No Holy Ghost

1. 60

   thirdmilleniumposted 13 years ago

   Yawe is God, Jesus is his first son (first creation) and there is nothing like holy ghost. Trinity is all wrong. The third entity is a later addition to Christian doctrine.

   replyreport
   1. 51

      paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      1.YHWH is the Creator-God Allah; perfectly true
      2.Jesus was born of Mary only 2010 years ago; he is not the first creation; he cannot be; it is incorrect.
      3.Holy Ghost is only an Angel of the Creator-God Allah YHWH who brought Revelation from the Creator-God Allah YHWH for Jesus. Holy Ghost cannot do anything except when commanded by the Creator-God Allah YHWH .
      
      Jesus was a Jew; he believed in the above; the "Christianity" invented by Paul was unknown to Jesus.
      
      Thanks

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      If there is no Holy Ghost, then there is no God.
      The Bible tells us that God is Spirit.  He IS the Holy Ghost.
      How is that at all complicated?

      replyreport
      1. 51

         paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         That makes "Trinity" consisting of only two person; Paul and Church believe there are three persons in "Trinity".

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            No.
            Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are the Trinity.
            Since Jesus is "also" God, He is part of the Trinity.
            The book of John in the Holy Bible tells us that Jesus is the Word, that the Word became flesh and dwelt among men.

            replyreport
            1. 51

               paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               That adds to your , Paul and Church's confusion. Jesus is not bound by John; rather John should believe what Jesus believed.
               
               If "Word" is also christian-god then it makes four persons in the "Trinity", "father, son, ghost,word"/
               
               Brenda! when you would come out of your confusion?

               replyreport
               1. 71

                  mythbusterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  paarsurrey is on the right track here, in my opinion.
                  
                  Paul of Tarsis is widely credited with developing most of Christian doctrine which exists today - including referencing certain portions of scriptures to develop trinity theory.
                  
                  Paul is also the main source credited for circulating the idea of Jesus as "divine son."
                  
                  I believe it is entirely possible and a most probable explanation that most of Jesus' peers and followers didn't actually believe he was a DIVINE SON/deity-like son of the One-God, ultimate deity -but was an avid follower of a One-God belief, thus being a "son" to the authority of belief and this object/concept of authority he believed in.

                  replyreport
               2. 0

                  Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  When will you come out of the confused religion you espouse?

                  replyreport
               3. 60

                  dutchman1951posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Parr, you follow a book that tells you, your word came to a Camel Hearder in a remote Desert, by an Arc Angel?????....no whitnesses? God did not talk to the Profit, the Angel did???????
                  
                  some 500 years later they started to write it down?  The only whitness was the Camel, and as I understood this he, she-it was not talking !!!!!!!!!
                  
                  it is a beautiful book, but so is 1001 Arabian Nights!
                  
                  may gosh man, the stuff you expouse to be so!

                  replyreport
                  1. 51

                     paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     your information is incorrect.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        dutchman1951posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        it is exactly correct, maybe a bit oversimplified, but it is so.

                        replyreport
                     2. 80

                        earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        You may even be right in a technical sense, but the Dutchman has it nailed.

                        replyreport
                  2. 71

                     mythbusterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     I think 1001 Arabian Nights is as high ranking (has as much awesome content as Scriptures) as you say!
                     
                     *thumbsup*

                     replyreport
      2. 71

         mythbusterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         It's complicated because the assertions are (2) fallacies.
         
         Although you can qualify the statements as:
         
         
         (I believe that) The Bible tells us that God is Spirit. 
         
         (I believe that) If there is no Holy Ghost, (this would mean) then there is no God.
         
         (Because I believe that there is a God, and there is a Holy Ghost which I interpret as this "Spirit")
         
         He IS the Holy Ghost. (or, "He is the Ghost mentioned as "Spirit" in the Bible)
         (all wrapped up in the Holy Trinity concept)

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Ah. 
            I make no apologies for asserting my beliefs in God as fact.
            Many atheists assert their non-belief as fact.
            So I can too, and will.
            Hi mythbuster.
            Maybe you're saying it's complicated for the unbeliever when I assert it as fact?
            I dunno.  But there is no room for wavering when it comes to the Gospel.

            replyreport
            1. 71

               mythbusterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               I don't see it as wavering...
               
               It's bad argument (I wouldn't ask you to waver in your opinion since you feel, so strongly, your beliefs) and is sort of useless when there is a better way to assert beliefs, that's all.
               
               Bad arguments give all sorts of loopholes for people to disagree and point out "wrongs" while the example I gave is quite irrefutable because the statements are qualified. Essentially, you can drop people on their heads if you argue correctly and are careful with statements - and you can still maintain the same beliefs - but still not cause conflict by stating your beliefs.
               
               Not to mention - it's nice when people understand where you're coming from instead of engaging in verbal or other conflict.
               
               People will remember an irrefutable argument and the content of such... (your belief will be remembered, not blocked and fought - and it can be respected, too) while people remember the "wrongs" or what they perceive of as "wrong content" in arguments poorly delivered.
               
               Again - something like that

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  I understand your point!
                  You're trying to teach me how to be a better debater, maybe?
                  LOL
                  There are times of course when I may take a more questioning tactic instead of outright assertion, but.....
                  Sorry, mythbuster, but I think I'm unteachable in the rules of debate!   I think my words will be remembered even more since I'm so set in my knowledge of the Truth.  And I've never cared whether that's "respected" or not.  I only care whether a soul hears the word of God in its pure, challenging state.

                  replyreport
                  1. 71

                     mythbusterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Better debater - SURE!
                     
                     Why not?
                     
                     Your (anybody's) "offenses" in conversation, wherevery or if ever they show up - are way more likely to be remembered than your actual content, the meaning of what you're really trying to convey. You can be remembered as "that gal who believed so strongly and shouted so loudly about her beliefs that the content can't be quite recalled but the passion can be" or "the one who conveyed some extremely interesting beliefs and points, like the one about the Holy Trinity...or the one about Satan being in control of the air - thus, likely in control of our media, etc." (something I read in a recently visited thread lol)
                     
                     Many people love your poetry... it's irrefutably attractive, well conveyed, with messages that impact upon peoples' thoughts... and ultimately, both you and the poetry are remembered for the content.
                     
                     If you have such knowledge and Truth, it's a shame that in conversational places where debate might not occur, the knowledge and Truth is blocked by unqualified statements...
                     
                     Myself, I would like to "hear you" more - but I can't always grasp the knowledge you're conveying because it is full of "ultimatums" which hurt me right in the belief system, so to speak. This causes me to instantly block you and start to defend myself (and I observe this happening with others, too) - however - with qualified statements, I can put your belief system side by side with mine, secure that nothing is going to kick me in the butt or threaten me. I can compare and really THINK ABOUT what you're conveying and give it a lot of thought and consideration...sometimes adopting something of yours which makes more sense than something in my belief system.
                     
                     Shall I say "something like that" again?
                     
                     
                     
                     P.S. The poetry is awesome - even though there are points and concepts in it which I do not hold in my own belief system - however, I can totally honour how the concepts fit in with what I've observed of YOU, with your poetry peices, etc - and I have even asked myself, "now why on earth wouldn't I believe in that?" and "maybe I should try that belief/concept in my own mind for a while...maybe I SHOULD think/feel that way."
                     
                     I don't believe you're not teachable...where would you get an idea like that? lol Certainly not in all the information you hold, knowing you can piece together pages and pages of Scripture into whole concepts like you do.
                     
                     Time now for: "something like that"
                     
                     

                     replyreport
   3. 0

      DrDeanCrosbyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      If the Holy Spirit doesn't exist than Jesus Christ was an impostor because He has taught us that no one will receive salvation until they pray for and then receive the Holy Spirit in their lives:
      
      John 3:3-7 (Contemporary English Version)
      
      3Jesus replied, "I tell you for certain that you must be born from above before you can see God's kingdom!"
      
          4Nicodemus asked, "How can a grown man ever be born a second time?"
      
          5Jesus answered:
      
         I tell you for certain that before you can get into God's kingdom, you must be born not only by water, but by the Spirit. 6 Humans give life to their children. Yet only God's Spirit can change you into a child of God. 7 Don't be surprised when I say that you must be born from above.

      replyreport
   4. 71

      mythbusterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Can you suggest, please, where this concept was entered into later doctrine, thirdmillenium?
      
      I'd be interested to have a look at any suggested papers, etc., to see where this differs with what I know of "trinity lore"

      replyreport
      1. 60

         thirdmilleniumposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Please wait, I am collecting. It will take some time, I am afraid
         Thanks

         replyreport
         1. 71

            mythbusterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Okay - thank you...
            
            I will check back here in a little while, thirdmillenium.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               thirdmilleniumposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               I suggest you contact biblestudents.com.
               I am sorry I am not able to give the proof but i must tell you that the proof is all in the bible.
               They will be better able to tell you
               Thanks

               replyreport
               1. 71

                  mythbusterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Can you give an explanation?

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     thirdmilleniumposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     I would give you a very graphic answer after meeting with some experts.
                     
                     Meanwhile  please go here:
                     
                     http://www.thetwowedgesword.com/thetrinityhoax.htm

                     replyreport
                     1. 71

                        mythbusterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        You cannot answer in your own words about this strongly held believe that you hold about the trinity?
                        
                        You would ask that I go do self-study instead?

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           thirdmilleniumposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           My answer is exactly what is there on that page.

                           replyreport
2. 74

   Anti-Valentineposted 13 years ago

   I found this interesting the other day, pertaining to the Holy Trinity:
   
   "God is no longer a "he," at least according to the Scottish Episcopal Church. Its bishops recently debuted a new order of service that removes all masculine references to God, including but not limited to "Lord," "he," "his," and "him," the Daily Mail reports. Priests who have problems with the traditional liturgy can use the new service, but some religious figures aren't too happy with it. "It is political correctness," and "quite unnecessary," one reverend says.
   
   Even the word "mankind" has been replaced with the word "world." And how to deal with the especially common use of "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost"? Those references have been changed to "Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier." (Direct Biblical quotes remain unchanged.) "God is above and beyond human gender," says another reverend. "We are not saying God is not masculine. God is also feminine. The problem is trying to use human language to describe the indescribable."
   
   Source: http://www.newser.com/story/99956/gods- … hurch.html

   replyreport
3. 51

   paarsurreyposted 13 years ago

   "I believe it is entirely possible and a most probable explanation that most of Jesus' peers and followers didn't actually believe he was a DIVINE SON/deity-like son of the One-God, ultimate deity -but was an avid follower of a One-God belief, thus being a "son" to the authority of belief and this object/concept of authority he believed in."mythbuster
   
   I am not in confusion; I am rather correcting the wrong concept of the "Christians" and bringing them to what Jesus actually believed in.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Jesus didn't have to "believe in" anything.  It is HE who WE must believe in.  For He is Divine, part of the Godhead.
      
      Mary is not Divine.  You are confusing Catholicism with Christianity.
      
      Paul was a prophet, a disciple of Jesus Christ.  You are confusing some other religion with Christianity.

      replyreport
      1. 51

         paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Why don't you like Mary and get confused when somebody mentions her name. She is mother of  the "Christian-god"; but for her Jesus won't have existed? The "Christian-god";remained in her womb for nine months and she feeded him there; later when  the "Christian-god" was in his infancy; he sucked milk from his breasts. I think you should be thankful for her rather than to be averse from her.  Please realize this "fact"; if you may.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I am very grateful to GOD for Mary!   But Mary was just a human being, a woman who was willing to nurture the Son of God in her body.   Yes, the Bible says she was highly blessed!   But that doesn't mean she was Divine.  Catholicism teaches that Mary is Divine.  Once again, she is not.  The Bible teaches the Truth about Mary.   Mary died.  She is now, I'm sure, in Heaven or slated for Heaven in the presence of God.   But that's it.  Those who pray to Mary are misguided.

            replyreport
            1. 51

               paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                
               Those who pray to Mary are misguided as are those who pray to Jesus her son.

               replyreport
               1. 71

                  mythbusterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  In your opinion?
                  
                  lol

                  replyreport
                  1. 51

                     paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     My opinion is always there; even if sometimes I forget to write; it is always my opinion which I sincerely believe.
                     
                     Thanks to remind

                     replyreport
4. 71

   mythbusterposted 13 years ago

   Something like that
   
   

   replyreport
5. 60

   thirdmilleniumposted 13 years ago

   Holy Ghost is not an individual entity. It just refers to God's power.  Jesus is not God. On numerous occasions he refers to his father in third person. He pleads with Him to save him from cross.
   
   He could not have referred to God so ALL THE TIME  if it had been figurative. Besides it looks absurd for someone as enlightened as Jesus to refer to himself umpteen times in third person

   replyreport
   1. 51

      paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with you here. Jesus was no-god.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         thirdmilleniumposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         God's first creation was Jesus. I go by bible.
         Please read the bible in its entirety

         replyreport
         1. 51

            paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            How confused a statement? Jesus is god: god's first creation was Jesus . So who is Christian-god ? It is Christian confusion.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               thirdmilleniumposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Jesus is not God. He was the first creation of God  who is Yahwe

               replyreport
               1. 71

                  mythbusterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Which Scriptures support what you say?

                  replyreport
6. 51

   paarsurreyposted 13 years ago

   Holy Ghost is a title of the Angel Gabriel who was and is always with the Messengers Prophets of the Creator-God Allah YHWH like Moses, David Jesus and Muhammad. HolyGhost-God, there is none.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      thirdmilleniumposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Holy ghost is a non-entity. it is merely the power of God
      On pentacostal day holy ghost came down on 3000 people. Come on, one entity coming down on 3000 people?
      Ir was just the power of God

      replyreport
7. 71

   Cagsilposted 13 years ago

   There is no holy ghost. No trinity. No god.
   
   The "holy" ghost is a story. The "trinity" made up by man.
   
   God- is a metaphor from Jesus to his followers about self mastery.

   replyreport
8. 80

   earnestshubposted 13 years ago

   It's all a myth. Why else would there be 40,000 differing opinions.
   
   When you read a manual you don't arrive at that many different conclusions, otherwise no person would buy from Ikea!
   
   It is a pile of old washing!

   replyreport
9. 87

   WryLiltposted 13 years ago

   The SDA church was originally classed as a cult by the council of churches.
   
   They changed their beliefs from non-trinitarian to trinatarian to remove the title.

   replyreport