trinity explained

[HAZARD]

2 hours ago, thereselittleflower said:

 

 

 

 

Wow, came up three times? I wont post an more till this issue is resolved.

Edited January 30, 2016 by HAZARD
Tripple post?

[thereselittleflower]

you should have something  -  a link at the bottom of your posts which says OPTIONS next to Quote and Edit  - it should have a drop down arrow that when you click you get the option to delete your post.

 

[HAZARD]

2 hours ago, thereselittleflower said:

you should have something  -  a link at the bottom of your posts which says OPTIONS next to Quote and Edit  - it should have a drop down arrow that when you click you get the option to delete your post.

 

Thanks for the heads up!

[Omegaman 3.0]

8 hours ago, HAZARD said:

Wow, came up three times? I wont post an more till this issue is resolved.

It might be a long time before you will post again then.

[Kan]

8 hours ago, HAZARD said:

They are one in unity not body.

In the texts shown by Willa I see that Jesus contained the full personality of God so far as could be revealed in humanity (bodily).

 

8 hours ago, HAZARD said:

10 hours ago, Willa said:

 

 

of Christ---Col. 2:9 NKJV  For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.  (ESV uses Deity in place of Godhead)

Col. 1:15-16 ESV  He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation, for by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible--  ---all things were created through Him and for Him.  

Genesis 1:2b  And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. 

Acts 5:3a  But Peter said," Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit--  4b  You have not lied to man but to God."

Jesus prayed to our Father in Heaven, and cried out to Him, Abba, Abba, which is a familiar  Aramaic term for Father such as Pa Pa, or Daddy.  He came to reveal the nature of the Father to us.  So the Father is not the Son, The Father is not the Spirit, but all three are God.  The Lord our God is One God.  It is hard to explain how they can be one and yet three separate Beings.  I think of it like an egg.  There is a shell, a white and a yoke.  They are one egg.  

 

The internet, don't you just love it?

[Omegaman 3.0]

10 hours ago, thereselittleflower said:

I think it would be a great mistake to say Jesus was displeased.

I think it would be a great mistake to even imply Jesus was in any way was disrespectful of His mother or in any way did not show her the full honor God commanded children to give to their parents.

 

Jesus did not become God at His baptism.   He was God from His incarnation.  Mary knew Him more intimately than any other human being ever.   I think Mary knew because of whom Jesus showed Himself to be to her throughout His life to that point.  He was already about His Father's business as a child.

I never said He was disrespectful, I only said that to me, he seemed displeased, when she, might have been meddling and putting Him in the position, to perform a miracle, when it was not really time for that yet. In the same way, that He chided Peter with "get the behind me Satan" of got on Peter's case for chopping off some poor servants ear. 
Jesus was of age, having been a man for some time now, not Mary's little baby.

In some unlikley scenario, what if Mary had gotten drunk at that party, and shoved some servant down some steps. If Jesus would have been displeased with her, would that also have been disrespectful also? Mary was a sinner, just like you and I are, and her lack of perfection, meant that she could be corrected without being disrespected.

I am not saying that the text says that Jesus was displeased with her, but it sure seems like that is implied when he addressed her. I don't think the Bible ever used the word displeased of Jesus, yet my impression is, that he was not pleased with the pharisees either.

I have the advantage, of not feeling like I have to protect Mary, as if she were some sort of sinless, perpetually virgin, co-redemptrix, do you as well Therese? I see her as blessed among women, chosen to bear my Savior, so she deserves my respect. However, she is my sister, not God's mother.  Let's see, what was the topic again?

[thereselittleflower]

   

13 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

I never said He was disrespectful, I only said that to me, he seemed displeased, when she, might have been meddling and putting Him in the position, to perform a miracle, when it was not really time for that yet. In the same way, that He chided Peter with "get the behind me Satan" of got on Peter's case for chopping off some poor servants ear. 
Jesus was of age, having been a man for some time now, not Mary's little baby.

In some unlikley scenario, what if Mary had gotten drunk at that party, and shoved some servant down some steps. If Jesus would have been displeased with her, would that also have been disrespectful also? Mary was a sinner, just like you and I are, and her lack of perfection, meant that she could be corrected without being disrespected.

I am not saying that the text says that Jesus was displeased with her, but it sure seems like that is implied when he addressed her. I don't think the Bible ever used the word displeased of Jesus, yet my impression is, that he was not pleased with the pharisees either.

I have the advantage, of not feeling like I have to protect Mary, as if she were some sort of sinless, perpetually virgin, co-redemptrix, do you as well Therese? I see her as blessed among women, chosen to bear my Savior, so she deserves my respect. However, she is my sister, not God's mother.  Let's see, what was the topic again?

For what he said to be an expression of displeasure would have been contradicting His mother and thus, in that culture, dishonoring her.

We read it in English today and interpret it according to what it would mean if someone said this to his mother today.    That's a mistake in approach.

We have to read it with the original context, culture, language, etc in mind.

Jesus never did anything to dishonor his mother, and to express displeasure like you suppose would have been disrespectful, and thus failing to obey the commandment to honor one's parents.

You have the disadvantage of reading it with a 21st century western mindset.   

To call one's mother "woman" today would be disrepectful.

But in these ancient cultures, where Agustus calls Cleopatra "Woman", Woman" is a term of highest respect used to address nobility and royalty. 

• Expositor's Greek Testament
  John 2:4. His complete reply is, τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί, γύναι; οὔπω ἥκει ἡ ὥρα μου.γύναι is a term of respect, not equivalent to our “woman”. See chap. John 19:26, John 20:13,Luke 13:12. In the Greek tragedians it is constantly used in addressing queens and persons of distinction. Augustus addresses Cleopatra as γύναι (Dio, quoted by Wetstein). 

 

Jesus was doing no less.

So any seeming irritation implied is merely the result of our modern day, 21st century culture, use of language and mindset, which has nothing to do with that of Jesus and Mary and the people of the time those words were spoken.

In the original Greek, what is translated as "to do with" is not actually translated in a word to word translation, for there are no Greek words for  "to" or "do" or "with" in that verse.    "To do with" is actually used to translate  "kai" which is a conjunction which simply means "and"  -  so "to do with" is an INTERPRETIVE translation, not a word for word translation, and the meaning conveyed seems to be dependent on the bias of the translators.

And the Greek actually says:

• Young's Literal Translation
  Jesus saith to her, 'What -- to me and to thee, woman? not yet is mine hour come.'

 

Other translations which avoid the idea that this in any way a show of irritation or reproof say:

• World English Bible
  Jesus said to her, "Woman, what does that have to do with you and me? My hour has not yet come."

  Douay-Rheims Bible
  And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come. 

  New Living Translation
  "Dear woman, that's not our problem," Jesus replied. "My time has not yet come."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Omegaman 3.0]

12 hours ago, thereselittleflower said:

You have the disadvantage of reading it with a 21st century western mindset.   

And none of us really, can honestly saw we know what it is like to have a 1st century eastern mindset.

[mevosper]

On 10/19/2015 at 0:58 AM, HAZARD said:

Any one who believes they have a measure or believe they are filled with the Holy Spirit should be able to tell what is being taught by this Scripture, spoken by Jesus Christ Himself in John 3, verse 8.

John 3:8, The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

So, what was Jesus trying to convey to Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews in this verse?

The wind blowing here is likened to God "planting seeds" of his spirit (his power, might, knowledge, will, etc) where he wills. God determines where his spirit will be given and unto whom. But as the wind blows, who has been planted prior or who is next to be planted, we do not know. All we can do as disciples is to water.

This is also seen when Christ, after his resurrection, blows the comforter onto his disciples and told them "Receive ye the Holy Ghost" (John 20:22). Once Christ's work on the cross was complete and he appeared to them in his glorified body, the spirit of God was able to once again dwell with/in mankind. And it was first given to the disciples. This was their resurrection (the spirit quickens the mortal body).  

 

[thereselittleflower]

7 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

And none of us really, can honestly saw we know what it is like to have a 1st century eastern mindset.

   

  While that may be true in an absolute sense, I don't think that's true in a general sense.  We have a great deal of evidence if we simply choose to look and study it.