.
Jesus proved what Adam can not, man is created by God to live in his holiness and not in sin.
If Jesus came from the Father, then he is distinct from him from whom he came from.
Yung iniluwal in laymans term IPINANGANAK...
-
Yung iniluwal in laymans term IPINANGANAK...
ganun nga. pero "created" ba yung ipinanganak?
-
^_Hindi po iba yung Creation sa IPINANGANAK....kaya nga Dios din si Jesus Christ...Kaya nga Anak sya ng Dios..
-
si Quitacet pala magulo. hehe.
^_Hindi po iba yung Creation sa IPINANGANAK....kaya nga Dios din si Jesus Christ...
-
si Quitacet pala magulo. hehe.
Hindi po siya magulo. Naguguluhan din. Hehe!
Ang gulo-gulo nga, hahahahahaha
Anyway, I respect your reasons for believing what you believe.
-
As I understand it. God is one. The Trinity is a manifestation of God in different forms BUT all three can exist at the same time. They are not co-equals as they are ONE. So when the Bible mentioned that "Before Abraham, I AM..." it is not contradictory, as Jesus is the same as the Father. Us, Earthlings, can only understand this on earthly terms, so we refer to Jesus as The Son (as He is born to a person, thus the term "Son of Man").
Our human mind has it's limits and can't understand it fully (hence it is called a Mystery). And that where, FAITH comes in. It's not FAITH if we can rationalize and prove it.
As for those obscure laws (as the one on rape). The Old Testament had lot of laws that would seem ridiculous in our age. It should be read in the context of its time. AND that the NEW TESTAMENT, with the coming of Jesus represent the NEW COVENANT that supercede the old. Most Christian celebrate the Eucharist but we don't slaughter lambs as sacrifice, do we?
-
kaya yang idea na TRINITY is not written in the bible, so this is a wrong idea...
Question: Will you RESPECT the WRONG IDEA? it will lead all the listeners in WRONG TEACHING... :)
with due respect, i disagree that the concept of the trinity is not in the bible nor it is a wrong teaching...unless you are not a christian.
Some who questions the Trinity doctrine often claim that the word Trinity is not found in the Scripture. Of course, there is no verse that says "God is three Persons" or "God is a Trinity." This is all quite evident and true, strictly speaking, but it proves nothing. There are many words and phrases that Christians use, which are not found in the Bible. For example, the word "Bible" is not found in the Bible.
More to the point, others claim that the Trinity doctrine and the Trinitarian view of God’s nature and being can’t be proven from the Bible. Since the books of the Bible are not written as theological tracts, this may seem on the surface to be true. There is no statement in Scripture that says, "God is three Persons in one being.
However, the New Testament does bring God (Father), the Son (Jesus Christ) and the Holy Spirit together in such a way as to strongly imply the Trinitarian nature of God. here are some passage that implies a trinitarian implication.
1. All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit [Matthew 28:19].
2. May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all [2 Corinthians 13:14].
3. To God’s elect. . .who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood [1 Peter 1:1-2].
Certainly, those passages and many more show that the New testament faith is implicitly trinitarian. Of course, it’s true that none of these passages say directly that "God is a trinity or this is the trinitarian doctrine. But they don’t need to. The books of the New testament are not formal, point by point treatises of doctrine. Nonetheless, these and other Scriptures speak easily and without any self-consciousness of God (Father), Son (Jesus) and Holy Spirit working together.
-
For me, God (the Father) and Jesus are two different individuals. Remember the scene in Gethsemane? Jesus is praying to God (the Father). And again when he was on the cross: Luke 23:24 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots. (King James Version)
-
To fully understand the meaning of Trinity, you need to experience how Trinity works. :)
-
To fully understand the meaning of Trinity, you need to experience how Trinity works. :)
so have you experienced how the Trinity works, sir dpogs?
-
To fully understand the meaning of Trinity, you need to experience how Trinity works. :)
i experienced before ;)
nakakatakot. sakit sa ulo at feeling pagod na pagod.
-
For me, God (the Father) and Jesus are two different individuals. Remember the scene in Gethsemane? Jesus is praying to God (the Father). And again when he was on the cross: Luke 23:24 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots. (King James Version)
If Jesus is also God the father, then He was actually praying to himself? But he was not saved. So God the son, the flesh, died and at that moment one position in the Holy Trinity had become vacant.
-
If Jesus is also God the father, then He was actually praying to himself?
Exactly my point, they are not the same. Why would He be praying/talking to himself. It clearly shows He is praying/talking to a different person, to His Father to be exact.
i experienced before ;)
nakakatakot. sakit sa ulo at feeling pagod na pagod.
I mean no disrespect at all, I'm just wondering. God is holy, why would there be a sense of fear and pain? Di ba dapat a sense of peace and well-being kung ang naramdaman natin is galing kay God?
-
If Jesus is also God the father, then He was actually praying to himself? But he was not saved. So God the son, the flesh, died and at that moment one position in the Holy Trinity had become vacant.
When he became a man, he was a man. Limited by his humanity. Limited by the knowledge known at the time. He feels like any other man. Gets angry, frustrated, hurt, jealous, scared, etc. And just like any other man, prays for strength.
-
Bro bumblebee, why would Jesus be limited by the knowledge known at the time when he became human? He is the Son of God, nagkaroon lang sya ng flesh that time which He still have until now as part of His promise of salvation to us. When He was resurrected after three days and after He visited His apostles, He ascended to heaven with His body. So Him having flesh won't hinder Him having the knowledge that He is the Son of God, He knows His Father's plan and He knows He is our Saviour.
But I agree, he felt what it feels to become human and prays for strength, prays to His Father which is in heaven.
-
When he became a man, he was a man. Limited by his humanity. Limited by the knowledge known at the time. He feels like any other man. Gets angry, frustrated, hurt, jealous, scared, etc. And just like any other man, prays for strength.
So limited by his knowledge brought about by his human state, he actually did not know that he is God himself.
-
pero nabuhay nya yun patay, make the blind see & the cripple walk.
-
pero nabuhay nya yun patay, make the blind see & the cripple walk.
so says the Bible.
-
My professor in Philosophy 101 had a favorite example of fallacy:
The Bible is the Word of God.
How do you know that it is the Word of God?
Because it says so in the Bible.
In one assignment, the task was to watch an evangelical telecast, note down five fallacies, and identify what type of fallacies they were.
-
Bro bumblebee, why would Jesus be limited by the knowledge known at the time when he became human? He is the Son of God, nagkaroon lang sya ng flesh that time which He still have until now as part of His promise of salvation to us. When He was resurrected after three days and after He visited His apostles, He ascended to heaven with His body. So Him having flesh won't hinder Him having the knowledge that He is the Son of God, He knows His Father's plan and He knows He is our Saviour.
Well if he was such a genius, he would have taught the civilization back then calculus and invented the IPad:) Kidding aside, I'd like to think so. He needed to be human to redeem us as a human. It would be such a waste if he was still God, why go through all the trouble if he can just snap his fingers.
-
so says the Bible.
are there any other book?
-
are there any other book?
That actually is the problem
-
So limited by his knowledge brought about by his human state, he actually did not know that he is God himself.
pero nabuhay nya yun patay, make the blind see & the cripple walk.
And to add, He also forgives sins. Pinasan niya ang mga kasalanan ng tao. The Perfect Sacrifice.
Well if he was such a genius, he would have taught the civilization back then calculus and invented the IPad:) Kidding aside, I'd like to think so. He needed to be human to redeem us as a human. It would be such a waste if he was still God, why go through all the trouble if he can just snap his fingers.
That's a good point. probably because He wants us to learn? And most of all, this I'm sure, He needed to be human in order for Him to sacrifice Himself for the atonement of sins. I don't know kung tama ang logic ko pero let me try. Ever since sa old testament, madaming sacrifices na ginagawa ang mga jews. Perfect lamb, goat etc, for the atonement of their sins. And these sacrifices are being offered to God, who is perfect. How can you offer a nearly perfect lamb to a perfect God? Kung baga, it was not enough to atone for their sins. But due to God's Love for man, He has to sent His Son, to be a Man, a Perfect Man, to atone for the sins of mankind. A Perfect Sacrifice for a Perfect God. And Jesus' death/sacrifice was not only for the dead persons from the old testament, para na din sa mga tao sa time ni Jesus, and for the future generations (that's us). All God wants from us is faith. Faith in Jesus Christ who bore our sins. Faith in God who will always provide us with whatever we need according to His knowledge.
-
sa OP
To all who believes:
If the Holy Trinity postulates 3 equal Gods which existed co-equally even prior to creation, and Jesus Christ, the God with flesh, is supposed to be God the son, then who was God the son before the birth of Christ?
Thanks to anybody who will respond. :)
He was a "Spirit person dude". ;D
Not like us who are created, He was "Eternal" too like the Father. John 1:1 etc
-
My professor in Philosophy 101 had a favorite example of fallacy:
The Bible is the Word of God.
How do you know that it is the Word of God?
Because it says so in the Bible.
(http://37.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ld6daoYiuf1qcc4zuo1_500.gif)
-
If the Holy Trinity postulates 3 equal Gods which existed co-equally even prior to creation, and Jesus Christ, the God with flesh, is supposed to be God the son, then who was God the son before the birth of Christ?
1. Walang Holy Trinity sa Bible. 1 John 5: 7-8 (the Johannine Comma) does not prove the existence of a Holy Trinity.
2. Christ (the "Word") existed from the beginning. When Jesus was conceived and born, the Word merely assumed human form. It does not mean that the Word did not exist before the conception and birth of His human body.
Thus, John 1: 1, 2, 14 explains:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. ... The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.
Notes:
- The Word is God.
- The Word existed from the beginning.
- The Father also existed from the beginning. The Word and the Father both existed from the beginning; and the Word was with the Father from the beginning.
- Then the Word assumed human form and dwelt among us.
Who was He before He became flesh? --- The only begotten Son (the "monogenes" - John 1:14). The same until now. Hindi naman nagbago e.
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/1-14.htm (http://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/1-14.htm)
-
^_Korak si Brader.....ang Dios noon Dios pa din ngayon ang Anak noon na si Jesus Christ Anak pa din naman ngayon nag-KATAWANG TAO sya dahil sa gagawin nya sa lupa para tubusin ang TAO sa mga kasalanan at kasama na din na IPA-NGANGARAL nya ang EVANGHELYO sa TAO to prepare or give a guidelines to HUMANITY for SALVATION...
-
^_Korak si Brader.....ang Dios noon Dios pa din ngayon ang Anak noon na si Jesus Christ Anak pa din naman ngayon nag-KATAWANG TAO sya dahil sa gagawin nya sa lupa para tubusin ang TAO sa mga kasalanan at kasama na din na IPA-NGANGARAL nya ang EVANGHELYO sa TAO to prepare or give a guidelines to HUMANITY for SALVATION...
Correct sir. Actually, may salvation na din sa old testament.
-
I mean no disrespect at all, I'm just wondering. God is holy, why would there be a sense of fear and pain? Di ba dapat a sense of peace and well-being kung ang naramdaman natin is galing kay God?
because we are still in human form... but
when you personaly become son of God through Jesus Christ then the Holy Spirit lives in you and eventually you will experience inner peace...
-
Correct sir. Actually, may salvation na din sa old testament.
during the fall of Adam and Eve... God show them the way to salvation...
-
this topic is very interesting, it point us to our belief and review our knowledged about God and our faith.
for me, my understanding about Trinity is this:
Trinity:
3 Person = 1 God.
Person 1 is not Person 2 or 3. same goes with Person 2 as not Person 1 or 3.
mathematically speaking, this cannot be because 3 not= 1. i cannot and will not understand through number.
Trinity:
1 God = 3 Person.
psychologically, this is very hard to understand, the complete unity of 3 Person as 1 God. let us take for example 2 person, say a husband and a wife. we know that no two person can think, act and agree all of the time. there will be disagreement.
another example are us commenting here, we have diff view and mind, we cannot be united and agree in the same topic. therefore we cannot be god.
God is not like that. They are in complete agreement. 1 uniqueness of God.
may the Holy Spirit enlighthen us in this area.
-
^_ibig nyo po bang sabihin sa TRINITY yung Ama, Anak at Espiritu Santo ay iisa? :o
-
^_ibig nyo po bang sabihin sa TRINITY yung Ama, Anak at Espiritu Santo ay iisa? :o
isang Diyos!
-
1 God in 3 person
-
1 God in 3 person
tumpak 1 God in 3 Person!
-
wala po tayong mababasa sa bible na ang holy spirit ay isang persona..
ang diyos(ama) ay may pangalan--yahweh or jehova
ang anak meron din-jesus or yeshua
but holy spirit--wala
definitely hindi persona ang holy spirit..it is the active force of god
-
wala po tayong mababasa sa bible na ang holy spirit ay isang persona..
ang diyos(ama) ay may pangalan--yahweh or jehova
ang anak meron din-jesus or yeshua
but holy spirit--wala
definitely hindi persona ang holy spirit..it is the active force of god
neither do the word Trinity is in the bible. we talk about the 3 Person in relation with each other. we refer the Holy Spirit as a Person in relation to the Trinity. the whole chapter 14 of John is a good example as Jesus is explaining ro thomas.
-
this topic is very interesting, it point us to our belief and review our knowledged about God and our faith.
for me, my understanding about Trinity is this:
Trinity:
3 Person = 1 God.
Person 1 is not Person 2 or 3. same goes with Person 2 as not Person 1 or 3.
mathematically speaking, this cannot be because 3 not= 1. i cannot and will not understand through number.
Trinity:
1 God = 3 Person.
psychologically, this is very hard to understand, the complete unity of 3 Person as 1 God. let us take for example 2 person, say a husband and a wife. we know that no two person can think, act and agree all of the time. there will be disagreement.
another example are us commenting here, we have diff view and mind, we cannot be united and agree in the same topic. therefore we cannot be god.
God is not like that. They are in complete agreement. 1 uniqueness of God.
may the Holy Spirit enlighthen us in this area.
mathematecally and psychologically, it may be hard to understand sir. but biblically, it myt shed some light on your dilema. kht ako naguguluhan, but every questions that i have, by reading the bible, nasasgot naman kht medyo vague sa pagkakaintindi ko.
-
and "Holy Spirit" is the name Himself.
-
mathematecally and psychologically, it may be hard to understand sir. but biblically, it myt shed some light on your dilema. kht ako naguguluhan, but every questions that i have, thru reading the reading of the bible, nasasgot naman kht medyo vague sa pagkakaintindi ko.
very correct sir, by reading the Bible we get our answer...
-
holy spirit is not a personal name..or either a person that can think or act on its own like the father or the son..
-
holy spirit is not a personal name..or either a person that can think or act on its own like the father or the son..
i respect your view and belief over this matter sir. but as i explained above, my belief in the Trinity stands.
-
sa bible marami tayong mababasa na ang ama ay god almighty
ang anak,si jesus,sa isaiahs tinawag din siyang diyos
pero ang holy spirit,ni isang verse sa bible wala tayong mababasa na siyay diyos or kahit idea man lang na itoy diyos..
-
Jesus speaking:
"But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."
John 14:26
and in Matthew 28:19
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"
-
a question on the persona of god is also a question of faith. how can a person believe in god if you dont really knew who he is. this is not a case of "i believe in you but i dont recognize your son or your spirit perhaps".
in the context of religion in general, may dalawang klase ng tao with regards to questions......first, the one that is asking question why and second, the one that is questioning why.
-
sa bible marami tayong mababasa na ang ama ay god almighty
ang anak,si jesus,sa isaiahs tinawag din siyang diyos
pero ang holy spirit,ni isang verse sa bible wala tayong mababasa na siyay diyos or kahit idea man lang na itoy diyos..
Mat 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit...
this will be a good idea that the Holy Spirit is part of the Trinity.
the topic here is about Trinity and i am explaining my belief about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as 1 God, hence the term Trinity was formed. as it was in a debate for centuries, though we cannot find it in the bible( the word Trinity), we profess our belief and faith about the trinity. i have cited many passages in the bible above referring to trinity.
If you will remove the Holy Spirit as part of Trinity, it will not be a trinity anymore. hence, it will be another good topic to talk about.
-
john 14:26-holy spirit is reffered as counselor ,in other version its a helper,but not god..as ive said earlier holy spirit is the active force of god..pinapadala nya ang banal na espiritu para ganapin ang kanyang layunin..
mathew 28:19-although binanggit ang tatlo diyan,but it doesnt mean na god din ang holy spirit..baptizing in the name of the holy spirit simply tells the authority of it because it came from the almighty god.
-
john 14:26-holy spirit is reffered as counselor ,in other version its a helper,but not god..as ive said earlier holy spirit is the active force of god..pinapadala nya ang banal na espiritu para ganapin ang kanyang layunin..
mathew 28:19-although binanggit ang tatlo diyan,but it doesnt mean na god din ang holy spirit..baptizing in the name of the holy spirit simply tells the authority of it because it came from the almighty god.
iba ang kontexto sir pag sinabi mo na tatlong diyos sa isang kaganapan kumpara sa isang diyos na tatlo ang kaganapan. what we have here is a single god manifested to a three different persona not three kind of gods manifested in one person.
-
i found a passage in the bible (NIV) where the Holy Spirit was addressed as God by Peter.
Acts 5:3-4
Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?
Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God."
-
The Holy Spirit has the basic attributes of God.
i found a passage in the bible (NIV) where the Holy Spirit was addressed as God by Peter.
Acts 5:3-4
Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?
Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God."
correct... you can't lie to a mere 'active force'...
i think we can't subject God's divine unity in a mathematical concept of unity... 1-in-3 or 3-in-1...
-
i think we can't subject God's divine unity in a mathematical concept of unity... 1-in-3 or 3-in-1...
ano yan boss kape? 3 in 1. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
dahil nga ang holy spirit ay galing sa diyos,ginagamit nya ito para gawin ang kanyang layunin.kaya tama lang ang nasabi ni pedro na si ananias ay nag sinungaling sa holy spirit,kasi itoy galing sa diyos..
you can't lie to a mere 'active force'---
walang pinagkaiba yan sa nagkasala sa "batas.".
-
ano yan boss kape? 3 in 1. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
:):):) ... oo nga noh! haha parang itlog din daw... or H20.. or triangle.. but that doesnt really explain the diving unity of God...e
they co-exist, co-powerful, co-eternal... God does not exist as three separate beings... they never separate from one another though each is distinct...
-
co exist--jesus was created(colosians 1:15..so there is a time na hindi nag exist si jesus
co-powerful--ang ama ang bumuhay ng syay nasa lupa..araw at oras hindi alam ni jesus(mathew 24:36)
pati pag apoint sa langit hindi si jesus ang may rights(mathew 20:23)
co-eternal--si jesus may pasimula,pero ang ama wala..
-
dahil nga ang holy spirit ay galing sa diyos,ginagamit nya ito para gawin ang kanyang layunin.kaya tama lang ang nasabi ni pedro na si ananias ay nag sinungaling sa holy spirit,kasi itoy galing sa diyos..
you can't lie to a mere 'active force'---
walang pinagkaiba yan sa nagkasala sa "batas.".
if the Holy Spirit is not God for you. I will not be surprised to know that Jesus is also not God.
-
im not againts that jesus was called god in the bible.maraming text sa bible to prove that...but never syang tinawag na 'god almighty'..only the father have that title
-
as jesus stated in john 14:28..because the Father is greater than I am..
mas papaniwalaan ko ang salitang iyan ni jesus na nakasulat sa bible,kaysa sa turo or kinagisnang paniniwala na non biblical
-
acts 7:55,56-But he, being full of holy spirit, gazed into heaven and caught sight of God’s glory and of Jesus standing at God’s right hand, 56 and he said: “Look! I behold the heavens opened up and the Son of man standing at God’s right hand..
si esteban bago mamatay,binanggit niya dito ang dalawang persona..ang god at si jesus(meaning 2 individual persona)
pero bakit walang nabanggit si esteban about sa holy spirit if they are equal..?
-
sir saro, salamat sa paliwanag mo, nauunawaan ko na ang paniniwala mo. sa ganyang bagay magkaiba tayo. pero hindi ibig sabihin ay nais kitang pilitin sa paniniwala ko. at hindi ko rin nais pilitin ang sinumang nakakabasa ng topic na ito.
i hope that everyone who read this and have the same question or any question regarding Trinity or salvation will find the answer they are looking for.
peace everyone! and good day...
-
john 4:24-God is a Spirit, and those worshiping him must worship with spirit and truth.
tama sir,hindi naman po natin iginigiit sa iba ang mga belief natin..it just happen na napag uusapan..no problem sir..good day din..
sorry if ot po
-
as jesus stated in john 14:28..because the Father is greater than I am..
mas papaniwalaan ko ang salitang iyan ni jesus na nakasulat sa bible,kaysa sa turo or kinagisnang paniniwala na non biblical
panano sir yung sinabi ni jesus na "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30). basic analogy dictates that if one is inferior than the other then it cannot be considered "one". paano nyo po pinipili ang salita ni jesus na inyong paniniwalaan?
-
acts 7:55,56-But he, being full of holy spirit, gazed into heaven and caught sight of God’s glory and of Jesus standing at God’s right hand, 56 and he said: “Look! I behold the heavens opened up and the Son of man standing at God’s right hand..
si esteban bago mamatay,binanggit niya dito ang dalawang persona..ang god at si jesus(meaning 2 individual persona)
pero bakit walang nabanggit si esteban about sa holy spirit if they are equal..?
persona is defined as aspect of someone's character that is perceived by others. it is synonymous with image, personality and the likes. you mistook it that it is soley for something that is physical, as someone that has a form. and besides it doesnt necessarily follows that if it aint there then its not!
-
Hats off to all of you! I wish ganito lahat ang threads dito sa pdvd -walang away basta presentation lang ng opinyon. We really can learn a lot if we do it this way.
Now, on the topic if Jesus is God himself because he came from the power of his father God and now Jesus is no longer on earth because he already returned to his creator, do you think he still exists in flesh, or he reverted back as a Word? ::)
-
Hats off to all of you! I wish ganito lahat ang threads dito sa pdvd -walang away basta presentation lang ng opinyon. We really can learn a lot if we do it this way.
Now, on the topic if Jesus is God himself because he came from the power of his father God and now Jesus is no longer on earth because he already returned to his creator, do you think he still exists in flesh, or he reverted back as a Word? ::)
sir nung umakyat si jesus sa langit kasama ang katawang tao nya.
-
during the fall of Adam and Eve... God show them the way to salvation...
who else here believe in the literal Adam and Eve story?
-
who else here believe in the literal Adam and Eve story?
I sir. boss can i ask humbly, what is your religious affiliation?
-
I sir. boss can i ask humbly, what is your religious affiliation?
It does not matter in this thread, I can be a catholic and not believe in the Trinity, or an Agnostic and believe in historical Jesus.
-
It does not matter in this thread, I can be a catholic and not believe in the Trinity, or an Agnostic and believe in historical Jesus.
im just asking sir. mas maganda sigurong magpaliwanag kung alam mo kung saan ang pinangalingan ng pinapagpaliwanagan mo. at hindi naman siguro kabawasan sa pagkatao ang magsabi kung anong relihiyon meron sya.
-
im just asking sir. mas maganda sigurong magpaliwanag kung alam mo kung saan ang pinangalingan ng pinapagpaliwanagan mo. at hindi naman siguro kabawasan sa pagkatao ang magsabi kung anong relihiyon meron sya.
the reason why this thread has become peaceful until now is because religion has got nothing to do with the discussion but the personal beliefs of the members. If the personal beliefs are the same as one's religious beliefs, it is still the personal beliefs that are being discussed.
pag pumasok kasi ang particula religion, chances are gugulo na yan
-
who else here believe in the literal Adam and Eve story?
me. literally.
-
Now, on the topic if Jesus is God himself because he came from the power of his father God and now Jesus is no longer on earth because he already returned to his creator, do you think he still exists in flesh, or he reverted back as a Word? ::)
no longer in flesh but in his glorified body.
-
I am shocked that people actually believe the story of Adam and Eve.
-
john 10:30-its true,jesus said that..but why did he said that?what was the scenario? nasabi nya iyon dahil ang mga judio noon ay ayaw maniwalang sya ang kristo,sa kabila ng lahat ng tanda ng pagiging kristo ay makikita sa gawa niya..nang babatuhin sya ng tao kasi nga namumusong sya dahil hindi matannggap ng mga judio,ano ang sinabi ni jesus? maliwanag sa verse 32 ang sabi nya "alin sa mga gawa nya ang dahilan kung bakit sya babatuhin? take note wala sa isip ni jesus na iisa sila ng ama sa pagka diyos o sya rin mismo ang ama,ang sinabi ni jesus ng pagiging isa nila ay sa layunin o sa gawa..sa verse 36 ang sabi nya "ako ang anak ng diyos"..hindi po "ang diyos"
-
nice thread mga Sir, very peaceful and informative ha... ^-^ sarap magbasa.
-
granting that in john 10:30,that jesus is also the father, and since we are talking about the trinity,bakit hindi isinama ni jesus ang holy spirit sa pagiging isa nila..
-
tama sir,hindi naman po natin iginigiit sa iba ang mga belief natin..it just happen na napag uusapan..no problem sir..good day din..
Ganyan ang magandang viewpoint para naiiwasan ang mga away.
Agree ako sa mga citations mo, sir saro. Your only problem is that you do not follow up your citations with a discussion of how they are relevant in proving your points.
===================================
The biggest obstacle to a thorough understanding is a comprehension of ancient Hebrew and Greek. Remember that the bible was not originally written in English.
In the creation story of the Old Testament, "God" was referred to as "Elohim," which may either be plural or singular.
In the same manner, a "family" can be singular or plural. Singular when referring to one family collectively, and plural when referring to the individual members of a family.
For example, si Mr. Cruz, asawa si Mrs. Cruz, anak si Cruz, Jr. One Cruz family, but 3 family members. Si Mr. Cruz ba ay si Mrs. Cruz na rin? Hindi. Iba si Mr. Cruz, iba si Mrs. Cruz.
Kaya nga nag-uusap ang Ama at ang Anak. Sabi ng Anak, "Ama, bakit Mo ako pinabayan?" Ano yon, umaarte, kinakausap ang sarili Niya? Hindi. Magkaiba ang dalawang nag-uusap.
Kaya nga noong creation, ang sabi, "And God (Elohim) said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..."
Ang sabi, "let us" --- plural. So ang God doon ("Elohim") ay plural din. May nag-uusap --- may nagsasalita, at may kausap. Sino yung kausap? Hindi puwedeng angel, kasi ang kausap ay creator din.
Hindi creator ang angel. Ang sabi, "let us make," hindi "I will make and you will watch me". Therefore the Father was talking to a co-creator.
Sino ang co-creator na kausap? The answer is in Proverbs 8.
panano sir yung sinabi ni jesus na "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30).
Pag sinabi ba na "one" ay kung sino yung isa, siya na rin yung isa?
Parang isang tao na President and General Manager ng isang company. Kung ano ang alam ng President, alam din ng General Manager, kasi siya rin yon.
Kung ang Ama at ang Anak ay isa, e di dapat kung ano ang alam ng Ama, alam din ng Anak. In Mark 13:32, sabi ni Kristo, as for the day of the hour of the end, "no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." Bakit may alam ang Ama na hindi alam ng Anak?
Kasi iba yung Ama at iba naman yung Anak.
Bakit ang sabi ni Kristo sa John 10:30, "I and the Father are one"? Alamin muna natin kung ano ang ibig sabihin ng "one" sa sitas.
Ang meaning ng "one" doon ay "unity." Just as the members of a musical band are united, they are one in agreement, but it does not mean na kung sino ang gitarista, siya na rin ang drummer.
Sa katunayan:
“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” (Mark 10:6-9)
Notice that husband and wife are also called "one." They are no longer two, but one flesh.
Ibig sabihin kung sino yung lalaki yon na rin ang babae? Hindi. Iba pa rin yung lalaki, iba yung babae. Mas mataas ang posisyon ng lalaki sa kanyang asawa, at may alam yung lalaki na hindi alam ng babae.
Bakit "one" ang tawag? Kasi united sila in spirit, but they are still different persons.
-
I am shocked that people actually believe the story of Adam and Eve.
so comes my next question:
To those who believe the Adam and Eve story, do you believe in
1. literal six-day creation; and
2. the "Young Earth" theory which puts the Earth and all its creation at not more than 10,000 years ago?
-
ibig sabihin po, ng sinabi ni kristo na sya at ang ama ay iisa ay sa dahilan na ayaw maniwala ng mga hudyo sa kanya, tapos nung sya ay babatuhin na dahil sa sa tinuran nya, ay bigla nyang sinabi na sya ay anak ng diyos at hindi dyos?
with due respect, you have a different way of interpreting what the sriptures is saying. it may be true, it may be wrong. who knows? i will just leave it that way.
-
so comes my next question:
To those who believe the Adam and Eve story, do you believe in
1. literal six-day creation; and
2. the "Young Earth" theory which puts the Earth and all its creation at not more than 10,000 years ago?
sir by putting a series of question regarding adam and eve, this thread will deviate from what it started. its better to make another thread regarding creation.
-
minsan po sir ang bible din mismo ang sumasagot sa mga tanong nya..it doesnt mean na kung ano na yung nasa verse na ito,eh yun na mismo..we all know that theres no contradicting in the bible..so if parang iba yung nasa verse na ito,dapat kaayon din siya ng ibang verse sa bible
-
I am shocked that people actually believe the story of Adam and Eve.
+1
I can't believe that the genesis creation story is taken literally, and by a lot of people.
Is creationism still taught in schools here in the Philippines? Alam ko kasi sa US, there has been a move to remove the teaching of the creation story (as a thing that actually happened) from the curriculum. I was just hoping that the same could be done here.
-
minsan po sir ang bible din mismo ang sumasagot sa mga tanong nya..it doesnt mean na kung ano na yung nasa verse na ito,eh yun na mismo..we all know that theres no contradicting in the bible..so if parang iba yung nasa verse na ito,dapat kaayon din siya ng ibang verse sa bible
If one verse says one thing and another verse says another, who decides which is correct? Magulo naman ata yun :)
-
If one verse says one thing and another verse says another, who decides which is correct? Magulo naman ata yun :)
You mean pag magkakontra ang dalawang verses?
Wala namang verses na magkakontra.
E di magbigay ka sir ng example ng verses na tingin mo ay magkakontra, at sasabihin ko naman kung bakit hindi talaga magkakontra yon. ;)
-
You mean pag magkakontra ang dalawang verses?
Wala namang verses na magkakontra.
E di magbigay ka sir ng example ng verses na tingin mo ay magkakontra, at sasabihin ko naman kung bakit hindi talaga magkakontra yon. ;)
Psalm 145:9 - "The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works."
Jeremiah 13:14 - "And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the Lord: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them."
(not to mention the many instances across the entire Bible where God displays his wrath)
==========
Exodus 15:3 - The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name.
Romans 15:33 - Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.
==========
The biggest contradiction for me in the Bible is whether God is an unmerciful God of destruction, wrath, etc etc or a kind and loving, forgiving God. There are a lot of examples in the Bible that exemplify both, and are stated in the absolute. So in that very nature of God, there is a big contradiction.
-
You mean pag magkakontra ang dalawang verses?
Wala namang verses na magkakontra.
E di magbigay ka sir ng example ng verses na tingin mo ay magkakontra, at sasabihin ko naman kung bakit hindi talaga magkakontra yon. ;)
I don't even read the Bible. Just asking saro a question.
-
Psalm 145:9 - "The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works."
Jeremiah 13:14 - "And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the Lord: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them."
(not to mention the many instances across the entire Bible where God displays his wrath)
==========
Exodus 15:3 - The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name.
Romans 15:33 - Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.
==========
The biggest contradiction for me in the Bible is whether God is an unmerciful God of destruction, wrath, etc etc or a kind and loving, forgiving God. There are a lot of examples in the Bible that exemplify both, and are stated in the absolute. So in that very nature of God, there is a big contradiction.
contradiction in concept of 'trinity', 'Holy Spirt as God'... divine unity... etc...
but we can discuss these - other contradiction - in other this thread http://www.pinoydvd.com/index.php/topic,141525.0.html
-
^ I think saro, barrister & bumblebee were taking about contradictions of the Bible in general.
-
Wow haba na. :)
(http://37.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ld6daoYiuf1qcc4zuo1_500.gif)
My professor in Philosophy 101 had a favorite example of fallacy:
The Bible is the Word of God.
How do you know that it is the Word of God?
Because it says so in the Bible.
^ This needs to be addressed though. This is called circular reasoning but the arguments I think that trumps this is because the Bible is the Authority or has the final word when it comes to Moral and Spiritual... stuff. ;D
See examples here: http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-authority/ (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-authority/)
The question to ask then is about its Authenticity.
Maybe create another topic for this then. :)
-
^ I think saro, barrister & bumblebee were taking about contradictions of the Bible in general.
and we can give some verses na sa tingin natin ay in contradiction pero nasa topic pa rin :)
Did Jesus have two fathers? God the Father or the Holy Spirit > two contradicting verse: I John 1:3 and Luke 1:35... contradiction pero nasa topic pa rin...
Who is responsible for Jesus' resurrection: the God the Father (Eph. 1:20), the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:11) or si Jesus mismo (John 2:19-21)
-
Favorite kong "contradiction" is Mark 10:18 ;D
Good ba si Jesus or Hinde? hehe
-
as Tim Michin said:
"Science adjusts its beliefs based on what's observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
omg Tim Michin mention :)
I love this guy, and that is a brilliant, truthful quote.
-
Kung wala sa bible and holy trinity, san ba nagsimula ang Trinity Doctrine? Who incorporated it as a Catholic teaching?
-
Did Jesus have two fathers? God the Father or the Holy Spirit > two contradicting verse: I John 1:3 and Luke 1:35... contradiction pero nasa topic pa rin--
wala pong contradicting jan..
as ive posted earlier,holy spirit is not a person,it is the active force of god,that god is sending to fulfill his works..(genesis 1:2)psalms 143:10.
holy spirit dont act on its own..
Who is responsible for Jesus' resurrection: the God the Father (Eph. 1:20), the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:11) or si Jesus mismo (John 2:19-21)--
in ephesians its very clear that it is god,
in romans- "And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you"--
father send his holy spirit to resurect jesus..
sa john-Ang gayong pangmalas ay magiging salungat sa Galacia 1:1, na nagsasabing ang bumuhay kay Jesus ay ang Ama, hindi ang Anak. Sa nakakatulad na pananalita, sa Lucas 8:48 si Jesus ay nagsabi sa isang babae: “Pinagaling ka ng iyong pananampalataya.” Pinagaling ba niya ang kaniyang sarili? Hindi; ang kapangyarihan ng Diyos sa pamamagitan ni Kristo ang nagpagaling sa kaniya dahil sa kaniyang pananampalataya. (Luc. 8:46; Gawa 10:38)
-
Psalm 145:9 - "The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works."
Jeremiah 13:14 - "And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the Lord: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them."
(not to mention the many instances across the entire Bible where God displays his wrath)
==========
Exodus 15:3 - The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name.
Romans 15:33 - Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.
==========
The biggest contradiction for me in the Bible is whether God is an unmerciful God of destruction, wrath, etc etc or a kind and loving, forgiving God. There are a lot of examples in the Bible that exemplify both, and are stated in the absolute. So in that very nature of God, there is a big contradiction.
I second this.
-
I second this.
^ Authority or Sovereignity parin ang answer dyan.
He does those things in His Time by His own judgements.
Those "wrath" verses probably is talking about how He goes about acting upon His own brand of Justice.
So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.
Romans 9:18 NASB
omg Tim Michin mention :)
I love this guy, and that is a brilliant, truthful quote.
Not that Truthful for Faith is not blind, it is a strongly warranted confidence. i.e. Reasoned Faith.
-
wala pong contradicting sa mga verses na iyan..
Ang diyos ay makapangyarihan..bukod diyan,marami syang katangian.
if absolute talaga ang nature ng god like sa psalm 145:9-"The Lord is good to all",meaning ba mabait sya kahit sa gumagawa ng masama? if ganyan ang magiging reasoning,then god dont exercise his other qualities like righteousness or love..
When Moses asked God about His name, He replied: “I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be.” (Exodus 3:14) Rotherham’s translation renders it: “I Will Become whatsoever I please.” Gods name reveals that he is a God of innumerable roles. To use a simple illustration: A mother may need to fill many roles each day in caring for her children—as a nurse, a cook, a teacher—according to the need that arises. It is similar with Him, though on a more elevated level. In order to accomplish his loving purpose for mankind, he can become whatever he pleases, filling whatever role is needed. Knowing God by name thus involves understanding and appreciating his many roles..
-
Kung wala sa bible and holy trinity, san ba nagsimula ang Trinity Doctrine? Who incorporated it as a Catholic teaching?
Its not a necessarily a Catholic Teaching.
Out of necessity dati kaya pinagaralan nila nature ng God Head. E.g. pinakamalapit siguro matetrace kaya naformulate based sa Bible ang Trinity is because of the Arians na nagsulputan noon <-- group of people na may belief na created being si Jesus misinterpreting "The Firstborn" of all creation verse etc.
Well google nalang :) kelangan pa magreview hehe.
-
Psalm 145:9 - "The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works."
Jeremiah 13:14 - "And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the Lord: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them."
(not to mention the many instances across the entire Bible where God displays his wrath)
==========
Exodus 15:3 - The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name.
Romans 15:33 - Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.
==========
The biggest contradiction for me in the Bible is whether God is an unmerciful God of destruction, wrath, etc etc or a kind and loving, forgiving God. There are a lot of examples in the Bible that exemplify both, and are stated in the absolute. So in that very nature of God, there is a big contradiction.
No, that is not the "biggest" contradiction in the bible. There are many other verses that are seemingly contradictory and much more difficult to reconcile, yet it will turn out that they are easily reconcilable ater all.
God is merciful and compassionate before He executes His judgment. But those who reject his mercy and compassion will no longer find mercy or compassion when the time for execution of judgment comes.
In the Old Testament, execution of judgment was on this earth. In the New Testament, execution of judgment will be on the last day.
If God's mercy were unlimited, then there should be no hell at all. Anyone faced with hellfire would surely beg for mercy on his knees. Then God with His unlimited mercy would forgive, and nobody would go to hell. If everyone would be forgiven anyway, why fear hell?
Yet there is a limit to God's mercy. In the last day, there will be a final destruction, and God will show no mercy to those condemned to hellfire.
So it's the same thing as in the Old Testament. Mercy to those who would accept it prior to judgment; no mercy to those who would reject it. So, on execution of judgment, no more mercy or compassion.
I can cite apparent contradictions that are much more difficult to answer. But that should be on the main Religion thread.
-
No, that is not the "biggest" contradiction in the bible. There are many other verses that are seemingly contradictory and much more difficult to reconcile, yet it will turn out that they are easily reconcilable ater all.
God is merciful and compassionate before He executes His judgment. But those who reject his mercy and compassion will no longer find mercy or compassion when the time for execution of judgment comes.
In the Old Testament, execution of judgment was on this earth. In the New Testament, execution of judgment will be on the last day.
If God's mercy were unlimited, then there should be no hell at all. Anyone faced with hellfire would surely beg for mecy on his knees. Then God with His unlimited mercy would forgive, and nobody would go to hell. If everyone would be forgiven anyway, why fear hell?
Yet there is a limit to God's mercy. In the last day, there will be a final destruction, and God will show no mercy to those condemned to hellfire.
So it's the same thing as in the Old Testament. Mercy to those who would accept it prior to judgment; no mercy to those who would reject it. So, on execution of judgment, no more mercy or compassion.
I can cite apparent contradictions that are much more difficult to answer. But that should be on the main Religion thread.
Tama. Isipin mo na lang kung absolute ang pagka-merciful niya, ang gulo gulo siguro. Ang magiging reasoning ng tao, magnanakaw na lang ako, hindi na ako magtrabaho because God is merciful.
-
I am shocked that people actually believe the story of Adam and Eve.
+1
I can't believe that the genesis creation story is taken literally, and by a lot of people.
i find nothing wrong with this.
we call it "wisdom" ;)
-
so comes my next question:
To those who believe the Adam and Eve story, do you believe in
1. literal six-day creation; and
2. the "Young Earth" theory which puts the Earth and all its creation at not more than 10,000 years ago?
ibang topic na nga ito bro :)
but to answer your question...
1. literal six day creation
- i believe, but the word "day" in the translation shouldn't be treated as our 24 hour day today.
the "day" in the genesis is a cycle of mornings and evenings which is around 756 million years.
2. the "Young Earth" theory which puts the Earth and all its creation at not more than 10,000 years ago?
- i don't believe. the 6 "day" creation is around 4.45 billion years according to my computation ;)
-
ibang topic na nga ito bro :)
but to answer your question...
1. literal six day creation
- i believe, but the word "day" in the translation shouldn't be treated as our 24 hour day today.
the "day" in the genesis is a cycle of mornings and evenings which is around 756 million years.
2. the "Young Earth" theory which puts the Earth and all its creation at not more than 10,000 years ago?
- i don't believe. the 6 "day" creation is around 4.45 billion years according to my computation ;)
How did you arrive to the conclusion that 1 day = to 756 million years?
-
How did you arrive to the conclusion that 1 day = to 756 million years?
googled the age of the earth and divide it by 6, pero may mali pala. haha :)
eto pala, closest value based on my computation.
1 day = 758,557,606 yrs or ~ 758 million years
so..
6 days = 4,551,345,641 yrs or ~ 4.55 billion years which agrees to the known age of the earth.
how did i arrive with this?
the clue is on creation account itself and with the help of some scientific data.
-
Why don't you just explain it?
-
googled the age of the earth and divide it by 6, pero may mali pala. haha :)
eto pala, closest value based on my computation.
1 day = 758,557,606 yrs or ~ 758 million years
so..
6 days = 4,551,345,641 yrs or ~ 4.55 billion years which agrees to the known age of the earth.
how did i arrive with this?
the clue is on creation account itself and some scientific data.
some scientific data? ???
-
stay on topic please... you can post them (not related to Trinity) in 'The Religion Thread (http://www.pinoydvd.com/index.php/topic,141525.0.html)'....
-
the reason why this thread has become peaceful until now is because religion has got nothing to do with the discussion but the personal beliefs of the members. If the personal beliefs are the same as one's religious beliefs, it is still the personal beliefs that are being discussed.
pag pumasok kasi ang particula religion, chances are gugulo na yan
i just wonder sir, does your personal belief differs from your religious affilation? hindi ko lang po mareconcile yung idea na may taong iba ang paniniwala ksa sa paniniwala ng kanyang sinapiang relihiyon. btw, i think this thread is peaceful not because of religion taken away from the discussion but because we are decent enough to understand that we have different religious or personal beliefs that should be respected.
-
i just wonder sir, does your personal belief differs from your religious affilation? hindi ko lang po mareconcile yung idea na may taong iba ang paniniwala ksa sa paniniwala ng kanyang sinapiang relihiyon. btw, i think this thread is peaceful not because of religion taken away from the discussion but because we are decent enough to understand that we have different religious or personal beliefs that should be respected.
+1000
This thread opened up a lot of thoughts for me. Di ko akalain, daming magagaling sa bible. So as long as it is connected to the topic keep on coming bros?
-
omg Tim Michin mention :)
I love this guy, and that is a brilliant, truthful quote.
hahahahaha. He's brilliant. "Thank you God"
-
To all who believes:
If the Holy Trinity postulates 3 equal Gods which existed co-equally even prior to creation, and Jesus Christ, the God with flesh, is supposed to be God the son, then who was God the son before the birth of Christ?
Thanks to anybody who will respond. :)
who was God the son before the birth of Christ
Heb 1:8But about the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.”e
10He also says,
“In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
11They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
12You will roll them up like a robe;
like a garment they will be changed.
But you remain the same,
and your years will never end.”f
He is the Son who is God and who is Lord.
-
who was God the son before the birth of Christ
Further affirmation who was this Jesus before the birth of Christ.
Psalms 102:
23He has broken my strength in midcourse;
he has shortened my days.
24“O my God,” I say, “take me not away
in the midst of my days—
you whose years endure
throughout all generations!”
25Of old you laid the foundation of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
26They will perish, but you will remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away,
27but you are the same, and your years have no end.
28The children of your servants shall dwell secure;
their offspring shall be established before you.
Heb 1:
8But of the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”
10And,
“You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,
and the heavens are the work of your hands;
11they will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment,
12like a robe you will roll them up,
like a garment they will be changed.a
But you are the same,
and your years will have no end.”
He is the Son who is God and who is Lord.
-
^ may shinare ako na Donya Santibanez meme sa FB regarding sa Heb 1:8 vs. Felix Manalo(screengrab sa FM movie with Dennis Trillo) hehe
Yung Trono pala ang interpretation ng INC na tinatawag na "Diyos" pala diyan eh noh?
-
^ may shinare ako na Donya Santibanez meme sa FB regarding sa Heb 1:8 vs. Felix Manalo(screengrab sa FM movie with Dennis Trillo) hehe
Yung Trono pala ang interpretation ng INC na tinatawag na "Diyos" pala diyan eh noh?
Taken from the Moffat and the Godspeed version..
-
To all who believes:
If the Holy Trinity postulates 3 equal Gods which existed co-equally even prior to creation, and Jesus Christ, the God with flesh, is supposed to be God the son, then who was God the son before the birth of Christ?
Thanks to anybody who will respond. :)
then who was God the son before the birth of Christ?
Old Testament:
Isa 48:
12“Listen to me, Jacob,
Israel, whom I have called:
I am he;
I am the first and I am the last.
Isaiah 44:6“This is what the Lord says—
Israel’s King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty:
I am the first and I am the last;
apart from me there is no God.
New Testament:
Rev 22:12“Look, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what they have done. 13I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
Rev 1:17When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. 18I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.
Rev 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”
Old Testament:
Isa 48:
13My own hand laid the foundations of the earth,
and my right hand spread out the heavens;
when I summon them,
they all stand up together.
New Testament:
8But of the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”
10And,
“You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,
and the heavens are the work of your hands;
11they will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment,
12like a robe you will roll them up,
like a garment they will be changed.a
But you are the same,
and your years will have no end.”
He is the Son who is God and who is Lord.
-
^ may shinare ako na Donya Santibanez meme sa FB regarding sa Heb 1:8 vs. Felix Manalo(screengrab sa FM movie with Dennis Trillo) hehe
Yung Trono pala ang interpretation ng INC na tinatawag na "Diyos" pala diyan eh noh?
Ganon na nga... ;)
Bigyan ko muna ng intro, kasi hindi masasakyan ng ibang members na hindi masyadong mahilig sa relihiyon.
Alam natin na ang INC ay unique na relihiyon sa mga tinatawag ang sarili na "Kristiyano," dahil sa paniniwalang si Kristo ay hindi Diyos, kundi taong-tao lang.
Pag kinontra mo, tatadtarin ka ng mga proof verses nila, na madali lang namang depensahan, pero kung hindi ka sanay sa debate sa bibliya, ay talaga namang matatabunan ka.
Isa sa mga proof verses kontra sa INC, na nagpapatunay na Diyos si Kristo, ay ito:
8 But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom. (Heb. 1:8, NIV)
Madali lang namang intindihin ang sitas. Ang sabi ng Ama sa Anak --- Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever. E di ang tawag ng Ama sa Anak ay Diyos din.
Malaking problema sa INC. Paano nila ngayong sasabihin na hindi Diyos si Kristo?
Ang solusyon ng INC --- mali raw ang translation. Ganito raw ang tamang translation:
he says of the Son, 'God is thy throne for ever and ever, thy royal sceptre is the sceptre of equity (Heb. 1:8, Moffatt)
Ang Diyos daw na tinutukoy ay ang Ama, hindi ang Anak. Ang Ama na Diyos ang siyang trono ng Anak na tao.
Ang lumalabas, inuupuan ng Anak yung Ama. Bastos na Anak pala yon. Biro mo, mas mataas sa kanya ang Ama, pero inupuan lang niya ang Ama... :D
Hindi totoo na tama ang translation ng Heb. 1:8 sa Moffatt Version.
Ang totoo, pag kinumpara sa original Greek, ang Moffatt ang version na mali --- http://biblehub.com/interlinear/hebrews/1.htm (http://biblehub.com/interlinear/hebrews/1.htm)
Kaya nga yung ibang bible versions ay nagkakasundo sa tamang translation --- http://biblehub.com/hebrews/1-8.htm (http://biblehub.com/hebrews/1-8.htm)n
Other versions with the same translation error are the AAT (An American Translation) and NWT (New World Translation).
Moffatt (a one-man translation by James Moffatt); AAT New Testament (another one-man translation by Goodspeed); and NWT (by the Jehovah's Witnesses) are unreliable bible versions.
Heb. 1:8 is a quotation of Psalm 45:6. Notice that Psalm 45:6 says the same thing:
6 Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom. (Psalm 45:6, NIV)
-
nashare ko lang po din sa FB yon habang nangyayari yung pagka"inis" ng mga tao sa INC(actually lets call them INM from now on, apologies to our INC friends) dahil sa Edsa vs De Lima debacle.
-
Ang alam ko, offensive sa kanila yung tawaging INM. Kaya iniiwasan ko ang ganon.
Para sa akin, kung pipintasan sila, dapat may matibay na batayan kung bakit natin sinasabing mali sila. Hindi yung basta sasabihin na weirdo sila sa paniniwalang tao si Kristo. Dapat alam natin ang mga talatang batayan nila, at kaya nating tumapat ng katuwiran sa katuwiran. Otherwise, name-calling lang yon.
As for the INC rally, kita na natin ngayon kung ano ang naging deal sa Malacanang. De Lima will resign early, will file charges against MILF members for the SAF 44 case, and will allow the next DOJ secretary to resolve the cases against the INC Sanggunian.
Sabi ni de Lima prior to the INC rallies, she will resign "early October" (presumably Oct. 11, since CoC filing will be on Oct. 12-16) to file her certificate of candidacy for the senate elections. After the INC ended their rallies, de Lima said it is not true that there was a deal for her early resignation. She later resigned as DOJ secretary on Sept. 24.
Before resigning, she filed charges on Sept 22 against 90 MILF & BIFF members for the SAF 44 case, but did not start preliminary investigations on the INC Sanggunian case.
Di ba ganon nga ang reklamo ng INC, bakit daw inuuna ang INC Sanggunian, samantalang hindi raw nakakasuhan ang MILF?
-
Ganon na nga... ;)
Bigyan ko muna ng intro, kasi hindi masasakyan ng ibang members na hindi masyadong mahilig sa relihiyon.
Alam natin na ang INC ay unique na relihiyon sa mga tinatawag ang sarili na "Kristiyano," dahil sa paniniwalang si Kristo ay hindi Diyos, kundi taong-tao lang.
Pag kinontra mo, tatadtarin ka ng mga proof verses nila, na madali lang namang depensahan, pero kung hindi ka sanay sa debate sa bibliya, ay talaga namang matatabunan ka.
Isa sa mga proof verses kontra sa INC, na nagpapatunay na Diyos si Kristo, ay ito:
8 But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom. (Heb. 1:8, NIV)
Madali lang namang intindihin ang sitas. Ang sabi ng Ama sa Anak --- Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever. E di ang tawag ng Ama sa Anak ay Diyos din.
Malaking problema sa INC. Paano nila ngayong sasabihin na hindi Diyos si Kristo?
Ang solusyon ng INC --- mali raw ang translation. Ganito raw ang tamang translation:
he says of the Son, 'God is thy throne for ever and ever, thy royal sceptre is the sceptre of equity (Heb. 1:8, Moffatt)
Ang Diyos daw na tinutukoy ay ang Ama, hindi ang Anak. Ang Ama na Diyos ang siyang trono ng Anak na tao.
Ang lumalabas, inuupuan ng Anak yung Ama. Bastos na Anak pala yon. Biro mo, mas mataas sa kanya ang Ama, pero inupuan lang niya ang Ama... :D
Hindi totoo na tama ang translation ng Heb. 1:8 sa Moffatt Version.
Ang totoo, pag kinumpara sa original Greek, ang Moffatt ang version na mali --- http://biblehub.com/interlinear/hebrews/1.htm (http://biblehub.com/interlinear/hebrews/1.htm)
Kaya nga yung ibang bible versions ay nagkakasundo sa tamang translation --- http://biblehub.com/hebrews/1-8.htm (http://biblehub.com/hebrews/1-8.htm)n
Other versions with the same translation error are the AAT (An American Translation) and NWT (New World Translation).
Moffatt (a one-man translation by James Moffatt); AAT New Testament (another one-man translation by Goodspeed); and NWT (by the Jehovah's Witnesses) are unreliable bible versions.
Heb. 1:8 is a quotation of Psalm 45:6. Notice that Psalm 45:6 says the same thing:
6 Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom. (Psalm 45:6, NIV)
Thanks for including Psalms 45:6
-
Dealing with Moffat Version of Heb 1:8 granting their explanation about "'God is thy throne for ever and ever" but still verse 10 is resounding. INC will only stop at verse 8 and will not continue upto the last verse of Chapter 1.
8 he says of the Son, 'God is thy throne for ever and ever, thy royal sceptre is the sceptre of equity: 9 thou hast loved justice and hated lawlessness, therefore God, thy God, has consecrated thee with the oil of rejoicing beyond thy comrades' —
10 and, 'Thou didst found the earth at the beginning, O Lord, and the heavens are the work at thy hands; 11 they will perish, but thou remainest, they will all be worn out like a garment, 12 thou wilt roll them up like a mantle and they win be changed, but thou art the same, and thy years will never fail.'
Who has found the earth and who has created the heavens, the Son.
-
INC will also throw Goodspeed version with the same Heb 1:8 argument but skipping verse 10.
Goodspeed:
Heb1:8 But of the Son he says, "God is your throne forever and ever! And a righteous scepter is the scepter of his kingdom!
9 You have loved right and hated wrong! That is why God, your God, has anointed you with exhilarating oil beyond all your comrades."
10 And "You, Lord, in the beginning founded the earth, And the sky is the work of your hands!
11 They will perish, but you continue! And they will all wear out like a coat,
12 And you will fold them up like a mantle, And change them as one changes his coat. But you are always the same, and your years will have no end!"
Moffatt (a one-man translation by James Moffatt); AAT New Testament (another one-man translation by Goodspeed); and NWT (by the Jehovah's Witnesses) are unreliable bible versions.
even unreliable bible version cannot escape the fact that Jesus is Lord and Jesus is Creator.
-
What should have been the intention of the creator why he has made himself just like the form of his creation and not explain this very clearly, which as a result is creating the divisiveness of his creations?
-
Can you give an example? I might have misunderstood.
You mean the bible does not explain clearly that the Son is God?
-
What should have been the intention of the creator why he has made himself just like the form of his creation and not explain this very clearly, which as a result is creating the divisiveness of his creations?
Can you give an example? I might have misunderstood.
You mean the bible does not explain clearly that the Son is God?
I think what sir Jerix meant was why God (creator) has to become a man (just like the form of His creation).
-
I think what sir Jerix meant was why God (creator) has to become a man (just like the form of His creation).
If so, then I can't answer him. That's because I disagree with his premise.
His premise is already based on a belief in either Trinitarianism or Unitarianism, but I don't believe in either doctrine.
-
I have to make this clear so that theologians here can answer.
There has always been a division among the Christians so that while some believe that Jesus is man, the others believe that Jesus is God. The basis of those belief is the bible and this is the only known basis of the faith. The bible has been the source of the division of Christians. It seems to me that this was not anticipated by the creator to whom we Christians address the faith. I believe it is not the intention of God that he be misunderstood. Because i think in the end he wants all of us to go back to him clean, unless what i am thinking is wrong. So why did he not talk and explain clearly before about his true nature and avoid confusion?
Does it really matter for him if some would consider him God and some consider him man only? or some would consider him 3 in 1, etc.?
-
I disagree with that view.
The bible explains that Jesus Christ is God. Any confusion about Jesus' nature is not sourced from a correct understanding of scripture.
It is true that it is not plainly stated for everyone to easily understand, but that is God's intention --- not because He did not anticipate the confusion, but because His word was not intended for outsiders:
‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’ 10 Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed. (Is. 6:9-10)
11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. 14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: “‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. 15 For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’ (Mt. 13:11-15)
=======================================
Give us one bible citation that you think best proves Jesus Christ is not God, and I'll explain why it does not disprove His divinity.
It's not a challenge. I know that you have a neutral stand on this issue. I just want to show you that there is no confusion in the bible about Jesus Christ's nature.
-
This topic has been debated for centuries by theologians, philosophers and plebeans alike. Questions galore ad infinitum et ad nauseum. Never has there been a conclusion while every answer only led to more questions. But indeed why not? Thinking sets us apart from animals. :)
-
Nothing unusual there. There are many other biblical issues that will never find unanimous agreement.
In this forum, nobody has ever changed his mind about his religious beliefs just because somebody posted a contrary explanation. That's expected.
Existence of God lang nga hindi pa magkasundo, nature of Jesus Christ pa kaya ang mapagkasunduan... :D
-
I disagree with that view.
The bible explains that Jesus Christ is God. Any confusion about Jesus' nature is not sourced from a correct understanding of scripture.
It is true that it is not plainly stated for everyone to easily understand, but that is God's intention --- not because He did not anticipate the confusion, but because His word was not intended for outsiders:
This is the question i have always been thinking, if he perfectly created man into his image what is the role of these OUTSIDERS in his own world? Did he create lemons?Apparently, he only gave the knowledge and wisdom of the secrets of his kingdom to the few. It appears that we have a very bias God. He created man with predestined faith; those chosen and those that would go to hell.
This is the reason why i do not have the intention to join any religious group today. I believe that it would be best for my spirit just to believe the existence of a God who will judge me based on what I do to my fellowmen. I just believe that karma would dictate my spiritual fate and not the religion that i belong in this lifetime.
-
This is the question i have always been thinking, if he perfectly created man into his image what is the role of these OUTSIDERS in his own world? Did he create lemons?Apparently, he only gave the knowledge and wisdom of the secrets of his kingdom to the few.
The outsiders are those who do not believe. God did not create the outsiders; they themselves by their own free will chose to be outsiders.
God did not give the knowledge to a few that He pre-selected. He gave the knowledge to the few who by their own free will chose to believe.
It appears that we have a very bias God. He created man with predestined faith; those chosen and those that would go to hell.
God created man with free will. He did not create man with predestined faith. Nobody is predestined to heaven or to hell. Predestination is a false doctrine of Calvinism. It did not come from the bible. Filipinos learned this Calvinism nonsense from the American Baptists.
Yes, God is biased. His bias is in favor of those who believe and against those who don't believe. That's based on man's free will.
This is the reason why i do not have the intention to join any religious group today. I believe that it would be best for my spirit just to believe the existence of a God who will judge me based on what I do to my fellowmen. I just believe that karma would dictate my spiritual fate and not the religion that i belong in this lifetime.
I am not a member of any religious denomination either. That's because all of the sects that I have studied always have some doctrines that conflict with my understanding of the bible.
You will not understand the bible if you are not interested in the bible. I said the bible explains that Jesus is God, but you did not ask me to cite any verse explaining that Jesus is God. I asked you to give a citation saying Jesus is not God, but you did not even make an attempt to do so.
But that's OK. Your lack of interest is the result your free choice. You're free to believe or not to believe.
-
These so called OUTSIDERS i believe do not intend to be so. In fact all believers of Jesus intend to serve him the way they believe would be for the glory of the Christ. In fact nobody can claim authority to say that one is an outsider or not. It would only be the Christ himself who would judge. But all these Christ believers predict that it is them who would be saved by the Christ. So in the belief of a particular group, all those not in the group are outsiders or are not the chosen. If all religious group think that they are the chosen, then no one will go to hell. On the other hand, if all religious groups think that all of those who are outside their group will go to hell, then no one would be saved.
I cannot cite any particular bible verse to support any doctrine I seem to stand for, other than what the different groups cite, which appear logical to me. There are some thoughts I have which are not supported by bible verses. Maybe because of the limitations of the bible, such as the translation, or even the origin of these scriptures.
-
Of course they did not intend to be outsiders. Why would anyone who wants salvation also want to be an outsider to salvation?
The way I see it, there are 2 alternatives. Either believe the bible is the word of God, or don't believe the bible is the word of God.
If you think it is not possible to understand the bible or to ascertain the authenticity of scripture, then you should not believe the bible is the word of God.
Because if the bible is indeed God's word, then God should have made sure that it would be possible to ascertain its authenticity and understand His word. Otherwise, it would be nonsensical for God to reveal Himself through something that would not be possible for anyone to understand.
Therefore, if the bible cannot be understood, then it must have been authored by man and not by God.
And if you don't believe the bible is the word of God, that's your free choice, and I respect that viewpoint.
-
These so called OUTSIDERS i believe do not intend to be so. In fact all believers of Jesus intend to serve him the way they believe would be for the glory of the Christ. In fact nobody can claim authority to say that one is an outsider or not. It would only be the Christ himself who would judge. But all these Christ believers predict that it is them who would be saved by the Christ. So in the belief of a particular group, all those not in the group are outsiders or are not the chosen. If all religious group think that they are the chosen, then no one will go to hell. On the other hand, if all religious groups think that all of those who are outside their group will go to hell, then no one would be saved.
I cannot cite any particular bible verse to support any doctrine I seem to stand for, other than what the different groups cite, which appear logical to me. There are some thoughts I have which are not supported by bible verses. Maybe because of the limitations of the bible, such as the translation, or even the origin of these scriptures.
The reason I posted elsewhere to seek Christ not religion.
What is your position in the sight of God can only be answer by you.
Being a member of any religion will not give you assurance of salvation. It is only through Christ.
Yes, you cannot judge a person if he will go to hell simply because you don't know what God is doing in his life.
Take note "‘Salvation comes from the Lord.’ ”
-
^ but then a question will now "pop up" like "who" and "what"(nature) of the true Lord is.
And is the knowledge of it important for the individuals/corporate salvation?
-
^ but then a question will now "pop up" like "who" and "what"(nature) of the true Lord is.
And is the knowledge of it important for the individuals/corporate salvation?
It's about salvation. People wanting it should at least know what they're getting themselves into.
-
^ Sad but true, people seek salvation not the Saviour :(
-
^ Sad but true, people seek salvation not the Saviour :(
I thought you believe in predestination? ie, no need to seek, it'll come eventually.
-
As a Trinitarian though imo the ignorance of the technicalities by those who has not studied is ok but having contradictory beliefs is whats dangerous. :)
anyway...
-
I thought you believe in predestination? ie, no need to seek, it'll come eventually.
yes, predestination :
Act 15:14Simona has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16“ ‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’b —
18things known from long ago.c
-
^ but then a question will now "pop up" like "who" and "what"(nature) of the true Lord is.
And is the knowledge of it important for the individuals/corporate salvation?
The nature of Christ has relevance to salvation, although the relevance is indirect.
For example, if you believe Christ is only man, and the bible says you should not trust man, then you should not trust Christ:
Cursed is the one who trusts in man (Jer. 17:5)
Do not trust in princes, In mortal man, in whom there is no salvation. (Ps. 146:3)
Therefore, you should not trust Christ for salvation, because you will be cursed if you trust in mortal man, in whom there is no salvation.
======================================
Sabi ni Oprah Winfrey, there are many ways to God: “One of the mistakes that human beings make is believing that there is only one way to live... there are many paths to what you call God.”
But the bible says there is only one way to God:
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (Jn. 14:6)
If Jesus is a man, and the bible says we should not trust in mortal man, then it cannot be true that Christ is the only way to salvation.
Whom do we believe? Just take Oprah's New Age advice and do whatever you think is right.
What do we do with the bible? OK naman pala ang kahit anong tingin mong tama, e di itapon mo na rin ang bibliya mo... :D
-
^ nasulat na rin:
Pro 14:12There is a way that appears to be right, but in the end it leads to death.
-
yes, predestination :
So you're contradicting yourself?
-
Of course they did not intend to be outsiders. Why would anyone who wants salvation also want to be an outsider to salvation?
The way I see it, there are 2 alternatives. Either believe the bible is the word of God, or don't believe the bible is the word of God.
If you think it is not possible to understand the bible or to ascertain the authenticity of scripture, then you should not believe the bible is the word of God.
Because if the bible is indeed God's word, then God should have made sure that it would be possible to ascertain authenticity and understand His word. Otherwise, it would be nonsensical for God to reveal Himself through something that would not be possible for anyone to understand.
Therefore, if the bible cannot be understood, then it must have been authored by man and not by God.
And if you don't believe the bible is the word of God, that's your free choice, and I respect that viewpoint.
The bible has been well understood because everybody claims understanding of it, but the irony is the fact that such understanding did not result into harmony but a war among religions and groups in this Christian world of ours. If the knowledge and wisdom comes from the God who created man, what happened? Following the bible idea that those that are not chosen will burn in hell, do you think God will be happy to see 99% of his creations, created into his image and likeness burning in hell forever?
-
The bible has been well understood because everybody claims understanding of it, but the irony is the fact that such understanding did not result into harmony but a war among religions and groups in this Christian world of ours. If the knowledge and wisdom comes from the God who created man, what happened? Following the bible idea that those that are not chosen will burn in hell, do you think God will be happy to see 99% of his creations, created into his image and likeness burning in hell forever?
To all who believes:
If the Holy Trinity postulates 3 equal Gods which existed co-equally even prior to creation, and Jesus Christ, the God with flesh, is supposed to be God the son, then who was God the son before the birth of Christ?
Thanks to anybody who will respond. :)
Before going any further, let us focus to your question on the first post.
According to the Father who was Jesus before:
Hebrew 1 NIV
8But of the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”
10And,
“You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,
and the heavens are the work of your hands;
11they will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment,
12like a robe you will roll them up,
like a garment they will be changed.a
But you are the same,
and your years will have no end.”
Hinde ba maliwanag ang sinabe ng AMA diyan sa talatang iyan kung sino ang ANAK. Kailangan pa ba ng malalim na interpretasyon para maintindihan.
Just read it plainly, Ano ba ang patotoo ng AMA sa ANAK?
-
Sa Tagalog na lang, Ano ba ang sabi ng AMA sa ANAK:
8Nguni't tungkol sa Anak ay sinasabi, Ang iyong luklukan, Oh Dios, ay magpakailan man; At ang setro ng katuwiran ay siyang setro ng iyong kaharian.
9Inibig mo ang katuwiran, at kinapootan mo ang kasamaan; Kaya't ang Dios, ang Dios mo, ay nagbuhos sa inyo, Ng langis ng kasayahang higit sa iyong mga kasamahan.
10At, Ikaw, Panginoon, nang pasimula'y inilagay mo ang kinasasaligan ng lupa, At ang mga langit ay mga gawa ng iyong mga kamay:
11Sila'y mangapapahamak; datapuwa't ikaw ay nananatili: At silang lahat ay mangalulumang gaya ng isang kasuutan;
12At gaya ng isang balabal sila'y iyong bibilutin, At sila'y mapapalitang gaya ng kasuutan: Nguni't ikaw ay ikaw rin, At ang iyong mga taon ay di matatapos.
Di ba maliwanag ang sinabe ng AMA sa ANAK?
May mga relihiyon at sa kanilang interpretasyon pinapabulaan ang sinabe ng AMA sa ANAK.
-
The bible has been well understood because everybody claims understanding of it, but the irony is the fact that such understanding did not result into harmony but a war among religions and groups in this Christian world of ours. If the knowledge and wisdom comes from the God who created man, what happened? Following the bible idea that those that are not chosen will burn in hell, do you think God will be happy to see 99% of his creations, created into his image and likeness burning in hell forever?
You say the bible has been well-understood simply because everybody claims to understand it? That doesn't make sense. A self-serving claim does not make the claim true.
No, the bible has not been well-understood. Different denominational sects have different, contradictory interpretations. They can't all be right. How can two contradictory interpretations be both correct? One of them is right and the other is wrong, or they are both wrong. But they can't be both right.
The number of those who will be saved is up to man's free will. God wants all to be saved, but He will not interfere with man's free will. If man refuses to follow Him, it's man's failure, not God's.
During the time of Noah, God drowned all humanity except eight persons. I don't see any problem with that, because it was their own free choice that brought them to that end. Noah was a prophet who warned them to repent or die in the coming flood, but they did not listen.
But on judgment day, it will not be only eight. There will be so many that they will be 144,000 plus a multitude that no one can count.
4 Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.
9 After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. (Rev. 7:4, 9)
-
I think what Jerix meant sa "outsiders" would be those who were not yet aware of Jesus kaya:
they do not intend to be so.
If that is the case, then kaya tayo may Great Commission to spread the gospel for salvation.
-
Just imagine if there is no Bible... mas malala ang mangyayari... :(:(:( there will be no guide, reference, or special revelation on the will of God. there will be Good News.
nangyari lamang na, the "enemy", use the same text to confuse more our minds.
-
Just imagine if there is no Bible... mas malala ang mangyayari... :(:(:( there will be no guide, reference, or special revelation on the will of God. there will be Good News.
That's easy. Hindi naman Bible pinag-mulan ng code of conduct ng sibilisasyon e. Nakakagulo pa nga yung Bible e, ang daming interpretasyon.
-
That's easy. Hindi naman Bible pinag-mulan ng code of conduct ng sibilisasyon e. Nakakagulo pa nga yung Bible e, ang daming interpretasyon.
ahh ok...
well... i always refer Bible as Word of God, vice versa.
ulitin ko lang...
Just imagine if there is no Word of God... mas malala ang mangyayari... there will be no guide, reference, or special revelation on the will of God. there will be no Good News.
by the way... i am not referring specifically sa "code of conduct"... it is more on revelation of God ng kanyang perfect plan of salvation.
-
Wala namang proof na may God nga e. Belief lang natin yun.
-
Wala namang proof na may God nga e. Belief lang natin yun.
yup. and i am not proving that God exist sa ni post ko. :) i am simply declaring my belife that the BIble is the Word of God, vice versa.
-
^Then why are you asking people to imagine a world without a Bible, when it's only your belief?
-
the same as telling/asking people to belive in God when it is my only belief.
"just imagine if there is no God... so on and so forth"
i am posting under thread of Holy Trinity, so i assume we all believe here in the Bible. and if not, well maybe my post is not intended for him/her.
-
i am posting under thread of Holy Trinity, so i assume we all believe here in the Bible. and if not, well maybe my post is not intended for him/her.
Not necessarily. Hindi mo naman kailangan maniwala sa Bible para ma-discuss ito e.
-
Not necessarily. Hindi mo naman kailangan maniwala sa Bible para ma-discuss ito e.
ah ok...
well, my only reference of my belief on God and His plan of salvation is the Bible...
thus...
just imagine if there is no Bible... there will be no Good News to share... there will be no Gospel to spread to all nations... the only hope of every nation is the Word of God...
That's easy. Hindi naman Bible pinag-mulan ng code of conduct ng sibilisasyon e. Nakakagulo pa nga yung Bible e, ang daming interpretasyon.
in reply
nangyari lamang na, the "enemy", use the same text to confuse more our minds.
-
Again, it's easy to imagine. As to the "enemy", how are you sure you are not it? ;D
-
Again, it's easy to imagine. As to the "enemy", how are you sure you are not it? ;D
well, of course, i am not 'it', since i am human :)
one thing na natutunan ko by heart noong naging college na ako... "he/she" is different from "it" ;D
-
well, of course, i am not 'it', since i am human :)
one thing na natutunan ko by heart noong naging college na ako... "he/she" is different from "it" ;D
"Enemy" is gender neutral so "it" works. And again, how are you not the "enemy"?
-
oh... di mo pala nagets sorry... when i say "enemy" i refer to "Satan" pala...
so you're asking me if i am "Satan" or not? or you're asking me if isa ako sa nadeceive ni "Satan"
-
oh... di mo pala nagets sorry... when i say "enemy" i refer to "Satan" pala...
so you're asking me if i am "Satan" or not? or you're asking me if isa ako sa nadeceive ni "Satan"
Let's go with the latter.
-
Let's go with the latter.
i am not.
-
How are you not?
-
I think what Jerix meant sa "outsiders" would be those who were not yet aware of Jesus kaya:
If that is the case, then kaya tayo may Great Commission to spread the gospel for salvation.
Being aware of Jesus is no assurance that a person will be part of the flock and no longer an outsider.
Dito na lang sa pinoydvd, is there anyone here who is not yet aware of Jesus?
During Jesus' time, there were those who were not only aware of Jesus, they even saw Him face to face and became His disciples, yet they still turned away:
66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. (John 6:66)
Face to face na nga kay Hesus at disipulo pa Niya, umayaw pa rin. Yun pa kayang awareness lang ang meron kay Hesus ang hindi umayaw?
That is because the word of God is not intended to be understood by everyone. It is intended to be understood only by those who believe. That is why the bible says the Gospel is veiled to those who refuse to believe:
3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. (2 Cor. 4:3-4)
I'm sure you have experienced it many times. Evangelize all you want, until you are blue in the face, and they still won't believe. That's why Jesus explained:
31 He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ (Luke 16:31)
That's why I keep saying, don't believe in the bible if you don't want to. Wala namang pilitan yan e. ;)
-
I think here, people are aware about Jesus, it is only how they know Jesus matters; the reason why the question below about Jesus is being asked.
The first post is more about a question about Jesus not merely about Trinity.
To all who believes:
If the Holy Trinity postulates 3 equal Gods which existed co-equally even prior to creation, and Jesus Christ, the God with flesh, is supposed to be God the son, then who was God the son before the birth of Christ?
Thanks to anybody who will respond. :)
-
Wala namang proof na may God nga e. Belief lang natin yun.
Sa panahon ni Moses meron and He did appear:
Exo 33:21Then the Lord said, “There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. 22When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 23Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.”
Jesus while on earth:
John 1:18No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side,f he has made him known.
It is not merely belief but there are witnesses who have testified, ayaw lang natin maniwala gaya ng posting ni barrister:
31 He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ (Luke 16:31)
They have seen Jesus, the only God (John1:18) face to face ayaw pang maniwala, e paano sa panahon ngayon na inde natin nakikita si Jesus?
-
Sa panahon ni Moses meron and He did appear:
Kung kasambahay namin dati, nakakita raw ng tikbalang. Does that mean totoo tikbalang?
-
Kung kasambahay namin dati, nakakita raw ng tikbalang. Does that mean totoo tikbalang?
San sa Bible yun tikbalang?
-
Kung kasambahay namin dati, nakakita raw ng tikbalang. Does that mean totoo tikbalang?
Kaya nga ito ang sinabe:
31 He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ (Luke 16:31)
-
Kaya nga ito ang sinabe:
31 He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ (Luke 16:31)
Sinabi rin ng kasambahay ko yan e. "Maniwala ka sa akin, di ako nagbibiro."
-
Sinabi rin ng kasambahay ko yan e. "Maniwala ka sa akin, di ako nagbibiro."
Meron naman Bible verse reference....yun sa kasambahay mo meron din ba?
-
Ang wika, "if they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets."
Hindi sinabing "if they do not listen to yaya" ... ;)
-
Nakaka bobo naman ng discussion yun rebuttal. Ok pa sana if pumirma si yaya ng notarized witness affidavit man lang para may official document as basis if wala sa Bible. ;D Para may konting credibility.
-
Sinabi rin ng kasambahay ko yan e. "Maniwala ka sa akin, di ako nagbibiro."
Siguro naman kung magluto ang kasambahay mo at wala ka doon, pagka-uwe mo ay kumain ka at sinabe ng kasambahay mo "Ako ang nagluto niyan maniwala ka sa akin, di ako nagbibiro".
O kung maglinis siya ng bahay at sinabe niya "ako ang naglinis niyan, maniwala ka sa akin" inde ka rin maniniwala.
-
Nakaka bobo naman ng discussion yun rebuttal. Ok pa sana if pumirma si yaya ng notarized witness affidavit man lang para may official document as basis if wala sa Bible. ;D Para may konting credibility.
Wala ka namang pananampalataya sir...
(http://www.abante.com.ph/panel/_files/modbuild/wp-images/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/f4046_yaya-dub-002-400.jpg)
Biro mo, si Propeta Yaya, pinapirma mo ng affidavit? :D
-
Biro mo, si Propeta Yaya, pinapirma mo ng affidavit? :D
Hahaha! Ayan na nga ba sinasabi ko eh...nawala na yun seriousness ng discussion kasi nga napasukan ni yaya! ;D
-
Halos lahat na ng mga thread pinasok na ng ALDUB. Pati ba naman trinity thread may aldub pa rin?
-
Halos lahat na ng mga thread pinasok na ng ALDUB. Pati ba naman trinity thread may aldub pa rin?
aldub trinity:
(https://fbcdn-photos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xat1/v/t1.0-0/s526x395/11951144_420545444736905_8740282780096509248_n.jpg?oh=f86a0a4f081ded33cf8a40b84c6092c3&oe=56A95770&__gda__=1452885516_3dc8a4f4b5191f516c4a92d371a523cf)
-
^hahaha dapat sa Joke of the day thread yan!
-
Siguro naman kung magluto ang kasambahay mo at wala ka doon, pagka-uwe mo ay kumain ka at sinabe ng kasambahay mo "Ako ang nagluto niyan maniwala ka sa akin, di ako nagbibiro".
O kung maglinis siya ng bahay at sinabe niya "ako ang naglinis niyan, maniwala ka sa akin" inde ka rin maniniwala.
Pwede naman kasing sya nga ang nagluto at sya rin ang naglinis. She exists e. Dati na nyang ginawa yun at nakita kong ginawa nya. E, si God, nakita mo? Nakausap mo?
-
Pwede naman kasing sya nga ang nagluto at sya rin ang naglinis. She exists e. Dati na nyang ginawa yun at nakita kong ginawa nya. E, si God, nakita mo? Nakausap mo?
balik uli tayo rito:
31 He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ (Luke 16:31)
-
Pwede naman kasing sya nga ang nagluto at sya rin ang naglinis. She exists e. Dati na nyang ginawa yun at nakita kong ginawa nya. E, si God, nakita mo? Nakausap mo?
Kahit pa sabihin ko na nakita ko at nakausap ko at sabihin ko sa iyo "Maniwala ka sa akin, di ako nagbibiro." maniniwala ka ba?
Kung ang kasambahay mo na kasakasama mo inde mo paniwalaan ako pa kaya?
Kahit pa may patay na nabuhay para sabihin sa iyo na may Dios maniniawala ka kaya?
at muli:
31 He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ (Luke 16:31)
-
Pwede naman kasing sya nga ang nagluto at sya rin ang naglinis. She exists e. Dati na nyang ginawa yun at nakita kong ginawa nya. E, si God, nakita mo? Nakausap mo?
Sino ba naman maniniwala kung totoo yung Hangin (wind, air) eh hindi mo nakikita.
-
Kahit pa sabihin ko na nakita ko at nakausap ko at sabihin ko sa iyo "Maniwala ka sa akin, di ako nagbibiro." maniniwala ka ba?
Kung ang kasambahay mo na kasakasama mo inde mo paniwalaan ako pa kaya?
Simple lang yan. Patunayan mo.
-
Sino ba naman maniniwala kung totoo yung Hangin (wind, air) eh hindi mo nakikita.
San galing yan, going bulilit?
-
Simple lang yan. Patunayan mo.
yung tikbalang?
-
San galing yan, going bulilit?
Naniniwala ka bang may hangin, nakita mo na ba ito?
-
yung tikbalang?
Kay kasambahay yan. Si God ang patunayan mo.
-
The discussion has gone to the dogs na with the introduction of yaya, tikbalang, and goin bulilit. ;D :D
-
Kahit pa sabihin ko na nakita ko at nakausap ko at sabihin ko sa iyo "Maniwala ka sa akin, di ako nagbibiro." maniniwala ka ba?
Kung ang kasambahay mo na kasakasama mo inde mo paniwalaan ako pa kaya?
Kahit pa may patay na nabuhay para sabihin sa iyo na may Dios maniniawala ka kaya?
at muli:
31 He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ (Luke 16:31)
Tama ka sir. Ang simpleng meaning ng sitas ay ganito--- kung ayaw nilang maniwala, e di wag. :D
Kay Moises at propeta, hindi ka naniwala, hindi ka rin maniniwala kahit mabuhay ang patay. Sa salita ni yaya, maniwala ka ba? E di lalong hindi.
Ganito ang context ng sitas:
27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’” (Luke 16:27-31)
Ang request ng rich man kay Abraham, resurrect Lazarus from the dead and send him to his five brothers, so that the brothers will be warned and repent.
Ang sabi ni Abraham, useless lang na pabalikin pa si Lazarus, hindi rin maniniwala ang mga kapatid mo. Kung hindi sila naniwala kay Moises at mga propeta, hindi rin maniniwala yan kahit bumalik pa sa patay si Lazaro.
In other words, ang sabi ni Kristo sa kanyang kuwento, kung ayaw nilang maniwala, problema na nila yon.
Kaya nga ang sabi sa Apokalipsis, yung mga masasama, hayaan mo silang magpakasama:
11 Let the one who does wrong continue to do wrong; let the vile person continue to be vile; let the one who does right continue to do right; and let the holy person continue to be holy.” (Rev. 2:11)
Ang akala kasi ng marami, hindi ka pababayaan ng Diyos. Hindi ganon yon. Ang tama, may panahon sa buhay mo na pababayaan ka ng Diyos:
1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from my cries of anguish? 2 My God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer, by night, but I find no rest. (Ps. 22:1-2)
(Trivia - In Mt. 27:46, why does Jesus quote Ps. 22:1?)
-
Kay kasambahay yan. Si God ang patunayan mo.
sinabe sa aken ng Dios sa pamamagitan ng Kanyang salita na may night and day. Naniniwala ka ba na may night and day?
Sinabe rin niya sa aken sa pamamagitan ng Kasulatan na may evening at morning. Naniniwala ka ba na may evening at morning?
Gen 1:3And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
-
Tama ka sir. Ang simpleng meaning ng sitas ay ganito--- kung ayaw nilang maniwala, e di wag. :D
Kay Moises at propeta, hindi ka naniwala, hindi ka rin maniniwala kahit mabuhay ang patay. Sa salita ay yaya, maniwala ka ba? E di lalong hindi.
Ganito ang context ng sitas:
27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’” (Luke 16:27-31)
Ang request ng rich man kay Abraham, resurrect Lazarus from the dead and send him to his five brothers, so that the brothers will be warned and repent.
Ang sabi ni Abraham, useless lang na pabalikin pa si Lazarus, hindi rin maniniwala ang mga kapatid mo. Kung hindi sila naniwala kay Moises at mga propeta, hindi rin maniniwala yan kahit bumalik pa sa patay si Lazaro.
In other words, ang sabi ni Kristo sa kanyang kuwento, kung ayaw nilang maniwala, problema na nila yon.
Kaya nga ang sabi sa Apokalipsis, yung mga masasama, hayaan mo silang magpakasama:
11 Let the one who does wrong continue to do wrong; let the vile person continue to be vile; let the one who does right continue to do right; and let the holy person continue to be holy.” (Rev. 2:11)
Ang akala kasi ng marami, hindi ka pababayaan ng Diyos. Hindi ganon yon. Ang tama, may panahon sa buhay mo na pababayaan ka ng Diyos:
1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from my cries of anguish? 2 My God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer, by night, but I find no rest. (Ps. 22:1-2)
(Trivia - In Mt. 27:46, why does Jesus quote Ps. 22:1?)
I agree.. :)
-
sinabe sa aken ng Dios sa pamamagitan ng Kanyang salita na may night and day. Naniniwala ka ba na may night and day?
Sinabe rin niya sa aken sa pamamagitan ng Kasulatan na may evening at morning. Naniniwala ka ba na may evening at morning?
Gen 1:3And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
Sinong nagsabi na salita ng Diyos ang Bible? Bible rin? Nakikita mo na ba yung flaw sa logic mo? O hindi pa rin?
-
Sinong nagsabi na salita ng Diyos ang Bible? Bible rin? Nakikita mo na ba yung flaw sa logic mo? O hindi pa rin?
yung nga ang sinabe ng Dios sa aken, "Maniwala ka sa akin, di ako nagbibiro"
-
yung nga ang sinabe ng Dios sa aken, "Maniwala ka sa akin, di ako nagbibiro"
Prove it nga. Pa notaryo mo raw.
-
Prove it nga. Pa notaryo mo raw.
Semi-practicing Catholic ka pa ng lagay na yan ha. Baka naman atheist ka? ;D
-
Prove it nga. Pa notaryo mo raw.
ikaw na lang magpa notaryo nitong nasa baba:
sinabe sa aken ng Dios sa pamamagitan ng Kanyang salita na may night and day. Naniniwala ka ba na may night and day?
Sinabe rin niya sa aken sa pamamagitan ng Kasulatan na may evening at morning. Naniniwala ka ba na may evening at morning?
Gen 1:3And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
-
^pwede na siguro mga 4 copies, para isa sa ken , isa sa iyo at yung dalawa para sa 2 witneseses para valid yung 2 testimony ng mga witnesses..
mag meet-up na lang tayo pag na notaryo mo na ha...
-
Wala ka palang proof e. Pinahaba mo pa.
-
Wala ka palang proof e. Pinahaba mo pa.
Nasabi ko na inde ka maniawala. Isinama ko na rin yung verse na sinabe sa aken inde ka rin maniwala.
Ito lang naman ang kakahinatnan ng inde naniniwala sa Dios at may Dios:
Rev 21:8But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”
Eto lang naman ang sinabe ni Jesus Christ "29Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”"
Ayaw kang maniwala dito punta mo "—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”"
At inde ako mag-aalinlangang sabihin iyan.
sabi ni Jesus Christ "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell."
-
After the destruction of the soul in that lake of burning sulfur, what will happen to the soul that was created by God into his likeness and image, will it cease to be soul? meaning will it turn into something else, as in another matter or entity?
-
After the destruction of the soul in that lake of burning sulfur, what will happen to the soul that was created by God into his likeness and image, will it cease to be soul? meaning will it turn into something else, as in another matter or entity?
eto yung isa sa picture eh:
Luke 16:24So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’
-
PTrader talk layman please...i dont get your answer ;)
-
PTrader talk layman please...i dont get your answer ;)
eto yung buong storya:
Luke 16:
19“There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day.20At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores21and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
22“The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried.23In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side.24So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’
25“But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony.26And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’
27“He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family,28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
29“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
30“ ‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
31“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ ”
Based from the verse below, yung tao will not have any good things to experience puro bad things:
25“But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony
no happiness, no joy, puro sorrow, sa madling salita walang kabuhay buhay, miserable, walang enjoyment (this is my own opinion)...
naghahanap ka ng comfort walang comfort, naghahanap ka ng kapahingahan walang rest, wlang katapusang paghihirap ng kalooban...
-
Nasabi ko na inde ka maniawala. Isinama ko na rin yung verse na sinabe sa aken inde ka rin maniwala.
Ito lang naman ang kakahinatnan ng inde naniniwala sa Dios at may Dios:
Rev 21:8But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”
Eto lang naman ang sinabe ni Jesus Christ "29Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”"
Ayaw kang maniwala dito punta mo "—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”"
At inde ako mag-aalinlangang sabihin iyan.
sabi ni Jesus Christ "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell."
maniniwala naman akong nakausap mo si god basta ma prove mo e. Kung ayaw mong panotaryo, kahit post ka na lang ng pics.
Btw, those verses you cited, they assume free will. Pano na predestination nyan?
-
maniniwala naman akong nakausap mo si god basta ma prove mo e. Kung ayaw mong panotaryo, kahit post ka na lang ng pics.
Btw, those verses you cited, they assume free will. Pano na predestination nyan?
pahiramin mo muna ako ng camera na kayang i-capture yung unseen, tapos ipadala ko sa iyo yung pics.
-
^ the good news is this "blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
basta ba may ipapahiram kang camera na makaka-capture ng inde nakikita.
-
To all who believes:
If the Holy Trinity postulates 3 equal Gods which existed co-equally even prior to creation, and Jesus Christ, the God with flesh, is supposed to be God the son, then who was God the son before the birth of Christ?
Thanks to anybody who will respond. :)
Balik sa tanong about Jesus:
before the birth of Christ ito yung sinabe ng AMA :
Hebrew 1 NIV
8But of the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”
10And,
“You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,
and the heavens are the work of your hands;
11they will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment,
12like a robe you will roll them up,
like a garment they will be changed.a
But you are the same,
and your years will have no end.”
After the birth:
Eto naman yung pinahayag nag isang tao ngalan ay Tomas.
John 20:28Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
Very much consistent kung sino ang Anak before and after the birth.
Jesus is the Son, who is God and who is Lord.
-
After the destruction of the soul in that lake of burning sulfur, what will happen to the soul that was created by God into his likeness and image, will it cease to be soul? meaning will it turn into something else, as in another matter or entity?
They die, they are consumed, they become ashes. They cease to exist. They do not transform into a new entity.
“Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble, and the day that is coming will set them on fire,” says the Lord Almighty. “Not a root or a branch will be left to them. 2 But for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its rays. And you will go out and frolic like well-fed calves. 3 Then you will trample on the wicked; they will be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day when I act,” says the Lord Almighty. (Mal. 4:1-3)
-
^ the good news is this "blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Narinig ko na yan e. Last resort ka na ba?
-
nagegets ko point ni sir bumblebee. paano mo nga naman papatunayan ang existence ni God (christian god) or legitimacy ng Bible by using the Bible itself.
Halimbawa, ang pagpapatunay ng mga mormons sa book of mormon by stating na totoo sya kasi isinasaad na totoo sya sa book of mormon itself. and for sure may mga verses din sa book na yun about those who do not believe will be punished and blessing those who believe.
-
Ilang beses ko na ring sinabi yan. That is called the fallacy of circular reasoning:
This is circular reasoning: "The bible says God exists. Therefore, God exists."
To prove that God exists, the statement starts with the premise that the bible is the word of God. The premise already presumes that God exists, then the conclusion says God exists.
The starting point is the same as the end result. Circular reasoning.
But in this thread, nobody is proposing to prove the existence of God by evidence.
The title of this thread is "Question on the Holy Trinity." Therefore, the existence of God is a premise that is already agreed. Otherwise, how can you even begin to discuss the Holy Trinity if you don't believe that God exists.
===================================
Dito lang naman nag-umpisa ang topic na proof of God:
Wala namang proof na may God nga e. Belief lang natin yun.
yup. and i am not proving that God exist sa ni post ko. :) i am simply declaring my belife that the BIble is the Word of God, vice versa.
=================================
As I have repeatedly stated, I do not believe it is possible to prove the existence of God:
I believe God exists, but I don't believe it's possible to prove God exists. Therefore, my belief in the existence of God is based on faith, not evidence.
That is why I never attempt to prove that God exists.
If I say I believe in the bible and I believe God exists, that is not circular reasoning, because I am not attempting to prove anything. I am merely declaring my beliefs.
Nasabi ko na rin yan ---
You mean having faith in the existence of God first before having faith that the bible is the word of God is circular reasoning?
That's not circular reasoning. Both of them are declarations of belief, not proof. Interchange them and they're still two declarations of belief, not proof.
=================================
What do I say to someone who does not believe in God? I say bahala ka sa gusto mong paniwalaan. I will not even attempt to convince him otherwise:
--- kung ayaw nilang maniwala, e di wag. :D
... kung ayaw nilang maniwala, problema na nila yon.
Walang circular reasoning diyan... :D
-
If I say I believe in the bible and I believe God exists, that is not circular reasoning, because I am not attempting to prove anything. I am merely declaring my beliefs.
Let us take the case of a person who has no preconceived notion of a god. When he reads the bible, he can say that the bible is fiction, While a person who had been fed with ideas about god throughout his life, he will consider the bible as a reinforcement to the belief in God. Is this what you call "faith".
I am trying to understand what faith is. Is Barisster, dpogs, ptrader predestined to have faith? They all have faith but different understanding of the bible. Only one could be correct or also possible all of them are are wrong. But 2 of the have said that they are sure that they will go to heaven:)
There were instances that I am forcing myself to believe in the bible/god. It does not work, the magic is not there.
-
When it comes to salvation: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit work together as one.
God the Father plans the salvation or set the standard of salvation
God the Son (Jesus Christ) fulfill the will of God, execute plan of salvation, the only one who met God's standard of salvation
and how the Holy Sprit works...
first let me present few facts/truth according to the Bible
Truth No.1: Human can't understand the Bible unless he/she is a true believer (or son of God). > see Footnote 1
Truth No.2: If unbeliever can't understand the Bible, there is no way he can understand the Gospel. > see Footnote 1
Truth No.3: Without understanding of the Gospel, they will always choose to reject the salvation offered by God. Because they were blinded by the god of this world (the "enemy"). see Footnote 1
Truth No.4: The heart of man is exceedingly wicked that it will always choose to reject God. Still free will exist though man will always choose to reject God because of his heart that is exceedingly wicked. > see Footnote 3
How can they believe if on the first place they cant understand the Bible? How can they believe the Bible if on the first place they will always choose to reject God. Even with the revelation from God's creation they deny the existence of God. Dito na po papasok ang gawa ng God the Holy Spirit.
God the Holy Spirit will give faith and understanding to those who are elect/predestined. > see Footnote 2
The Holy Spirit is the one responsible giving each man's heart understanding of God's salvation.
in summary, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit works together to lead elect's soul unto salvation that he will always choose to believe in God.
In this way, knowing that it is all by God's grace and knowing that it is God's who work unto us to obtain salvation, that we can only glorify God to the fullest.
and i can say this with all my heart: "To God be the glory for all the things He hath done. He showed me that I am a sinner not worthy of His glory. He led me unto repentance. He saved my soul, He let me understand His Words/Bible. He changed my life from being spiritually wicked to being spiritually righteous. He gave me power over my old self. Though I sinned from time to time here on earth while in my physical body or corruptible body - Jesus washed it by His own blood and became my mediator to God the Father, thus God the Father instead of seeing my sins He sees the Blood of Jesus as redemption of my sins."
Footnote 1:
That is because the word of God is not intended to be understood by everyone. It is intended to be understood only by those who believe. That is why the bible says the Gospel is veiled to those who refuse to believe:
3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. (2 Cor. 4:3-4)
I'm sure you have experienced it many times. Evangelize all you want, until you are blue in the face, and they still won't believe. That's why Jesus explained:
31 He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ (Luke 16:31)
Footnote 2:
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesian 2:8-9
Even "faith" is a gift from God.
Footnoe 3:
The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it?Jeremiah 17:9 KJV
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
13 Their throat [is] an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps [is] under their lips:
14 Whose mouth [is] full of cursing and bitterness:
15 Their feet [are] swift to shed blood:
16 Destruction and misery [are] in their ways:
17 And the way of peace have they not known:
18 There is no fear of God before their eyes. Romans 3:10-18 KJV
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Romans 1:21 KJV
Note:
a. Unless you realize that you alone can't save your soul from hell you will come unto repentance nor seek Jesus for salvation.
b. If you still believe that by joining a religion, or by reading a Bible, or by doing good works is necessary for obtaining salvation, you will never come unto repentance nor seek Jesus for salvation.
-
There were instances that I am forcing myself to believe in the bible/god. It does not work, the magic is not there.
Me naman, the deeper I get (while taking the Bible literally), the sillier it gets. More questions than answers.
Anyway, trinity. I tried to reconcile this when I was young. One God, Father became the Son, God is a Spirit, a holy one. Can't say it works for me as well as it did before.
-
Me naman, the deeper I get (while taking the Bible literally), the sillier it gets. More questions than answers.
Anyway, trinity. I tried to reconcile this when I was young. One God, Father became the Son, God is a Spirit, a holy one. Can't say it works for me as well as it did before.
May I ask:
Kung naniniwala ka na may impiyerno (literally burning fire) at doon mapupunta ang tao, what is your belief kung paano maliligtas ang tao?
-
May I ask:
Kung naniniwala ka na may impiyerno (literally burning fire) at doon mapupunta ang tao, what is your belief kung paano maliligtas ang tao?
Hindi kasi ako naniniwalang by default mapupunta sa impyerno ang tao. Kawawa naman yung mga pumanaw right after they are born. Walang kalaban-laban di ba?
-
Hindi kasi ako naniniwalang by default mapupunta sa impyerno ang tao. Kawawa naman yung mga pumanaw right after they are born. Walang kalaban-laban di ba?
with the exception of children and those who are/were born mentally incapable of course :)
edited:
Kung naniniwala ka na ang may kasalanan ay mapupunta sa impiyerno, what is your belief kung papaano maliligtas ang may kasalanan?
-
with the exception of children and those who are/were born mentally incapable of course :)
Aba swerte. Diretsong langit. Are they still babies or mentally ill when they get there?
-
edited:
Kung naniniwala ka na ang may kasalanan ay mapupunta sa impiyerno, what is your belief kung papaano maliligtas ang may kasalanan?
Repent, not because you want to be saved, but because it's the right thing to do.
-
Aba swerte. Diretsong langit. Are they still babies or mentally ill when they get there?
it will be the age of complete and total perfection.
Kung naniniwala ka na ang may kasalanan ay mapupunta sa impiyerno, what is your belief kung papaano maliligtas ang may kasalanan?
Repent.
thank you.
follow up questions
Did you repent already?
If yes? Are you sure now that you will be saved?
-
Balik sa tanong about Jesus:
before the birth of Christ ito yung sinabe ng AMA :
Hebrew 1 NIV
8But of the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”
10And,
“You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,
and the heavens are the work of your hands;
11they will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment,
12like a robe you will roll them up,
like a garment they will be changed.a
But you are the same,
and your years will have no end.”
After the birth:
Eto naman yung pinahayag nag isang tao ngalan ay Tomas.
John 20:28Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
Very much consistent kung sino ang Anak before and after the birth.
Jesus is the Son, who is God and who is Lord.
Based on the holy trinity Jesus is God on flesh, co existent with God the creator and God the spirit. Now, what have become that Jesus when that angel announced to Mary that she will conceive the son of God? Did that Jesus magically transform himself into some kind of a "butiki"or a "palaka" and appeared on the womb of Mary immediately? I asked that because whether we like it or not, that cell on the womb of Mary was that God on the flesh and that God on the flesh whom God the creator was talking with before birth. He could not be different from that God on Mary's womb because if that was the case, there will be 4 Gods during the event.
-
it will be the age of complete and total perfection.
Been there already? :)
thank you.
follow up questions
Did you repent already?
Many times.
If yes? Are you sure now that you will be saved?
I don't think about life after death. I am here on earth and will focus on this life.
-
Christians also focus in this life, thats where the "your kingdom come, Thy will be done" thingie comes in. :)
-
Been there already? :)
Not Yet. Maybe later or tomorrow. I dont know yet when but I am waiting for that moment. :)
Becuase that is God's promise to me and I am holding on to that promise.
2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him for we shall see him as he is. I John 3:2 KJV
Many times.
I don't think about life after death. I am here on earth and will focus on this life.
2 Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. Col. 2:3
19 And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful. Mark 4:19
Maybe because you set your focus and attention in this world/Earth that is why the word of God have been choke.
I pray and I hope that the Word of God reaches your heart.
-
^Malinaw naman sa kin teachings ni God. Yung beliefs mo lang yung malabo para sa akin :)
-
^Malinaw naman sa kin teachings ni God. Yung beliefs mo lang yung malabo para sa akin :)
so, if it is clear, are you sure now that you are going to heaven? based on how you understand the teaching?
-
so, if it is clear, are you sure now that you are going to heaven? based on how you understand the teaching?
That is not for me to decide and like I said, I don't think about it.
-
hmm, what I don't think about is Eschatology. :) Everything else is ok...
-
Narinig ko na yan e. Last resort ka na ba?
Naniwala ka naman ba?
For the last resort:
Learn form the woman who was suffering bleeding.
Mark 5:
A large crowd followed and pressed around him. 25And a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years. 26She had suffered a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse. 27When she heard about Jesus, she came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak, 28because she thought, “If I just touch his clothes, I will be healed.” 29Immediately her bleeding stopped and she felt in her body that she was freed from her suffering.
30At once Jesus realized that power had gone out from him. He turned around in the crowd and asked, “Who touched my clothes?”
31“You see the people crowding against you,” his disciples answered, “and yet you can ask, ‘Who touched me?’ ”
32But Jesus kept looking around to see who had done it. 33Then the woman, knowing what had happened to her, came and fell at his feet and, trembling with fear, told him the whole truth. 34He said to her, “Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace and be freed from your suffering.”
-
Based on the holy trinity Jesus is God on flesh, co existent with God the creator and God the spirit. Now, what have become that Jesus when that angel announced to Mary that she will conceive the son of God? Did that Jesus magically transform himself into some kind of a "butiki"or a "palaka" and appeared on the womb of Mary immediately? I asked that because whether we like it or not, that cell on the womb of Mary was that God on the flesh and that God on the flesh whom God the creator was talking with before birth. He could not be different from that God on Mary's womb because if that was the case, there will be 4 Gods during the event.
why make the plural more plural?
-
Naniwala ka naman ba?
Naniniwala saan? Wala ka pa namang proof.
-
Naniniwala saan? Wala ka pa namang proof.
29Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed
I believe the unseen.
Read Genesis upto Revelation that is my proof, the book called the Holy Bible.
-
Huwag mo na kasing ipilit kung wala.
-
Repent, not because you want to be saved, but because it's the right thing to do.
Ok. Where did you get the idea that you need to repent not to be saved but because it is the right thing to do?
-
Huwag mo na kasing ipilit kung wala.
Bible nga yung written proof ko.
-
Ok. Where did you get the idea that you need to repent not to be saved but because it is the right thing to do?
I didn't get it from anywhere nor anyone.
-
Bible nga yung written proof ko.
Hindi nga acceptable yang proof mo. Kung ipipilit mo, lalabas na totoo rin sina Superman, Batman, Zeus, Thor at kung sinu-sino pa.
-
why make the plural more plural?
Bro- I think you did not get the question right.
-
Hindi nga acceptable yang proof mo. Kung ipipilit mo, lalabas na totoo rin sina Superman, Batman, Zeus, Thor at kung sinu-sino pa.
Saan sa Bible yun sina Superman, Batman, Zeus, Thor at kung sinu-sino pa? Kasi by your logic, if talagang proof ang Bible....then totoo sina Superman. Meaning sina Superman, Batman, Zeus, Thor at kung sinu-sino pa..... were mentioned in the Bible. So saan nakasaad sa Bible nga?
-
I didn't get it from anywhere nor anyone.
So sayo mismo nanggaling ang paniniwala na yan? Imbento mo?
-
So sayo mismo nanggaling ang paniniwala na yan? Imbento mo?
Hindi imbento. Common sense lang.
-
Bro- I think you did not get the question right.
Mary dreamed the angel said to her that she will concieved God the Son.
God the Father, God the Holy Spirit and God the Son. 3 pa rin sir.
-
Hindi imbento. Common sense lang.
You believe in your common sense more than the Bible?
Ano naman sinasabi ng iyong common sense about trinity?
Ano naman sinasabi ng iyong common sense para ikaw ay maligtas sa kaparusahan?
-
Ang kulit ;D Hindi ko nga iniisip yung kaligtasan na ipinagpipilitan mo.
-
Ang kulit ;D Hindi ko nga iniisip yung kaligtasan na ipinagpipilitan mo.
Ah ok. Naguluhan lang ako kasi all the time pala eh youre just using your common sense to believe im God kasi king tutuusin our common sense says there is no God.
No more question. I hope and pray that the Word of God reaches your heart.
-
Bro- I think you did not get the question right.
sir yung word na God in plural form na kaya inde kailangan suffixing the s (as in Gods) .
(inedit ko, para malinaw)
-
Mary dreamed the angel said to her that she will concieved God the Son.
God the Father, God the Holy Spirit and God the Son. 3 pa rin sir.
I agree bro -- but the moment she conceived Jesus, what happened to that God the son whom that God the creator was talking to even before such an event? Was that God the son also flesh just like the one conceived by Mary?
-
I agree bro -- but the moment she conceived Jesus, what happened to that God the son whom that God the creator was talking to even before such an event? Was that God the son also flesh just like the one conceived by Mary?
eto isa sa mga nasulat about Him:
16Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great:
He appeared in the flesh,
was vindicated by the Spirit,
was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world,
was taken up in glory.
-
Ah ok. Naguluhan lang ako kasi all the time pala eh youre just using your common sense to believe im God kasi king tutuusin our common sense says there is no God.
No more question. I hope and pray that the Word of God reaches your heart.
Naguluhan ka nga. And no, if I used my common sense, I wouldn't believe in God.
-
I agree bro -- but the moment she conceived Jesus, what happened to that God the son whom that God the creator was talking to even before such an event? Was that God the son also flesh just like the one conceived by Mary?
We believe that the "The Word" in the Bible is Jesus Christ.
John 1:1-14
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
In verse 1, the Bible tells us that the Word (Jesus Christ) is God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Here in verse 2, it tells us that Jesus is the Creator
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
In verse 14, it tells us that Jesus the God the Creator become flesh.
-
Naguluhan ka nga. And no, if I used my common sense, I wouldn't believe in God.
yeah i can sense that you dont believe in God.
-
yeah i can sense that you dont believe in God.
Oh, I do.
-
Oh, I do.
ah you believe in God because it is common sense... the same as you repent because it is common sense to repent.
-
No. I repent because common sense tells me it's the right thing to do. Yung belief in God ang hindi ko ginamitan ng common sense.
-
No. I repent because common sense tells me it's the right thing to do. Yung belief in God ang hindi ko ginamitan ng common sense.
ah in deciding what is right thing to do you rely on your common sense not in God... got it... loud and clear.
-
No. I repent because common sense tells me it's the right thing to do. Yung belief in God ang hindi ko ginamitan ng common sense.
Repent means there's remorse or regret for wrongdoing. There's suggestion of guilt. So you repent because common sense tells you it's the right thing to do and not guilt? Pano if you think you didn't do anything wrong? You still repent? Doing the right thing doesn't really involve repenting.
Magulo nga.
-
^ he has his own definition ;)
-
^ he has his own definition ;)
Ng repent? No need, pretty straightforward.
-
Ng repent? No need, pretty straightforward.
common sense based not sin based..
-
Ha?
-
Ha?
No. I repent because common sense tells me it's the right thing to do. Yung belief in God ang hindi ko ginamitan ng common sense.
-
That's what I said. Nawala ako dun sa "sin-based". Pinapalabas mo kasi na for me, mutually exclusive yung common sense at "sin-based".
-
We believe that the "The Word" in the Bible is Jesus Christ.
John 1:1-14
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
In verse 1, the Bible tells us that the Word (Jesus Christ) is God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Here in verse 2, it tells us that Jesus is the Creator
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
In verse 14, it tells us that Jesus the God the Creator become flesh.
Bro -- my problem with the cited verses is that I cannot read the answer to my question which is:
"The moment she conceived Jesus, what happened to that God the son whom that God the creator was talking to even before such an event? Was that God the son also flesh just like the one conceived by Mary?"
-
Its in verse 14, it become flesh.
-
I asked that because whether we like it or not, that cell on the womb of Mary was that God on the flesh and that God on the flesh whom God the creator was talking with before birth. He could not be different from that God on Mary's womb because if that was the case, there will be 4 Gods during the event.
God the Son became flesh.
It does not mean God the Son changed and became a man. It means the Son was manifested in the flesh. God the Son only took the form of a man, but He is still by His very nature God the Son.
If an angel took the form of a man, the angel would still be an angel. Only the form would be human, but the true nature remains an angel. If you wear a lion costume, you wouldn't become a lion, you would still be a man.
The original Greek in John 1:14 says "egeneto." It means to come into being or into manifestation.
Thus, 1 Tim. 3:16 clarifies:
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
The original Greek is "phaneroo," which means to appear or to make visible.
Therefore, 1 Tim. 3:16 says God the Son was "manifest" in the flesh, meaning He appeared to us as a man.
It means God the Son merely appeared on earth as a human, but His nature remained God the Son.
That is why Col. 2:9 says: For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form. The visible bodily form is human, but in Him is the fullness of the Deity.
Compare that with an ordinary man. In the case of ordinary men, the visible bodily form is human, but in the body is still human, not God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? (1 Cor. 2:11) In the ordinary man is the spirit of man, not the fullness of the Deity.
That is why Phil. 2:6-8 says about Christ:
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross!
- Christ is in His very nature God.
- He is equal to God, but He did not consider this equality as something to be used to His own advantage.
- He was made in human likeness. Not a human, but only in the likeness of a human. If He were already human, then He would by nature already appear human, so why would He still have to take human likeness?
- He was in the appearance of a man. Not a man, but only in the appearance of a man. A God would have to take the appearance of a man, because He is not a man in His very nature.
He is God who took the appearance of a man and by doing so became "manifest in the flesh."
-
Sir bumblebee, I think what they meant was, what causes you to repent and para kanino ang repentance. Ewan ko kung tama ang intindi ko.
-
Sir bumblebee, I think what they meant was, what causes you to repent and para kanino ang repentance. Ewan ko kung tama ang intindi ko.
Sir, obvious naman sagot dyan. I don't know what else they want, to be honest. If one does something bad, repent. Hindi ko naman siguro kailangan pa ng bible para malaman at maisagawa yan di ba?
-
Tama nga naman.
Pinipilit lang nilang ipasok ang bibliya.
For example, sinampal mo yung kapitbahay mo. Later, you regret what you did, apologized to the neighbor, then never did it to anyone else again.
Ewan ko naman kung kailangan mo pa ng King James Version doon.
-
The question kasi is how to be saved. Sabi niya "repent". When ask where he got the idea he said he never get it from anyone or anything it is common sense. So parang ang nagsabi sa kanya ng way ofs salvation is his common sense.
-
Kung ganon, dapat walang "salvation" sa usapan. Otherwise, magkakaroon ng spiritual and religious aspect.
Saved from what?
Does he believe that man has to be saved from anything?
-
ang take ko sa argument ni bumblebee vs dpogs, pTrader at DVD_Freak na common-sense and Bible/God:
ang sinasabi ni bumblebee about repentance (or doing good) is based on morals. because this is the right thing to do. this is not based because you want to be saved or you want to be in heaven or you don't want to go to hell. it is purely because that's what his morals tell him. i myself like this thinking, you're doing good things without the fear of being punished but because this is the moral thing to do.
-
and wala akong nabasa sa post ni bumblebee na kaya sya nagrerepent is para sa salvation
-
and wala akong nabasa sa post ni bumblebee na kaya sya nagrerepent is para sa salvation
yes. he said "repent." then modified/edited it later.
ang take ko sa argument ni bumblebee vs dpogs, pTrader at DVD_Freak na common-sense and Bible/God:
ang sinasabi ni bumblebee about repentance (or doing good) is based on morals. because this is the right thing to do. this is not based because you want to be saved or you want to be in heaven or you don't want to go to hell. it is purely because that's what his morals tell him. i myself like this thinking, you're doing good things without the fear of being punished but because this is the moral thing to do.
and where is our moral based to? for some, stealing for survival is a moral thing to do. for some, having multiple sex partner is not morally wrong.
that is why I am asking him, where did he based his belief when it comes to way of salvation? common sense?
-
ang take ko sa argument ni bumblebee vs dpogs, pTrader at DVD_Freak na common-sense and Bible/God:
ang sinasabi ni bumblebee about repentance (or doing good) is based on morals. because this is the right thing to do. this is not based because you want to be saved or you want to be in heaven or you don't want to go to hell. it is purely because that's what his morals tell him. i myself like this thinking, you're doing good things without the fear of being punished but because this is the moral thing to do.
If that's the case, hindi na siya repentance. By its very nature repentance is having regret or remorse for wrongdoing. How can you repent if you did not do anything wrong and just doing what is right?
-
yes. he said "repent." then modified/edited it later.
sinabi nga nya "repent" but di nya sinabi na repent "for salvation".
-
Repent, not because you want to be saved, but because it's the right thing to do.
Sir, obvious naman sagot dyan. I don't know what else they want, to be honest. If one does something bad, repent. Hindi ko naman siguro kailangan pa ng bible para malaman at maisagawa yan di ba?
at ito naman yung sagot ni barrister about it:
Tama nga naman.
Pinipilit lang nilang ipasok ang bibliya.
For example, sinampal mo yung kapitbahay mo. Later, you regret what you did, apologized to the neighbor, then never did it to anyone else again.
Ewan ko naman kung kailangan mo pa ng King James Version doon.
so nagrerepent si bumblebee sa mga wrong doings nya which i think is tama naman.
-
so nagrerepent si bumblebee sa mga wrong doings nya which i think is tama naman.
I think nag aasume ka na sir. Hindi sinabi ni bumblebee na he is repenting sa mga wrongdoings niya. Ang sabi niya in general hindi siya....
If one does something bad, repent. Hindi ko naman siguro kailangan pa ng bible para malaman at maisagawa yan di ba?
Hindi niya sinasabing siya.
Pero eto sabi niya sa sarili niya....No. I repent because common sense tells me it's the right thing to do.
Hindi niya sinabing nagrerepent siya kasi may wrongdoing siya.
-
sinabi nga nya "repent" but di nya sinabi na repent "for salvation".
when asked what a sinner can do to be saved: he said "repent."
when asked where he got that idea: he said "because of common sense".
-
I think nag aasume ka na sir. Hindi sinabi ni bumblebee na he is repenting sa mga wrongdoings niya. Ang sabi niya in general hindi siya....
Hindi niya sinasabing siya.
Pero eto sabi niya sa sarili niya....
Hindi niya sinabing nagrerepent siya kasi may wrongdoing siya.
Sir, obvious naman sagot dyan. I don't know what else they want, to be honest. If one does something bad, repent. Hindi ko naman siguro kailangan pa ng bible para malaman at maisagawa yan di ba?
hindi pa ba yan yung repent sa wrongdoings? kailangan pa ba talaga sabihin specifically o ilagay specifically yung name nya or sabihin nya na "when I do something bad, I repent"? I just read between the lines and basing sa flow ng conversation. pero if you think I'm assuming, I respect your view. ang mas makakapagsabi naman talaga kung tama or mali "assumption" ko is si bumblebee.
-
hindi pa ba yan yung repent sa wrongdoings? kailangan pa ba talaga sabihin specifically o ilagay specifically yung name nya or sabihin nya na "when I do something bad, I repent"? I just read between the lines and basing sa flow ng conversation. pero if you think I'm assuming, I respect your view. ang mas makakapagsabi naman talaga kung tama or mali "assumption" ko is si bumblebee.
If you have the time to read his post....you'll see a pattern na never assume or jump to conclusions right away. ;D
-
The question kasi is how to be saved. Sabi niya "repent". When ask where he got the idea he said he never get it from anyone or anything it is common sense. So parang ang nagsabi sa kanya ng way ofs salvation is his common sense.
Nope. Your question was "kung naniniwala akong mapupunta sa impyerno ang makasalanan, paano mase-save ang tao?". Ayaw ko nga sanang sagutin yun tanong mo kasi loaded ng assumptions na hindi ko naman sinang-aayunan. Ilang beses ko rin namang inulit na I don't think about salvation. Pero pinipilit mo pa rin :)
-
Nope. Your question was "kung naniniwala akong mapupunta sa impyerno ang makasalanan, paano mase-save ang tao?". Ayaw ko nga sanang sagutin yun tanong mo kasi loaded ng assumptions na hindi ko naman sinang-aayunan. Ilang beses ko rin namang inulit na I don't think about salvation. Pero pinipilit mo pa rin :)
yup. and you answered "repent." and after a while you modified your answer. :) ang ayaw mong sagutin na tanong eh sabi mo malinaw at naiintindihan mo ang teaching kaya ang tinanong ko at ayaw mong sagutin is ito
"Since malinaw at alam mo ang teaching and you "repent many times". Sigurado ka na ba na maliligtas ka?" at ang sagot mo lagi is "You don't think about your salvation"... pero sa tanong na "papaano maliligtas ang isang makasalanan?" ang sagot mo lang ay "repent." which is ayon sa iyo "galling sa iyong common sense".
kaya nga ang naging conclusion ko is... since you worry to much what is in this earth rather than what is in above, maybe the Word of God has been choke in your heart.
-
hindi pa ba yan yung repent sa wrongdoings? kailangan pa ba talaga sabihin specifically o ilagay specifically yung name nya or sabihin nya na "when I do something bad, I repent"? I just read between the lines and basing sa flow ng conversation. pero if you think I'm assuming, I respect your view. ang mas makakapagsabi naman talaga kung tama or mali "assumption" ko is si bumblebee.
Tama assumptions mo sa posts ko sir. And tama rin na sabihing repent lang, because repenting implies we did something wrong. Napakasimple naman hindi ba?
Ang intindi yata kasi nila, nung sinabi kong repent, kailangang mag-repent kahit walang kasalanan.
-
yup. and you answered "repent." and after a while you modified your answer. :) ang ayaw mong sagutin na tanong eh sabi mo malinaw at naiintindihan mo ang teaching kaya ang tinanong ko at ayaw mong sagutin is ito
"Since malinaw at alam mo ang teaching and you "repent many times". Sigurado ka na ba na maliligtas ka?" at ang sagot mo lagi is "You don't think about your salvation"... pero sa tanong na "papaano maliligtas ang isang makasalanan?" ang sagot mo lang ay "repent." which is ayon sa iyo "galling sa iyong common sense".
kaya nga ang naging conclusion ko is... since you worry to much what is in this earth rather than what is in above, maybe the Word of God has been choke in your heart.
Common sense lang naman talaga. If you ask, "kung naniniwala ka na mapupunta makasalanan sa impyerno, ano gagawin mo?" E di repent. And don't skip the "kung naniniwala ka" part :)
-
ulitin ko ulit:
ano ang common sense sa iyo... ang mag-repent, tama ba? you are repenting because it is common sense.
ngayon common sense din bang sabihin na "ang way of salvation is repent"?
-
God the Son became flesh.
It does not mean God the Son changed and became a man. It means the Son was manifested in the flesh. God the Son only took the form of a man, but He is still by His very nature God the Son.
If an angel took the form of a man, the angel would still be an angel. Only the form would be human, but the true nature remains an angel. If you wear a lion costume, you wouldn't become a lion, you would still be a man.
The original Greek in John 1:14 says "egeneto." It means to come into being or into manifestation.
Thus, 1 Tim. 3:16 clarifies:
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
The original Greek is "phaneroo," which means to appear or to make visible.
Therefore, 1 Tim. 3:16 says God the Son was "manifest" in the flesh, meaning He appeared to us as a man.
It means God the Son merely appeared on earth as a human, but His nature remained God the Son.
That is why Col. 2:9 says: For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form. The visible bodily form is human, but in Him is the fullness of the Deity.
Compare that with an ordinary man. In the case of ordinary men, the visible bodily form is human, but in the body is still human, not God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? (1 Cor. 2:11) In the ordinary man is the spirit of man, not the fullness of the Deity.
That is why Phil. 2:6-8 says about Christ:
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross!
- Christ is in His very nature God.
- He is equal to God, but He did not consider this equality as something to be used to His own advantage.
- He was made in human likeness. Not a human, but only in the likeness of a human. If He were already human, then He would by nature already appear human, so why would He still have to take human likeness?
- He was in the appearance of a man. Not a man, but only in the appearance of a man. A God would have to take the appearance of a man, because He is not a man in His very nature.
He is God who took the appearance of a man and by doing so became "manifest in the flesh."
So atty., follow up. Taking off from your explanation, the God the son before the birth of JC was in a form of spirit. Correct? The God the son only manifested in flesh later when he was born through Mary?
Does it mean also that that God the creator could have gotten himself a wife so that they bore that God the son who was manifested in flesh during the eventful Christmas. Right?
-
ulitin ko ulit:
ano ang common sense sa iyo... ang mag-repent, tama ba? you are repenting because it is common sense.
ngayon common sense din bang sabihin na "ang way of salvation is repent"?
Let it go dpogs :)
-
So atty., follow up. Taking off from your explanation, the God the son before the birth of JC was in a form of spirit. Correct? The God the son only manifested in flesh later when he was born through Mary?
Yes.
Does it mean also that that God the creator could have gotten himself a wife so that they bore that God the son who was manifested in flesh during the eventful Christmas. Right?
No, the Father could not have gotten Himself a wife for the purpose of bearing the Son.
The Son was God in the beginning. The Son existed from the beginning. The Son and the Father were together since the beginning.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. (John 1:1-2)
Why would the Father want a wife to bear His Son, when the Son had already existed since the beginning?
the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. (Ps.2:7)
The Father begat the Son. The Son has no mother. The Father has no wife.
-
Let it go dpogs :)
just amaze... that when it comes to salvation.. you rely on your own "common sense"... :)
-
just amaze... that when it comes to salvation.. you rely on your own "common sense"... :)
Ang kulit, hindi ko nga iniisip yung "salvation" ko e. I have better things to do ;)
-
Ang kulit, hindi ko nga iniisip yung "salvation" ko e. I have better things to do ;)
oh yes yes... better things than your own salvation... got it...
-
Ang kulit, hindi ko nga iniisip yung "salvation" ko e. I have better things to do ;)
oh yes yes... better things than your own salvation... got it...
2 Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. Col. 2:3
19 And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful. Mark 4:19
Maybe because you set your focus and attention in this world/Earthly matters that is why the word of God have been choke.
I pray and I hope that the Word of God reaches your heart.
-
Oh, akala ko gets mo na? :)
I'm have a feeling you're misunderstanding or using those verses incorrectly. But I won't go there. Hindi naman ako Bible expert.
-
Oh, akala ko gets mo na? :)
I'm have a feeling you're misunderstanding or using those verses incorrectly. But I won't go there. Hindi naman ako Bible expert.
Naiintindihan ko na yung common sense mo, pag nakamali ka or if you did bad thing ,natural mag repent ka kasi mali ginawa mo.
sana tama ako..
-
Tama assumptions mo sa posts ko sir. And tama rin na sabihing repent lang, because repenting implies we did something wrong. Napakasimple naman hindi ba?
Ang intindi yata kasi nila, nung sinabi kong repent, kailangang mag-repent kahit walang kasalanan.
DVD_Freak, tama "assumption" ko. Hahahaha! Ginamitan ko lang ng "common sense" sa pagbabasa at pagintindi sa mga posts dito.
-
DVD_Freak, tama "assumption" ko. Hahahaha! Ginamitan ko lang ng "common sense" sa pagbabasa at pagintindi sa mga posts dito.
Wala naman ako sinabi if tama or mali ka. Did I? Sabi ko is.... "I think you are assuming." I was not questioning if tama or mali yun assumption mo. Only I was saying I think your statement is an assumption. Kasi hindi naman talaga sinabi ni bumblbee yun. He confirmed it also na you were assuming.
And tama naman. Sabi nga njya he implied. ;D
Tama assumptions mo sa posts ko sir. And tama rin na sabihing repent lang, because repenting implies we did something wrong. Napakasimple naman hindi ba?
Kita mo sakin nag assume ka. I never said you were wrong....i said I think you are assuming. ;D
-
So atty., follow up. Taking off from your explanation, the God the son before the birth of JC was in a form of spirit. Correct? The God the son only manifested in flesh later when he was born through Mary?
Yes.
spirit ba talaga kalagayan ng God the Son?
alam ko hindi spirit form kasi God the Son is the image (body) of God the Father.
kaya kung ano kalagayan at hitsura ni Jesus after resurrection, ganun rin before ma conceive ni Mary.
-
No, hindi ganon yon sir.
Ang image, ibig sabihin likeness. If the Father is spirit, the Son is also spirit. Ang sabi sa Col.1:15, the Son is the image of the invisible God. If the Father is by nature invisible, then the Son is also by nature invisible.
Siyempre, pag anak ng tao, tao rin. Anak ng aso, aso rin. Anak ng Diyos, Diyos din. Invisible ang Ama, invisible din ang Anak.
The Son is the only begotten.
Angels can be called sons of God, humans can be called sons of God. But none of them can be called "only begotten son."
Exception lang na ang mga tao ay tawaging children of God. Kasi by adoption lang yon. Kaya nga walang taong puwedeng tawaging bugtong na anak ng Diyos.
-
How well do you know the doctrine of the Trinity?
http://www.challies.com/resources/take-a-test-on-the-trinity
-
Wala naman ako sinabi if tama or mali ka. Did I? Sabi ko is.... "I think you are assuming." I was not questioning if tama or mali yun assumption mo. Only I was saying I think your statement is an assumption. Kasi hindi naman talaga sinabi ni bumblbee yun. He confirmed it also na you were assuming.
And tama naman. Sabi nga njya he implied. ;D
Kita mo sakin nag assume ka. I never said you were wrong....i said I think you are assuming. ;D
ok, mahilig ako mag-assume. assumero ako. lahat ng bagay inaassume ko. hahahahaha!
-
ok, mahilig ako mag-assume. assumero ako. lahat ng bagay inaassume ko. hahahahaha!
Hahaha! San mo naman nakuha yan? ;D Kung dun ka masaya eh then go! ;D ;D ;D
-
Hahaha! San mo naman nakuha yan? ;D Kung dun ka masaya eh then go! ;D ;D ;D
inassume ko ulit. hahahaha! teka, OT na tayo. di na to nakaka-contribute sa thread.
-
No, hindi ganon yon sir.
Ang image, ibig sabihin likeness. If the Father is spirit, the Son is also spirit. Ang sabi sa Col.1:15, the Son is the image of the invisible God. If the Father is by nature invisible, then the Son is also by nature invisible.
Siyempre, pag anak ng tao, tao rin. Anak ng aso, aso rin. Anak ng Diyos, Diyos din. Invisible ang Ama, invisible din ang Anak.
The Son is the only begotten.
Angels can be called sons of God, humans can be called sons of God. But none of them can be called "only begotten son."
Exception lang na ang mga tao ay tawaging children of God. Kasi by adoption lang yon. Kaya nga walang taong puwedeng tawaging bugtong na anak ng Diyos.
Atty pa explain nga ulit ung kung paano nagkaroon ng mga designation, as in Father, Son and spirit na lahat ay tinuring na God kung simula pa man e tatlo o 3 in 1 na sila, at walang nauna o nahuli? What should have been the reason of such designation when only one God can actually do anything he wants as it pleases himself?
-
Hindi ko malaman kung paano ang magiging approach ko sa sagot.
I do not believe in the Trinity. The word "Trinity" does not appear in the bible. The concept of a Trinity is not biblical.
Your question is premised on a belief in the Trinity doctrine. So, if I disagree with the premise, I can't answer without first changing the premise.
Pero puwede rin siguro, kung limited lang sa ganitong issue ang sasagutin ko:
What should have been the reason of such designation when only one God can actually do anything he wants as it pleases himself?
If God can do anything He wants, then He does not need a reason for doing what He does.
God has revealed some things to man, but He has not revealed everything to man. All we can do is understand the things revealed. We can't understand things that were not reveled.
For example, God revealed that the sins of all mankind were forgiven through the death of Jesus. Why did Jesus have to die for the forgiveness of sins? Because death is required as sacrifice for the atonement of sins. As a final sacrifice for all, the sacrifice should be a man without sin. Since Jesus is the only one without sin, then He is the only one qualified to become a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins.
That's the extent of what was revealed.
We might ask --- why is a sacrifice even necessary? If God is all-powerful, then surely He can forgive all sins if He wants to, without need for any human sacrifice. Why the need to go through all this trouble?
There is no answer to that question, because it is beyond the scope of what was revealed to us.
In the same manner, if we go to the question of why God wanted the designations of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, when it would have been much simpler to have one single God in one person, the same principle applies.
God revealed the existence of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and that is the limit of what was revealed. Why didn't God just make it simpler? There is no answer to that question.
We should not apply our own logic, because we will still fail to understand. That's why God explains:
“As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Is. 55:9)
-
inassume ko ulit. hahahaha! teka, OT na tayo. di na to nakaka-contribute sa thread.
I don't know why you insist on having an argument with me. Wala nga ako pakialam if tama ka or mali. Hindi naman kasi yun ang niraise ko. But if you really insist on needing to have one... then do it with the sole and only post who raised the issue na tama or mali yun assumption mo.... oh eto tutulungan pa kita. ;D
ang mas makakapagsabi naman talaga kung tama or mali "assumption" ko is si bumblebee.
tama "assumption" ko. Hahahaha! Ginamitan ko lang ng "common sense" sa pagbabasa at pagintindi sa mga posts dito.
Oh sige have fun! ;D
-
If god is a spirit, and burning sulfur can burn spirits to ashes, does that mean god can be destroyed? I know god won't let that happen, but let's suppose he'll let that happen, can he be destroyed?
-
If god is a spirit, and burning sulfur can burn spirits to ashes, does that mean god can be destroyed? I know god won't let that happen, but let's suppose he'll let that happen, can he be destroyed?
Where did you get the idea that spirit can be turned to ash?
Human spirit can be burned but cant be destroyed. Even if you put them in lake of fire, they will be burned but never destroy.
If human spirit cant be destoyed how much more God.
-
Last post of page 9 then page 10.
-
wala akong mabasa na "spirit can be turned to ash"...
-
Sir dpogs, sa tingin ko honest question ito ngayon. Dito kasi maraming malakas mang-asar, hindi mo na malaman kung nang-aasar lang o may gusto talagang malinawan.
Parang nakita ko na ang problema sa issue na ito. Pero hindi makukuha sa short explanation, kasi ang common belief ay malayo sa bible.
In English, soul and spirit are synonymous. But in the bible, there is a difference that is caused by differences in the original language of scripture. There is no English equivalent for this distinction.
That's why understanding the difference between soul and spirit can be very difficult.
12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. (Heb. 4:12)
How can the soul and spirit be divided? (nobody seems to be interested in my side questions... ;) )
======================================
I believe humans will be burned in hellfire, and they will be consumed until they become ash.
This belief alone is very controversial. The majority belief is that humans will become spirit and will be thrown into everlasting fire in hell, yet they will never be consumed. They will just be tormented forever in fire.
In Revelation, there will be two resurrections.
In the first resurrection, the saved will resurrect as spirit.
But in the second resurrection, the damned will resurrect as mortal beings, who will be thrown into the fire, will burn, and will be consumed.
When the bible says they become ash, it means they are totally destroyed and consumed. They burn because they have mortal bodies. They are not spirits burning in hell for all eternity.
That is why the punishment for the damned is called the second death. They died once physically at the end of their natural lifetimes, then they resurrect with mortal bodies, and are burned in the fire to die again.
6 He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life. 7 Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children. 8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.” (Rev. 21:6-8)
-
Yup. But nowhere in the Bible i can find that a soul or spirit can be turned to ash.
-
Yup. But nowhere in the Bible i can find that a soul or spirit can be turned to ash.
Put aside the ashes thingie for a while. You agree the spirit or soul can be destroyed?
-
Put aside the ashes thingie for a while. You agree the spirit or soul can be destroyed?
They will last forever whether they are in heaven or in the lake of fire.
-
I have a different view. The soul can be destroyed.
28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. (Mt. 10:28)
The body can be destroyed in hell. The soul can be destroyed in hell.
How about the spirit?
No problem if soul and spirit are the same. Otherwise, that's another issue.
-
You mean by the word "destroy" is will cease to exist gone forever?
-
Yes, destroy as in cease to exist. Utterly destroy, permanently perish.
Greek apolesai --- permanent, absolute destruction.
That's why I already clarified that I have a different view.
-
My belief is eternal destruction. Souls, hell, demons and saran will be destroyed forever eternally but they will never be extinct.
2 Thes 1:9, Rev 14:10-11
-
Atty, if the soul and spirit can be divided, first question is how do you differentiate the two? This is an interesting topic indeed. Is it that the soul is the kaluluwa and the spirit like how we use it in terms like "human spirit", "his spirit is down" etc? TIA!
-
When we die, our soul will either go to heaven or hell, spirit will always go back to God.
Our soul is the essense of our human being, the spirit is the one that connects us to God. These two are connected but can be separated as the soul can be separated from God and spirit cant be separated from God.
-
Ahhhh...thanks dpogs. If ever a person's soul go to heaven, di na nya kailangan humiwalay sa spirit? And follow up question, pag sa hell naman punta ng soul, pano naman yung spirit na magisa na lang pabalik kay God? I mean paano yung consciousness nung person that owns both soul and spirit nung buhay pa sya pagmagkahiwalay na?
-
That is why I've always been saying that if the spirit is burned by God, then he will be burning himself.
I believe that we only have one spirit because we all come form one source and that is God. The individualized spirit which stores our past and present experiences in the different lifetimes is the soul.
-
Atty, if the soul and spirit can be divided, first question is how do you differentiate the two? This is an interesting topic indeed. Is it that the soul is the kaluluwa and the spirit like how we use it in terms like "human spirit", "his spirit is down" etc? TIA!
It's good that you're interested.
The reason why I ask side questions in some of my posts is to attract some interest in the bible. I believe that's how you get people interested. Hindi ko style yung tatanungin ka ng mga born-again, "Kapatid, ligtas ka na ba? :D Guaranteed turn-off. :P
In English, the human soul and the human spirit are the same. The body is physical; the soul or spirit is non-physical. The soul is called the seat of emotions, because the soul and the spirit are the same, meaning, non-physical.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/spirit (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/spirit)
Other uses are only figurative, not literal. For example, the spirit of the law; the spirit of cooperation; he is in good spirits; he is a kind soul.
The same is true in Filipino. Ang espirito ng tao, pareho lang sa kaluluwa ng tao. Espirito ng mga namatay; kaluluwa ng lolo kong namantay. Figurative - ang espirito ng bayanihan; ang kaluluwa ng kultura.
But in the bible, the human soul and the human spirit are different. The difference is not expressed in the English translation, that's why it becomes confusing.
Note that this a very advanced topic, so it will be a difficult study. Don't be surprised that my views will be slightly different from sir dpogs', because that's to be expected if the topic is controversial.
======================================
Let's start with the most basic explanation:
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Gen. 2:7)
What was breathed into Adam's nostrils? The spirit, which is the breath of God. ---
4 The Spirit of God has made me; the breath of the Almighty gives me life. (Job 33:4)
3 All the while my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils (Job 27:3)
As long as the breath/spirit is in you, you are alive; once the breath/spirit is no longer in you, you die.
4 His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish. (Ps. 146:4)
Therefore:
The body - was formed from the dust of the ground; it is the physical aspect;
The spirit - was given to the body by the breath of God; it is the non-physical aspect;
The soul - is the combination of body and spirit. When Adam's body was given a spirit, he "became a living soul."
What happens when a man dies at the end of his natural lifetime?
His spirit goes back to God. His dead body decays and becomes dust. ---
7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. (Ecc. 12:7)
======================================
Will the dead go to heaven immediately? No, they have to wait for the resurrection when Christ returns. In the meantime, they are simply unconscious:
For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing... for in the realm of the dead, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom. (Ecc. 9:5, 10)
4 His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish. (Ps. 146:4)
Death is like a deep, dreamless, unconscious sleep. That is why the bible refers to the dead as "sleeping."
Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. (Dan. 12:2)
“Why did I not perish at birth, and die as I came from the womb? ...For now I would be lying down in peace; I would be asleep and at rest with kings and rulers of the earth, who built for themselves places now lying in ruins (Job 3:11, 13, 14)
11 After he had said this, he went on to tell them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up.” 12 His disciples replied, “Lord, if he sleeps, he will get better.” 13 Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural sleep.14 So then he told them plainly, “Lazarus is dead, 15 and for your sake I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him.” (John 11:11-14)
-
Ok atty. So wala pang soul before, only nung binigyan na tayo ng buhay dahil yun yung time na nagcombine na ang spirit at physical body natin. Now pagnamatay na, then andun na tayo kunyari sa resurection na part, soul and physical body yun? Kasama pa ba ang spirit?
-
Ok atty. So wala pang soul before, only nung binigyan na tayo ng buhay dahil yun yung time na nagcombine na ang spirit at physical body natin. Now pagnamatay na, then andun na tayo kunyari sa resurection na part, soul and physical body yun? Kasama pa ba ang spirit?
Depende sa resurrection.
Dalawa kasi ang resurrection. First resurrection is for the saved. They will resurrect with spiritual bodies. Second resurrection is for the damned. They will resurrect will mortal, physical bodies so they can be burned.
=====================================
First resurrection - spiritual bodies, no more second death (first death was when they died at the end of their natural lives). This comes before the 1,000 years of peace:
They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years. (Rev. 20:4-6)
Second resurrection - physical bodies, will die the second death (when they are thrown into the fire). This comes after the 1,000 years of peace:
7 When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—and to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. 9 They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God’s people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. 10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire. (Rev. 20:7-15)
-
Ahhhh...got it. So those who will be ressurected na kasama sa 1st ressurection won't experience the 2nd death na. And of course they are alive during the 1000 years of peace. Now, during the 1000 years of peace, aside from those na kasama sa first ressurection, may kasama pa bang ibang tao (mortal)?
-
Lahat na ng tao yon sir.
Dalawang grupo lang naman ang tao sa dalawang resurrection. Yung maliligtas at hindi maliligtas. Pag kasama ka sa maliligtas, sa 1st resurrection ka. Pag hindi, sa 2nd resurrection ka. Wala nang iba.
Kung interesado ka sir, pag-aralan mo ang iba-ibang sekta. May iba-ibang categories pa sila.
Merong nasa langit na raw ngayon, katulad ni Enoch and Elijah, hindi raw aabutan ng second coming, kasi matagal nang nasa langit, hindi pa pinapanganak si Hesus, nasa langit na raw nina Enoch at Elijah.
Merong naniniwala sa secret rapture, sekretong dudukutin daw sila papunta sa langit, bigla na lang daw maglalaho sa lupa.
Meron naman, mauuna daw sa langit ang 144,000. Mga miyembro daw ng sekta nila yung 144,000, wala pang 1st resurrection, nandoon na raw sila. :D
-
Got it sir! Now kung yung matitira na di kasama sa 1st resurrection, yung mga di maliligtas, ano mangyayari sa kanila sa 1000 years of peace? And sa time na 1000 years of peace, asan ang mga kasama sa nailigtas? On earth din?
-
Lumalawak ang coverage natin. Gugulo na nang gugulo yan.
Sa tingin ko, kailangan muna ng timeline, kahit partial lang, kasi mahirap talagang sundan pag walang kahit partial outline of events.
- The Great Tribulation, which will last for 3 1/2 years.
- Christ returns to earth.
- For those already dead at the time of Christ's return, there will only be two categories: (a) those who are saved, who will be part of the 1st resurrection at Christ's return, and (b) those who are damned, who will be part of the 2nd resurrection after the 1,000 years.
- Those saved who are dead at the time of Christ's return will resurrect with immortal bodies.
- Those saved who are alive at the time will change from mortal to immortal.
- Those who are not yet saved but alive at the time will remain mortal.
- The beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies make war against Christ and His army in the battle of Armageddon.
- Christ and His army win the battle.
- The beast and the false prophet are captured and thrown into the fire.
- Satan is bound and imprisoned (but will be released for a short time after the 1,000 years).
- Christ establishes a world government. Christ rules as King of Kings and Lord of Lords of His kingdom on earth.
- The immortals will rule with Christ for 1,000 years.
- Now there is a perfect world government on earth for 1,000 years, and there will be peace and prosperity during that time.
- Some of those who remained mortal will survive the battle of Armageddon. There will be only few mortal survivors, but they will repopulate the earth during the 1,000 years.
- After the 1,000 years, Satan is released, will deceive the nations of mortals, and will wage war against Christ again. Satan is defeated, all of his followers die, and Satan is thrown into the fire.
- Now comes the 2nd resurrection. All of the damned will resurrect; they are judged; they are thrown into the fire.
===================================
Now for your questions:
Got it sir! Now kung yung matitira na di kasama sa 1st resurrection, yung mga di maliligtas, ano mangyayari sa kanila sa 1000 years of peace? And sa time na 1000 years of peace, asan ang mga kasama sa nailigtas? On earth din?
Yung mga patay na hindi kasama sa 1st resurrection, during the 1,000 years of peace, patay pa rin sila. They remain unconscious until they are resurrected in the 2nd resurrection.
Yes, nasa earth ang mga immortals sa 1,000 years of peace.
Ang mga patay na kasama sa 1st resurrection, at ang mga buhay na naging immortal, mga spirit beings na sila. Nasa earth din sila, kasama si Kristo. They will be priests and kings over the nations. They will reign with Christ over the earth for 1,000 years.
If we died with him, we will also live with him; if we endure, we will also reign with him. (2 Tim. 2:20)
26 To the one who is victorious and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations—27 that one ‘will rule them with an iron scepter and will dash them to pieces like pottery’—just as I have received authority from my Father. (Rev. 2:26-27)
You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth. (Rev. 5:10)
They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. (Rev. 20:4-5)
-
That is why I've always been saying that if the spirit is burned by God, then he will be burning himself.
I believe that we only have one spirit because we all come form one source and that is God. The individualized spirit which stores our past and present experiences in the different lifetimes is the soul.
Is the spirit going back to the heaven generic? Meaning with no identity? If so, what happens to the identities of people who are saved? Are they preserved in some way?
-
Bro Bumble, i believe our individual identity is in the physical only. Souls are in itself part of the creator. hence, all identified with the creator. The soul or the individualized spirit is the substance that is from time to time is born again and again to gain and learn through the principle of cause and effect which is the thing called karma. The soul would become one with God and will no longer be reborn when it gains its spiritual sublimity.
-
The soul or the individualized spirit is the substance that is from time to time is born again to gain and learn through the principle of cause and effect which is the thing called karma. The soul would become one with God and will no longer be reborn when it gains its spiritual sublimity.
So generic nga?
-
So generic nga?
yes.
-
yes.
If that's the case, what's the point of being saved? Wala na yung consciousness mo e.
-
If that's the case, what's the point of being saved? Wala na yung consciousness mo e.
I personally dont have a strong belief kasi on that doctrine. Sa personal belief ko, we will just continuously brighten our souls through our experiences in various lifetimes until we become brilliant to deserve being in the company of our creator.
-
What do you mean by lifetimes? Reincarnation? But even if you are brilliant enough, you wouldn't know/remember who you are/were.
-
I personally dont have a strong belief kasi on that doctrine. Sa personal belief ko, we will just continuously brighten our souls through our experiences in various lifetimes until we become brilliant to deserve being in the company of our creator.
That's also salvation, although not in the Christian concept.
In Christianity, salvation means being saved from death. It's always a life vs. death thing in Christianity.
But in Hinduism and other similar religions, salvation is moksha, meaning freedom or liberation from samsara, or the cycle of birth and rebirth.
Once you are freed from the cycle, you achieve a state of absolute bliss where the perceiver, the perceived and the object of perception are all one and the same.
Therefore, man's objective should be a liberation from the cycle, which is moksha, which is salvation. You achieve salvation by any of the three paths - Bhakti Yoga, Jnana Yoga, and Karma Yoga.
You yourself are God, because God is in everything and everyone, and you realize this once the illusion of the material world is removed. The Atman (your soul) exists; the Brahman (essence of everything) is identical to the Atman; the Brahman is in you, because the Brahman is in everything.
Salvation or moksha allows you to be reunited with the Brahman. As a drop of water that falls on an ocean is a merging of waters, the individual soul unites with the single essence that underlies everything.
-
Thanks atty. sa pagsagot sa questions ko, that explains it.
And thanks din sa explanation ng concept of reincarnation. At least may idea na ko about what it is really about.
-
What do you mean by lifetimes? Reincarnation? But even if you are brilliant enough, you wouldn't know/remember who you are/were.
You said it. You cannot dig into your past lives using only your present consciousness, because it is limited with the affairs of the present. But there are times that some information of the past surfaces. That is when sometimes faces of people seem to be very familiar with you when in fact you only meet them now. Sometimes you seem to be very familiar also with places you only visited now.
This is very interesting topic --- but a little off tangent to the subject matter.
-
Thanks.
I'm thinking if only the spirit goes back to the Creator, then there's really no life after death, because technically, there's no more you.
-
Thanks.
I'm thinking if only the spirit goes back to the Creator, then there's really no life after death, because technically, there's no more you.
Our soul still there, the essence of our humanity. Soul that will go either in eternal life (heaven) or eternal death (eternal destruction).
-
^So for you, spirit and soul are the same?
-
^So for you, spirit and soul is the same?
No. Spirit is what connect our soul to God. Connection that have been severed by our fall from grace, when we became sinner. Its the one who gave us consciouness that there is God, but since our heart is exceedingly wicked, we choose not to believe in God, we choose to ignore His presence. Thus, our soul will perished. That is why we need to be born again through the spirit.
-
So, which one (spirit or soul) goes back to the Creator? Or both?
-
Spirit always belongs to God. Our soul, our very essence of existence will go to heaven (God) or go to hell.
-
Okay, thanks for that. Is the spirit just an empty shell? Does our spirit have consciousness as well? Si God, may soul din ba?
-
^So for you, spirit and soul are the same?
We do not have an independent existence just like God. We all came from him. The source of our being is God, through the beauty of his creation. For me, he transformed a little of him into something which is acknowledged as his likeness and image and that is called the soul. Just like the principle of water and ice. The water is the source but you can create another form when a drop of it is frozen. But this will return as water when it melts.
-
Sir jerix, what do you call your belief?
Is that Hinduism, Buddhism, New Age Movement, or something else?
-
Atty., mine is a combination of the different principles. ;)
-
We do not have an independent existence just like God. We all came from him. The source of our being is God, through the beauty of his creation. For me, he transformed a little of him into something which is acknowledged as his likeness and image and that is called the soul. Just like the principle of water and ice. The water is the source but you can create another form when a drop of it is frozen. But this will return as water when it melts.
That was for dpogs, actually. I think I understand where you're coming from already.
-
Atty., mine is a combination of the different principles. ;)
Thanks!
Not New Age? Because New Age is a combination of the beliefs that are similar to a mix of Hinduism, Buddhism, Zen, etc.
New Age is itself eclectic. It is not a fixed system. It's a spirituality that is not confined by fixed dogmas. It does not like rigid doctrines, but prefers an inclusive spirituality without borders, with acceptance of different personal perspectives as being equally valid.
-
No, hindi ganon yon sir.
Ang image, ibig sabihin likeness. If the Father is spirit, the Son is also spirit. Ang sabi sa Col.1:15, the Son is the image of the invisible God. If the Father is by nature invisible, then the Son is also by nature invisible.
Siyempre, pag anak ng tao, tao rin. Anak ng aso, aso rin. Anak ng Diyos, Diyos din. Invisible ang Ama, invisible din ang Anak.
The Son is the only begotten.
Angels can be called sons of God, humans can be called sons of God. But none of them can be called "only begotten son."
Exception lang na ang mga tao ay tawaging children of God. Kasi by adoption lang yon. Kaya nga walang taong puwedeng tawaging bugtong na anak ng Diyos.
ok lang sir kung magkaiba tayo ng paniniwala dito. naniniwala kasi ako sa concept ng trinity.
basis ko kasi ay we are created in God's image and likeness. kung ang Diyos ay trinidad, ganun din ang tao.
ang dami kasing sinasabing spirit sa bible kaya nakakalito. may evil spirit, alak may spirit din, at may iba iba pang spirits na napalabas sa tao. ibig sabihin ba ay babalik lahat yan sa Diyos?
at kung spirit ang kalagayan ng Diyos Anak, bakit may sinasabi sa bible na spirit of the Lord, spirit of God? lalabas kasi ay may spirit ang isang spirit ? pero kung tinutukoy mo ay spiritual body si Christ, baka di lang tayo nagkakaintindihan.
paniniwala ko kasi, spiritual body o glorified body meron si Christ, may form kaya sa Kanya nag mamanifest ang image ng Diyos Ama. parang sa tao din, pag nakita mo halimbawa ang anak ng kumpare mo, sasabihin mo na parang nakita mo na rin sa kanya yung kumpare mo.
-
OK yon sir. Kanya-kanya tayo ng paniniwala.
Kung ang basis mo ay hindi bibliya kundi sariling paniniwala, walang problema doon, kasi wala tayong point of agreement sa batayan.
Kaya nga si sir jerix, reincarnation ang paniniwala niya, pero hindi ko siya kinokontra. Wala naman kasi siyang sinasabi na may tinuturong reincarnation ang bible, kaya wala akong problema doon.
Ganon din sa atin, sir. Pag sinabi mong bible ang basis ng paniniwala mo, may pag-uusapan tayo.
Pero pag sinabi mong hindi bible ang basis mo, o kaya, na hindi lang bible ang batayan mo, kasi ang paniniwala mo ay hindi bibilya lang ang tanging batayan ng katotohanang espirituwal, ok sa akin yon.
-
OK yon sir. Kanya-kanya tayo ng paniniwala.
Kung ang basis mo ay hindi bibliya kundi sariling paniniwala, walang problema doon, kasi wala tayong point of agreement.
Kaya nga si sir jerix, reincarnation ang paniniwala niya, pero hindi ko siya kinokontra. Wala naman kasi siyang sinasabi na may tinuturong reincarnation ang bible, kaya wala akong problema doon.
Ganon din sa iyo sir. Pag sinabi mong bible ang basis ng paniniwala mo, may pag-uusapan tayo.
Pero pag sinabi mong hindi bible ang basis mo, o kaya, na hindi lang bible ang batayan mo, kasi ang paniniwala mo ay hindi bibilya lang ang tanging batayan ng katotohanang espirituwal, ok sa akin yon.
bible pa rin naman ang basis ko dyan sir ;) although wala tayong mababasang literal na trinity sa bible, makikita naman dun ang concept ng trinity.
-
Controversial ang issue na yon sir.
I assure you, hindi naman ako basta nag-isip lang nang sandali bago ako nakabuo ng aking viewpoint sa issue na yan. Years din ang inabot. Ang starting point ay ang meaning ng salitang Elohim sa Hebreo.
Pero controversial nga yan, kaya malabo talaga na magkasundo tayo.
Kami ni sir dpogs, parehong naniniwala sa bibliya, pero paminsan-minsan lang kaming magkasundo sa interpretation. Ayos naman yon, naintindihan ko ang side niya, naintindihan niya ang side ko. Pero hindi pa rin namin nabago ang isip ng isa't isa... :D
-
New Age is itself eclectic. It is not a fixed system. It's a spirituality that is not confined by fixed dogmas. It does not like rigid doctrines, but prefers an inclusive spirituality without borders, with acceptance of different personal perspectives as being equally valid.
With this definition of New Age, it got me interested.
-
With this definition of New Age, it got me interested.
I like New Age music or mga likes ni Enya, Deep Forest, Enigma :):):)
-
I believe in triune God even if the word Trinity is not in the bible. Just because the exact word is not there doesn't automatically means the concept is wrong. What matters is that the "principle" is there.
Consider Matthew 3:16-17 "16 When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He[a] saw the Spirit of God (Holy Spirit) descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. 17 And suddenly a voice came from heaven , saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”
This is where God the Father, The Son (Jesus) and The Holy Spirit are clearly present in one occasion.
And also Jesus commanded to baptize in their names, Matthew 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
There are distinctions(in nature and in functions) yet all three has an attribute of God. And the bible also says there is only one God. How did this happen? we don't know as it was not directly revealed to us but I believe it by faith. But is this possible? Of course, nothing is impossible with God.
Did Jesus Christ remained as a spirit only? No, after His resurrection He is with a glorified body as well. Just as the believers will have glorified body in our resurrection. I personally believe our image and likeness are in accordance to Jesus Christ. That is why we are being transformed into His image, Romans 8:29 "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son ..."
Man is a triune being. Spirit(from God), Body(from earth), and Soul(out of the Spirit and Body). Genesis 2:7 says "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground (BODY), and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (SPIRIT); and man became a living being (SOUL). I believe our soul is triune as well having MIND, WILL and EMOTION.
-
+1
-
Controversial ang issue na yon sir.
I assure you, hindi naman ako basta nag-isip lang nang sandali bago ako nakabuo ng aking viewpoint sa issue na yan. Years din ang inabot. Ang starting point ay ay meaning ng salitang Elohim sa Hebreo.
Pero controversial nga yan, kaya malabo talaga na magkasundo tayo.
Kami ni sir dpogs, parehong naniniwala sa bibliya, pero paminsan-minsan lang kaming magkasundo sa interpretation. Ayos naman yon, naintindihan ko ang side niya, naintindihan niya ang side ko. Pero hindi pa rin namin nabago ang isip ng isa't isa... :D
GOD - Elohim - plural of Eloah
Gen1:1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/1-1.htm
gods - Elohim
Exo 20:3 "You shall have no other gods before me.
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/exodus/20-3.htm
Both God and gods mean elohim.
Strong's Concordance
elohim: God, god
Original Word: אֱלֹהִים
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: elohim
Phonetic Spelling: (el-o-heem')
Short Definition: God
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
pl. of eloah
Definition
God, god
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/430.htm
-
I like New Age music or mga likes ni Enya, Deep Forest, Enigma :) :) :)
Enya lang ang alam ko doon. Google nga ako ng Deep Forest and Enigma.
My favorite is Behind the Waterfall by David Lanz.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avAa5TA5joc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avAa5TA5joc)
http://www.amazon.com/Behind-The-Waterfall/dp/B000TE5WUU (http://www.amazon.com/Behind-The-Waterfall/dp/B000TE5WUU)
-
I like New Age music or mga likes ni Enya, Deep Forest, Enigma :):):)
Ako din! Pero di ko pa napapakinggan ang Deep Forest. :)
-
Ako din! Pero di ko pa napapakinggan ang Deep Forest. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pm9t5VdS_Q0
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pm9t5VdS_Q0
Nice to dpogs! thanks, hahanap ako ng album nila.
Sorry guys sa OT namin. hehehehe!
-
Nice to dpogs! thanks, hahanap ako ng album nila.
Sorry guys sa OT namin. hehehehe!
di naman medyo on topic pa naman ng kunti... its about New Age thingy :):)
my faith grows in a very conservative Christian living... this kind of music is a big no no according to church conviction :):) we need to hear godly music only not contemporary music since it will defile our body as a temple of the Holy Spirit... :):)
but for me its all about music appreciation :):):) not for meditation LOL...
of course, wala pa ring tatalo sa mga praise & worship conservative gospel/hymnal songs and musics in uplifting our spirits.
-
my faith grows in a very conservative Christian living... this kind of music is a big no no according to church conviction :):) we need to hear godly music only not contemporary music since it will defile our body as a temple of the Holy Spirit... :):)
but for me its all about music appreciation :):):) not for meditation LOL...
of course, wala pa ring tatalo sa mga praise & worship conservative gospel/hymnal songs and musics in uplifting our spirits.
We have that freedom naman. I used to listen to all sorts of music as well esp those audiophile materials. Medyo naging sobrang busy lang recently and it is the praise and worship songs that soothes and relieves me.
Sabi naman sa 1 Corinthians 10:23 "“Everything is permissible,” but not everything is helpful. “Everything is permissible,” but not everything builds up."
-
We have that freedom naman. I used to listen to all sorts of music as well esp those audiophile materials. Medyo naging sobrang busy lang recently and it is the praise and worship songs that soothes and relieves me.
Sabi naman sa 1 Corinthians 10:23 "“Everything is permissible,” but not everything is helpful. “Everything is permissible,” but not everything builds up."
Yes... and ditto papasok ang verse na
"The Spirit is willing but the flesh is weak."
Merong mga bagay ditto sa lupa na magdudulot ng kapighatian sa Banal na Espiritu na nananahan sa ating katawan. So anumang bagay na makamundo at ipinapasok natin palagi sa sistema ng ating utak at katawan ay nakakasama at sa katagalan ay mawawalan ng lakas ang Banal na Espiritu upang magbigay gabay sa ating buhay Kristiyano.
Eto ang sinasabi ni Apostle Paul na, merong paglalaban sa loob ng ating katawan, sa pagitan ng ating katawan at espiritu... at kung ano ang lagi nating pinapakain ang siyang lagging mananaig.